Semi-Daily Journal

Many people will remember that I was run for Secretary of Defense on the Pigasus ticket in 1968: not a big competition, my military credentials being derisory, but Robert MacNamara's being nil.

It has come up again: when I was on Congressional staff in 1969~72, a part of my job was looking after Donald Rumsfeld, a jerk of conspicuous mediocrity, who wandered around the joint like a lost child.

How difficult it is to come to terms with the fact that these people really are as stupid as they look.

My partner, who is Dinka, a member of the genetically tallest group of people on the planet, once found herself the recipient of "Magic" Johnson's unwanted attentions at a party in Los Angeles. Ajok is 6'4" (the baby of her family, where seven feet is normal), and Johnson is whatever he is. She put him down with "God made you tall, it isn't anything you did yourself."

Republicans, by contrast, are suckers for tall and loud, and just get what they get.

"Despicable"!

Increasingly the angels of reasonable paranoia and incivility are defeating the demons of senseless, destructive moderation in the battle for the soul of the centrist blogosphere.

Having been in senior corporate management for many years, I'm quite familiar with the virtues and vices of contingency planning. It certainly seems clear that the current situation in Iraq is worse than the Administration expected after Saddam's government fell. However, I am dubious that any amount of pre-war planning could have avoided the current difficulties.

Think about how little we knew right before the war. We didn't know the exact extent of Saddam's weapons stores. We didn't know how long it would take to topple Saddam's regime. We didn't know whether or not we would capture or kill Saddam and his sons. We didn't know the exact psychology of various groups of Iraqs -- Shias, Sunnis, Kurds, etc. We didn't know how much damage the war would do to varous parts of the infrastructure. We didn't know how badly Saddam had allowed the infrastructure to deteriorate. We didn't know which Iraqi expatriates were giving us the most realistic intelligence. We didn't know whether it would be safe to let Ba'ath Party members participate in the reconstruction.

Given these uncertainties and many others, any pre-war planning would have been horribly flawed. No amount of planning could have led to perfect post-war decision-making. A reasonable approach is what we're doing -- handling the reconstruction as best we can, but changing course whenever an approach isn't working. This is messy, but I think it will eventually work.

Ah, yes, David trolls out the old "less planning is better than more planning" argument....

Buried in the article is the dog that didn't bark, the irrefutable hole in any neo-con self-defense over this fiasco:

>>>
Erdmann was impatient with any facile condemnation of the planning effort. When I mentioned that, in 1944, the United States military had produced a four-hundred-page manual for the occupation of Germany, he retorted that, given the available lead time, a fairer comparison would be with the wartime occupation of French North Africa, which was so beset with problems that it nearly cost General Eisenhower his job. Erdmann reminded me that, in the case of Iraq, doing any planning at all was a delicate matter. The Administration had to prepare for the effects of a war it was still claiming it wanted to avoid.

“How much diplomacy would there have been at the U.N. if people had said, 'The President is pulling people out of the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce to take over the whole Iraqi state'?” Erdmann said. “That's the political logic that works against advance planning.”
<<<

With a few months, little administration support, and the above cited political reality, Tom Warrick and the State Department's Future of Iraq Project had managed to put together a comprehensive plan for what would need to be done to win the peace.

Chalabi and the I.N.C., on the other hand, had over a decade to prepare, no political obstacles to planning, and high-level neo-con support. And at the end of it all, where was the plan?

>>>
To this day, key policymakers maintain their faith in the Pentagon's original plan. According to a senior Administration official, not long ago in Washington, Cheney approached Powell, stuck a finger in his chest, and said, “If you hadn't opposed the I.N.C. and Chalabi, we wouldn't be in this mess.”
<<<

So, where was the plan? When the day finally came, all Chalabi had to offer was 700 thugs with guns snatching choice chunks of Baghdad real-estate.

The Cheney/Rumsfeld axis likes to present itself as having been in senior corporate management for many years, and quite familiar with the virtues and vices of contingency planning. However, there is another principle that ought to be familiar to executives past and present: that of due diligence and fiduciary responsibility.

The fact is that they invested the shareholder's capital in a fraudulent venture, a scam which would have been exposed with the smallest amount of skeptical inquiry.

The CEO-politicians running this country have sunk the nation's blood and treasure into an adventure concocted by a glorified 419 flimflam man, and they must be held accountable.

The place to start is by demanding they produce Chalabi's post-war plan, or an explanation why none is forthcoming.

Once some of you folks figure out how we got into this mess, then you can begin to figure out how we can get out of it.

