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.

[meboard]

You don't go to war with the plan you'd LIKE to have...you go to war with the plan you have at the time... Just like you don't go to war with the army you'd LIKE to have...and the Sec Def you'd LIKE to have...and the Commander-in-chief you'd LIKE to have.

[rochest]

more evidence that this war should never have happened!

[woco74]

What did Gen. Hagee recommend? How did he know ahead of time what the situation would be in Najaf after the battle? If he did what was his recomendation? If he wasn't in direct command of the troops, why didn't he have a plan? What was he doing? Maybe we should hear from Gen. Casey

[bob graham las vegas]

This only confirms my suspicions that the foray into Iraq was for the sole purpose of getting Saddam, not for reasons stated, but because he put out a kill order on the previous George Bush president.

[lcastle92407]

I'm wondering why this military officer is going public with information that is likely "classified?"

[rsoxfan1123]

No plan after the invasion? You think? No one but the republican party zombie faithful should have thought otherwise by this point, and to that brainwashed group no amount of evidence is going to make any difference.

[tomnbeverly]

I am still waiting on the press to report on the Saddam Hussein sponsored dirty bomb attack that killed 20,000 American Citizens in Times Square on New Years Eve 2005.... Oh thats right George W. Bush connected the dots... He learned the lessons on 911. He imagined the threat, He saw Saddam as a Grave and serious National Security Threat. He tried and succeeded unlike his waggy fingered predecessor who admittedly "Tried but failed" so you understoon Clinton to mean get UBL.. I understood him as meaning 911 because had he not failed 911 would not have happened and for that matter neither would Iraq.

[cincigal74]

Bush,cheney and Rumsfeld should be forced to go to Iraq and live outside the green zone and clean up this mess they have made.Millions of people were opposed to this disaster,but they knew so much more than we did,so it is up to them to find a solution.Why should the Democrats tell them what to do?Did they listen to them for the past six years?No.They have got Karl Roves brain and Cheney's arrogance.So let them prove their smarts.They have proved that they can make a mess,now lets see them clean it up.

[tomnbeverly]

Obviously you haven't subscribed to the new season of Non-Partisanship on Capital Hill. Its time that both parties come together and clean this up. Everyone who isn't ignorant knows why we went to Iraq. The 04 election was a vindication on the why. The 06 election was a statement of dissatisfaction with a party on many levels. How can we win Iraq or that matter win against the evil Jihadists if we can't even stop fighting with each other.. Take the politics out of Iraq.

[olebd]

This whole war should be called Operation No Plan"

Just like when we invaded Afghanistan and didn't think to seal the border beforehand....thus allowing Osama to escape and hide.

Then again, we can't even seal the homeland border.

[observantx]

I am still waiting on the press to report on the Saddam Hussein sponsored dirty bomb attack that killed 20,000 American Citizens in Times Square on New Years Eve 2005.... tomnbeverly

Huh?

Gee, I must not have read the paper watched TV or listened to the radio that day and missed the death of 20,000 people in Times Sqaure on New Years Eve. Hey, Isn't that shown on TV, ya know, when the droop the big lit up ball? I'm certain the video would have been on the news the next day.

Tomnbeverly you must enjoy a completely different reality than the rest of us. That's Okay though. As long as you don't operate any heavy equipment.

[fascistusa]

Wow. What a surprise.

Anyone else notice that America is just a FASCIST TYRANNY ruled by the Rich? Anyone?

Reliving the 70's. Vietnam. FAKE news. Corporate rule.

I'm sure proud to be an American. Where at least i'm TOLD i'm free.

[hador_nyc]

To meboard,
That is only true in a case where you were attacked and must defend yourself. Certainly, you use what you have and who you have to fight what you have to, but if it's a preemptive strike like this one, we should have planned it out better. You analogy fails, because we could have used an extra few months, if necessary, to plan this thing better. The US was not in imminent danger of attack at the time. We had the time, and we should have taken some more to plan. For the record, I was serving on active duty as an intelligence officer in the USAF at the time. They, unlike China then and now North Korea, didn't have missiles that could hit us at home, nor was Iraq threatening to invade anyone. And, we did have plenty of assets in the area to deal with them if they did attempt an invasion. We were enforcing the No Fly Zones at the time.

