[plschwartz]

washingtonpost.com
Memo: U.S. Lacked Full Iraq Plan
Advisers to Blair Predicted Instability

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 12, 2005; A01

A briefing paper prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers eight months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq concluded that the U.S. military was not preparing adequately for what the British memo predicted would be a "protracted and costly" postwar occupation of that country.

The eight-page memo, written in advance of a July 23, 2002, Downing Street meeting on Iraq, provides new insights into how senior British officials saw a Bush administration decision to go to war as inevitable, and realized more clearly than their American counterparts the potential for the post-invasion instability that continues to plague Iraq.

In its introduction, the memo "Iraq: Conditions for Military Action" notes that U.S. "military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace," but adds 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 on both sides of the Atlantic since last month's disclosure of official notes summarizing the session.

In those meeting minutes -- which have come to be known as the Downing Street Memo -- British officials who had just returned from Washington said Bush and his aides believed war was inevitable and were determined to use intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and his relations with terrorists to justify invasion of Iraq.

The "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," said the memo -- an assertion attributed to the then-chief of British intelligence, and denied by U.S. officials and by Blair at a news conference with Bush last week in Washington. Democrats in Congress led by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), however, have scheduled an unofficial hearing on the matter for Thursday.

Now, disclosure of the memo written in advance of that meeting -- and other British documents recently made public -- show that Blair's aides were not just concerned about Washington's justifications for invasion but also believed the Bush team lacked understanding of what could happen in the aftermath.

In a section titled "Benefits/Risks," the July 21 memo states, "Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks."

Saying that "we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective," the memo's authors point out, "A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise." The authors add, "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."

That memo and other internal British government documents were originally obtained by Michael Smith, who writes for the London Sunday Times. Excerpts were made available to The Washington Post, and the material was confirmed as authentic by British sources who sought anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter.

The Bush administration's failure to plan adequately for the postwar period has been well-documented. The Pentagon, for example, ignored extensive State Department studies of how to achieve stability after an invasion, administer a postwar government and rebuild the country. And administration officials have acknowledged the mistake of dismantling the Iraqi army and canceling pensions to its veteran officers -- which many say hindered security, enhanced anti-U.S. feeling and aided what would later become a violent insurgency.

Testimony by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of Iraq policy, before a House subcommittee on Feb. 28, 2003, just weeks before the invasion, illustrated the optimistic view the administration had of postwar Iraq. He said containment of Hussein the previous 12 years had cost "slightly over $30 billion," adding, "I can't imagine anyone here wanting to spend another $30 billion to be there for another 12 years." As of May, the Congressional Research Service estimated that Congress has approved $208 billion for the war in Iraq since 2003.

The British, however, had begun focusing on doubts about a postwar Iraq in early 2002, according to internal memos.

A March 14 memo to Blair from David Manning, then the prime minister's foreign policy adviser and now British ambassador in Washington, reported on talks with then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. Among the "big questions" coming out of his sessions, Manning reported, was that the president "has yet to find the answers . . . [and] what happens on the morning after."

About 10 days later, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw wrote a memo to prepare Blair for a meeting in Crawford, Tex., on April 8. Straw said "the big question" about military action against Hussein was, "how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be any better," as "Iraq has no history of democracy."

Straw said the U.S. assessments "assumed regime change as a means of eliminating Iraq's WMD [weapons of mass destruction] threat. But none has satisfactorily answered how that regime change is to be secured and how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be any better."

Later in the summer, the postwar doubts would be raised again, at the July 23 meeting memorialized in the Downing Street Memo. Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, the British intelligence service, reported on his meetings with senior Bush officials. At one point, Dearlove said, "There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman, appearing June 5 on "Meet the Press," disagreed with Dearlove's remark. "I think that there was clearly planning that occurred."

The Blair government, unlike its U.S. counterparts, always doubted that coalition troops would be uniformly welcomed, and sought U.N. participation in the invasion in part to set the stage for an international occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, said British officials interviewed recently. London was aware that the State Department had studied how to deal with an invasion's aftermath. But the British government was "shocked," in the words of one official, "when we discovered that in the postwar period the Defense Department would still be running the show."

