http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/08/washington/08recon.html

WASHINGTON, April 7 — As factions in the Bush administration continue their bitter infighting over the reconstruction program in Iraq, the State Department has produced a draft planning document saying that after any future conflicts, the United States should not immediately begin a major rebuilding program.

Instead, it says, the first priorities should be to establish a secure, stable environment and begin political reconciliation. Otherwise, officials said, Washington and any local government that is formed are likely to suffer major political repercussions by making promises that cannot be kept.

In Iraq, "We set it up to fail," said Andrew S. Natsios, who was director of the United States Agency for International Development until January. He and some White House and State Department officials say they argued early on that a large-scale reconstruction program could never succeed in a hostile environment.

"We certainly have not done as much as we originally had hoped for," acknowledged James Jeffrey, who is the State Department's senior coordinator for Iraq. Some senior officials say they fear that the failures of the reconstruction program will pose a serious threat for officials of the new Iraqi government, once it is formed. "They will be vulnerable to complaints and hostility for their inability to provide electricity or clean water," one senior official said.

Carlos Pascual, who until recently headed the Office for Reconstruction and Stabilization at the State Department, which prepared the draft plan, said this problem "was in part self-generated — we came in and said we would restore the country, make it whole."

Under the new plan, the United States would first establish public security and order, and then encourage small-scale economic activity while promoting political reconciliation. "If that is not done, then the society will unravel at some point," Mr. Pascual said.

After that, banks, political parties and other institutions would be established, followed by news media, private aid organizations and civilian advocacy groups. Physical reconstruction would begin "only when it seems to fit into the other priorities," said Mr. Pascual, who is now a vice president of the Brookings Institution. "But the ability to build large-scale infrastructure before you have established order and stability is nil because it will be blown up."

The draft plan reads like a refutation of almost everything the United States has done in Iraq. It also reads like another chapter in the prolonged and bitter debate between the State Department and Pentagon that began during the months before the invasion of Iraq more than three years ago.

The Iraq Working Group at the State Department spent more than a year preparing a detailed study on how to manage the country once Saddam Hussein was driven from power. It anticipated many of the problems that developed, including the widespread violence and looting that American forces faced after the invasion and the badly deteriorated state of the country's electrical and water systems.

But the Pentagon won control of reconstruction, over the objections of the State Department and the Agency for International Development, and Pentagon officials refused to use the study, saying it was too superficial. The Pentagon also blocked the appointment of Tom Warrick, the State Department official in charge of the study, to a position in the military's reconstruction office.

State Department officials say the Pentagon was consulted in the drafting of the new plan. But the document has a clear diplomatic stamp, and seems like a pre-emptive move by the State Department to reassert its authority in any future reconstruction efforts.

Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said that no one would argue with the notion that reconstruction was easier in a stable environment, but that "we can't look at this too simplistically. It is hard to establish a robust political environment if the people do not have electricity or clean drinking water. These are parallel lines of operation that complement each other."

Marcia Wong, deputy director of the reconstruction and stabilization office, said the draft plan should not be viewed as an immutable template because "a lot of it will be driven by events on the ground." Officials will have to go in with "Plan B, Plan C and Plan D" as well, she added.

I think rebuilding should be a priority. What's your take on it?

My take is that one should either choose to rebuild or else GTFO.

The half-way middle option is the worst.

One can go into a country like Iraq and Iran with a few divisions and some air superiority and destroy the place for the cost of a couple of hundred or so KIA's--not too bad compared to the few thousand KIA's required for a rebuilding effort. If the natives get restless again, just go back and wreck the place again. Think about it: we could have fought about 10 Iraq War I's for the cost of one Iraq War II.

But that's a very cruel strategy. As Colin Powell said, you break a place, you own it. We own Iraq now. It's our moral duty to do what it takes to get the place back on its feet so it can be a normal country once again.