On 30 Jun 2004 10:36:12 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 21:22:17 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

If Rummy had listened to his generals,
there would be more troops.

Typically simplistic approach. Anyone with a trace of the ability to read
between the lines will realize that "his generals" were seriously split as
to what changes, if any, to make as a result of the collapse of the CSU.
Some remained mired in the Powell doctrine even in a very different world
from what Powell envisioned. Others thought some rethinking was in order.
Rumsfeld sided with the rethinkers, and generals on the losing side retired
or were retired, becoming presidential candidates or consultants to the big
3 networks where they could continue to urge their lost cause.

Are you saying it was the job for the military to plan the post war
occupation? It seems to me that the planning for the post war
occupation was as flawed as the reasons for going to war in the first
place, and that can be laid at the feet of
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz. I don't believe it was the generals
who said we would only need 30,000 troops to provide security or that
the reconstruction would be paid for out of current oil revenues.

Just how badly does this administration have to totally screw up
before their loyalists can even recognize that things are off track?
Does it really make no difference to you that the generals who
correctly saw that this was illconceived and misguided "lost" the
argument to those who remain? Holy crap. The republicans appear to
have a no-lose situation...they have the undying loyalty of a very
large number of very stupid people. I voted for Bush the first time,
but at least I have learned from my mistake.