[hador_nyc]

To meboard,
That is only true in a case where you were attacked and must defend yourself. Certainly, you use what you have and who you have to fight what you have to, but if it's a preemptive strike like this one, we should have planned it out better. You analogy fails, because we could have used an extra few months, if necessary, to plan this thing better. The US was not in imminent danger of attack at the time. We had the time, and we should have taken some more to plan. For the record, I was serving on active duty as an intelligence officer in the USAF at the time. They, unlike China then and now North Korea, didn't have missiles that could hit us at home, nor was Iraq threatening to invade anyone. And, we did have plenty of assets in the area to deal with them if they did attempt an invasion. We were enforcing the No Fly Zones at the time.

[rjrtex]

For every general with this view, there are 10 with just the opposite. Why doesn't the media ever show them? Oh yeah, it would hurt the left's agenda to avoid addressing the single biggest problem in twhis generation faces - terrorism against the free, western world.

[gentryfunk-2009]

Did someone post that Saddham was a threat to the U.S.? I still ask, does anybody read history or at least know something about Iraq? Lordy, lordy folks, Saddham wasn't a big supporter of the US after Kuwait, but he did not have the capability or techology to hit the U.S.....read the inspection reports, read the CIA's own assessment before the war....Iraq was no threat.

Those of you still repeating the mantra of Saddham and WMDs please read the information for yourself and you will find that they did not exist!

[wardmaynard]

I served 23 years in uniform, plus 17 months in Iraq doing construction work. We were not well organized for "reconstruction." However,I told my Iraqi friends who were at great danger on US construction sites that there was a silver lining to all of this. After all, if we appeared very well organized, our enemies would accuse the US of being a zealous colonial power. We had neither the people nor the plans to colonize Iraq. Thus, there is something to say for doing that job poorly grin ; it reflects on our intentions. We come from a tradition of citizen soldiers. We are certainly not professional colonizers. Cheers.

[ltmousseman]

To all of you Bush-hating anti-war Facists: Untill you have served this GREAT country and risked you life for it I just wish you would shut the f up until you know what your talking about

[ltmousseman]

To all of you Bush-hating anti-war Facists: Untill you have served this GREAT country and risked you life for it I just wish you would shut the f up until you know what your talking about

[cbslib]

As a liberal I believe we should believe everything we see and hear from CBS. They are the BIBLE for truth, justice and the American way!!! If CBS can't report the truth, they'll make it up for a GREAT story. That's what makes them so outstanding. So many of us intelligent liberals believe everything the media reports as FACT cause we are too lazy to look for the truth. We are so smart we don't need the truth, we just think we know the truth which makes us perfect humans and far-more superior to all the low-life conservatives.

[rjrtex]

Those of you still repeating the mantra of Saddham and WMDs please read the information for yourself and you will find that they did not exist!

Ahh, the power of hindsight. If you will recall, before the war every intelligence agency in the world said he did have them. Leaders have to react to the best possible info at the time a decision needs to be made. Regardless, that was only part of the reason for going to Iraq anyway. The fact is it is better to fight this battle on the streets of Iraq instead of the streets of America. At some point we have to fight and win this war, why not now?

[antoniof123]

Tomnberverly and mike_nyc1 I am sorry about this but we should not be in Iraq. There is no justification that can change it. Yes, we are responsible it is our fault for following a war monger and this group will be investigated. Of course like Nixon he will fight it and Daddy will try to help but just like Nixon when the evidence mounts he will surrender to the will of the American people. The sad part is he will fight it and if he and his people still don%u2019t get it we would forgive if he would just come clean. When you fight you show contempt to the people you are supposed to be the leader of then you have problems because if there is one thing I can truly say about America is that we don%u2019t like nor will we tolerate an arrogant fool who thinks that he can tell us what to do. Going back to Iraq we now have to help the children that we destroyed the lives of because we are responsible. For that we have to pay I only hope that the American people can see that.

