# What were the Bush admninistrations plans for a post-war Iraq?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-the-bush-admninistrations-plans-for-a-post-war-iraq/230087
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [February 19, 2004, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-the-bush-admninistrations-plans-for-a-post-war-iraq/230087 "2004-02-19T22:57:51Z")
**Posts on this page:** 19
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)
#### Post date: [February 19, 2004, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-the-bush-admninistrations-plans-for-a-post-war-iraq/230087/1 "2004-02-19T22:57:51Z")
How were they planning to create a democratic Iraq that was not run solely by the Shi’ite majority? How were they expecting the Iraqis to build up their economy? What were their plans for Saddam Hussein if they happened to capture him rather than kill him?
No, really, I want to know because from where I sit they had no plans whatsoever. They seem to be stumbling blindly since the fall of Bagdhad. But I will put aside my impressions and prejudices and listen as you, Mr Bush’s supporters, explain what was planned, what has worked, what didn’t, what contingency plans were made, what isn’t done yet but looks to have a successful outcome, etc.
These are honest questions and at the beginning of this thread I would prefer that the anti-Bush crowd please keep their comments to themselves. Later we’ll open the floor but please humor me for now.
---
### Author:  [@honkyhonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/honkyhonky)
#### Post date: [February 19, 2004, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-the-bush-admninistrations-plans-for-a-post-war-iraq/230087/2 "2004-02-19T23:28:27Z")
Well when you ask what the “administration” had in mind, you should be more specific. The post-war detail was originally to be handled by the State Department, ie Powell, and then the job was handed to Rummy in the Defense Department. The plan was all layed out, thoroughly documented by the State Dept. So “admin” has many faces, and is not always the most cohesive government “body”.
---
### Author:  [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)
#### Post date: [February 19, 2004, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-the-bush-admninistrations-plans-for-a-post-war-iraq/230087/3 "2004-02-19T23:36:16Z")
:smack: No, I don’t have to be more specific. State and Defense are both part of the Executive Branch and Powell and Rummy, as cabinet officers, both report to Bush and he in turn tells them what to do in a general way and they and their minions make it work.
---
### Author:  [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)
#### Post date: [February 20, 2004, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-the-bush-admninistrations-plans-for-a-post-war-iraq/230087/4 "2004-02-20T00:25:57Z")
As far as I know, the administration never made any post-war stabilization and reconstruction plans public before the invasion. One of my major objections to the war was the fact that Bush was chomping at the bit to invade as soon as possible, at the cost of gathering more international support and establishing a well-thought out post-invasion plan. So I paid a lot of attention to what came out of the White House during the march to war, and they really didn’t talk about it. Most questions about post-war plans were answered with some variant of “Saddam is bad”.
My guess is that the administration just assumed it could sort things out on the fly after the war was over and simply hope for the best, which is dangerously careless in my opinion.
---
### Author:  [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)
#### Post date: [February 20, 2004, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-the-bush-admninistrations-plans-for-a-post-war-iraq/230087/5 "2004-02-20T00:48:27Z")
I suspect it was one part “Let Chalibi sort it out” coupled with two parts “The Iraqis will be so happy to be free from Saddam that they’ll all link hands and be happy-happy together” wishful thinking.
---
### Author:  [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)
#### Post date: [February 20, 2004, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-the-bush-admninistrations-plans-for-a-post-war-iraq/230087/6 "2004-02-20T01:23:20Z")
[US outlines post-war Iraq plans](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2866237.stm) (20 March, 2003):
> [@](#):
>
> the US would like to move as quickly as possible to a “transition” phase, where power would gradually be passed to a civilian regime known as the Iraqi Interim Authority.
> Creating democracy
> That body, made up of prominent Iraqis from both inside and outside the country, would have the job of drafting a new constitution which would respect freedom, democracy and the rule of law.
[Text: Azores summit statement](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2855567.stm) (16 March, 2003):
> [@](#):
>
> In achieving this vision, we plan to work in close partnership with international institutions, including the United Nations; our Allies and partners; and bilateral donors. If conflict occurs, we plan to seek the adoption, on an urgent basis, of new United Nations Security Council resolutions that would affirm Iraq’s territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief, and endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq.
> We will also propose that the Secretary General be given authority, on an interim basis…
---
### Author:  [@Uncivil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncivil)
#### Post date: [February 20, 2004, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-the-bush-admninistrations-plans-for-a-post-war-iraq/230087/7 "2004-02-20T19:49:24Z")
Thanks for the links Squink.
So, it sounds like they had a clear idea of _what_ they wanted to do. However, I wonder if they had a clear idea of how they were actually going to make it happen?
Were they naive enough to think it would be simple task, and that they would be welcomed by the vast majority of Iraqis? Or did they know it was going to be a nightmare, but decided it was going to be worth the pain in the long run? Unfortunately, I’d be suprised if we can get a conclusive answer to this.
