We are giving Bush a free pass.

"Faulty post war planning and execution" is an excuse that lets Bush and the war mongers off the hook. It excuses the biggest mistake of all, the war itself.

Iraq was sold as the anti-Vietnam war. The proponents said we learned from our mistakes in Vietnam, this will not be like that, we will do it "right" this time. The spector of Vietnam was the astounding (in retrospect) number of troops and deaths from that war. These Iraq warriors had to sell it this way so as to stop the critics who warned of another Vietnam quagmire. They forgot the first lesson of war: don't do it.

We all predicted that if we went into Iraq it would be a disaster and it has been. We should now be saying: "It wasn't that the post war planning was terrible, although it apparently was, it was going to war at all that was the mistake. Even if we had done what all the critics are saying; put more troops on the ground and kept the Iraq army intact so we could have better secured the country and stopped the insurgency, it wouldn't have worked. That was the lesson we supposedly learned in Vietnam. Massive troop strength doesn't work either when you go into a country that doesn't want you there and doesn't want war and/or is not likely to be stable without dictatorial rule.

If we let this line of reasoning continue, I can hear the next group of war mongers now: "This won't be like Iraq, we will put adequate troops on the ground, we will secure the country first, we will have learned from our mistakes."

The message we need to hear is that war is hell and no amount of prewar planning or careful execution can prevent it. Wars turn ugly in ways you simply cannot plan for. It's like putting your finger in the dike. You "plan" for one nightmare but another erupts. The one thing I did not predict about Iraq was the prisoner abuse but I should have. We had repeated reports about abuse and violance at the hands of our soilders in Vietnam albeit not necessarily in prisons. What made it a big story was the pictures which may have only reached the press because our leaders arrogantly ignored the reports from groups like the ICRC.

There is no "good" plan for war.

Because then it would be just like Vietnam. Expect we will probably save the lives of tens of thousands of soldiers before we end up cutting and running ANYWAY!!!!!

Seriously though. We need enough guys there so they can cover each others backs. Get a government set up then get the hell out irregardless of how well it works.

Get a government set up then get the hell out (regardless) of how well it works.

That may be the best approach. However, if that government has little chance of survival, as was case with the Thieu regime in Vietnam, then such a plan is not qualitatively different from "cutting and running".

Cutting and running is rapidly becoming the only rational option.

The Iraqis can run their country without our help and don't want it. The argument that we are preventing a civil war seems bogus. The only thing preventing a civil war right now is the Iraqi people's almost unified opposition to US occupation. Moreover, civil war could break out whether US troops are there or not.

and move on. Presidents make mistakes, so Clinton reminds us. Kerry must play it safe. Nothing to see here.

There is no contradiction in stating the war was a bad idea from its inception and the planning and execution of the war was faulty. True, the planning and execution of the was faulty can be true even if one could say the war was a good idea; and even if the planning and execution of the war was flawless, it is still true that the war was a bad idea from its inception.

We can and should hit both messages. Both propositions are true.