|
I don't disagree that Bush had broad general objectives for the occupation of Iraq. However, I think that is the role of the person on top - to give the general objectives. From those objectives I would expect subordinates at each level to have more and more specific plans. I think there is a natural top - down, down - up process to plan development. And that it is a process. I think the confusion on the left has to do with the fact that on some specific date there was no official document called "The Plan". I don't think there has ever been such a document for any war. Over 200,000 military people in Iraq, seemed to know what to do and when to do it. In my view, that suggests a plan.
I Blair is saying that he committed his nation to the occupation of Iraq with no plan, then he is an idiot (which I don't believe). At some point they had to have a discussion about what his military was responsible for, what they were going to do and what our military was responsible for and what we were going to do, if he is saying that did not happen but let his people die with no stated purpose, then I would wonder why.
So, to me it always comes back to - if you believe there was no plan you have to believe some things that don't add up.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."
|