Good riddance.

Perle has resigned as Chair of the Defense Policy Board; apparently, Rumsfeld has said he wants Perle to stay on as a member. And Perle is almost certainly stepping down due to conflict-of-interest firestorms (if not spending more time with his family); no way any neocon is going to admit it's the overall battle plan that has totally haywire. More's the pity, for all of us. The thing to keep in mind on this: Thomas White is still Secretary of the Army.

I'd class things like "Shock and Awe" as buzzwords. Officer X is using terms such as "grand strategy" in the right sort of context.

I can't judge just how far up the tree he might be, or judge the vague attributions, but the thinking seems to hang together, to this civilian at least. Whether there are details which make some of the criticisms invalid, I just don't know. I don't know enough of the logistics of supporting a larger force from Kuwait, for instance.

The dotcom war.

We looked at each other after the report and said, almost simultaneously:

"They traded security for mileage." (They also traded security for headlines that could say HALFWAY TO BAGHDAD two days into the war.)

As we went into this war, I had my fingers crossed in the hope that, while we might have fools and poltroons in the White House, at least our generals were smart enough to make decent war plans.

Just goes to show, I guess, that "Stupidity is contagious; smart isn't."

-- Bruce

"-Real- Christians don't practice human sacrifice."

David, I agree--this sounds right.

In the broader picture, I believe the strategic mistake here is the classic one of believing one's propaganda about the moral failings of our enemies.

The plan was based on the false assumptions that the Iraqis would not fight, the people would welcome us, and that airpower would dominate and force 97 through the immature 93shock and awe94 or 93effects based targeting94 97 the Iraqis to submit. The Army was only there to march and occupy Baghdad as an occupation force.

The belief that the enemy are cowards who will fold at the first show of force has, over the years, tempted many political leaders into foolish wars. But it's all nonsense--wars aren't won by symbolic gestures; one or the other side has to be disabled or decide it's not worth it.

I've no doubt the USA can win this war if it so chooses--"Officer X's" proposal being a possible strategy. But at the end there's going to be a hard choice between taking the cities with considerable "Coalition" casualties (10-100 thousand) and taking the cities by cutting off their water supplies, killing many Iraqi civilians. As far as I can tell, that decision--or the alternative choice to withdraw because of an unwillingness to do either or to do something else that I cannot now imagine--will fall to W. Bush. I can only hope that, finally, his imagination will awaken in time for him to choose well.

Why would it do that? He's screwed up everything else he's ever touched, why would he suddenly grow competence now?

I admire The Daily Kos's discussions. Many of the posts are substantial, very few are uncivil, and there's real rhetorical engagement. I like mine better, of course; but I'm biased.

Bruce, above, said: "As we went into this war, I had my fingers crossed in the hope that, while we might have fools and poltroons in the White House, at least our generals were smart enough to make decent war plans.

"Just goes to show, I guess, that 'Stupidity is contagious; smart isn't.'"

It should be obvious by now that the military knew what was coming, but (after arguing Donald "McNamara Jr." Rumsfeld up to 125,000 troops from his proposed 75,000) at the end had nothing to choose between but saying "Yes, sir," or resigning. The US has a long tradition of the military following the orders of the policital/civilian/elected leaders. This is a good thing.

I don't think that you'll find anyone who supports the troops more than me. I'm worried now about my brothers and sisters under arms.

I supported (and still support) the war in Afghanistan -- there was a clear attack, military response was justified, and undertaken. The world agreed and stood by our side, and offered their aid. That war continues, and needs to be prosecuted to the fullest, in accordance with the highest traditions of the USA. To victory, which includes the creation of a peaceful, prosperous, self-governing country.

Now that support has been thrown away in pursuit of ... what?

I am sick at heart. And I'm certain that many of my brothers in arms are equally horrified by the orders that have been given. They will perform them well. We are superbly equipped, brilliantly led, wonderfully trained. The average American grunt would be an elite soldier in any other army in the world.

But what shall we do when God is no longer on our side? See also what is required for a just war to exist.

Alas, alas.