[amr114]

You can't go to war with a specified plan and expect to stick with it. We "planned" to attack Iraq, but to have a uniform way of accomplishing the mission is unrealistic. Instead, you must be able to predict and adjust to the situations as they arise. This is the idea behind strategy. Strategy and planning are two different things; Planning is used in a controlled environment, Strategy is used in a contested environment. For example, you can "plan" to cook food, but you can't "plan" to make billions of dollars.


Keep in mind that the enemy we are fighting is not a conventional military threat. This is what makes it so hard to confront. But, just because my brothers, and the innocent people in Iraq we are trying to protect, get killed does not mean we are losing the war. Terrorist activity is a very difficult thing to predict. Every once in a while, These guys come out of the shadows, without warning, and detonate a car bomb that kills a massive group of people. The idea behind terrorism is to instill a great deal of fear, and this tactic is very effective in breaking our own will if allow it to happen. That is why terrorists aim to kill hundreds or thousands of people at a time.
The best way to counter this threat is to have the best intelligence as possible. Staying steps ahead of the enemy is the only "plan" we should have fighting this war.

[johninburban]

Fascinating that a member of JCS admitted to having "no Phase IV plan" and was unable to come up with one in three short years and multiple visits. Probably not a proud recap to his career.

I suspect a more correct interpretation was the political risk associated with any serious plan to control the populace was deemed greater than with its actual implementation.

Clearly the US military has a long history in dealing with "insurgent" cities and towns. A quick search on Vicksburg might be informative to some or perhaps the concept of "Indian Reservations" could be explained in some detail.

Let's face our reality- we don't have the gumption to tolerate the ugly reality until there's a modicum of finality. If we don't, all we've done is thrown Iran a rather tasty bone at our own expense.

Watching how the Democrats play this out over the next few months will be fascinating. Do they sell out the current Iraqi regime (ala Vietnamization and subsequent budget cuts)?

We better start developing new forms of energy domestically pretty *** fast...

[mayfaire1]

rjrtex - Do you have a link to back up your one for ten assertion? I would be interested to see anything you may have, thanks.

LTMousseman - Just out of curiosity, you are aware that the first amendment applies to all US citizens, and not only military personnel?

~M

[steanlep55]

They general is simply stating the obvious. The fact that his questions weren't answered isn't a surprise, as he just wasn't high enough in the chain of command to warrant answers to his questions.
It wasn't up to him or other generals to question the policy makers. It was their duty to carry out the orders to meet the objectives of the policy makers. The policy makers were supposed to provide the resources and guidance in order to achieve those objectives. The policy makers clearly failed.
I believe that anyone who thinks that Iraq was a threat to the USA is very naive.
The possibility of Iraq attacking the USA with chemical carrying remotely piloted vehicles (drones) was so completely laughable, but not nearly as much as people in America actually believed it possible. People should have known right then that something smelled dirty about the whole idea of invading Iraq.

[kwch]

rjrtex,
I really am tired of those who say its better to fight them on the streets of Bagdad then here.

In case you were not aware Al Quaeda were the ones who perpetrated 9/11, NOT IRAQ. There were no Al Quaeda present in Iraq because Saddam would not allow it. Of course now that Saddam is gone the place is full of them.

Using your reasoning we should have invaded France. They don't have oil but I hear they have some pretty good wine.