How did we get in? As a result of electoral politics in the Likud party in the 1990's.(See "A Clean Break: A strategy for Israels future." [or something like that]) That is why we invaded Iraq--because the Likud party wanted us to do it. There were many supporters in the US Congress for this operation. All you have to do is look at who voted for it, then trace their allegiance backwards. Many people voted for it because they really, really believe that some superman is going to swoop down from the sky and rescue us all. Ain't gonna happen. We have to rescue ourselves from this nonsense.

In FACT that is why the so-called "intelligence" was so slanted towards invasion. The operation set up as per the VP's office--the "Office of Special Plans"--regularily received "intelligence" from Ariel Sharon's own version of this shindig, all of which was contoured toward driving the invasion. I can't absolutely prove it right now, but I think that's where the Niger yellowcake allegations came from.

That is one reason why the CIA is up in arms over the entire fiasco: it isn't their doing, but they're afraid they're going to be blamed for it.

So how do we get out of this, with as little further damage as possible to our national reputation?

First, the president announces that Dick Cheney won't be his running mate in 2004, owing ostensibily to some medical condition, or something like that.

Then the President quietly begins to replace all those signatories to the "Clean Break" strategy who are in his administration. Feith, Libby, et al.

Then we engage in the 3 state solution as outlined by Leslie Gelb in the NYT of yesterday. One state for the Kurds, one state for the Sunnis, and another state for the Shiites.

This is discussed at an open meeting in Baghdad, and widely agreed upon. The end of hostilities is announced. 3 Constitutions are written and voted upon by the respective populaces. If they pass, then elections are held within 60 days.

After a short interim, the new governments take over, and US forces depart.

It's (sort of) fun to watch the moderate pro-war people come to terms with the reality of just what the Bushistas are all about.

Denial is a funny thing. You just can't imagine that the current administration can be as scheming, lying, arrogant, and incompetent as they appear to be. You tell yourself that there must be some sort of plan behind all the obvious contradictions in the public statements. And when the plan fails miserably, you rationalize, as David does above.

Eventually, the thinking moderate finally admits to him/herself what is seemingly impossible but nevertheless obviously true: The Bushistas are incompetent liars whose only policy goals are to enrich their major campaign contributors and to get reelected. Once the thinking moderate reaches this realization, he/she becomes as single-mindedly anti-Bush as those as any of the rest of us. See: Calpundit, Josh Marshall.

Remember, Krugman once seemed "balanced" in his views years ago. The only difference between him and the other "thinking moderates" is that he figured out the Bushistas during their first 6 months in office.

It's (sort of) fun to watch the moderate pro-war people come to terms with the reality of just what the Bushistas are all about.

Denial is a funny thing. You just can't imagine that the current administration can be as scheming, lying, arrogant, and incompetent as they appear to be. You tell yourself that there must be some sort of plan behind all the obvious contradictions in the public statements. And when the plan fails miserably, you rationalize, as David does above.

Eventually, the thinking moderate finally admits to him/herself what is seemingly impossible but nevertheless obviously true: The Bushistas are incompetent liars whose only policy goals are to enrich their major campaign contributors and to get reelected. Once the thinking moderate reaches this realization, he/she becomes as single-mindedly anti-Bush as those as any of the rest of us. See: Calpundit, Josh Marshall.

Remember, Krugman once seemed "balanced" in his views years ago. The only difference between him and the other "thinking moderates" is that he figured out the Bushistas during their first 6 months in office.

2 - 1 = 4

Why is it a surprise that their foreign policy is as bad as their economic policy?

Fatalities

American soldiers 298
British soldiers 20
Coalition soldiers 25
---
343 Since May 2

American 437
British 53
Coalition 25
---
515 Since March 20

Wounded

American soldiers ~2444 Since March 20

Note: American forces have fallen to 130,000
British forces have risen to 12,000
Coalition forces have risen to 12,000

Yes, praktike. In my experience people have sometimes planned too much, especially when they didn't have enough sound information. The tendency of the planner is to use whatever uncertain information or guesses he can get his hands on. Otherwise he cannot plan at all. However, since many of his guesses will be wrong, his plan is apt to be not very useful. In fact, a comprehensive, inaccurate plan can be a problem if people follow it too religiously.

The rebuilding effort in Iraq was bound to be a mess. Post-war rebuilding always is. And, I guess there were bound to be people on the sideline claiming that it should have been done some other way.

>>And, I guess there were bound to be people on the sideline claiming that it should have been done some other way. >>

Such as involving people with a clue and not putting total faith in those (INC) with a record of lying and personal interest in the matter? Who could have imagined that would be a good idea?

z,

maybe there really is a plan - just not one that is discussed openly. thought experiment: without resorting to complete incompetence, what goal(s) could explain the bush adminstration's actions?

here's my try:
1. large permanent us military presence in iraq, and
2. control of us politics (2004 elections)

incompetence is more emotionally comfortable to accept than the alternative. i just think that incompetence does a poorer job of explaining the available evidence.

