I did find what I was looking for, from an 11 February 2003 US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. Colonel Scott R. Feil (Ret.), Executive Director, Role of American Military Power, warned (emphasis added):
-
The tremendous challenges that would face the United States and its partners in Iraq can be organized into major analytical categories of executing tasks in providing security, economic and social well-being, justice and reconciliation, and governance and participation. While these groupings are useful for analysis, organization, and application of resources, it is imperative that any approach to Iraq in a post conflict situation begins with a presumption that only a comprehensive, holistic plan executed through integrated, yet decentralized actions will be successful. While security is the foundation for post conflict reconstruction efforts, the other three issue areas, or pillars, have direct impact on the long-term internal and external security capabilities and situation of the nation.
In fact, the lack of planning and preparation for such integration and coordination has bedeviled previous efforts in this area. The World Bank estimates that 50% of countries that emerge from a conflict situation are back in a conflict status within five years... The coalition, under American leadership, cannot leave the success of these efforts within that country, with its population, strategic location, and resources to the odds of a coin flip...
The government has attempted to pull together the requisite expertise to define the conditions and requirements for success. This started many months ago, and in several locations. The Naval War College, the National Defense University, the Institute for Defense Analysis, the Joint Staff and Joint Forces Command, and the Army War College are just a few of the many military organizations that have conducted conferences, table top exercises, and simulations to flesh out the plans and requirements... A lot of information has been exchanged and the magnitude of the problem has been well defined.
But the effort to implement procedures and organize resources is still fragmented and there has been more activity than movement. From an American perspective, what is needed is a clear articulation of American goals for Iraq, the delineation of the tasks America expects to accomplish, what America will assist with, and what is expected of coalition and Iraqi partners, and the dedication of resources, i.e., people, equipment and funds, to the effort.... But with respect to post conflict reconstruction,the United States and the international community are still “getting ready to get ready.” The President and the Congress need to establish interagency authority and accountability now, and resources need to be pre-positioned ...
The United States must articulate the balance between American responsibility as outsiders setting parameters and assisting the process and the local ownership of that process. America must not let responsibility for the outcome become an open-ended commitment to establishing a particular brand of representative government in a place where the history, culture, and traditions may not furnish a suitable foundation. Conversely, “local ownership” cannot become a rationale for meager support and abandonment. This balance can only be achieved by working through the difficult planning and coordination efforts and making decisions about the levels and types of support ahead of time...
Post-conflict reconstruction in Iraq can be successful – if success is adequately defined and if resources match intent. But time is short, the planning process has not kept pace with the military and diplomatic timeline, and the agencies who can resolve some of the outstanding issues are running out of time to do so.
The President and the Congress were warned. They failed to listen ... and now, it's four years later and the full mission has clearly not been accomplished. More troops is not the answer. Are we too late? What do you think?