To a great extent, Bush can be accused of accepting bad advice. As an example, the reason 500,000 troops did not take part in the invasion and occupation of Iraq is because Bush was told by his commanders on the ground that they were NOT needed. Therefore, he gave them exactly what they asked for.
As to the rest of the plan for rebuilding post-war Iraq, exactly what parts can be faulted, at least in concept? The rebuilding of the pipelines and infrastructure? The establishment of an interim governmental authority? The writing of the constitution? The attempt to build up military and security forces? The holding of the elections?
There was nothing wrong with the basic plan. Implementation became problematic for a number of reasons: sectarian violence originating with former supporters of the Baathist regime which led to retaliation by shi-ite militia groups; violence sponsored by terrorists infiltrating from Syria and Iran; the rise of a vocal and ill-conceived anti-war movement within the United States; a lack of boots on the ground to mitigate these problems which was the result of U.S. commanders underestimating the size and complexity of the task.
The buck may stop on the president's desk, but at some point he has to accede to the knowledge and experience of advisers who are supposed to know their jobs intimately. As far as I have been able to ascertain, his commanders still insist that large numbers of troops are NOT needed.