The Downing Street Memo has been the subject of debate since the London Sunday Times first published it May 1. Opponents of the war say it proved the Bush administration was determined to invade months before the president said he made that decision.

Neither Bush nor Blair has publicly challenged the authenticity of the July 23 memo, nor has Dearlove spoken publicly about it. One British diplomat said there are different interpretations.

Last week, it was the subject of questions posed to Blair and Bush during the former's visit to Washington.

Asked about Dearlove being quoted as saying that in the United States, intelligence was being "fixed around the policy" of removing Hussein by military action, Blair said, "No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all." He then went on to discuss the British plan, outlined in the memo, to go to the United Nations to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq.

Bush said he had read "characterizations of the memo," pointing out that it was released in the middle of Blair's reelection campaign, and that the United States and Britain went to the United Nations to exhaust diplomatic options before the invasion.

[linskyjack]

As the evidence mounts that this war was not only contrived, but that there was no thorough plan for the post war period, the White House remains relatively sielent. As the deaths mount, the American people are slowly realizing that the Emperor has no clothes! This is one of the disgraceful moments in American history, and it will definately haunt the legacy of this madman in the White House. Clinton had Lewinsky, Bush has the death of 1700 Americans and many more Iraqi's on his hands.

[plschwartz]

208 billion for Iraqs what 20million strong.Isn't that $10,000 a head
600 million for all of Africa There are about 650mil in black africa so what a dollar a head

Compassionate Christianity at its finest

[Mulderator]

Now don't say I didn't add anything productive to this thread!

[alanmzifa]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Now don't say I didn't add anything productive to this thread!

I'm sure the families of all those who have died / been injured in " securing the peace " would take great comfort from your flippancy .

For hundreds of patriotic servicemen to have given their lives because their country's government couldn't give some thought to the post war strategy is unforgivable . Unfortunately many ,many more will die in the future due to this lack of forethought .

So keep the blinkers on and your fingers in your ears and keep posting the tinfoil hat cartoon and mantra . I'm sure that after another 1700 deaths it'll be just as funny as it was today .

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by alanmzifa

I'm sure the families of all those who have died / been injured in " securing the peace " would take great comfort from your flippancy .

For hundreds of patriotic servicemen to have given their lives because their country's government couldn't give some thought to the post war strategy is unforgivable . Unfortunately many ,many more will die in the future due to this lack of forethought .

So keep the blinkers on and your fingers in your ears and keep posting the tinfoil hat cartoon and mantra . I'm sure that after another 1700 deaths it'll be just as funny as it was today .

And of course you'll deny that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives will be saved in the future because in your world Hussein never mass murdered his own people! What was it--3 million lives lost in WW-II all so that you can mouth off with stupid opinions--we call that freedom of expression! Look to the left of you--there are plenty that think WW-II was a "fake" war--a charade if you wiill. Its all a matter of perspective. Of course, yours is dead on correct!

[linskyjack]

You don't get it Mulder. I seriously dont care about the Iraqi people and their problems. They have hated each other since the beginning of time, and they will continue to hate each other until the end of time. Anyhow, we didn't go to Iraq to "save" the Iraqi people. We went to Iraq because Sadaam Hussein directly threatened us. The only problem was that he actually didn't threaten us. Using your logic, we should be invading the Sudan in short order, to dispose of their government and to save the people of Dafur. When are you righties (I can't believe I'm lecturing you on this) going to figure out that social engineering doesn't work, and that declaring war should only occur when we are directly threatened by a regime. When are you guys going to show some courage and call this Iraqi escapade what it is----a useless waste of men and materiale concocted in order to see how neo-conservative logic works in a real world laboratory.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

You don't get it Mulder. I seriously dont care about the Iraqi people and their problems. .

Good thing people like my father didn't say that about the Europeans or zifa would speaking German and saluting Hilter portraits instead of having the freedom to voice foolish opinions!

