Censoring A Plan For Failure

We expect our Army to be successful, no matter what they are doing or where they are. But, the army has been mired down by politics for decades, and that is never more evident than when they bury a study that faults their planning for post-war Iraq.

 The Army is accustomed to protecting classified information. But when it comes to the planning for the Iraq war, even an unclassified assessment can acquire the status of a state secret.

That is what happened to a detailed study of the planning for postwar Iraq prepared for the Army by the RAND Corporation, a federally financed center that conducts research for the military.

After 18 months of research, RAND submitted a report in the summer of 2005 called “Rebuilding Iraq.” RAND researchers provided an unclassified version of the report along with a secret one, hoping that its publication would contribute to the public debate on how to prepare for future conflicts.

But the study’s wide-ranging critique of the White House, the Defense Department and other government agencies was a concern for Army generals, and the Army has sought to keep the report under lock and key.

A review of the lengthy report — a draft of which was obtained by The New York Times — shows that it identified problems with nearly every organization that had a role in planning the war. That assessment parallels the verdicts of numerous former officials and independent analysts.

The report does not leave anyone out, it appears, from Bush not doing his job to Tommy Franks having a “fundamental misunderstanding” in securing post-war Iraq.

But, the point is not that the report came down hard on every one from Bush to the generals in the field. The point is it has been censored — meaning it has not been published. And because it is not published, the Army feels they don’t have to speak about it.

The report on rebuilding Iraq was part of a seven-volume series by RAND on the lessons learned from the war. Asked why the report has not been published, Timothy Muchmore, a civilian Army official, said it had ventured too far from issues that directly involve the Army.

“After carefully reviewing the findings and recommendations of the thorough RAND assessment, the Army determined that the analysts had in some cases taken a broader perspective on the early planning and operational phases of Operation Iraqi Freedom than desired or chartered by the Army,” Mr. Muchmore said in a statement. “Some of the RAND findings and recommendations were determined to be outside the purview of the Army and therefore of limited value in informing Army policies, programs and priorities.”

Warren Robak, a RAND spokesman, declined to talk about the contents of the study but said the organization favored publication as a matter of general policy.

“RAND always endeavors to publish as much of our research as possible, in either unclassified form or in classified form for those with the proper security clearances,” Mr. Robak said in a statement. “The multivolume series on lessons learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom is no exception. We also, however, have a longstanding practice of not discussing work that has not yet been published.”

As long as it stays unpublished, it won’t be discussed, even though, as tristero points out, we all paid for this study.

So, why shouldn’t this report stay unpublished? Perhaps because, as Bush on down to the generals, have said over and over, war is different, we have an “unseen” enemy, they need to learn from the mistakes that went past specific army exercises and dealt directly with the Iraqi people, contrary to what army officials are saying:

“The RAND study simply did not deliver a product that could have assisted the Army in paving a clear way ahead; it lacked the perspective needed for future planning by the U.S. Army,” he said.

I submit, that the RAND study was not in line with the neo-cons desires to “take over” Iraq and therefore it is of no value to this failed war.