[jcfrommike33]

To LTMousseman: even ignoring poor spelling, you don't make a lot of sense. "Anti-war fascist" borders on the oxymoronic. while I don't hate Bush, I think he's an abominable leader and genuinely stupid. UNLIKE ME, has never risked his life for this GREAT country. I spent a year in a line company in Vietnam. My MOS was 0311 (infantry to non-Marines). I have a purple heart and currently receive modest disability as a result of service to my country. I hope that satisfies you. Permit me to suggest that YOU may be the one who doesn't know what he is talking about. Bush wanted to invade Iraq long before 9-11. He cooked the intelligence and spun it his way. No one in the military could stand Rumsfeld's arrogance and incompetence. Colin Powell, was against going into Iraq for several reasons, not the least of which was Bush's plan clearly violated the Powell doctrine (have wide support before going in and have a plan to get out). No one who masterminded this fiasco and who was so hot to risk other people's lives in Iraq has any combat experience at all. Cheney pulled off 7 deferments to stay out of Nam. They are "chicken hawks." If Bush is so gung ho on Americans serving their country, why didn't he do it? Why didn't his daughters put on the uniform of our nation and serve in Iraq? I guess they were too busy getting drunk with fake id's. But don't take my word for it. Read what the Commandant of the Marine Corps said about Bush's brilliant exit strategy.
Semper Fi.

[grazinggoat]

Why would there be any AfterSaddam Plan as so sillily called. The initial intentions of the Occupation of Iraq is to settle there. Israelis with the help of our men and women of the army, want to recuperate that land between the two rivers of Iraq called Mesopotomia. They are succeding and they are building the biggest ambassy (not to name it the Colonization Center) in the World. Bigger than in Russia, China, or India the three most populous country in the world.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319798/ or
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-04-19-us-embassy_x.htm

Or as says this Quote:
'Washington is sending a clear message to Iraqis: "We're here to stay." '
you can read it here

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/08/25/1156012740594.html

Any doubt left? This is a new dicovery by our Christopher Colombus (G.Walking-LiarBush), in order to establish McDonald's and the BurgerKing in the Old land of Ur and Babylon

[rathergate]

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

[rathergate]

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

[lkrs42]

To: steanlep55....who in their right mind came up with the idea that Sadam was planning on flying chemical weapons across the Atlantic on some drones he didn't have? The idea about WMD's was that he would sell them to those that wanted to attack us.

And to jcfrommike33: while I appreciate your service (I too am a Marine), to say Bush cooked the intel is simply an old arguement. If that's the case, then Clinton, Russia, Britain and France, all cooked the intel because they all said the same thing. It just so happens that we were the only ones to do anything about it...false intel or not. Now that we were the ones who got caught chasing after bad intel, no one wants to support us, (including Clinton, Britain, Russia and France.) That's the price you pay for being the only country who stands up for what is right.

[hughrhodes-2009]

The General's questions and lack of answers to them is the fundemental reason we have gotten to this point.

In any military operation the first and most important thing that must be done once an objective is taken is to provide security at the objective. This is something taught to all officers and non-commissioned officers in all branches of the military.

The idea that General Hagee could not receive the answer to a fundamental operational question should have raised red flags everywhere.

Furthermore, allowing an armed milita under Sadr to form, grow and operate almost freely was obviously NOT a decision made by our military commanders on the ground. If it was, they should be relieved. My guess is that decision is being made in Washington.

We continue to make fundamental mistakes in Iraq that are costing our troops and many innocent Iraqis who want a shot at freedom their lives.

Having spent countless weeks studying the mistakes made in Vietnam as a Cadet at West Point I can only scratch my head in disbelief as the same mistakes are made again. Our troops deserve better.

[pakaal]

Sad to say but this story is old news! Even before the 2003 invasion, Rumsfeld was quoted by another general, Mark Scheid, as saying "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a post-war plan. And in fact Rumsfeld did replace Gen. Eric Shinseki, after he told Congress that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to secure post-war Iraq.

I can't figure out which best describes Rumsfeld's lack of planning for a post-Saddam Iraq, gross incompetence or foolish overoptimism. One way or another he screwed our military, but good.

[hughrhodes-2009]

In regards to Chemical weapons: Sure he had them.

Yes, he used them against the Iranians during their war and against the Kurds who sided with the Iranians.

If our country were under attack at our borders and we were starting to lose ground, would we use chemical weapons to try and stop the advance? The answer to that question is I sure hope so.

