"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message news:cfEgc.2026

OK -- Since YOU seem to be privy to "THE PLAN" -- educate us as to Just
what
it was/is please.

I never said I was privy to any plan. I merely pointed out that the
notion
that an army of 150,000 would have no plan for occupying captured
territory
is ludicrous on its face, notwithstanding what you read in The Guardian.
The fact that a plan is not working is not prima facie evidence that no
plan
exists.


So if I understand you, There was a plan nobody knows what it is, but it's
not working?

Yep -- sounds like Bush

"Jim" wrote in message news:Q9Mgc.1907

So if I understand you, There was a plan nobody knows what it is, but it's
not working?


Not *quite* right. Take out your spin, and you have "There was a plan, but
it's
not working". They are improvising and adapting. This is not at all
unusual in combat. Most often it is the norm.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message news:Q9Mgc.1907

So if I understand you, There was a plan nobody knows what it is, but
it's
not working?


Not *quite* right. Take out your spin, and you have "There was a plan,
but
it's
not working". They are improvising and adapting. This is not at all
unusual in combat. Most often it is the norm.

" improvising and adapting" -- Isn't that what you do when there is no plan?