State Department experts warned CENTCOM before Iraq war about lack of plans

[Baculus]

State Department experts warned CENTCOM before Iraq war about lack of plans for post-war Iraq security

http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB163/index.htm

Planning for post-Saddam regime change began as early as October 2001

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 163

Posted - August 17, 2005

For more information: Malcolm Byrne - 202/994-7000

Washington, D.C., August 17, 2005: Newly declassified State Department documents show that government experts warned the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in early 2003 about "serious planning gaps for post-conflict public security and humanitarian assistance," well before Operation Iraqi Freedom began.

In a February 7, 2003, memo, memo to Under Secretary of State Paula Dobriansky, three senior Department officials noted CENTCOM's "focus on its primary military objectives and its reluctance to take on 'policing' roles," but warned that "a failure to address short-term public security and humanitarian assistance concerns could result in serious human rights abuses which would undermine an otherwise successful military campaign, and our reputation internationally." The memo adds "We have raised these issues with top CENTCOM officials."

By contrast, a December 2003 report to Congress, also released by the State Department, offers a relatively rosy picture of the security situation, saying U.S. forces are "increasingly successful in preventing planned hostile attacks; and in capturing former regime loyalists, would-be terrorists and planners; and seizing weapons caches." The document acknowledges that "Challenges remain."

Since then, 1,393 U.S. military fatalities have been recorded in Iraq, including two on the day the report went to Congress.

The new documents, released this month to the National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act, also provide more evidence on when the Bush administration began planning for regime change in Iraq -- as early as October 2001.

The declassified records relate mainly to the so-called "Future of Iraq Project," an effort, initially run by the State Department then by the Pentagon, to plan for the transition to a new regime after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. They provide detail on each of the working groups and give the starting date for planning as October 2001.

Entire sections of a PowerPoint Presentation the State Department prepared on November 1, 2002 -- including those covering "What We Have Learned So Far" and "Implications for the Real Future of Iraq" -- have been censored as still-classified information.

Documents

Note: The following documents are in PDF format.

You will need to download and install the free Adobe Acrobat Reader to view.

Document 1: State Department cable, Future of Iraq Expert Working Groups, July 8, 2002

State Department officials held planning meetings with "free Iraqis"-described as "Iraqis who live outside Iraq or in northern Iraq"-as early as April 2002, according to this document. Directed to embassy posts in several allied countries, the State Department cable announces the establishment of 15 "Future of Iraq Project" working groups to prepare for the transition to a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, adding that priority subjects had been identified at a "planning meeting with Iraqis on April 9-10."

Document 2: State Department briefing, Future of Iraq Project, November 1, 2002

State Department planning for the transition in Iraq began in October 2001, according to a "Project History" included in this set of briefing slides (p. 6).

Document 3 : State Department Information Memorandum for Paula J. Dobriansky, Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs, Iraq Contingency Planning, February 7, 2003

One month before the beginning of U.S. military operations in Iraq, three State Department bureau chiefs warn of "serious planning gaps for post-conflict public security and humanitarian assistance" in a memorandum prepared for Under Secretary of State Paula Dobriansky (Democracy and Global Affairs). Recognizing that the military is reluctant "to take on 'policing' roles," the bureau heads predict that "a failure to address short-term public security and humanitarian assistance concerns could result in serious human rights abuses which would undermine an otherwise successful military campaign, and our reputation internationally."

Document 4: State Department Action Memorandum for Secretary of State Colin Powell, Response to Secretary Rumsfeld, April 10, 2003

William Burns, the head of the State Department's Near Eastern Affairs bureau, recommends that Secretary Powell approve a (still classified) response to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's "suggested messages and demarches to capitals related to Iraq." Burns notes that, "These are all actions that we already have taken or have planned." Powell's approval (stamped "CLP") is indicated in this copy of the memo.

Document 5: State Department, Report to Congress Submitted consistent with PL 107-243: "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002", December 15, 2003

Nine months into the war, this State Department report to Congress says that U.S.-led military forces "continue to make progress in stabilizing Iraq's overall security situation" and have been "increasingly successful in preventing planned hostile attacks; and in capturing former regime loyalists, would-be terrorists and planners; and seizing weapons caches." Recent attacks against coalition forces "have been more sophisticated," however, "indicating that hostile foreign infiltrators are cooperating with former regime loyalists." Curiously, the report finds that successful insurgent attacks "reveal more information about planners, methods and planning sites of hostile elements, thus assisting in the prevention of attacks." On the day this report was submitted to Congress, two American soldiers died in Iraq, and an additional 1,391 have died since.

[Baculus]

Note: I included a link with the article in my edit.

[chomerics]

Is anyone suprised? Hell, I made a bet in Nov. 01' with a person that Iraq was next. Many people on the inside did, they just like their job too much to speak out.

[Larry]

This report contradicts information I've already heard.

I'd heard they were planning on invading Iraq long before Nov 01.

[airborneskins]

Blah Blah Blah.. Who cares.. Everyone knew that when President Bush was sworn in to office (wearing cowboy boots) that we would be going into Iraq eventually. The only thing that really matters now is how we are going to finish the job that we started.

[Ignatius J.]

everyone knew there wasn't going to be enough planning. I don't think anyone thought that they knew how this was going to shake out.

[Cskin]

Maybe the plan was for the Iraqi people, freed from the ruthless oppression of Sadamm Hussein, would take hold of their new nation and work together to offer security and humanitarian aid to others. Of course, that's what we'd all like to see... sometime.... this decade. :paranoid:

[Larry]

Originally posted by airborneskins

Blah Blah Blah.. Who cares.. Everyone knew that when President Bush was sworn in to office (wearing cowboy boots) that we would be going into Iraq eventually. The only thing that really matters now is how we are going to finish the job that we started.