Richard, you obviously don't understand, David's point, probably due to your Evul Librul PC America-hating idiotarian Saddamite islamofascist sympathies.

David's pointing out that too much planning can be as bad as too little. Dear Leader, in his God-given wisdom and glory, excluded any and all people who knew their *ss from a hole in the ground about the middle east, Iraq, occupations, peace-keeping, and pretty much everything which would be relevant after the fall of Saddam's statue.

This *guaranteed* that there would not be too much planning. Ya gotta admit - total, 100% ignorant boneheaded faith-based planning makes it certain that there won't be an excess of that evil (secular PC Darwin evolution) knowledge.

And it succeeded brilliantly.

David:

"The tendency of the planner is to use whatever uncertain information or guesses he can get his hands on. Otherwise he cannot plan at all. However, since many of his guesses will be wrong, his plan is apt to be not very useful."

Please allow me to refresh your memory what the word "contingency" in the phrase "contingency planning" means:

"an event (as an emergency) that may but is not certain to occur <trying to provide for every contingency>"

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=contingency

What you describe is not contingency planning. What was performed by the neo-cons prior to the war was not contingency planning.

Do read the entire article. You'll find it edifying.

There were no WMDs in Iraq in 2003. Iraq was not a threat to America or Britain. We chose to fight a war when Iraq was contained. We won the war quickly. We could have quickly held direct local and national elections for an interim government and pulled all but an international peacekeeping force from Iraq. Why are we still there? We can focus on terrorism far more easily without being in Iraq.

"David" and his responders all miss the point, which is that these people didn't even ask the what-if questions. No matter what [pseudo-]philosophy of planning you adhere to, that's inexcusable.

We really need to give Bush and his team credit for having so effectively avoided the problems that might have been caused by too much planning. There's no use being partisan and shrill about this.

I have a very simple approach to Bush administration announcements, pronouncements, and denouncements.

Whatever they say, Believe The Opposite.

Empirically, this is a remarkably sound guide to gaining real information from what they say.

I am one of those moderates that Z talks about (great post) that just simply could not come to terms with them being THAT stupid.

Fact is, they are. I'm over that threshold and you should be too.

I would like to point out that institutional stupidity is often evident even when some or even many individual inmates of the institution are themselves not stupid. Apparently Arianna Huffington has compiled a list in book form of all the individuals who have resigned from government service over the W institution "policies."

Also, it is not like W is really a unique figure in history. His overriding attribute is that he is superficial. He has no apparent deep understanding of anything; all he has is political cunning. If you have been in business for any length of time, you will have met dozens of managers, VPs, and even CEOs like this. Couldn't find their ass with both hands, but they make 10 times the money you do, and it is the result of exploting the extra effort of superior underlings and associates.

He's going down in flames. How many of the rest of us go with him, I can't tell you.

David, both the Army War College and the State Department came up with useful planning studies that accurately predicted most of the problems that we've had (in fact, if you really want to get depressed some day, read the Army War College study, which is clearly more than any relevant bush administration official did - nothing substantial has occurred in Iraq that they didn't forsee. Nothing). So please stop with your examples of what went wrong in your corporate career: it could just be, after all, that you worked for corporations with poor management.

The more time passes, the more it becomes clear that cheney's fingerprints are all over the failed planning of the backbone administration. Given his failure of due diligence at Halliburton with respect to Dresser, this is no surprise.

Bingo, Z and Frank Wilhoit. This whole project was Rosy Scenario in all her unclothed glory.

In the 2000 elections I, uh, I, well, IvotedforBush. There. I said it. (cringing) Don't hurt me!

Look, I still consider myself to be a Republican but after the mendacity, fiscal irresponsibility, and downright incompetence displayed by the High Command levels during the Iraq war, I will not vote for Bush/Cheney again and am perilously close to an "Anybody but Bush" mindset.

"It's (sort of) fun to watch the moderate pro-war people come to terms with the reality of just what the Bushistas are all about."

I remember a conversation I had with a quite liberal person before the war. I had been providing various reasons why I thought it was ludicrous to invade Iraq, that it would give new ammunition to groups like Al Qaeda, etc. They said to me that well, despite their intentions and the screw-the-world way they're going about it, the effect of conquering Iraq will be to remove a brutal dictator. That could be such a positive effect for the Iraqi people to make the whole endeavour worthwhile. Conquest with a humanitarian end, even if the aim was obviously not humanitarian.