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [February 20, 2004, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-the-bush-admninistrations-plans-for-a-post-war-iraq/230087/8 "2004-02-20T20:16:55Z")
I urge any Doper really interested in this question to read this article in the _Atlantic Online_, the online extension of the _Atlantic Monthly_, by James Fallows. The lead in reads as follows:
_“The U.S. occupation of Iraq is a debacle not because the government did no planning but because a vast amount of expert planning was willfully ignored by the people in charge. The inside story of a historic failure”_
A bit of a slog, as most reading on government policy is, but very, very informative.
> **[Blind Into Baghdad](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/01/blind-into-baghdad/302860/)**
>
> The U.S. occupation of Iraq is a debacle not because the government did no planning but because a vast amount of expert planning was willfully ignored by the people in charge. The inside story of a historic failure
(The gist, for the lazy, is that we did lots of planning for post-war Iraq, and a lot of it quite good planning. For political reasons, we didn’t follow any of it.)
---
### Author:  [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)
#### Post date: [February 20, 2004, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-the-bush-admninistrations-plans-for-a-post-war-iraq/230087/9 "2004-02-20T20:29:29Z")
There do seem to be very real questions about the immediacy of the war. Given that the WMD issue doesn’t look well supported, and given that the administration knew the case was not as strong as it was presenting it, why the rush to war when more preparations and groundwork could have been laid? Why not wait until the troops were properly equiped for an occupation? Why wait to get more in place, thus making things safer for all of them? Why not spend more time winning international support? It wouldn’t have hurt, and it might well have helped everything go better.
Is there any good answer besides the needs of politics?
---
### Author:  [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)
#### Post date: [February 20, 2004, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-the-bush-admninistrations-plans-for-a-post-war-iraq/230087/10 "2004-02-20T20:38:27Z")
The Atlantic article also claims there was considerable friction between civilian and military leadership on many aspects of this action, including such things as force level needed, timetables, etc., and that the civilians generally acted as they wished.
It also strongly suggests that a strong thread among the civilian leaders was an attitude that it would be inappropriate to predict or plan for what will happen, because the future is too uncertain. I recall Rumsfield is particularly painted in this manner.
Disclaimer, I do not intend to present this article as the ultimate authority on this matter - it is simply the best among the little I have read on topic. Further, I fully acknowledge that I may be subjectively predisposed to accept its unflattering portrayal of the administration’s actions. Sorry if my contributions are seen as taking this thread down the path you disfavor, **drop**.
---
### Author:  [@Uncivil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncivil)
#### Post date: [February 20, 2004, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-the-bush-admninistrations-plans-for-a-post-war-iraq/230087/11 "2004-02-20T21:40:40Z")
> [@Apos](#):
>
> Why not wait until the troops were properly equiped for an occupation? Why wait to get more in place, thus making things safer for all of them? Why not spend more time winning international support? It wouldn’t have hurt, and it might well have helped everything go better.
>
> Is there any good answer besides the needs of politics?
Not as far as I can see. There may have been genuine concern that more time would have given Saddam time to prepare and deploy his WMDs, but I think that is a very weak argument. He would already have had all the time he needed to prepare. And thats assuming the government was really as worried about his WMDs as they made out.
I think the real reason for the timing of the war is that the US government was concerned that the UN inspections might have made progress, and public support for the war might have weakened.
Very interesting article btw elucidator, it raises a lot of questions.
---
### Author:  [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)
#### Post date: [February 20, 2004, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-the-bush-admninistrations-plans-for-a-post-war-iraq/230087/12 "2004-02-20T22:33:40Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#):
>
> Sorry if my contributions are seen as taking this thread down the path you disfavor, **drop**.
Dude, I gave 'em a day and unless somebody is researching and writing the most thorough explanation of the Administrations plans I’ve seen the floor is open. Anyway, that Fallows story was elucidator’s contribution, not yours. Is there something we don’t know about? 😉
Funny, ain’t it, that there is sudden silence from the Bushies? I thought I was bending over backwards to allow them to make their case. I mean, I genuinely wanted the questions answered and I hoped that my impressions were inaccurate, but without a “this is how it was and is, Mike” out of any of them I have to assume the plan was to wing it, which seems like what they are doing.
There. If THAT doesn’t pull one in from the bushes I don’t know what will.
---
### Author:  [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)
#### Post date: [February 20, 2004, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-the-bush-admninistrations-plans-for-a-post-war-iraq/230087/13 "2004-02-20T22:44:53Z")
> [@dropzone](#):
>
> “this is how it was and is, Mike”
I mean “this is how it was and is, **drop** ”!
(replacing the veil of anonymity)
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
---
### Author:  [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2004, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-the-bush-admninistrations-plans-for-a-post-war-iraq/230087/14 "2004-02-21T15:38:13Z")
The State Dept planning was called the Future of Iraq Project (FIP). It was deemed too pessimistic by various Pentagon voices. The project planning was scrapped, but then revived belatedly when it was realized that it wasn’t _too_ pessimistic.
The conclusions were not politically salable. Same with Shinseki’s assessment of the forces needed to secure Iraq. Not salable meant the Pentagon didn’t use them. A shame. Cost the lives of US military personel and dollars of US taxpayers.