And you're saying, then, that "Everyone knew" that Bush was successfully concealing his hidden agenda from the voters?

And that he's still denying that that was his plan, because . . .

And I guess you're also saying, that back when Bush was doing his Bush's War Publicity Tour, and I was saying that I suspected what was going on was that Bush (like many other people, and not necessarily for evil reasons) was simply declaring that in his opinion, the correct response to 9/11 was to do exactly the same thing that he wanted to do, before 9/11; then you were one of the people agreeing with me, since you, too, knew that Bush had entered office with this agenda. (Rather than you, say, being one of the people who wanted me jailed for treason for daring to suggest such a thing.)

-----

(And I'll also point out: Right now, it's looking like we're not going to "finish" the job, either, unless you want to count re-defining victory, because it's looking like given a choice between re-defining victory or losing some seats in Congress, the GOP is going to chose . . . )

[Baculus]

This report contradicts information I've already heard.

I'd heard they were planning on invading Iraq long before Nov 01.

Keep in mind, these are only documents that have been released. They do not tell the entire story, by any means, and aren't an end to the whole saga, and the details are stil being put together.

Blah Blah Blah.. Who cares.. Everyone knew that when President Bush was sworn in to office (wearing cowboy boots) that we would be going into Iraq eventually. The only thing that really matters now is how we are going to finish the job that we started.

Are you sure, Airborne? Are you telling me that the voters that cast their ballot in 2000 for Bush knew we were going to invade Iraq? What about Bush's assertion for humilty when it came to foreign policy, or that we do not need to engage in nation-building exercises? If we knew then we were going to war, that is premeditated war with false reasons being given to the American public. It merely goes along with many folks have been saying.

This is the logical fallacy that I keep hearing: 1) This is old news and everyone already knows this, and 2) This isn't true, and it is merely part of some "Left-wing" conspiracy to descredit the administration. So it's old news that everyone knew, but it really didn't happen. Ok, that makes complete sense.

[Larry]

Originally posted by Baculus

This is the logical fallacy that I keep hearing: 1) This is old news and everyone already knows this, and 2) This isn't true, and it is merely part of some "Left-wing" conspiracy to descredit the administration. So it's old news that everyone knew, but it really didn't happen. Ok, that makes complete sense.

Oh, c'mon, that can't be the only falicy you see comming from "the Right".

I caught several parts of Rush today, and as far as I could tell, his #1 story was another revelation from Able Danger that proves that Clinton knew 9/11 was going to happen, but he prevented anybody from doing anything about it because he had this rule.

Somehow I'm willing to be that he never mentioned that Bush had the same intel, for longer than Clinton did, and Bush also didn't prevent it, and Bush didn't change the rule.

Aparantly, the right-wing position is that Clinton knew, but Bush didn't.

[twa]

I do not see the suprise in invading Iraq,it was simply a matter of timing and support.

Maybe I have a different outlook than some here,but it was rather obvious(at least to me) that it was next to inevitable unless Sadam was overthrown.

State Dept warnings on lack of plans:laugh:

[NoCalMike]

Originally posted by Larry

(And I'll also point out: Right now, it's looking like we're not going to "finish" the job, either, unless you want to count re-defining victory, because it's looking like given a choice between re-defining victory or losing some seats in Congress, the GOP is going to chose . . . )

No Kidding, not only does the reason we went to war change daily, but now "Victory" has a new meaning every day as well.

[Larry]

Originally posted by twa

State Dept warnings on lack of plans:laugh:

Yeah, I also got a chuckle about the shocking news that State and the military had different opinions on a subject.

Or the shocking news that the military didn't pay much attention to State's opinions of their war plans.

(Although, I would have thought that having State's opinion delivered by Colin Powell might have earned it some credibility.)

[airborneskins]

Originally posted by Baculus

Are you sure, Airborne? Are you telling me that the voters that cast their ballot in 2000 for Bush knew we were going to invade Iraq? What about Bush's assertion for humilty when it came to foreign policy, or that we do not need to engage in nation-building exercises? If we knew then we were going to war, that is premeditated war with false reasons being given to the American public. It merely goes along with many folks have been saying.

Ok all I was saying was that when Bush was elected, (atleast in the military) we all knew that it was only a matter of time before we went to Iraq. Hell it was a long running joke in my unit for some time. Then, Boom Afghanistan. As soon as we got back from Afghan, we were headed right back over to Iraq. Maybe it was only my unit that had this thinking, but somehow I seriously doubt it.

Don't get me wrong, I am behind this war 100%. Having been there twice and seen the improvements that we have made, I stand firmly behind President Bush and his decisions.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by airborneskins

Ok all I was saying was that when Bush was elected, (atleast in the military) we all knew that it was only a matter of time before we went to Iraq. Hell it was a long running joke in my unit for some time. Then, Boom Afghanistan. As soon as we got back from Afghan, we were headed right back over to Iraq. Maybe it was only my unit that had this thinking, but somehow I seriously doubt it.

Don't get me wrong, I am behind this war 100%. Having been there twice and seen the improvements that we have made, I stand firmly behind President Bush and his decisions.

And yet you were against Kosovo??? Sooo, it's O.K. for a REPUBLICAN president to invade a country, which is stable, not a threat to our security, and under scrutinizing watch by the US and the UN. . . . BUT. . . It's NOT O.K. for a democrat president to use forces to stop genocide, mass murder and ethnic clensing because he is a democrat.

Way to stand behind your ideology instead of your country