{"id":1144,"date":"2005-06-13T09:54:54","date_gmt":"2005-06-13T16:54:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp\/2005\/06\/battle_of_the_prewar_memos\/"},"modified":"2005-06-13T09:54:54","modified_gmt":"2005-06-13T16:54:54","slug":"battle_of_the_prewar_memos","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/2005\/06\/battle_of_the_prewar_memos.html","title":{"rendered":"BATTLE OF THE PREWAR MEMOS"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Another prewar memo, written July 21, 2002, two days before the famous Downing Street memo,<br \/>\nhas come to light. <A class=inline\nhref=\"http:\/\/www.timesonline.co.uk\/article\/0,,2089-1648758,00.html\" target='new\"'><B><FONT\ncolor=#003399>Here it is<\/FONT><\/B><\/A>, as posted by The Sunday Times of London. Now<br \/>\ncompare <A class=inline\nhref=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/wp-dyn\/content\/article\/2005\/06\/11\/AR2005061100723.ht\nml\" target='new\"'><B><FONT color=#003399>Walter Pincus&#8217;s report<\/FONT><\/B><\/A> on it<br \/>\nin Sunday&#8217;s Washington Post with <A class=inline\nhref=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2005\/06\/13\/politics\/13downing.html?pagewanted=all\"\ntarget='new\"'><B><FONT color=#003399>David Sanger&#8217;s <\/FONT><\/B><\/A>in this morning&#8217;s<br \/>\nNew York Times. The difference is night vs. day.<br \/>\n<P><\/P><br \/>\n<P>Pincus begins by saying the memo concluded that &#8220;the US military was not preparing<br \/>\nadequately for what the memo predicted would be a &#8216;protracted and costly&#8217; postwar occupation&#8221;<br \/>\nand follows up by saying that it &#8220;provides new insights into how senior British officials saw a<br \/>\nBush administration decision to go to war as inevitable and realized more clearly than their US<br \/>\ncounterparts the potential for the postinvasion instability that continues to plague Iraq.&#8221; He adds<br \/>\nfurther that the introduction to the 8-page memo says U.S. &#8220;military planning for action against<br \/>\nIraq is proceeding apace&#8221; and emphasizes that &#8220;little thought&#8221; has been given to &#8220;the aftermath<br \/>\nand how to shape it.&#8221;<\/P><br \/>\n<P>Sanger begins by saying the memo &#8220;explicity states the Bush administration had made &#8216;no<br \/>\npolitical decisions&#8217; to invade Iraq, but that American military planning for the possibility was<br \/>\nadvanced.&#8221; He adds further that the memo also said &#8220;American planning in, the eyes of [British<br \/>\nPrime Minister] Blair&#8217;s aides, was &#8216;virtually silent&#8217; on problems of a postwar occupation.&#8221;<\/P><br \/>\n<P>Apart from the general tenor of Sanger&#8217;s article, the prominence he gives to the statement that<br \/>\n&#8220;no political decisions&#8221; were taken creates an odd disconnect. If there were no &#8220;political&#8221;<br \/>\ndecisions by then, how come military decisions had already been made for the invasion? Does<br \/>\nanyone really believe <I>advanced military planning for action<\/I> is not a euphemism for military<br \/>\ndecisions taken on the basis of the administration&#8217;s orders, which were inherently political in this<br \/>\ncase?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Another prewar memo, written July 21, 2002, two days before the famous Downing Street memo, has come to light. Here it is, as posted by The Sunday Times of London. Now compare Walter Pincus&#8217;s report on it in Sunday&#8217;s Washington Post with David Sanger&#8217;s in this morning&#8217;s New York Times. The difference is night vs. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-1144","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-main","7":"entry"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pbvgEs-is","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1144","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1144"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1144\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1144"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1144"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1144"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}