Sen. Says Assumptions Causing Iraq Flap (Quagmire Alert)

St Paul Pioneer Press / AP ^ | 8/10/03 | WILLIAM C. MANN

[Valin]

WASHINGTON - Flawed assumptions by President Bush's advisers about postwar Iraq are contributing to Iraqis' resentment of the U.S. occupation and undermining its legitimacy, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Sunday.
Even the war itself has yet to be won, said Sen. Dick Lugar, R-Ind.
"Having said that," Lugar said, "I reiterate we're there now. Whether they made a good choice or not in terms of tactics is irrelevant."

Friday was the 100th day since Bush declared an end to major combat. In his radio address Saturday, he said the administration was "keeping our word to the Iraqi people by helping them to make their country an example of democracy and prosperity throughout the region."
But Lugar and former Democratic Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia, once chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, looked back at the Iraq war in less rosy terms.
"Clearly this is a war that still has to be won. By that, I mean, militarily, we have to finally find the rest of the malefactors. We have to try to make sure other forces don't intrude - that is, terrorists in the country. You've going to need the lights on in Baghdad," Lugar said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"In other words, we really have to get conditions in the country such that the Iraqis know what we are doing, we communicate that to them, while we fight off those who are trying to disrupt the whole business."

Lugar recently wrote a newspaper opinion piece that said the administration's postwar planning was so poor that Americans are contending in Iraq "with ethnic and religious rivalries; a long-repressed people; a war-damaged infrastructure already decayed from years of neglect and corruption; a lack of Iraqi democratic experience; and a host of extreme clerics, looters, gangsters and warlords-in-waiting."

Asked Sunday how the planning was lacking, Lugar replied:
"I think a thorough misunderstanding of how complex the politics of Iraq are and continue to be; an inability to understand the decapitation theory - that is, getting rid of the top types while the workers continue - wasn't going to work," he said.
"In other words, the basic assumptions, whoever was making them, at State, at NSC, at Defense, simply were inadequate to begin with." NSC is the National Security Council.
He said the facts in Iraq show "that if we are theorists before the fact, we better all talk about it a great deal more."
His committee's consultations with administration officials, Lugar said, "showed that the administration really was not prepared on those grounds."

A major step the administration needs to take, Lugar said, is to come up with a five-year budget for the reconstruction of Iraq to include sources of the money.
"It could come from other countries," he said. "We must be vigorous in trying to get that and a U.N. resolution to give us more legitimacy" as the lead occupying power.
"It is regrettable that some countries still believe that this is our mission entirely. And the U.N. legitimacy and the reaching-out to these other countries is of the essence, not only in the short term but in the intermediate term," Lugar said.
Nunn agreed that a new resolution is singularly important, but no matter what, "We have got to see it through now. Whether you were for the war or against the war, America has a huge stake there now, and our allies have to understand it's in their best interest to really help us."

[meenie]

Before you can sell something you have to set the price. What is the price for democratizing Iraq? How much is going to be paid for through the sale of Iraqi oil and how much will the cost be for volunteer nations and American taxpayers? How much over our 450 billion budget deficit will need to be spent during the present budget year? We need some figures from the administration instead of the blank check they seem to think they have.

[Defiant]

Lugar is, and always has been, an idiot. He has no understanding whatsoever of the grand strategy elements of this war, the reasons why there is still fighting going on (Al-qaeda) and the effect his ill-considered words will have on the rapacious traitors in the press. He is just an old fool grandstanding. I hope he retires.

To think, he was the chair of the foreign relations committee. Maybe there's a post for him in Hillary Clinton's cabinet.

[RJCogburn]

It is obvious, by the events themselves, that the postwar planning was deficient.

[Valin]

We need some figures from the administration

Absolutely. But the question must also be asked, what's the price of
1 leaving sadam in place?
2 Taking down his rule and then just packing up and leaving?

[Liberty Wins]

Poor Lugar. He found out a long time ago that the only way he ever gets any attention from the press is when he criticizes his own party, and he can't break the habit even when our country is at war.

