Posted on 06/11/2005 8:29:27 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
A staff paper prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair eight months before the invasion of Iraq concluded that U.S. military officials were not planning adequately for a postwar occupation, The Washington Post reported.
"A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise," authorities of the briefing memo wrote, according to the Post. "As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden."
The eight-page memo was written in advance of a July 23, 2002, meeting at Blair's Downing Street offices, the Post said in Sunday editions.
It said the memo and other internal British government documents were originally obtained by Michael Smith of the London Sunday Times and that excerpts made available to Post were confirmed as authentic by British sources who sought anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.
The Post said the introduction to the memo — "Iraq: Conditions for Military Action" — said U.S. "military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace," but that "little thought" has been given to, among other things, "the aftermath and how to shape it."
The July 21 memo was produced by Blair's staff in preparation for a meeting with his national security team two days later that has become controversial since last month's disclosure of official notes summarizing the session.
According to those minutes — known as the Downing Street Memo — British officials who had just returned from Washington said the Bush administration believed war was inevitable and was determined to use intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the ouster of Saddam Hussein.
Blair denied at a news conference with President Bush last week that intelligence was manipulated to justify the war
This isn't good.
In both instances, the plans were developed on the fly, with considerable debate in the US government, AFTER the "principal fighting" had ended in each nation. A competent reporter would have noted that. An honest editor would have insisted on it.
Congressman Billybob
It astonishes me to no end that it is apparently no longer considered a valid reason for going to war that someone is firing missiles at your pilots. Apparently, we've gotten to the point where we collectively believe that we are not justified in going to war unless we've let the threat against us grow until it has become existential in nature. And yet the principal lesson of 9/11 (not to mention the principal lesson of WWII) is that when a threat has arisen, you immediately respond with overwhelming force. Because, otherwise, if you wait to respond until the threat has grown in menance, so then will the damage, death and destruction you suffer when you have no other choice but to respond.
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The [National Security Council] had no patience with the UN route .... There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. ...
"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." [End quote]
Is "fixed" the problem vis-a-vis intelligence and facts? It seems to me that ..
In one dictionary the second definition of "fixed" is determined; established. But introduces the statement to determine, establish intelligence and facts. Just get the facts needed to proceed. We are fixed on that.
Then we will proceed with something that no one has denied -- not even Bill Clinton who adopted regime change as his policy toward Iraq in 1998. Saddam had to go. It would have been much easier had France, Germany, Russia, the U.N., et al. not been in cahoots with Saddam stealing money from Iraqi children ("the UN route").
You've got to understand the typical Democrat mind, "fixed" has only one meaning as in one of their fixed elections.
Also note that there was no denying of WMDs just acknowledging that Saddam's "WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
This csmonitor.com article explains the whole silly hubbub. (Though the article does not talk about the meaning of fixed.)
"Why has 'Downing Street memo' story been a 'dud' in US?" A mid-2002 British memo saying US was planning to 'fix' intelligence to fit plans to invade Iraq has not been big news. By Matthew Clark.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.