Whose Delusion?

No aspect of the Iraq War is more puzzling than our utter failure to plan for the aftermath. Military experience and military doctrine have long recognized the need, so how the heck did this fall off of Pentagon planners tables? The Daily Press, a local Virgina paper, supplies one giant data point - not exactly a surprise but a confirmation, in an interview with Brigadier General Mark Scheid, a key Iraq war planner. (via Orin Kerr in turn via Kevin Drum.)

"The secretary of defense continued to push on us ... that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay."

Scheid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like occupation.

Even if the troops didn't stay, "at least we have to plan for it," Scheid said.

"I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.

The Daily Press points out that Rumsfeld did fire Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki after he told Congress that the occupation would require "hundreds of thousands" of troops.

This story confirms the account given in Cobra II, the history of the Iraq invasion, and shows once again how consistently Rumsfeld (and Bush) have lied about "giving the commanders on the ground all the soldiers they asked for."

What led Rumsfeld to such folly? Believing the fantasies spun by Chalabi and his Neocon cabal? Arrogance and senility? Or did the direction come from Bush, who often and proudly showed his disdain for "peacekeeping operations?" The last might explain why Bush has not fired Rumsfeld.