A STUNNING lack of understanding about how difficult it would be to reconstruct and stabilize Iraq deluded the Bush administration in the months before the Iraq War began in 2003, and after Iraq's defenses quickly were quelled, according to a blunt new study by U.S. military experts.

"Many perceived the U.S. forces' swift and stunning victory over Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as the end of hostilities," states a 720-page report by the Combat Studies Institute Press, an internal Army think-tank at Forth Leavenworth, Kans. "In reality, the president's [Mission Accomplished] speech signified the end of the beginning," states the report entitled "On Point II: Transition to the New Campaign."

It criticizes the White House and some military leaders for fixating on toppling Saddam, but ignoring the major challenges in creating a stable society in Iraq. Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Tommy Franks are singled out for criticism in the report's analysis of military operations between March 2003 and January 2005.

"Few, if any, in the White House, Department of Defense or the U.S. Army foresaw the impending struggle to create a new Iraq in place of the Saddam regime as the greatest challenge of Operation Iraqi Freedom," the report states.

U.S. troops and senior officers were given little or no training in how to stabilize the country after the quick march to Baghdad, it says.

"On Point II" is the latest in a growing body of articles, studies and books - many written by current and former military and intelligence officials - questioning the White House's post-9/11 policies.

As we've said many times, President Bush's Iraq war was completely unnecessary, based on faulty assumptions. The blunder cost more than 4,000 American lives and a half-trillion taxpayer dollars - and left Iraq in bloody chaos. Solving this mess seems nearly impossible. Every possible U.S. choice is wrong.

Based on the calamitous Iraq results, Washington "hawks" should be extremely cautious about starting another war. "On Point II" should be another clear warning against launching a reckless attack on Iran, even though administration leaders love to make provocative and threatening remarks.

America needs to seek fewer, not more, wars.

"Many perceived the U.S. forces' swift and stunning victory over Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as the end of hostilities," states a 720-page report by the Combat Studies Institute Press, an internal Army think-tank at Forth Leavenworth, Kans. "In reality, the president's [Mission Accomplished] speech signified the end of the beginning," states the report entitled "On Point II: Transition to the New Campaign."

It criticizes the White House and some military leaders for fixating on toppling Saddam, but ignoring the major challenges in creating a stable society in Iraq. Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Tommy Franks are singled out for criticism in the report's analysis of military operations between March 2003 and January 2005.

"Few, if any, in the White House, Department of Defense or the U.S. Army foresaw the impending struggle to create a new Iraq in place of the Saddam regime as the greatest challenge of Operation Iraqi Freedom," the report states.

U.S. troops and senior officers were given little or no training in how to stabilize the country after the quick march to Baghdad, it says.

"On Point II" is the latest in a growing body of articles, studies and books - many written by current and former military and intelligence officials - questioning the White House's post-9/11 policies.

As we've said many times, President Bush's Iraq war was completely unnecessary, based on faulty assumptions. The blunder cost more than 4,000 American lives and a half-trillion taxpayer dollars - and left Iraq in bloody chaos. Solving this mess seems nearly impossible. Every possible U.S. choice is wrong.

Based on the calamitous Iraq results, Washington "hawks" should be extremely cautious about starting another war. "On Point II" should be another clear warning against launching a reckless attack on Iran, even though administration leaders love to make provocative and threatening remarks.

America needs to seek fewer, not more, wars.