ace: let's not be ridiculous.
you know elmer fudd, yes?
what was his plan?
"i am hunting wabbits"
but at least in elmer fudd's case there were wabbits to be hunted.
they were built into the same cartoon.
in this case, the empty notion of "terrorists" is substituted for anything like a coherent plan for the post-war situation in iraq. if you read the "strategy" outlined by the white house, and assume that the category "terrorist" does not refer to anything in particular, you can see that there is no there there.
but this is not really about white house pr: this is about the concerns of the blair government from very early on in this debacle that there was, in fact, no plan.
that there are statements which purport to be plans means little---that there are individual plans seems actually symptomatic of the problem itself--if you read this quote from the article above, which i assume you overlooked:
Quote:
"The problem from my standpoint within the United States was that there had been a lot of planning done by each element ... by the CIA, the state department, the treasury department, defence department," Mr Garner told the Future of Iraq Commission chaired by Lord Ashdown, Lady Jay and Lord King.
"But the problem with that planning is that it had been done in the vertical stovepipe of that agency and the horizontal connection of those plans did not occur".
|
so it would follow, ace, that there probably are any number of individual plans but there is no plan.
this goes well beyond the unpredictability of war in general.
please do not waste your time posting defenses of the bush people that amount to nothing more than the usual relativizing nonsense ("well, everyone did x... so what the bush people have done is hunky dory.")