Dan wrote:
My impression was that this lack reflected inadequate 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.
Beyond that, there is no way, with proper leadership, we couldn't gear up and produce whatever armor our kids need over there.
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 scenario has responsibility for the lack of adequate
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.
Well said. In addition the war crimes occurring under his leadership lend credence to the idea that he is grossly incompetent. He's definitely the worst of a bad lot.
-- Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
