WashingtonBureau: Post-war planning non-existent
Powerpoint for dummies the military:
In March 2003, days before the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, American war planners and intelligence officials met at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina to review the Bush administration’s plans to oust Saddam Hussein and implant democracy in Iraq.
Near the end of his presentation, an Army lieutenant colonel who was giving a briefing showed a slide describing the Pentagon’s plans for rebuilding Iraq after the war, known in the planners’ parlance as Phase 4-C. He was uncomfortable with his material - and for good reason.
The slide said: “To Be Provided." Full story at WashingtonBureau.
local tags: politics technorati: politics del.icio.us: politics
8 comments
almost unbelievable, really frightening!! the defense department and pentagon clearly live in another dimension. the occupation of iraq is a complete failure. insurgencies all over the place, too few soldiers present (they need 500.000 soldiers for a real occupation), and nuclear sites that have been destroyed. today, iraq is a nuclear wasteland. the greenpeace people in the documentary i saw sunday had a radiation beeper sounding an (max. dose) alarm every 5 minutes! i mean. instead of making the world more safe, the bush government did exactly the opposite and probably made it possible to unknown groups to collect nuclear material. there is nothing left of the so called nuclear sites. everything has been stolen or destroyed (even buildings).
radioactive future!
for every american reading this: please vote bush away.
kmd on 20/10/2004 at 00:15
In a certain way, they have made the world a bit safer. Their army is barely surviving in a country that was struggling under sanctions for years. Military are refusing missions… what kind of a threat is the US “empire” now?
The American economy is not doing well, the Dollar is low..
Why bother attacking Americans anywhere else when there are 90.000 sitting ducks in Iraq?
(Yes, this is irony)
Colin on 20/10/2004 at 00:49
history pointed out that ‘frustrated empires’ struggling with the end or their influence and power often lead to very instable periods. germany and WOI for example. i hope history is wrong ;)
kmd on 20/10/2004 at 03:31
the end of their influence? it’s only the beginning; the US have never been as influential as now. also, it’s a myth that they want the world to be a safer place; they need civil wars to feed the industry. most of all, they want the world to be THEIR place.
flow on 21/10/2004 at 22:51
i don’t agree. the states are loosing their great status of empire (in favour of asia?). i’m speaking of a long term here. compared to more early periods (cold war and earlier, the aftermath of the spanish war) you should know the US has been far more influential and was a ‘real’ empire compared to today. today ‘power’ is more distributed.
kmd on 22/10/2004 at 02:24
under Clinton power was more distributed, yes. but this has changed since 2000. we’re living in an American empire as we speak. you don’t see it but it’s very much there, believe me.
flow on 22/10/2004 at 02:57
after clinton i only see election fraud, deception, the start of wrong wars and the total indoctrination of the idea of the american free world and so called values, but i don see any empire nor any proof the US actually increased its political infuence (this excludes military force), on the contrary. it depends also on how we define an empire. the expression is a bit old fashioned imo ;)
kmd on 22/10/2004 at 23:30
Actually, look back a bit and see Nixon vs Kennedy in Illinois, 1960.
Colin on 23/10/2004 at 00:24 Comments not allowed