|
Edited on Mon May-24-04 11:25 PM by punpirate
... of the invasion, a reporter interviewed someone (whose name I cannot recall, sorry) who had impeccable credentials in reconstruction and rebuilding issues, had worked on such for much of his professional career, etc. Everyone familiar with the subject knew him.
He expressed amazement that no one in government had called to ask him about what to do in the aftermath of the invasion. When he asked around amongst people he knew at the White House, he was told, "that's already done--the President spent an hour on it."
There are some explanations for that, I believe--think of John Dilulio's comments about the "Mayberry Machiavellis" who always put politics before policy, and in fact, don't really know what policy-making is. The war was, first and foremost, for political advantage and personal aggrandizement. Planning for after the war would have been secondary to the primary political goal.
Second, as Seymour Hersh has suggested, the people at Defense and the White House did nothing (or more of the same) because they simply hoped bad news would go away. Things would get better if ignored.
Third, they believed Chalabi about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, so there's the suggestion in that that they would also believe him about the rice and candy and rose petals, and people dancing in the streets. Therefore, they were completely unprepared for hostility, even after the extreme hostility visited upon the people during the invasion, and by the hostility of an occupying force which was culturally and technically untrained for work as an occupying force.
In short, they were damned egotistical about the reasons for the war in the first place, and just as arrogant about how things would go. Listening is a great skill, largely absent in the neo-cons in the White House and the Department of Defense.
Edit for syntax.
|