Today the BBC online have an excellent article on Iraq in 2004, the coming elections, and what may come in the next year, which has without a doubt been a disaster for everyone except the insurgents. I urge you to read it, but can't resist quoting some of the soundbites.
Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the former British representative to the Coalition Authority felt that:
the Iraqis would have had the patience to wait for the new political structures to work if they had seen improvements in their daily lives.
"We are leaving political structures but Iraqis do not see the improvements that would have brought their support,"
One major improvement would have been stronger Iraqi national security forces, and 2004 was meant to be the year they came into their own.
However, the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington has tracked this issue throughout the year and, in December 2004, its analyst Anthony Cordesman concluded that the result was "to leave many Iraqi forces without anything approaching adequate organisation, training, equipment and facilities."
He said in his report that "for political and other reasons, the [Bush] Administration, the CPA [Coalition Provisional Authority] and US command emphasised quantity over quality to the point where unprepared Iraqis were sent out to die." (Emphasis mine)
The most damning comments are reserved for The Hoover Institute:
"One of the most brilliant invasion successes in modern military history was followed almost immediately by one of the most incompetently planned occupations."
Those are words our grandchildren will read in their history books.
No comments:
Post a Comment