Cheney speaks Prophetically on Iraq
 

It's too bad nobody could have forseen this.

Well. Fuck.

I guess we can't claim Cheney didn't understand the arguments against going in. By implication, this is also an indictment of the posers who cracked on Bush 1 for not finishing the job. I bet we can find a lot of them playing at being in the anti-war camp right now.

What changed his mind? Surely Wolfowitz et al., can't be that persuasive.

There's no way to know.

An idea I have is that perhaps he didn't believe it at the time, but he had been overruled and was repeating the official administration position based on the findings of the intelligence organizations whose position prevailed in the administration. Once he gained power, he trashed those organizations, and set up his own that gave the results he wanted, and restarted the war he never wanted to stop in the first place.

But all that is complete guesswork.

If you're right, then he wasn't smart enough to understand the truth he was parroting.

During that interview, Cheney only understood the spin; what strategic thinkers had been telling him. Cheney did not understand that the military victory is secondary to something far more important. The entire purpose of war is to take that disagreement back to the negotiation table.

When America was lead by smarter men, then the strategic objective - and therefore terms for surrender - were created far in advance of the final military victory. The classic case is FDR and Churchill in the White House for weeks planning the surrender terms for Germany and Japan - unconditional surrender. Long before Africa, The Slot, or D-Day, strategic planners had already defined a strategic objective and terms for that peace table.

Unfortunately, people who were expected to plan those terms in 1990, including Cheney, did not do their job. When Schwarzkopf asked Washington for those surrender terms, Washington had none. Schwarzkopf had to make it up, ad hoc, at the table. That is why Saddam could massacre 10,000 to 20,000 citizens in Basra as the US Army sat and watched only five miles away.

Eventually even Cheney would realize that Saddam was there only because he had failed to do the job - planning for the peace. These same people needed Saddam taken out to protect their place in history. So we have this vendetta to take out Saddam on the slightest excuse. On 12 September, they wanted Saddam blamed for that attack even when intelligence clearly said Saddam was not involved in any way.

Well, Cheney was parroting political spin in that interview. He never understood the meaning behind his words. Cheney talks about taking Baghdad - and then what? As soon as Baghdad fell in 2003, I watched that week. "They could not be making the same mistake again?" I just could not believe it.

Even posts by Tobias here in the Cellar made it very apparent - Cheney, Wolfovitz, Feith, etc ... they again had no plans for the peace. Even 3rd ID after action reports made it completely apparent - no orders to do anything after Baghdad fell - because they again did not do their job in Washington. They did not plan for the peace - especially those all so critical first six months.

Basic concepts are well understood. Do nothing for six months and you lose support of the people. Bremmer has zero plans for 'nation building' for seven months. But then Bremmer was following the party political line rather than attempt to secure a military victory.

Cheney, et al still did not grasp basic concepts of war. They were so devoid of basic knowledge as to even say "America does not do nation building". They were so brainwashed by their own rhetoric as to believe as soon as Saddam was gone, then a democratic government would spring from the earth like fields of corn. That never happens.

Phase Four planning is THE most important part of a battle plan. These idiots had so little grasp of basic knowledge as to even dissolve the army and police. They fired anyone who had enough smarts to run utilities, schools, and government services because, to do that job previously, they had to be a Baath Party member. All the smart people were fired - perfect fodder for an insurgency as made obvious from basic military concepts. Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al did not even have enough troops to destroy miles by miles of munitions dumps all over the country. Where do you think all those bombs come from?

Cheney et al had such bad intellectual grasp as to even violate a basic tenant of war - only one supreme commander. No one in high office could be that dumb. Even in Nam, we were not that stupid. And yet we did that both in "Mission Accomplished" and in Afghanistan.

Cheney is talking a political line without understanding what it means or the consequences. That is what he, Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz, Feith, etc all do. They spout a political agenda. They don't comprehend basic concepts well proven even in history 500 years before Christ. They eventually grasped that Saddam would go down in history as their mistake made in 1991. They never understood why - confusing the invasion of Baghdad with a surrender that would have forced regime change (demonstrated how it must be done in Serbia).

In 1994, Cheney understood and parroted the party line without understanding its meaning. He never learned fundamental concepts behind that spin - such as planning for the peace before the first major offensive. Cheney, et al made the exact same mistake in 2003. They had again done zero planning for the peace in 1990. They even drove out anyone who tried to perform Phase Four planning in 2002. And so we have the famous story of party hacks in the green zone using the Maryland vehicle code to rewrite Iraq's traffic laws - while the country was being looted - and while Cheney et al even denied that widespread looting was ongoing. It was not happening because it could not - according to their poltiical agenda.

That interview shows a Cheney who understands how to talk the spin. But we now know he had no idea what it means. He, et al made the exact same mistake in 2003.

Good post tw.

I thought that Phase one was to let the military fight the war - not politicians. Didn't we learn that from Vietnam?

Not quite. "Phase one" should be "why do we need this war?"

The answer, were we to let the military decide, would simply be "because our purpose is to fight wars."

Why would you think that.

It's not a criticism, I'm saying that their job is to fight wars. That is what they are trained for, that is what they are equipped for, that is their purpose. When you need a war fought, you need an organization whose purpose is to fight wars. It is the reason they exist.

It's like asking an erect penis if it would like to perform intercourse on a vagina.

I've seen West Point folks talk about studying war in order to better ensure peace. I think they precisely understand their situation and prefer only to use military force when there is no other option.

Does any organization typically continue to allocate budget dollars to a department that performs no tangible service? We could pay a room full of philosophy students to talk us out of going to war. . . . But, if we decide that a war is needed, then we call in the military.

Back to my point: "let the military fight the war" is not phase one; it's not even in the single digits.

The politicians should define the purpose of the war, and the military should determine the methodology, getting approval from the President for anything out of the ordinary. But without a purpose, methodology is useless for anything but "stay the course", with the course a holding pattern.