Plan Of Attack
Time for Scott's 6 month late book review! I love Bob Woodward books, flaws and all, and normally I read them as they come out. I really thought this one could have been called Bush at War, Part II although it is not so pro-Bush as that one. Reading through Bush at War, I was struck at how little planning was done for post-war Afghanistan. It seemed to me that the military had a brilliant war plan, brilliantly executed, but the civilian leadership failed to come up with anything for the next stage. Luckily Afghanistan was relatively calm after 30 years of war, there was a large coalition so it was not seen as an "American" operation, and the UN was able to help set up the civilian government.
Fast forward to Iraq. Brilliant war plan, brilliant execution by the armed forces and past-war planning...not so much. When Bush first considered a war against Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein and made the decision to develop a war plan, he instructed Rumsfeld to do it, but they agreed to do it inconspicously. From that point on, at least from the book, there was a never a discussion amongst any of the principals about whether or not war was really thwe answer. The Iraq war plan just became a snowball rolling down a hill gathering momentum until there was no choice but for war. After all, as Bush told other leaders, he could not keep the troops deployed over there forever. The administration never had a meeting where they just went around the room and said what they thought. Bush knew of course what most people thought, but he never asked them directly.
Of course the final decision to go to war must always be made by the president alone- it is his burden. In his shoes though, I would ask those around me- do we have to do this? What are the potential consequences if we do? What else could we do? What needs to happen to win not just the war, but the peace afterwards? Do we have to do this right now? How do we get our allies to go along?
Our troops suffer each and every day from this lack of planning, lack of foresight and that just breaks my heart. I, for one, supported the Iraq war, but not the horrible mismanagement that has taken place. We have no choice but to win, and that will take more troops, more money, and a commitment spanning decades to build this country. I hope we have the stomach for it.
Fast forward to Iraq. Brilliant war plan, brilliant execution by the armed forces and past-war planning...not so much. When Bush first considered a war against Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein and made the decision to develop a war plan, he instructed Rumsfeld to do it, but they agreed to do it inconspicously. From that point on, at least from the book, there was a never a discussion amongst any of the principals about whether or not war was really thwe answer. The Iraq war plan just became a snowball rolling down a hill gathering momentum until there was no choice but for war. After all, as Bush told other leaders, he could not keep the troops deployed over there forever. The administration never had a meeting where they just went around the room and said what they thought. Bush knew of course what most people thought, but he never asked them directly.
Of course the final decision to go to war must always be made by the president alone- it is his burden. In his shoes though, I would ask those around me- do we have to do this? What are the potential consequences if we do? What else could we do? What needs to happen to win not just the war, but the peace afterwards? Do we have to do this right now? How do we get our allies to go along?
Our troops suffer each and every day from this lack of planning, lack of foresight and that just breaks my heart. I, for one, supported the Iraq war, but not the horrible mismanagement that has taken place. We have no choice but to win, and that will take more troops, more money, and a commitment spanning decades to build this country. I hope we have the stomach for it.
posted by Scott L. Stuart at
11:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home