We Did Mean Well

Peter Van Buren's account of the foibles of the Iraq PRTs doesn't tell the whole story.

BY STEPHEN DONNELLY | OCTOBER 5, 2011

I was surprised to see Foreign Policy providing so high a soapbox for Peter Van Buren, a U.S. State Department Foreign Service officer who, by his own admission, "meant well" during his brief and unproductive jaunt as a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) leader in Iraq in 2009, but, according to him, caused more damage there than most any other individual I have ever heard of or witnessed.

Related

How the State Department Came After Me...
For telling the truth about what I saw in Iraq

Two articles and a blog spotlight in just a few days!

Obviously, Van Buren never got the drift of PRTs, a decisive and controversial 2007 effort by the State Department's Office of Provincial Affairs' director, Henry Clarke, to break through the failed bureaucracy of top-down U.S. colonial administration programs by forcing decision-making out to committed civilian reconstruction staff on the ground. Clarke always knew that the Achilles' heel of PRTs was poor assignments of unqualified individuals and that the only defense against the Peter Van Burens was to have many PRTs so that the failures did not pull down the whole mission.

The real Iraq PRT story is not pretty, is fraught with bureaucratic snafus, and involved much waste, fraud, abuse, and war wreckage. The best laid plans of mice and men seldom survive a powerful IED, regardless of bravery or the best of intentions! But it is not the story that Van Buren tells, which inaccurately paints a very bad light on the entire Foreign Service, with which he seems very dissatisfied.

The military, as Clarke often explained, had a "do it now" attitude that compelled each new brigade to launch one "quick hit" program after another to have Iraqis pick up the trash. The PRTs had to break that mold by focusing on the real problem: The Iraqis had no system, post-2003, to pick up their own trash. PRTs had to work across the rotational boundary with Iraqi counterparties, down to the local and provincial levels, to create permanent solutions for Iraqis' technical, resource, and administrative problems, or we would be locked in Iraq forever. The real conflict was the damaging one between U.S. bureaucracy (the embassy and agencies) and the field, where localized Iraqi solutions had to be found and nourished.

Clarke's effort echoed the philosophy of former Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) colleague Ronald Neumann, who later served as U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, that endless weekly metrics reporting -- the underpinning of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's managerial philosophy -- always showed the same problems and never solved anything, and that absent a new approach, the only way to improve the metrics was to manipulate them or fudge the reports.

Of course, none of that was PC for Rumsfeld, who, according to Pentagon documents released after a Freedom of Information Act request from the New York Times, opined:

The guy who replaced him is just terrible Neuman [sic]. I mean he's a career foreign service officer. He ought to be running a museum somewhere. That's also off the record. No, he ought to be assistant to the guy.... I wouldn't hire the guy to push a wheelbarrow.

U.S Army via Flickr

 

Stephen Donnelly, an AICP-certified planning consultant in Crofton, Maryland, served as senior urban-planning advisor in Iraq for the U.S. State Department from 2007 to 2009.

MALICEIT

1:38 AM ET

October 6, 2011

tl dr.

tl dr.

 

NICOLAS19

2:35 AM ET

October 6, 2011

quite a long white-washing there

Please, spare us the usual brain-dead reasoning. "Oh we mean well, we are all for the good, Iraq would be if perfect condition if not for XYZ"

You got in there, destroyed the regime. You are responsible for providing a better alternative. Nobody cares why you can't do it. If you are a failure, you have to stop doing it.

It is like a policeman saying "I can't keep order because of the crime". Who cares that he means well, he is inadequate.

Best get out of Iraq immediately. Apparently they are much better at managing their own state of affairs than you do.

 

TARQUINIS

9:54 AM ET

October 6, 2011

Rehash Justifications:

The bottom line is that we shattered Iraq for no good reason and many false ones. WMD? Opps, we were wrong but meant well?

Hans Blix was up and down Iraq for a decade and found nothing. Because there was nothing. We knew it.

Saddam a threat? Not really. In fact, not at all. His army was smashed, and there were no flight zones over two-thirds of the country. The biggest problem for Saddam was al-Qaeda. He was ruthless on them. We knew that too.

Chewing over the blame for the post war period is merely a CYA exercise. I could not read more than a few paragraphs. Now the majority Shiia are fully in control (politically at least) and will inevitably ally financially and practically with Shiia Iran.

Afghanistan is worse. Like, we are going to succeed in domination of land locked central Asia!

 

GOLDHOARDER

10:58 AM ET

October 6, 2011

Success!

Oh God... you should have kept reading. Get a load of this one.

"PRTs aside, Embassy Baghdad, given the U.S. role in Iraq, was a huge endeavor with many Foreign Service officers in Baghdad doing their actual professional tasks -- analysis, administration, reporting, diplomacy."

Our great success story! Mordor in Baghdad!

 

SAINTIGEL

3:36 PM ET

October 6, 2011

Two sides

Mr Donnelly,
I'm sorry your article hasn't generated any intelligent discussion. I appreciate hearing differing points of view on a situation. I know it's all the rage to criticize the US over it's role in Iraq and the resulting mess so it's sometimes hard to admit that real people actually did risk their lives in an attempt to make things better for the Iraqi people. Van Buren made his point about how some things didn't work and why, and you made your point on why some things did work and why. I personally was encouraged by your report to see how real accomplishments could be made. I can't say I have the experience under my belt to just volunteer and do likewise there, but in time I may (probably another time, another place) and I hope to perform likewise. Thanks.

 

STEVE358

12:43 PM ET

October 7, 2011

Post Script

Peter van Buren and his Wemeantwell.com website just removed a series of defamatory comments about me with an email from him advising me to "Chill out" Buddy.

Code for: "Wink.Wink. I am just trying to hype my book."

Beyond that, a local Iraqi GIS poster to his site wrote in to say that the agencies I identified had nothing to do with GIS in Iraq. The real "Lions of Iraq GIS' were Mr. Duane, Mr. Moko and Mr. Sam.

Note that each was an employee of RTI, a prime "contractor" of USAID, who ran the very effective GIS local-implementation program (LPG I, II and III) which Peter's poster experienced through site visits in 2008 by those very "lions" he named (who much appreciated his comments when I passed them on).

When not on site, they were back in Baghdad with the very large combined military/civilian/US/Iraqi team making it happen. They truly were "lions" of getting GIS out to the provinces in 2008.

Wait a minute: Effective "contractors" as "lions" of civilian reconstruction doing marvelous work in Iraq?

Doesn't that run directly contrary to Peter Van Buren's supposed thesis of "We Meant Well"?

(Wink. Wink. Just hypin' his book, buddy!)

Maybe he will send some of his profits to the many civilian "contractors" killed in Iraq---see Tom Rick's prior coverage on Foreign Policy?
(Wink, Wink. Buddy)

 

44FX290

2:49 PM ET

October 8, 2011

not so damning of van buren really

Combining van Buren's and Donnelly's equally self serving accounts I can only conclude that some people involved in reconstruction were: 1) boobs, 2) professionals or 3) professional boobs. I guess it's up to the reader to decide into which category van Buren or Donnelly fit.