There is no evidence Saddam used them as offensive weapons. No evidence he sold or gave them to anyone.

The desire to remove Saddam from power is nothing ground breaking but if you are actually going to commit troops to such an expedition the Iranians and Syrians were much more involved in international terrorism than Saddam every was.

Saddam was a bad guy. There are far worse.

[steanlep55]

to ikrs42: the question isn't who in their right mind would come up with the idea, it should be who would believe it. True, selling wmds and their components was a feature in selling the invasion to the American public, when the drone story was initially reported, the fact that it didn't have the range to fly across the globe to attack the USA was lost on a good portion of the public. Soon after the drone story appeared, it was debunked by USAF. There were far too many reasons,(wmd's, tyrannical leadership, freedom for the citizens) and contradictions in the months preceeding the invasion for it to have been bought lock stock and barrel by a vulnerable public which had recently been victims of an attack by a foe determined enough to attack us inspite of certain death because they oppose our foreign policy and want us out of their lands.
Having said that, as a former career Marine, I wish you and the other Marines posting a belated Happy 231st. The hot buttered rum was consumed with reckless abandon, but it was a Friday night. Semper Fi.

[pakaal]

"There is no evidence Saddam used them as offensive weapons."

You mention just two sentences up that he did use them against the Kurds. To the tune of 180,000 dead in one 'campaign'. 15,000 civilians were killed in Halabja in one day by mustard gas and nerve agents. He's definitely a monster.

[kwch]

ikrs,
I don't care what who said, most were after they had been fed GW's lies. Other countries did not all believe like you say and we KNEW claims such as the radioactive material from Africa was bogus. Bush lied to the American people, pure and simple.

Yeah Saddam was a bad guy but I don't think I saw any of your quotes say we should go invade without thinking of the consequences.

Anyone who at this point thinks Bush did the right thing by invading Iraq is an imbecile and I don't care if you served 50 years in the service.

[rjlukac]

The General did what he was suppose to do, that is, accomplish the goals set by the policy makers above him in the change of command. By policy makers, I am talking about Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfield. I believe the policy makers did not clearly think seriously about what was going to happen in Iraq once the country was taken control of.
Personally I believe declaring a war on terror was a mistake, it is too broad (kind of like the Reagans declaring a war on drugs).
I believe that the only way to control or manage the Iraq people is going to be to divide it into three diffent countries, much like Yugoslavia was divided after Tito's death.

Now if the U.S. wants one person or entity to control the country, I believe you are that person is going to have to possess the traits of a strong and iron handed leader, much like Sadam, Tito, Stalin, Mao, etc,.
However, I think our immediate concern is to find a solution that will mitigate our loses, and not destroy the country, for example, like Cambodia was after we pulled our support.

rjlukac

[rathergate]

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

[freeses6]

I have been throughout Iraq and agree that post war planning was amiss. Also, any failures in Iraq have come by way of political correctness and pacifying the left in our country. No they are the ones who imply they have the answers by redeployment etc...Arab people know only one thing about war. Win or loose at all cost. We have failed because the White House succumbed to the left by appeasing them in a compassionate war ideology. Americans win by having the enemy die for their country e.g. General Patton. I like millions of others voted for our president and he has weakened his resolve by not fighting this war to win. We have left our boys to walk the streets in Baghdad, instead of a full brazen declaration that we are coming to kill all enemies and will give sanctuary before hand to those who lay down their arms and surrender. There is no other answer for complete subjugation of our enemies then that. And, they will not respect any other outcome period.

[freeses6]

I have been throughout Iraq and agree that post war planning was amiss. Also, any failures in Iraq have come by way of political correctness and pacifying the left in our country. No they are the ones who imply they have the answers by redeployment etc...Arab people know only one thing about war. Win or loose at all cost. We have failed because the White House succumbed to the left by appeasing them in a compassionate war ideology. Americans win by having the enemy die for their country e.g. General Patton. I like millions of others voted for our president and he has weakened his resolve by not fighting this war to win. We have left our boys to walk the streets in Baghdad, instead of a full brazen declaration that we are coming to kill all enemies and will give sanctuary before hand to those who lay down their arms and surrender. There is no other answer for complete subjugation of our enemies then that. And, they will not respect any other outcome period.

