And rightfully so, IMHO...OT
 

washingtonpost.com
Pentagon Blamed for Lack of Postwar Planning in Iraq

By Bradley Graham and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 1, 2005; Page A03

A study of U.S. military operations in Iraq, prepared for Defense Secretary
Donald H. Rumsfeld, sharply criticizes Pentagon attempts to plan for the
aftermath of the U.S.-led invasion two years ago, saying stabilization and
reconstruction issues "were addressed only very generally" and "no planning was
undertaken to ensure the security of the Iraqi people."

The study, done by the Rand Corp., an independent research group that was
created by the U.S. government and frequently does analyses for the Pentagon,
also says the experience in Iraq has underscored the Pentagon's tendency "not to
absorb historical lessons" when battling insurgencies. It notes a lack of
political-military coordination and of "actionable intelligence" in the
counterinsurgency campaign, and urges creation in the Army of a "dedicated cadre
of counterinsurgency specialists."

The study highlights shortcomings as well in the conduct of the invasion. It
cites inflated expectations at the outset about airstrikes in toppling the
Baghdad government, poor performance by Apache helicopters in attack missions,
delays in bomb damage assessments, gaps in tactical intelligence for battlefield
commanders, disruptions in supply lines and inadequate coordination between
Special Operations units and conventional forces.

Although the report notes that Iraq's poorly trained and ill-equipped forces
proved "no match" for U.S. troops, it says the conflict exposed some important
problem areas for the U.S. military that need fixing.

"There is a case for change, and even urgency, in those areas where problems
arose even in such favorable conditions," concludes the confidential report, a
copy of which was made available to The Washington Post.

Rumsfeld, who received the report last month, sent it to members of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and civilian leaders of the military services with a March 1
cover note saying the Rand recommendations "are worth our careful
consideration." He set a deadline of yesterday for responses and added that he
had asked his then-deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz, to gather the group together "and
discuss what changes might be appropriate."

Although relatively brief for the breadth and complexity of the issues it
addresses, the 10-page report represents a distillation of more than 20 other
studies of the Iraq conflict undertaken by Rand's staff, according to a letter
accompanying it by James A. Thomson, Rand's president. The study makes no
attempt to provide a complete assessment of either the invasion or its
aftermath, focusing instead on 15 areas that Rand's analysts have concluded need
improvement.

Some of the report's conclusions echo those in earlier internal Pentagon
after-action reviews. But their inclusion in a paper done directly for Rumsfeld
-- and his decision to use the study as a basis for discussion with the
Pentagon's senior leadership -- would seem to give the findings and
recommendations added weight.

A Rand spokesman, David M. Egner, called the report "a private communication"
between Thomson and Rumsfeld. "So it would be inappropriate to discuss this
communication," he said.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the report "highlights some important
lessons learned" but is "still under review by Defense Department officials."

In discussing the conduct of the war, the report notes that the opening salvo of
airstrikes, dubbed "shock and awe" by some at the Pentagon, did not precipitate
the collapse of the government that airpower advocates had hoped for.

"The attacks on 'regime' targets (leadership, command and control and
infrastructure) were able to disrupt but not eliminate the ability of Iraqi
leaders to communicate with the Iraqi people and military forces," the report
says. "For the future, a caution is in order with respect to expectations of
what air attacks on 'regime' targets can achieve."

Later helicopter attack missions against Iraqi forces "proved risky and not very
productive," the report says, a reference to the troubles Apache units
encountered dealing with ground fire from enemy fighters hidden in populated
areas. "Though planned, no air assault operations were undertaken," the report
notes, concluding that the experience "raises questions about some of the
emerging concepts" for deep helicopter strikes in enemy territory.

Intelligence gathering, too, fell short. Airborne sensors were "in many cases
unable to locate and identify" the swarms of Iraqi paramilitary fighters who
moved along roads in civilian vehicles or hid out in built-up neighborhoods, the
report says. When information about enemy locations did become available, it
frequently failed to get far enough down the chain of command.

"Division commanders and above were well serviced, while tactical commanders
often did not receive specific or actionable intelligence," the report says.
"Tactical units were often moving too fast for the information to be useful, or
the information was not detailed enough."

Bomb damage assessments "fell behind early" as a result of bad weather, a
scarcity of sensor systems and inadequate reporting, the report notes.
"Turn-around times were measured in days instead of hours." As a result, U.S.
aircraft restruck some targets "unnecessarily," and ground forces had "scant
knowledge of the condition of enemy forces along the route of advance."

Difficulties in collecting and disseminating intelligence from airborne sensors
have persisted in more recent counterinsurgency operations, the report says.
Until such links prove more effective, the report advises caution in proceeding
with a costly Army program called Future Combat Systems, which envisions an
array of new lightly armored fighting vehicles and robots that would rely
heavily on networked systems of information.

Planning for the invasion's aftermath rested with the Defense Department, the
report recalls, rather than with the State Department or the National Security
Council. "Overall, this approach worked poorly," the report says, noting that
the Pentagon lacked the expertise, funding authority and contacts with civilian
aid organizations for the job.

When the insurgency arose, the report says, U.S. authorities failed to
understand how it differed from past "wars of national liberation" or from a
"classical guerrilla-type campaign."

"Iraqi insurgents are groups of disparate opposition elements with no center of
gravity, no clear leader, no aim to seize and hold territory, and no single
defined or unifying ideology," the report says. "The Iraqi insurgency
demonstrates the closest manifestation yet of 'net war,' which is characterized
by flatter, more linear networks rather than the pyramidal hierarchies and
command and control systems of traditional insurgent organizations."

In future counterinsurgency operations, the report concludes, the Pentagon
should rely more on forces with specialized training in such warfare. Planning
for postwar recovery, the report adds, must involve greater coordination between
the Pentagon and other government agencies and greater attention by defense
officials to securing the peace. The report recommends setting up "some process
for exposing senior officials to possibilities other than those being assumed in
their planning."

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."