« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
Back in the summer of 2005, just as journalists were toiling to produce the first books on what had gone so horribly wrong in Iraq, the Army was handed a thorough study by the RAND Corporation, its federally-financed research arm.
And it came, as one might expect, to some sharp conclusions. It faulted the President and Condoleezza Rice, Don Rumsfeld's Pentagon, Colin Powell's State Department, and Gen. Tommy Franks' Central Command for a variety of shortcomings, all essentially for their role in not adequately preparing for securing postwar Iraq. The report provided a strategy for how the Army and the government in general might avoid a similar plight the next time around (the short version: try preparing for the aftermath).
Unclassified versions of RAND reports are regularly made public, and the researchers had hoped a version of this report would be too. But, as The New York Times reports this morning, the Army wasn't happy with the product. So they buried it. The reason, an Army official explains, is that the report was just too gosh darn informative:
“After carefully reviewing the findings and recommendations of the thorough RAND assessment, the Army determined that the analysts had in some cases taken a broader perspective on the early planning and operational phases of Operation Iraqi Freedom than desired or chartered by the Army.... Some of the RAND findings and recommendations were determined to be outside the purview of the Army and therefore of limited value in informing Army policies, programs and priorities.”
Another Pentagon official, this one whispering to the Times anonymously, gives another version:
A Pentagon official who is familiar with the episode offered a different interpretation: Army officials were concerned that the report would strain relations with a powerful defense secretary and become caught up in the political debate over the war. “The Army leaders who were involved did not want to take the chance of increasing the friction with Secretary Rumsfeld,” said the official, who asked not to be identified because he did not want to alienate senior military officials.
Of course, the report still isn't publicly available, and from what the Times describes, it would make for interesting reading. Overlaying the various critiques of the agencies, the report cites a general principle (The Cheney Principle of Prewar Bravado?) that explains the general failure:
One serious problem the study described was the Bush administration’s assumption that the reconstruction requirements would be minimal. There was also little incentive to challenge that assumption, the report said.“Building public support for any pre-emptive or preventative war is inherently challenging, since by definition, action is being taken before the threat has fully manifested itself,” it said. “Any serious discussion of the costs and challenges of reconstruction might undermine efforts to build that support.”
Comments (12)
FOI request from TPM in the works? Sounds like it would be fun.
February 11, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
The more things change...
Nice to know that in 40 years, not much has changed about how efficient the Army is at sweeping their dirt under the rug.
The rug must be pretty lumpy by now.
February 11, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am sick to death over this entire LIE; its deceit, its willingness by our own war criminals who will never be prosecuted (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and, yes, Colin Powell) to sacrifice American soldiers, the needs of American citizens and the wealth of this country for their own personal wealth and glory.
Powell could, if he would, blow the entire cover of the lies of the administration. Yet he's still being a good soldier and more American personel are being wounded, killed and abused by the "commander and chief" [little letters intended].
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
February 11, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
This must be really sad to the parents,family members, and friends who have lost love ones because of lies. The news that keeps pouring out now about the lies of this war is so shameful. "No lie can live forever"
February 11, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no circle of Hell hot enough for these guys.
February 11, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
And is there any doubt the Pentagon is taking actions and timing events to support the present administration/Republicans in a clearly partisan manner? Besides this NYT report, the Pentagon announced today trials for individuals related to 9/11 in which they will be seeking death penalties. This all will be getting into full swing with plenty of scary details coming out just in time for the general election campaign.
February 11, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter Army reasoning:
The RAND study revealed the overall incompetence of Executive political leadership and wildly inaccurate politically appointed staff anaylsis. Since the Army's analysis request to RAND study did not specifically list "determination of incompetence" nor "wildly innacurate staff analysis" as determinants it wanted examined, the report was shelved.
February 11, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a minor nit; RAND has a number of divisions devoted to defense and civil policy analysis. Some of these are FFRDC's (Federally Funded Research and Development Centers), and among these is the Arroyo Center responsible for this report. Although The Arroyo Center claims to be the only FFRDC for policy analysis belonging to the US Army, it's just a small part of RAND, whose other divisions receive funding from a variety of (mostly government) sources.
A tidbit of history: the "Pentagon Papers" of the Vietnam era was also a RAND study.
February 11, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
That wasn't the only Rand study they buried. Remember this one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47913-2002Aug5?language=printer
Whatever you think about Laurent Murawiec, and the imperialistic tenor of his presentation, he was clearly on to something:
http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com
February 11, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
What "dar" said (above).
Where is the outrage from our so-called leaders in Washington? The system is BROKEN!
February 11, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does this imply that the report implied that there was a tendency not to allow the facts to stand in the way of the convictions of the Neocons?
Or is this a round about way of saying that the distinct demand for an echo chamber of agreement by the Neocons resulted in the intelligence products deviating from practical planning?
The damn truth was that the moment that GENERAL ERIC SHINSEKI was shouted down, there was little Rand or anybody else could do.
Irrespective of how this war in Iraq got started, or how it was managed, there is one thing that I think most reasonable people can agree upon, and that is that Rumsfeld and Co. did a horrible job and that that makes the progress of Gates all the more amazing as he has at least stabilized somewhat the circumstances after what will historically be acknowledged as probably the most poorly managed military operations in the US history from the perspective of civillian command.
Would of, Could of, Should of, .. etc... and one has to wonder where the world would be today if "the crazzies in the basement" had not run the show, and some reality based management, similar to what one gets by running CIA and TX Unniversity is applied to planning.
Rumsfeld and Co. threw allot of interceptions in the early part of the game... did they screw up? Yeah.. did Rand do too good of a job reporting it? Yeah.. and truth be told, the military considering the circumstances performed admirably.
But there is no running from the history of the facts. And as consumers of Rand the DOD cannot afford to make the same mistakes of the Neocons and drink their own Kool-aid.
But I bet that there was some Red ass as the product was deliverd, titled, according to Rand, "the emporer has no clothers" and he failed to follow fifty years of established military protocol and corpus of knowledge and instead brewed a circumstance by where defeat was almost snatched from the hands of victory after US troops smashed through Iran and then fell victim to the notions of nation building under Rusmfeld and Co.
I give credit to Gates for taking the job, and stabilizing what was obviously a very very flawed management.
February 11, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, the Military has no compunction about spinning anything if they think it's in the national interest or their own, including the situation on the ground in Iraq. That's why it's important to have a commitment from the next CIC to make a fast and orderly withdrawal from Iraq, no matter what the situation on the ground looks like.
February 12, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink