Top Marine: No Plan For Post-Saddam Iraq

CBS News Exclusive: General And Superiors Didn't Have Plan For Control Of Iraqi Cities

(CBS)  By CBS News national security correspondent David Martin

---

There is no one on the Joint Chiefs of Staff who has visited Iraq more often than Gen. Mike Hagee, whose term as Commandant of the United States Marine Corps ends Monday.

Hagee took over the Marine Corps just two months before the invasion of Iraq — and throughout his years as Commandant, he made a point of going there every two months to do a firsthand assessment of the battlefield.

I spoke exclusively with the general about conditions in Iraq. You can listen to an extended portion of that interview here (video).

As Commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force during the lead-up to the war, Hagee was in charge of planning for the Marines' original push to Baghdad. So I asked him about one of the enduring mysteries of the invasion — why there was no real plan for running the country once Saddam Hussein fell from power.

Unfortunately, Hagee's comments only deepen the mystery. He says he was deeply concerned about who would take charge of major Iraqi cities, like Najaf, as the Marines pushed through them on their way to Baghdad.

Hagee says he asked his boss again and again who would take charge of those cities. He wanted to know what the plan was for Phase IV — military terminology for the phase that follows the end of major combat operations. Phase IV is, in other words, what comes after "mission accomplished." Hagee says that he sent his questions up the chain of command, as they say in the military — and never heard back.

Hagee is being succeeded by Gen. James Conway, who has his own history in Iraq. By now, virtually every senior combat arms officer in the Army and the Marines has a history in Iraq. Conway led the Marines into Baghdad and later commanded the first, ill-fated attempt to retake Fallujah from the insurgents.

The way the military is organized, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, as well as all the other service chiefs, does not command any of the troops in the field. That is the job of the so-called "combatant commanders," people like Gen. George Casey in Iraq.

Conway is responsible for recruiting, training and equipping the Marines who go to Iraq or any other battlefield. If the Marines don't have proper body armor or are missing their recruiting goals, that's Conway's problem. If the Marines are unable to suppress the insurgency in al Anbar province, that's Casey's problem. In a war like the one in Iraq, there are more than enough problems to go around.

I don%u2019t see the Iraq war being anything but a conveyor and a re-election tool. It is conveying incredible amounts of tax payer dollars now and for years to come into the private sector. Of course there is also the fact of no wartime president losing a re-election bid. If you were Bush-Cheney et al it would seem like a very smart move to go to war. It looks like the only goal of the current administration is to not interrupt the flow of money.

[photo8069]

It's evident most of those posting here did not listen to the interview, including the headline writer and author David Martin.
Listen to what the General says, then judge for yourselves.
Seems a lot of people are all too willing to jump to their own pre-conceived opinions. That only plays into the hands of the enemy. Wake up people.

[gramto7]

troopersue
Very well stated!! This is as succinct a post as I have seen on any of these boards. It shows the full sum of the reasons and results of this fiasco in these short paragraphs.
Thank you!

[sm280]

Look back to history-to those that waged war for empire. Can't you just SEE Our Resident Hero? I can see it ! LEADING his army, Like Napolean, Hannibal and Alexander, right up there at the front. Swaggering in his flight suit, craddling his flight helmet in one arm, in the other,
arrogantly upright, his spear with a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" (sigh)
Reading all the above arguments (and counter points)(No WMD, No Ties to Al-Quiada, Not enough troops, Too Much Treasure Lost, Too Many Lives (US & Iraqis), Incompetance, etc. is missing the forest by arguing over the trees! Simply put: War has essentially three elements:
Those that wage WAR (usually those that are over recruiting age, and have never been fired upon, dodged the military, and TRULY have a GREAT disdain for Common People!
Those that benefit from WAR (Contractors, Energy (oil)Companies, Crony Security Companies, Manufacturers of Weapons, Planes, Tanks, Munitions, etc (and some past President, who is heavily invested, on the board, and compensated, of a group that manufactures those, coincidently related to our current hero).
And Finally: Those that pay for the war! You and I, Through taxes, and the lives of our best upcoming youth. Those that TRULY (warranted or not) believe they are putting their lives on the line, every day, for our safety and to preserve our "liberty" and way of life.
All else stated and argued is academic to the three points mentioned above.

Going into Iraq with all guns blazing will not lead to a success in Iraq - it will cause even longer term problems and result in ordinary Iraqi citizens - the very people that GW Bush claims he is fighting for - turning against the American invaders.

And then, the American invaders would be seen as far worse than Saddam Hussein.

[bsdiatcbs]

cont ...on the post invasion planning...I believe the plan was to already be in Tehran and have Syria expel the terrorist camped out in Damascus. One little hitch ...the terrorist joined forces with the sunnis to create the insurgency...they should have seen it coming

...yes Bush is fighting a PC war, tied the hands of our military and made mistakes but SOME and the loudest of the democrats "voted for the war before they voted against it" and their obstruction since the day after the vote for the war has done nothing but embolden the enemy and European criticism. The criticism has hurt the position of some of our allies in europe. Had the dems kept some of this stuff behind closed doors where it belonged (because this is a war) and showed a unified front to the world then I believe Bush would have been bolder in the post war decison making, the french and germans would have held their tongue, we may have had more support out of NATO and europe, more troops from other countries, and would be further down the road to success not just in Iraq but N Korea, Iran , Lebanon, and Syria. Now that they have ascended to power lets see how they fair on defending the world which is necessary to maintaining the American way of life.

I dont have my prayer rug yet, dont care to grow a beard, dont want to pray 5 times a day, and dont want to learn arabic but I am looking forward to having 4 or 5 women answering to my every beck and call, no nagging, no back talking, and *** when I WANT IT.

[bsdiatcbs]

1.) Bush believed Saddam had WMDs because international intel did.
2.) British Intel still stands behind the yellowcake story
3.) the drones would only have to fly off the deck of a boat
4.) Saddam had a relationship (though we dont know exactly how deep) with UBL (and I am NOT saying he was part of 911)
5.) Saddam had working relationships with various terrorists (Abu Nidal) and terror groups (Palestinians). Ansar al Islam is an Al Qaeda branch that was allowed to operate in Iraq by Saddam for the purpose of supressing the Kurds
6.) Saddam at one time did have WMDs
7.) Saddam was in violation of 17 UNSC resolutions and the cease-fire agreement.
8.) Saddam retained the infrastructure necessary for creating his WMDs (this too was in the report)
9.) He had "training" facilities at Salman Pak for "counter terrorism"
10.) Iraq a former State Dept "Sponsor of Terrorism" sits between the two most active "sponsors of terrorsim" Syria and Iran.
11.) 1-10 = Iraq is the first to be dealt with
12. ) the invasion plan was brilliant and was accopmlished in less than a month
13.) the post invasion plan has been successfull in many areas(new schools, rebuilding infrastructure) but down right abismal from a peace and security standpoint.

Now for the opinion:
I think they got caught looking ahead to Iran and dropped the ball...cont

[bsdiatcbs]

1.) Bush believed Saddam had WMDs because international intel did.
2.) British Intel still stands behind the yellowcake story
3.) the drones would only have to fly off the deck of a boat
4.) Saddam had a relationship (though we dont know exactly how deep) with UBL (and I am NOT saying he was part of 911)
5.) Saddam had working relationships with various terrorists (Abu Nidal) and terror groups (Palestinians). Ansar al Islam is an Al Qaeda branch that was allowed to operate in Iraq by Saddam for the purpose of supressing the Kurds
6.) Saddam at one time did have WMDs
7.) Saddam was in violation of 17 UNSC resolutions and the cease-fire agreement.
8.) Saddam retained the infrastructure necessary for creating his WMDs (this too was in the report)
9.) He had "training" facilities at Salman Pak for "counter terrorism"
10.) Iraq a former State Dept "Sponsor of Terrorism" sits between the two most active "sponsors of terrorsim" Syria and Iran.
11.) 1-10 = Iraq is the first to be dealt with
12. ) the invasion plan was brilliant and was accopmlished in less than a month
13.) the post invasion plan has been successfull in many areas(new schools, rebuilding infrastructure) but down right abismal from a peace and security standpoint.

Now for the opinion:
I think they got caught looking ahead to Iran and dropped the ball ...continued

[kchain]

I realize David Martin knows little about the military, but one would think he'd be aware of what was actually said during the interview. Which means that the headline for this article is either stupidity writ large, or a bald-faced lie. Perhaps Martin should watch the video so he can see where he went off the rails.

[Zhu Bajie]

Bush was hoping Jesus would return, rule the world, or at least rapture him away, once "Babylon the Great" had fallen.

His advisors went along because in the movies, video games, Risk games, where they got most of their experience, there is never a Phase IV.

[prof_peewee-2009]

After WWII the French republic sent General LeClerc to Vietnam to assess what would be needed to re-establish French rule there. His answer was %u201CIt would take 500,000 men to do it and even then it could not be done.%u201D

He was right, and his answer would have applied just as well to Iraq.

Did everyone think Saddam had WMD's? I see a lot of quotes from the Clinton era, all from 1998. IIRC that was when Clinton decided to bomb the *** out of Iraqi weapons sites.

In 2002 lots of people thought Saddam might have some limited WMD capability, but only the NeoCons were arguing that he constituted a big enough threat to go on the kind of dead-end adventure described by LeClerc. The rest odf us were satisfied with the return of the UN inspectors, especially as it became apparent that they were getting unprecedented access and confirming that the last of Saddam's serious weapons were destroyed by 1998. The idea that a few hundred empty, corroded artillery shells prove that this debacle was necessary is a pathetic rationalization.

[sdl1512]

At this point it doesn't matter whether Iraq was a mistake or not.
WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?
I agree that Bush made a huge mistake when he determined to invade Iraq. Virutally from the beginning it has been managed poorly. The loss of life is not defenseable. The problem, of terrorism, has been magnified and now we must find a solution. The solutions are not difficult to see.
1. Iraq? Let the people of Iraq decide. Hold an election to see if we stay or leave. If they want us to leave then we should go. If they want us to stay then we should stay and eradicate every terrorist and supporter of terrorist in Iraq. Ever terrorist could be eradicated IF the Iraqi people wanted it done. They know who the terrorist are and they could eliminate them, quickly, if they so choose.

2. Terrorism? The only solution is to make the price of a terrorist act so high that they choose not to pay it. The cost must be higher then just their individual life.

Our country is facing the most difficult choice in its history. Are we going to find the solution or just argue over the cause of the problem? Terrorist and terrorism are fatal for the entire planet.

[bucklibido]

In response to those who are saying that our general officers "let our country down" by not refusing orders from the defense department, I would like to remind them that what they are advocating is a military coup. It is the most basic tenant of our constitution that the civilian authorities control the military, and it is the most important of all the checks and balances in the constitution.

Please be aware that you are advocating miltary dictatorship when you insist that our general officers have a right and duty to disobey orders from the the civilian authorities.

If you don't like the course that the war is taking in Iraq, then put the blame where it belongs - on yourselves, the American voters. Because you are the ones who elected the civilian government that is in charge of the military.

Please stop calling for a military coup, and start working toward a civilian government that runs the military in a more responsible manner.

[ww9000]

twhitti, there is no such thing as "Islamic fascism." People who use that phrase don't have a clue about Islam or a clue about fascism.

[danmikel]

We stupid Americans allow Bush and his gang to start a war for purely personal gain. Remember the smoking gun that Iraq was trying to purchase yellowcake uranium from the country of Niger. It was later determine that the documents was falsified a fake.
Ask yourself What happen the day after it was discovered that that those documents were fakes. How come there was no follow up investagation to find out who made them and why? The answer is simple Bush was caught with his pants down. In order to cover it up he on the very next day decided that we %u201CThe U.S.%u201D will go at it along with our store bought allies with a 72 hour demand that Iraq allow the U.N. Inspectors back in or else, knowing full well that it did not matter that if Saddam had said yes in which he did, he was going to attack because that was his intent from the first day he took office in 2001.
Many families both Americans Iraqs and others have lost loves ones to this un-just war.
Saddam was no angel but nor are we %u201CAmerica%u201D but Iraq was one of the more stable middle east arab country before Bush Rove & Co. now look at it.
We will never see peace in the Middle East until the world deal with the real problem
and it appears that no one wants to do that because of what ??????

p.s.
I could bring more peace to the Middle East in a month than all the leaders could since 1947.

It's remarkable that there are some confused individuals out there that attempt to blame the "left" for Bush's failures in Iraq.

Fact 1: The Republicans controlled the Senate.
Fact 2: The Republicans controlled the House.
Fact 3: Bush doesn't listen to anyone (except maybe his daddy, Cheney, Rove, Bush's "god" and that failure Rumsfeld.

Bush hasn't listened to the "left" since he became President.

Pure and simple - Bush's failures in Iraq are his own and the Republican party for supporting that idiot.

It's time the Republicans out there grew up and took responsibility instead of always looking to pin the blame onto the Democrats (who are no angels themselves).

The Democrats supported Bush in the early days and they should not forget that they are partially responsible as well.

Let's hope they can do what that Republicans couldn't - succeed.

Suck it up, deal with it and get on with it.

[twhitti1]

Dear WW9000; WWII was NOT fought on the cheap, it was fought to win. Vietnam and Iraq were/are not, at least not yet. But if we do get serious about fighting the Islamic Fascism I bet you'd be the first to join up to fight, right?

[rharrin1]

Some people may disagree with me but here goes.
You cannot invade a country without disarming it as you go.
Our heroes in the oval office did not want that because it would have many more injuries and killed and take longer. They were afraid of dissent in america.
Had they been disarmed the job would be guarding the borders.

Bottom line is if bush had not fabricated the reports on iraq we would not be there.

[Denise777]

Shame on CBS for distorting the words said by Gen. Mike Hagee. This is blatent deception and the author of the articlen David Martin, should be ousted from the world of journalism.

I would personally buy him a ticket to England. the BBC love lying liberals.

[ww9000]

There was nothing "insightful" about the comment by freeses6, or in the followup by twhitti1. The Iraq war hasn't been fought "on the cheap," and it hasn't been "compassionate." It has cost $300 billion so far and has killed half a million Iraqis and many thousands of Americans.

The United States has destroyed Iraq not just physically, but spiritually, morally, socially and politically. In doing so, this country has abandoned its own principles, and the senior leadership of the U.S. military has displayed outright cowardice.

The reality is this: The United States military has been defeated by a rag-tag insurgency operating in a destroyed country of 25 million people. No one denied the military the tools necessary to do the job. This country's leadership failed.

Now it is time for truth and accountability, if anyone still believes in it.