I said that I might worry about that if I thought for one instant that the Bush administration could competently manage a transition to a peaceful, democratic, secular Iraqi government. But they were actually a bunch of obvious fuckups who screwed up everything they touched domestically and internationally, and don't even promote peaceful, democratic, secular government in the US itself. What reasonable person could believe that they would competently manage the inevitable chaos resulting from their middle eastern adventure?

And to the guy who is arguing that political realities prevented the Bushies from coming up with a good plan - if you actually think that's true, it was thus a bulletproof reason NOT TO INVADE IRAQ! Saddam's Iraq provided no immediate or significant threat to the US. Thus taking out Saddam was not a worthwhile goal in itself if it leads to chaos in Iraq and the Middle East that the US is not prepared to deal with. An invasion would only be worthwhile if the US could be genuinely confident that long term regional politics and stability would be markedly improved following such an action.

An analogy to either French North Africa or any other WW2 battlefield misses this fundamental point. The Axis launched a massive war against the rest of the world, including Japanese invasions of US territory. The US had no choice whether to counterattack, regardless of how good or bad its occupation planning was. Iraq, in contrast, was a war of aggression launched against Iraq in circumstances of the US' choosing. Any inability to provide good occupation planning undermines the fundamental geopolitical justifications for the war, such as they were - which was to improve the long-term situation, not get rid of some immediate danger that was worse than any plausible aftermath-of-war situation.

One may hope that Steven Rogers, who still considers himself a Republican, will be provoked to further close and candid scrutiny of that Party's actions versus its stated intentions. The whole topic of law--law enforcement, the rule of law, the equal protection of the law, etc.--is an area that would generously repay such scrutiny.

Oh I have, I have. However, since I firmly believe that multi-party democracy is preferable to a one-party state - even if the party in question were my own - I am more inclind to reform the Republican aprty rather than abandon it.

I do not understand how bad judgment can be excused in life-or-death situations by reminding us of the vagaries of contingency planning. There were any number of people in the defense and intelligence communities who should have been listened to, and noise of their complaints was in the newspapers at the time. Wasn't Shinseki released because he thought the immediate aftermath would require over 200,000 troops? Were the Bushies just guilty of "irrational exuberance"?

"Oh I have, I have. However, since I firmly believe that multi-party democracy is preferable to a one-party state - even if the party in question were my own - I am more inclind to reform the Republican aprty rather than abandon it."

Posted by: Steven Rogers

Steven, considering how close we are to a one-party state right now, I'd think that voting Democratic would be a good thing. And I guarrantee that the GOP own't be reformed by being re-elected. That would just validate their actions.

Steven,

As Barry points out, the party in question IS your own.

Please cite historical examples of other parties in other places and times that you would have wanted to try to reform from within.

Thanks,
FW
.

Barry, I will almost certainly vote Democratic in the Prez election next year. I might well be holding my nose when I do it, but there you go. If not, I will probably vote for some minor party candidate. Still a loss for Bush.

I don't think we are close to a one-party state. Yet. If the Greens shoot the Left in the head again in 2004 I will agree that one-partydom is right around the corner. But the resulting destruction of the Progressive movement in this country will be more a case of suicide than murder.

Why, certainly, Frank.

1. If I had been a Green in 1999-2000, my position would have been "You F***ing morons!" I would have stated my feelings more politely, of course. "If we split the Left, Shrub is going to win!" And fought like hell to hold the Left together. Keep a sixth of the Greens in Florida from bolting to Nader, and Dubya is on the outside looking in.

2. The Democrats in the seventies and eighties. Rightly or wrongly, the Dems have managed to convice a lot of people that they cannot be trusted with the defense of the nation.
I would have worked very had to push the Dems to a more hawkish position. Might be worth a seat or two in the Senate, a half dozen to a dozen in the House.

I had hoped for examples from longer ago and farther away; but you raise another interesting point.

The Democrats' problems today have nothing to do with national security, which to the voters is a purely abstract fairyland of totems and talismans. Those Americans who really understand that there is a rest of the world could all be herded into a single football stadium (and probably someday will).

The Democrats' problems have to do with 1) incomprehension that they are up against a professional totalitarian machine, and 2) "morality", whatever that is--and it is something different to everyone who uses the word, but always something squalid and sadistic.

What we are learning the hard way is that democracy depends upon genuine, effective, universal education, on a scale that has never been seen and to a standard that has never been attempted. The kindest thing that may be said of the democratic experiment is that it failed because the necessary conditions for it were never put in place; but by no stretch of charity can it be said that it has not, in fact, failed.

Unusual ideas can make enemies.

Don't give up, you are close.

Keep the good work.

If you understand, things are as they are. If you do not understand, things are as they are.

Very interesting things in you site