In an environment controlled by the America-hating media, nothing is what it appears to be. The Bush administration is undoubtedly hard at work on these Iraq problems but we won't hear their side of it until the job is done.

Meanwhile nitwits like Lugar will keep the pot boiling.

[ozzie]

I am really tired of so-called experts complaining that Bush didn't plan the war aftermath well enough. "Bad assumptions", "didn't think things through". Really easy statements for anyone to make about almost any topic. The rub is.......what would they have done better. The only answer we seem to get is "I would have planned for after the war better". "Would have gotten the rest of the world to help" Yeah, right. Maybe fix their utilities and infrastructure the first week. Raise an army and police force the day after that. Then provide them peace and prosperity forever. Anyone who says they can budget and accurately plan for the end of a war is a liar.

[jwalsh07]

It is obvious, by the events themselves, that the postwar planning was deficient.

Oh really? And where did you get this information? From the people who said the assault on Baghdad was a quagmire or from the geniuses who kept insisting there weren't enough troops?

Both Lugar and Nunn kept yapping about the UN and more resolutions. Their time has passed, it's a new world and the UN is simply an organazation whose time has passed. Libya as head of the anti-terror task force and Paraguay vetoing US foreing policy may be OK with Lugar and Nunn but they aren't with me or the Bush administration.

100 days after the cease of major assault and they're still yapping. Morons should take a peak at Japan and Germany post WW2.

[zencat]

I seriously believe Sen. Biden, the former chair and now ranking member on the Senate foreign relations committee, understands the situation better than Luger.

And no I'm not a Democrat. I'm a card carrying Republican.

[leprechaun9]

Lugar is another loser who should have been a guest speaker at Arrrrriannnna Huffington's Loser's Convention in Philadelphia. He would have been a perfect fit!

[stig]

It is obvious, by the events themselves, that the postwar planning was deficient.

How do you figure? There has been no Beruit style attack on our troops. They are safe within their encampments. They are relatively safe within convoys when traveling throughout Iraq. Yes they get attacked from time to time it is to be expected.

Now I don't know what Sen. Luger's deal is. It seems that because the President didn't say the major hostilities are over and now we will clean this cesspool up at a cost of a few casualties per week, that he is all up in arms. His answer is to get the UN involved. But that's exactly the process that brought the Blackhawk Down disaster in Ethiopia.

May I remind everyone that Afganistan and Iraq are all part of the War on Terror. All regimes that don't play ball with us are risking military action by the United States. People like Sen. Luger that want omnicient planning by the Administration are showing they haven't a clue what's at stake. So let's review the overall game plan:

1) Have US troops take over any and all pockets of potential terrorist threat.

2) Take them over in terms of their danger to us and our overall geo-political strategy. For example, take Iraq first because it's easy, sends a message, is close to all the other countries we may need to deal with, has oil and refuses to tell us where their chemical and bio weapons are.

3) Leave our troops their for a long time and hope that Al Qaida goes after them. Why? Because attacking military targets takes planning and if we are able to capture a couple of these low lifes we may be able to get the information we need to take out large portions of their command structure. Second, because it will be our troops that are taking the hit not innocent men, women, and children like 9/11. Troops are armed to the teeth and have a fighting chance. Innocent Americans that get attacked have the choice of burning to death in a building or jumping to their death to avoid the heat. Are Free Republic posters and a few republicans the only ones that remember 9/11??

4) Keep the pressure on Islamic countries to clean house. Many have gotten rich off their oil and mineral resources it's time they realized that responsibilty comes with great wealth. They are independent countries because the US chose to fight Germany in WWII. Had we not they would all be speaking German. And the East Asian muslims would all be Japanese slaves.

I know the left doesn't care about protecting the US but Sen. Luger should have some more foresight. With Republican Senator's like him I'm beginning to see the reason we can't get a Judicial appointment throught the Senate.

[Defiant]

One other thing that needs to be understood is that, with Germany and Japan, they were defeated and destroyed as nations, and were crying "Uncle" at the end of the war. It was easy to waltz in and occupy when the locals weren't opposing us. This is different. It's as if there was a whole bunch of Japans in East Asia, and we only defeated one of them. The others send in material aid and men, and keep the attack going inside Japan in order to try to drive the Americans out.