[freeses6]

I have been throughout Iraq and agree that post war planning was amiss. Also, any failures in Iraq have come by way of political correctness and pacifying the left in our country. No they are the ones who imply they have the answers by redeployment etc...Arab people know only one thing about war. Win or loose at all cost. We have failed because the White House succumbed to the left by appeasing them in a compassionate war ideology. Americans win by having the enemy die for their country e.g. General Patton. I like millions of others voted for our president and he has weakened his resolve by not fighting this war to win. We have left our boys to walk the streets in Baghdad, instead of a full brazen declaration that we are coming to kill all enemies and will give sanctuary before hand to those who lay down their arms and surrender. There is no other answer for complete subjugation of our enemies then that. And, they will not respect any other outcome period.

[kwch]

Fine Rathergate but I don't see them saying drop 150000 troops in there without thinking of the consequences.

Is what you are saying that invading Iraq was a good idea? If so, it is obvious that debating this issue with you is a waste of time.

[microgadus]

so many of these comments seem to dwell on wmds. I think we forget that the joint resolution signed by congress gave the president the authorization to use force to ENFORCE ALL of the UNSC resolutions. Second-- The Pentagon defines as WMDs things like missiles, etc that can deliver large warheads; they and the rocket engines for them were proscribed by the UN--and they were found. the 400+ mustard gas shells were part of a 500 weapons stock that WERE, in fact, PART of the stockpiles they were supposed to destroy after 1992. Just for the pure intellectual exercise, if 1 gram of botulinum toxin, weaponized, COULD possibly kill around 40,000 people in a metropolitan area, what copnstitutes a "stockpile" of botulinum (for perspective, we i take 1 gram fish oil capsule--which i could easily hide forever in my office!!).

As for post war plans, there is a nov 05 pdf DEATAILING just such a plan--which is an update of the 2003 plan (these plan may, of course not be the best--but there was/is a plan). for perspective, the "plan" to rebuild europe after WW2 went ino effect in 1947 (Marshall plan)--yet VE day was in may 45.

[kwch]

ok freses, and where do you house those who lay down their arms? Because as soon as you let them go they just pick em up again.

[Syndicate]

Imagine if we hadn't invaded Iraq. What would the course of history look like? I would assume Qusai would have succeeded Saddam if Uday didn't kill him first. Let%u2019s say Uday came to power. What would he do? I don't think he would play nice with anyone. Since he is known to have thrown a woman of a twenty story balcony on her wedding night after raping her I will assume that he would have continued his murderous ways. Since these kind of people are never content with what they have I would assume he would be continuously looking for better weapons systems and the like. I am sure given a chance he would invade one of his neighbors. I am also sure if such a move were timed to a major American presidential scandal such a move would be most fruitful. Perhaps Iraq was a great Idea but such is life with such decisions you never find out what would have happened. I know for a fact the world is always better off when freedom spreads a little further.

[hd0012]

Any wagers Gen. Michael Hagee is a democrat!

[august860]

Did you people even read the article or could you not wait to bash the left or right ad nauseaum? The Commandant's message is that the re was NO PLAN FOR PHASE IV? No where in that article did I see him criticize the decision to invade or anything else. What he stated is the obvious. There is no plan for occupation. And to Fresses6, it was Bush who declared that we would be hailed as liberators and we must win the hearts and minds in Iraq. Im no fan of the left but give up your "the left is to blame" rhetoric. I bet you blame everything negative that happens to you on this mystical "left-wing" conspiracy.

[hd0012]

The drive by media sure doesn't hesitate to point out anything that is a bad reflection on Bush!

When was the LAST time the drive by media said anything good about IRAQ. Or for that matter, anything good about the USA!