> But I found it interesting on the news the other > night, when a soldier pointedly asked Rummy about > insufficient protection on relatively mundane vehicles > (mostly trucks), he him-hawed his way through the > question and sounded like an idiot....
My impression was that this lack reflected inadaquate planning for the shape the war has now taken. Yes, you go to war with the army you have, but the equipment one has does depend on whether one has anticipated the needs properly. I think it is clear that, while the planning to win the war went very well, the planning to win and keep the peace afterwards was horrid. Rumsfeld, by being instrumental in the rejection of reasonable concerns and focusing on a wishful thinking scenerio has responsibility for the lack of adaquate armament. The fact that a battle plan rarely survives engagement with the enemy is not an excuse for a poor battle plan. In the same way, the difficulty of wining the peace doesn't excuse horrendous planning for winning the peace. Especially if the poor planning is the main reason the peace has turned back into war. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
