Alaa has an explanation for what is going on in Iraq.  In his first installment for "historical purposes" is fascinating, and he attempts to deflect "negative" away from America and the coalition.

"There is little doubt that much of the chaos, pilfering and arson were part of a deliberate plan prepared long before the fall and carried out by special cells of baathists prepared and trained for this kind of action as part of contingency plans for precisely this kind of scenario. This is no secret and actually Saddam himself often talked about it publicly when he was in power, vowing never to surrender Iraq but an empty land devoid of inhabitants. Al-Qaeda types, extremists and suicide volunteers were imported from Arab and non-Arab countries during the weeks and months preceding the battle of Iraqi Freedom, and these were frequently boasted about and shown and on T.V., they were housed in the best hotels (such as the Rashid hotel and the like) and looked after in a way that many of these miserable characters had never seen in their life before. The number of Arab volunteers was said to be about ten thousand just before the onset of military hostilities.

. Saddam realized very clearly what was going to happen and had no illusions about it. You must give him at least credit for that. If you saw him those days in public appearances he seemed to be almost in a trance. For someone like me who had the misfortune to observe this man for many years, it was clear to me personally that he was in a state of total despair and a kind of fatalist acceptance of his fate."

That's all understandable, but in my humble opinion, it does NOT let America's intelligence community off the hook, or the administration either, for that matter!  There should have been ground intelligence that could have made the same observation as Alaa.  Worse than that, it brought this article to mind.  The entire article brings up the uncomfortable line-straddling that made me ask if having father/son presidents is a good/bad idea?  I've come to believe it is a VERY bad idea!  Particularly when a son acceeds to father's wishes to pursue "diplomacy" at all costs.  The weeks...months...that were spent leading up to our invasion of Iraq went to very good purpose, if you're in Saddam Hussein's camp!  It seems to be continuing, to our detriment;

"The United States should engage Iran, Mr. Baker contended, if only to reveal its “rejectionist attitude”; it should try to “flip the Syrians”; and it should begin a renewed quest for peace between Israel and the Palestinians that, he maintained, would help convince Arab moderates that America was not all about invasions and regime change.

Meanwhile, Ms. Rice remained publicly silent, sitting across town in the office that Mr. Baker gave up 14 years ago. She has yet to say anything about the public tutorial being conducted by the man who first knew her when she was a mid-level Soviet expert on the National Security Council. She has not responded to Mr. Baker’s argument, delivered in a tone that drips with isn’t-this-obvious, that America has to be willing to talk to its adversaries (a premise Ms. Rice has questioned if the conditions are not right), or his dismissal of the administration’s early argument that the way to peace in the Middle East was through quick, decisive victory in Baghdad.

Aides to the 52-year-old Ms. Rice say she is acutely aware that there is little percentage in getting into a public argument with Mr. Baker, the 76-year-old architect of the first Bush administration’s Middle East policy. But Thursday, as President Bush gently pushed back against some of Mr. Baker’s recommendations, Ms. Rice’s aides and allies were offering a private defense, saying that she already has a coherent, effective strategy for the region. "

Alaa makes it perfectly clear that all of the diplomatic wrangling, pre-invasion, was not unexpected.  In fact, the amount of time Saddam had to prepare had been predictable from the standpoint that our present President was indeed his father's son, despite his misgivings.  He went back, and back, and back, ad infinitum, to the UNnessecary body of scumbags for "permission", when none was needed.  It gave Saddam ample time to prepare his little surprise.

The exodus of "Bush 41" State Department folks clearly shows, father and son have two different methods to achieve a goal.  It's understandable that the generational difference would have diverse ideas.  The sad part is that father and his regime should have a detrimental effect the way the Iraq Surrender Group's report has had, and the resultant boost it has given to our enemies.  It's more than sad, it is dangerous for our country.