The fact that there’s not a well known plan for the recon of Iraq nor a well known explanantion of how a invaded Iraq will “transform” the ME. By and large supporters of the invasion haven’t been troubled by lack of details. By and Large, people who’ve been troubled by these things didn’t support the invasion.
My objections to the invasion began from realizing that the gov was feeding the public BS again. That was sufficient for me to oppose and suspect the invasion. Subsequently, I’ve found more and more shadiness. Of course, shadiness from politicians isn’t a newsflash.
More on the FIP later…
---
### Author:  [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2004, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-the-bush-admninistrations-plans-for-a-post-war-iraq/230087/15 "2004-02-21T16:05:42Z")
From the [OSP](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=199309&page=1&pp=50&highlight=office+special+plans) thread
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*[‘Frontline’ Explores U.S. Winning War, Losing Peace\*\*](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A899-2003Oct8?language=printer)
>
> _By Richard Leiby
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Thursday, October 9, 2003; Page C07_
>
> “Truth, War and Consequences” paints administration officials as dissemblers as well as arrogant conquerors who paid no heed to warnings about the collapse of security after the Iraq war.
>
> In Smith’s telling, a secretive unit in the Pentagon slanted the intelligence on Hussein’s alleged weapons of destruction, relying on less-than-objective reports from Ahmed Chalabi’s exile group, the Iraqi National Congress, which has been agitating to overthrow Hussein’s government for more than a decade.
>
> It turns out there was a pile of postwar reconstruction planning documents, drawn up by State Department working groups composed of 240 Iraqi exiles. To the frustration of those who participated, the plans were shelved.
>
> Retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, who ran the first reconstruction administration deployed by President Bush, tells “Frontline” that he wanted to use the plans but that **Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered them scrapped**. “I think that it was a mistake,” Garner says.
---
### Author:  [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2004, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-the-bush-admninistrations-plans-for-a-post-war-iraq/230087/16 "2004-02-21T16:18:09Z")
Here’s a link to the Frontline piece:
[**truth, war and consequences**](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/) (home page)
[**interviews with major players**](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/interviews/) including Bremer, Chalabi, Garner and Perle
There’s discussion of the pre-war planning for the post-war period.
---
### Author:  [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2004, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-the-bush-admninistrations-plans-for-a-post-war-iraq/230087/17 "2004-02-21T16:51:03Z")
Here’s a one stop shop for some resources on the State Dept’s FIP
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*[Future of Iraq Project\*\*](http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Future_of_Iraq_Project)
>
> The Future of Iraq Project, commenced as early as April 2002, is a project of the U.S. Department of State. Although news of the Project is scant, at best, a clear picture of the State Department’s intent, as well as the intended functions of the Project group, can be found in official Department of State press releases and daily briefings.
---
### Author:  [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2004, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-the-bush-admninistrations-plans-for-a-post-war-iraq/230087/18 "2004-02-21T17:17:32Z")
So much to see
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*[Analysis: U.S. failed to plan for postwar Iraq\*\*](http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2003/07/13/build/safety/q-postwar.php?nnn=6)
> \*Knight Ridder News Sunday, \*_July 13, 2003 \*\*
> WASHINGTON_
>
> Virtually none of the “Future of Iraq” project’s work was used once Saddam fell.
>
> The first U.S. administrator in Iraq, retired \*\*Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, wanted the Future of Iraq project director, Tom Warrick, to join his staff in Baghdad. \*\* Warrick had begun packing his bags, but **Pentagon _civilians_ vetoed his appointment** , said one current and one former official.
>
> Meanwhile, postwar planning documents from the State Department, CIA and elsewhere were “simply disappearing down the black hole” at the Pentagon, said a former U.S. official with long Middle East experience who recently returned from Iraq.
>
> Responsibility for preparing for post-Saddam Iraq lay with senior officials who supervised the **Office of Special Plans** , a highly secretive group of analysts and consultants in the Pentagon’s Near East/South Asia bureau. The office was physically isolated from the rest of the bureau.
>
> Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who retired from the Near East bureau on July 1, said she and her colleagues were allowed little contact with the Office of Special Plans and often were told by the officials who ran it to ignore the State Department’s concerns and views.
>
> _Copyright © 2003 Associated Press_
---
### Author:  [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2004, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-the-bush-admninistrations-plans-for-a-post-war-iraq/230087/19 "2004-02-21T18:27:52Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*[More Missing Intelligence\*\*](http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030707&s=dreyfuss)
> …the Bush Administration did not…prepare and internally publish an intelligence estimate about postwar Iraq. (An “estimate,” in intelligence jargon, is a formal evaluation produced after sifting, sorting and analyzing various bits and pieces of raw intelligence…)
>
> “There was no intelligence estimate done, and there weren’t a lot of questions being asked,” says Melvin Goodman, a former CIA analyst with the Center for International Policy. “And I know for a fact that at CIA and NESA [the _State Department’s_ Bureau of Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs], none of them thought that postwar Iraq would be governable.” Goodman says that **CIA and DIA experts on Iraq were _not_ called i** n by the Pentagon, and no intelligence roundtables were held to evaluate the situation.
hamster food