McClatchy reports (as does this newspaper) that ‘[t]he war in Iraq has become “a major debacle” and the outcome “is in doubt” despite improvements in security from the buildup in U.S. forces, according to a highly critical study published Thursday by the Pentagon’s premier military educational institute.’ Balloon Juice, Daily Kos, and sites like it, all weigh in, claiming that they were right about Iraq, that all is lost, and so on. The only problem? They’re full of [...].

You see, Small Wars Journal was smart enough to ask the author of the report about it. His answer:

The Miami Herald story (“Pentagon Study: War is a ‘Debacle’ “) distorts the nature of and intent of my personal research project. It was not an NDU study, nor was it a Pentagon study. Indeed, the implication of the Herald story was that this study was mostly about current events. Such is not the case. It was mainly about the period 2002-04. The story also hypes a number of paragraphs, many of which are quoted out of context. The study does not “lay much of the blame” on Secretary Rumsfeld for problems in the conduct of the war, nor does it say that he “bypassed the Joint Chiefs of Staff.” It does not single out “Condoleeza Rice and Stephen Hadley” for criticism.

Here is a fair summary of my personal research, which formally is NDU INSS Occasional Paper 5, “Choosing War: The Decision to Invade Iraq and Its Aftermath.”

This study examines how the United States chose to go to war in Iraq, how its decision-making process functioned, and what can be done to improve that process. The central finding of this study is that U.S. efforts in Iraq were hobbled by a set of faulty assumptions, a flawed planning effort, and a continuing inability to create security conditions in Iraq that could have fostered meaningful advances in stabilization, reconstruction, and governance. With the best of intentions, the United States toppled a vile, dangerous regime but has been unable to replace it with a stable entity. Even allowing for progress under the Surge, the study insists that mistakes in the Iraq operation cry out in the mid- to long-term for improvements in the U.S. decision-making and policy execution systems.

The study recommends the development of a national planning charter, improving the qualifications of national security planners, streamlining policy execution in the field, improving military education, strengthening the Department of State and USAID, and reviewing the tangled legal authorities for complex contingencies. The study ends with a plea to improve alliance relations and to exercise caution in deciding to go to war.

Intellectually dishonest ‘bloggers’. All of them.

Via Spencer Ackerman.

UPDATE: John Cole complains in the comment section that I don’t treat him fairly. I simply advise you to read his post.

Excerpts (so you can conclude whether or not I was honest about it or not):

A harsh assessment from the National Defense University…

In all seriousness, I know what the response will be, and it will probably come from the Weekly Standard or another arm of the neo-con wing of the GOP- this is all pushback from the bloated fiefdoms within the Pentagon who wish to discredit Rumsfeld’s leaner military approach. Or something like that. And, in fairness, there is some element of that in the report (PDF). That doesn’t take away from the overall assessment, though, and that is that Iraq is and will most likely remain a disaster (pay special attention to the Errors in decisionmaking and execution starting on page 16)…

*** UPDATE***

Joe Collins says the report is being mis-characterized. Again, I suggest you read it for yourself (.pdf), as it is not very long.

In other words: he doesn’t admit it’s being mis-characterized, he simply mentions that Collins says it is. This while it’s bloody obvious that it’s dishonest to pretend that it’s a NDU report. So, John still pretends that it’s something it’s not.

O, and he also forgets to point out, again, that the author of the report was talking about 2002-2004, not 2007, let alone 2008.