Indeed.

I can't recommend this Frontline piece highly enough - "Losing Iraq". Its practically a case book study on the missteps that took place under the leadership of Paul Bremmer a Kissinger associate and who was chosen to lead the CPA - Coalition Provisional Authority(the transition government) after the US took Baghdad. Bremmer knew nothing of Iraqi politics and was only briefed on them on the flight to Baghdad. The largest mistake was his decision to dissolve the Iraqi Army, followed closely by the de-Baathification of the government in country that only has a single political party - the Baath Party. Bremmer had near autonomy in his decision making. This is perhaps one of the best pieces I have seen on the subject:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/losing-iraq/

"Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Baghdad's Green Zone" is an excellent book on the same topic. What is most staggering (to a foreigner like me anyway) is how the appointment of American administrators in Iraq was entirely driven by American politics. Experience and competence were of no importance.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Imperial-Life-Emerald-City-Baghdads...

This is an understatement. I recall one episode in that book where a competent manager in Baghdad was fired because he didn't hate abortion.

> But the real problems occurred in the disastrous power vacuum and complete lack of a plan that occurred after the war was won.

No, the real problem was invading a country that posed no threat to us. That was the real crime. The power vacuum could not have happened without that illegal invasion.

Yes, I agree entirely.

Is there a way I can say both that the invasion was stupid AND that it could (not should!) have worked out ok afterwards if the US had a plan?

I think that it is worth noting all the things that went wrong, not just the stupidity of the invasion itself.

> I don't think the NYTimes has any responsibility for that.

Except for never mentioning the fact or investigating what the consequences of the war they were propagandizing were likely to be.

Agreed on this point. The NY Times is the newspaper of record in the United States. And as such they hold responsibility both for their editorial policy that allowed Judith Miller's stories about WMDs. What's more remarkable is how unapologetic she is about her own involvement. This is worth a listen(the second half)

http://www.wnyc.org/story/bobs-grill-1-judith-miller/

Iraq, the surprising arrival of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Brexit shock, rise of Trump...the commentator classes of New York, DC, London and other "tastemaker" cities need to reckon with their failures and understand why they were so utterly wrong. Instead, in most cases, we see doubling down and demonization of the other side. It's quite extraordinary. The black swans are coming fast and thick.

What are the "commentator classes"? People who take an active interest in their society? People who try to stay informed? Is that a "class"? What is a "taste maker" city? Please explain what they are and how you pin all the worlds ills on them.

New York, DC and London are responsible for the worlds problems?

I honestly have no idea what you are are talking about.

I'm not talking about all the world's ills but rather 4 recent events with global, often disastrous consequences. Perhaps it is news to you, but there is a certain kind of person who makes their daily bread on the strength of their supposed expertise in politics, economics and finance. Think tankers, Davos panelists, former political appointees, the experts commonly cited in papers like the FT, NYTimes, WaPo, and the journalists and editorialists who give them ink and air time. They didn't see these events coming, despite the fact that the dynamics leading up to each one had been building for some time. They never seem to admit that they were wrong, and seemingly no one expects them to as they continue to carry on on the lecture and cited expert circuits. Worst of all, they do not seem to recognize that they are just as vulnerable to groupthink as anyone and they never seem to improve their methods of investigation which for me would mean consciously traveling out of the media capitals of New York, DC and London to visit and talk to people in other parts to get a better handle on popular sentiment; being hyper aware of when they might be trading integrity for access and status; and not being too prideful to take a look at alternative points of view from bloggers and commentators who do not trod the same carpeted halls.

People who make good forecasts are not polarized enough for punditry.

The authors of the book Superforecasting : The Science of Prediction have done research in this area. And a website [2]

Nate Silver also tells a similar story in his book. He proved it too, by turning pundit.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Superforecasting-Science-Prediction-P...

[2] http://www.superforecasting.com/

"The prudent doth keep silence in such a time; for it is an evil time." Amos 5.13

> The black swans are coming fast and thick.

"Therefore thus saith the LORD, the God of hosts, the Lord: Lamentation shall be in all the broad places, and they shall say in all the streets: 'Alas! alas!' and they shall call the husbandman to mourning, and proclaim lamentation to such as are skilful of wailing." Amos 5.16