It's not like I'm terribly interested in what the BTs have to say at the best of times, but this recent development just begs for a wanker perspective:
Months before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists from developing plans for securing a post-war Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said Thursday.
In fact, said Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, Rumsfeld said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a post-war plan.
So ... things not going all that well in Iraq? Maybe it's because there was no post-war plan. Could that be it?
In any event, the lines are open. I'm willing to listen to any wanker who wants to step up and suggest that deliberately avoiding even the smallest semblance of post-war planning represents some bizarre stroke of military genius on Rumsfeld's part.
Come on, folks. Take a shot at it. I'm all ears.
6 comments:
0420 Cynic C,
Having a post-war plan entails there would be a state of peace in existence. Since we have always been at war with Eurasia, and since war is peace, then our current war plan is our current post-war plan.
Your welcome.
If you notice my grammatical error, that's a thoughtcrime.
He did not want to be known as 'The Man with the Plan'
I thought the plan was that the Iraqis would shower the U.S. forces with candy and rose-petals
(and multibillion dollar no-bid reconstruction contracts for Halliburton paid for with petrodollars)
I guess that just didn't quite work out.
of Course the "New" post war plan included better relations between Iran and Iraq.
The obvious problem is nobody asked my opinion!
Wanker
Post a Comment