Saturday's WaPo excerpts a
Pentagon report "detailing events in Iraq leading up to the coalition forces' 2003 invasion. The U.S. Joint Forces Command's report was based on captured Iraqi documents and interviews with Iraqi officials." How different was President Bush's decision-making from Saddam Hussein's?
For example:
On the Iraqi army's state of mind while facing invasion:
"Overtasked, poorly equipped, badly supplied, and undermanned, regular army troops had little optimism in facing the threat of combat with the coalition."
Contrast that with our own troops:
On the American army's state of mind while facing occupation:
"Overtasked, poorly armored, badly supplied, and undermanned, National Guard troops had little optimism in facing the threat of civil war with the insurgents."
Hmmm, not so different. How did Bush and Saddam arrive at the same place?
On Saddam Hussein's leadership style:
"A close associate once described Saddam as a deep thinker who would remain awake at night, pondering problems at length before inspiration came in dreams. These dreams became dictates the next morning, and invariably all those around him would praise Saddam's great intuition. Questioning these dictates was only done at great personal risk."
And how does Dear Leader reach his own faith-based decisions?
On George Bush's leadership style:
"A close associate once described Bush as a deep drinker who would remain awake at night, pondering problems at length before inspiration came in dreams. These dreams became dictates the next morning, and invariably all those around him would praise Bush's great intuition. Questioning these dictates was only done at great personal risk."
But at least experienced military officers stood their ground?
On the role of the Iraqi military:
"Iraqi officers rarely expected to give professional advice. Instead, they understood their role was to ensure Saddam's dictates were followed to the letter, often no matter how infeasible or irrelevant to the military problem. . . . Simply put, the Iraqi military's main mission was to ensure the internal security of the Baath dictatorship. Its second was to fight wars."
Well, American soldiers would never do that.
On the role of the U.S. military:
"American officers rarely expected to give professional advice. Instead, they understood their role was to ensure Rumsfeld's dictates were followed to the letter, often no matter how infeasible or irrelevant to the military problem. . . . Simply put, the U.S. military's main mission was to ensure the backdrop for propaganda events of the GOP ideologues. Its second was to fight wars."
How could a leader make such mistakes?
On Hussein's erroneous assumptions about the threat posed by the United States:
"Through the distortions of his ideological perceptions, Saddam simply could not take the Americans seriously. After all, had they not run away from Vietnam after suffering what to him was a 'mere' 58,000 dead? Iraq had suffered 51,000 dead in just one battle on the Fao Peninsula against the Iranians."
Fortunately Bush had a different world view:
On Bush's erroneous assumptions about the threat posed by Iraq:
"Through the distortions of his ideological perceptions, Bush simply could not take the Iraqis seriously. After all, had they not run away from Kuwait after suffering what to him was a 'mere' 4 days? Americans had wasted a decade in just one meaningless country in Southeast Asia against the Vietnamese."
Which leads to the conclusion that President Bush is better than Saddam because... let me get back to you on this one.