We are at war with the entire Arab nation, at least that part of it that is fundamentalist muslim, and until we have had regime change in Iran and Syria, and cowed the islamists in Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, there will be trouble in Iraq. What we should be working on is a plan to send our troops to the barracks to hunt down bad guys, and use other nations to police the place. When they can't get at us, they've got no way to bring the war to us, and we can hunt them down cell by cell. But does Lugar understand any of that? NO, he just knows he'll get the press to give him some respect if he badmouths the administration.

[RJCogburn]

And where did you get this information?

Observation. Clearly the adminstration miscalculated to some extent or it would have prepared the general public for the ongoing dripping of American deaths. The media make a major deal of that. It is not surprising that they do. That alone demonstrates that the planning was deficient.

Do I think the administration could have anticipated everything that has happened? Of course not. Still, with hindsight, Jay Garner would likely have not been first man in, either. Criticism does not mean general disapproval, you know.

[jwalsh07]

Posted by RJCogburn to jwalsh07 On News/Activism 08/10/2003 5:16 PM EDT #13 of 13 And where did you get this information? Observation. Clearly the adminstration miscalculated to some extent or it would have prepared the general public for the ongoing dripping of American deaths. The media make a major deal of that. It is not surprising that they do. That alone demonstrates that the planning was deficient.

The death of American soldiers while hunting terrorists and pacifying a nation with nests of terrorists indicates a lack of planning for the aftermath of major hostilites? How so?

Amercian soldiers are dying in Afghanistan as well. A terrible thing for sure and God knows we owe them, but that is a risk that we all take when we wear fatigues, or what I think they call nowadays BDU's.

Criticism is no problem but criticism absent evidence and valid alternatives is a problem. Lugar offered nothing, I watched him and Nunn this morning. Armchair quaterbacking at it's worst.

[moneyrunner]

Well said.

Lugar has always been squishy soft on the war on terror. He is one of the old line Republicans who are not convinced that they deserve to be in the majority so he bends over backwards to mollify the Democrats.

Legitimate critics of our policy and planning should be prepared to document how our planning was faulty, not just that it was not perfect. Second, they should be prepared to present policy alternatives and be prepared to defend those plans against critics.

[RJCogburn]

Lugar offered nothing, I watched him and Nunn this morning. Armchair quaterbacking at it's worst.

No argument there.

[okie01]

"Clearly the adminstration miscalculated to some extent or it would have prepared the general public for the ongoing dripping of American deaths. The media make a major deal of that. It is not surprising that they do. That alone demonstrates that the planning was deficient."

If you will recall the President's statements concerning the War on Terror, in general, and Iraq, in particular, you'll note that he clearly stated a.) the War on Terror would outlast his administration, b.) that we would be in Iraq for "up to ten years", c.) that nothing about any of this would be easy, but it was necessary nonetheless and d.) that casualties (and high costs) were to be expected.

It is the media who have not only failed to remind the nation of these words, but also misrepresent them, who is at fault. To those paying attention, the administration has been crystal clear.

If the administration should be faulted for anything in this regard, it should be for not kicking the media's butt and insisting they tell the truth.

[meenie]

Leaving Sadaam is intangible except for the people that had to live under his rule. Taking him down and then leaving is not an option without repairing the damage inflicted. The blood on both sides cannot be termed in dollars. I just want to know what this venture is going to cost the US taxpayer, then I can make the judgement as to the soundness of the policy. We are fast approaching the point of being unable to service our national debt.

If we can't service our debt, we are technically bankrupt and will be unable to finance our military which we need for security. There have been rumors that the funding for Iraq will run out and will need an emergency appropriation in January. On top of 450 billion of projected deficit will our deficit become half a trillion with the supplemental? If so, we face a situation comparable to Russia where the money runs out and our military becomes peasantry.

[Valin]

I just want to know what this venture is going to cost the US taxpayer, then I can make the judgement as to the soundness of the policy.

Short answer alot. But if it(democracy in Iraq) is successful then the mideast as we've known it will be a thing of the past. And that's something I'm going to call a deal.