[linskyjack]

Yeah, I can imagine FDR sending troops to Iraq in order to become moving targets in a civil war. By the way, I thought that righty had given up equating the war in Iraq to the Second World War! The difference between Hussein and Hitler is that Hitler actually had the means to conquer Europe. Hussein had a couple of palaces. Weren't you just amazed at how that power house of a dictator Sadaam Hussein defended Iraq during the initial days of the fake war? I mean his troops reminded me of the Weirmacht in its prime--speeding through the Sudentenland and Czechislovakia and Poland! And what about that airforce of Sadaam's---incredibley potent and feared by all the world.

[plschwartz]

Mulder
you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

You are a brain-dead parrot uselessly repeating talk-radio lines

The Brits had Bush's num ber from Jump Street. I can see why you love him so He is full of half truths which he passes off as reality.
"I went to the UN he states, forgetting that they turned him down and so he went to war anyway You believe that you contribute to a discussion when you shoot your venom at another

You knew enough about arguement to pass the CA bar, so when you say that "Saddam would have killed .... you state not fact but idle conjecture. Would you have said that on you Bar Exam Esqiure Mulder?

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by plschwartz

Mulder
you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

You are a brain-dead parrot uselessly repeating talk-radio lines

The Brits had Bush's num ber from Jump Street. I can see why you love him so He is full of half truths which he passes off as reality.
"I went to the UN he states, forgetting that they turned him down and so he went to war anyway You believe that you contribute to a discussion when you shoot your venom at another

You knew enough about arguement to pass the CA bar, so when you say that "Saddam would have killed .... you state not fact but idle conjecture. Would you have said that on you Bar Exam Esqiure Mulder?

Actually, I've said over and over I do not really like Bush that much. But I am less fond of illogical thinking and unfounded rhetoric. As to Hussein, thre is no speculation there--he killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and that does not count hundreds of thousands more that died from starvation and disease. If you deny that's been occurring since he's been in charge, you're need to do a reality check.

Look, let me clue you tin foilers in on why this memo is not getting much of any attention. Because its old news! All this does is show that Bush led us into war on false intel and that has already been beat to death during the lead up to the election. You guys actually won that round already! There were no WMDs found--that was a big black eye for Bush. If you hadn't run such a deadbeat against him, the Dems could have taken the election. At this point, all that memo proves it what most people already accepted--that the intel for the Iraq war was faulty. And all you do at this point is keep beating a dead horse while the Republicans and Bush move on to the next issue of concern for the public leaving you again one step behind.

What else do you think this memo is going to prove?

Give it up--move on to something that's going to get you some mileage

[alanmzifa]

Originally Posted by Mulder

And of course you'll deny that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives will be saved in the future because in your world Hussein never mass murdered his own people! What was it--3 million lives lost in WW-II all so that you can mouth off with stupid opinions--we call that freedom of expression! Look to the left of you--there are plenty that think WW-II was a "fake" war--a charade if you wiill. Its all a matter of perspective. Of course, yours is dead on correct!

My monitor's screen must be different from your's muddler - I can't see anything about the Iraqi people in it on my post . And my concern about unnecessary American servicemen's deaths would appear to you to be " a stupid opinion " .

You've used your usual tactic of changing the subject when you should be conceding a point , admitting you are wrong or in this case apologizing for your " adding something productive " post being flippant and in poor taste .

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by alanmzifa

admitting you are wrong or in this case apologizing for your " adding something productive " post being flippant and in poor taste .

Yeah--I'll admit that as soon as you do the same along with the rest of the liberals here whose vritually every post is in poor taste!

[plschwartz]

Actually, I've said over and over I do not really like Bush that much. But I am less fond of illogical thinking and unfounded rhetoric. As to Hussein, thre is no speculation there--he killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and that does not count hundreds of thousands more that died from starvation and disease. If you deny that's been occurring since he's been in charge, you're need to do a reality check.

I did not disagree with you about Hussein killing many of is people, tho hundreds of thousands needs be substantiated and the starvation and disease you attribute to Saddam had as much or more to do with the US led embargo.

Anyway as is said carefully in stock proposals:
"Past behavior is no guarentee of future performance" None of us know what would have happened. However is seems that most Iraqis would agree that today things are much worst then under Saddam.
But as usual don't let reality interfere with your fantasies

[linskyjack]

What fascinates me about righty is that now that there were no WMD's, he has become a human rights activist! Heck, how cynical is that.