The U.S. sucks at postconflict ops, but we’re still the best the world has—sad to say
Tuesday, January 24, 2006 at 6:16PM ARTICLE: “Iraq Rebuilding Badly Hobbled, U.S. Report Finds: Problems From the Start; Understaffing, Infighting and Lack of Expertise Are Cited in Draft,” by James Glanz, New York Times 24 January 2006, p. A1.
ARTICLE: “Fear and Death Ensnare U.N.’s Soldiers in Haiti: Deepening Instability Forces a 4th Delay in National Voting,” by Ginger Thompson, New York Times, 24 January 2006, p. A1.
ARTICLE: “African Union Is Divided by a Sudanese Bid to Lead It: Should a president said to foment war become chairman?” by Marc Lacey, New York Times, 24 January 2006, p. A3.
The draft of the official USG report on Iraq-the-postwar is an exercise in honesty. Understaffed, under-trained, under-resourced, under-prioritized, under-authorized, under-coordinated, and under the gun—as a result.
One observer, Steve Ellis, a VP at Taxpayers for Common Sense, says the spending spree by involved U.S. agencies looked “like a spoils system between various agencies.” That’s what happens when you throw a load of money in front of a bunch of bureaucracies. That’s what happens when you have about two dozen contracting agents working the scene. You want serious spending done seriously? Create a dedicated department.
Ready to give up on this impossible task?
Check out how good the UN’s running the show on its own in Haiti. Check out how the African Union is policing Sudan’s genocide janjaweed.
Still believe an international or regional organization is going to do this work for us?
Reader Comments (1)
Tom,
Congratulations on your conferrals! I'm an infrequent reader; but we are discussing sanctions, aid and reconstruction this week in our IR class at the School of Advanced Military Studies, which is why I write now. I love your comparison of UN efforts reconstruction against US post-war reconstruction in Iraq. I had some other thoughts to add to the discussion. It's been my position since CGSC last year that we have not taken enough time to analyze Vietnam. Now Andrew Krepinevich and Melvin Laird sound off every once in a while, but where are the studies on the postive aspects and comparisons to what we are doing in Iraq. Here is just a few comparisions:
1. Compare the Vietnam government to Iraq today (Autocratic vs. Democratic)
2. Compare the Iraqi Army we are building vs. the one we build in Vietnam. (An Iraqi Army vs. an army in our image)
3. Compare our emphasis, albeit late, on culture compared to Vietnam. (No one burning huts or slaughtering whole villages)
5. Compare our implementation of Stability Operations to Vietnam. (Field Manual in Vietnam was not published till 1973 vs. today doctrine is practiced)
6. Compare our Urban Operations vs. Vietnam (No Hue Cities)
These are just a few comparisons. Now that is not to say there aren't some real screw ups to, but my point is this has all been done with very little reflection on Vietnam. I didn't find alot of people rummaging through the 3d floor of the CAC Library last year, despite the abundance of available primary resource material. We need to get over Vietnam and get used to the corpse, its dead! Someone is going to have to do an unbiased autospy.
Keep up the great work. I've enjoyed your writing. I found your "New Map" framework very useful for my research.
Regards,
Kent Strader
Major, Infantry
Student, AMSP
FA 59 (Strat/Plans & Policy)