>>In these two cases the U.S., as the aggressor, failed to plan and execute in a manner consistent with "giving freedom" to the vanquished. Sure, they conquered handily. But they didn't have the troops to keep the peace. They didn't have the troops and wherewithal to rebuild the destroyed (by themselves) infrastructure. They knew that unemployment would be a huge problem but had no plan to address it. In fact they dis-employed the whole military when anyone with half a brain knows that idle hands look for something to do. The Baathist ran everything, so people who might otherwise have had jobs had no bosses from whom to take direction (because Baathists were outlawed).
>>So you've got a war where the actual PROVISION of "democracy" to the conquered had NO PLAN. None whatsoever!!! Such a mistake, and all that flows from it, demands resignations, including the President's.
>>"Mistakes" made in the heat of battle with aggressors are one thing. The egregious errors that continue unabated in Iraq are a totally different kettle of fish.
>
>A general who agrees with your assessment of the mistakes but not with how they were made nor who should be blamed. He was "the No. 2 general at United States Central Command from the Sept. 11 attacks through the Iraq war"
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/opinion/16delong.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I tried the link (seems the same as the one earlier in the thread) but I don't sign in to services, free or not, unless I use them day-to-day.

On the other hand... if it is agreed that there was NO PLAN for actually delivering democracy to the people of Iraq, yet that was THE MISSION, why is there any question as to whether the President and Vice President and Secretary Rumsfeld should resign???? "Every war is full of mistakes" doesn't cut it. Or does it?

By the way, Blue Diamond smoked almonds are great