Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
And, again, p. 158, "...the bureaucracy was underequipped and poorly organized for strategically important stability and reconstruction operations."

Why, then, did the administration develop a strategy which placed great stress on stability and reconstruction operations? It's like a basketball player who jumps into the air with the ball, then starts thinking about what he's going to do. Plus, by early 2002 when such capability was needed, the administration had had nearly a year and half to come up with some sort of comprehensive reorganization and legislation package to augment stabilization and reconstruction. But it had not. In fact, it had not done so by March 2003. All this after the orginal strategy assumption--things will kind of take care of themselves--proved wrong.
Steve,

As a moderator,l hopefully speaking for the other mods as well as Bill and Dave, I really hope that you plan to review this book, perhaps on the SWJ Blog or at least on a formal book review thread.

Logical question from above: And why did the DoD place such limits on whom Garner could recruit for reconstruction planning even as they proclaimed that DoD had the lead in such plans?

Tom