Now what in Iraq? (Very Disturbing)

Townhall.com ^ | October 14, 2002 | Robert Novak

[Mike Darancette]

If there is a precise plan for action to remove Saddam Hussein from power, general officers at the Pentagon tell members of Congress that they are in the dark.

A closely held secret must be closely held.

[cactusSharp]

if general officers are yapping...shoot em
and shoot em NOW

[quidnunc]

Novak is anti-war and he's doing his mite to sway public opinion.

If the brass at the Pentagon are being kept in the dark it's their own fault; they've demonstrated that some of them are not above leaking sensitive information to the media in order to advance their personal agendas.

War planning is no doubt being kept on a need-to-know basis among trusted members of the military and administration.

[jbstrick]

This is not war by committee. You can not please everyone by telling them the plans. You make the decision and then only on a need to know basis distrubute the info.

[CaptRon]

Hawkish civilians, in and out of the government, have been suggesting that Saddam Hussein's elite Republican Guard will throw up its arms in surrender. No serious person believes that.

I consider myself pretty serious and I believe it.

[BillCompton]

I don't know why you would characterize this as "very disturbing." It's not. It is appropriate to worry, perhaps, but we have to assume that our men at the top are in the best position to make the call. Regarding the Newt slam, he is one of the smartest guys around. I think Rummy likes that. It may be true that he is an "amateur" in military matters (I bet he knows more than most "professonals") but he has great expertise in foreign affairs and politics. I would sooner rely on him than on most in the State Department.

[Korth]

This is not war by committee. You can not please everyone by telling them the plans. You make the decision and then only on a need to know basis distrubute the info.

The point of the article is that amateurs are making the plans without input from the experts.

[BillCompton]

I consider myself pretty serious...

I think he means "important" persons rather than "earnest" persons.

Relax! I'm just busting your chops. Don't take yourself so seriously!
By the way, if you are an important person, mea culpa.

[LarryM]

I will repeat it again: Novak is an Arab. He casts doubts on the war because he doesn't want to fight Saddam. All the rest is pure BS.

[KC_Conspirator]

Novak is also full of $hit and increasingly irrelavant. I used to think he had alot of insight. For a guy that displays the typical "inside the Beltway" thinking, he sure is pretty g-ddamned uninformed. So he's upset that he does'nt know the govnernment war plans? Good, he's a blabbermouth anyway. Furthermore, Novak was neighbors and went to church with Robert Jensen, the FBI spy, for years. If he had no idea (he wrote a column about how surprised he was) that an FBI agent lived well above his means while spying for Russia right under his nose, than how the hell can I trust him to make good judgements on other matters?

[Cicero]

The reason Rumsfeld gave Afghanistan to Tommy Franks, bypassing the normal chain of command, and now apparently plans to give him Iraq, is that he doesn't trust half the top brass in the Pentagon. And rightly so, because most of them were put there by clinton. And clinton NEVER promoted anyone who didn't support him personally and see eye-to-eye with him ideologically. In fact, clinton usually appointed to key posts only people who had committed felonies and could be blackmailed, which he judged to be the best way to ensure that they would do exactly what he wanted, up to and including treason.

In an ideal world, it would be better to hoe out the Pentagon and fire five or six hundred generals and colonels, including all the sexual harrassment trainers. But in this imperfect world you just ease out a few of the worst and sidetrack the rest of them.

By definition, any of the brass who are leaking to Novak should be fired anyway.

[Nonstatist]

Participating in the immediate planning are Gen. Tommy Franks, commander in chief of the Central Command, and a few officers from the Pentagon's Joint Staff.

These the amateurs you were referring to?

Novak's problem is that he's out of the loop, along with the usual Pentagon leakers. Too bad for him and them.

[Korth]

I will repeat it again: Novak is an Arab.

You are wrong. Robert Novak is jewish.

[Mr. Mojo]

Now what in Iraq? (Very Disturbing)

The only disturbing thing about this article is that the blatantly pro-Arab Novak honestly believes that the U.S. military is unprepared for Iraq. The Novaks and Buchanans of the world were made to look like fools 11 years ago, and they're setting themselves up again for the same (justifiable) ridicule.

[B-bone]

The point of the article is that amateurs are making the plans without input from the experts.

Whether this is actually true or not is unclear, but that is Novak's point of view.

I have one work for this -- Afghanistan.

If this was planned and executed by a bunch of amateurs, hire them.

[Mr. Mojo]

Robert Novak is jewish.

LOL....you're pretty funny there, guy. Novak is as Catholic as the Pope, and I believe he's of Polish ancestry as well.

[Korth]

These the amateurs you were referring to?

No, and I didn't say that they were. I am refering to the outside advice that they are using. What most bothers the generals, however, is Rumsfeld's preference for outside advice. For example, Pentagon sources say a frequent consultant with the secretary is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, an amateur military expert and member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. There is no distribution through the Pentagon of such advice.

[aynrandfreak]

Novak is a "CNN Conservative"

[Mr. Mojo]

The point of the article is that amateurs are making the plans without input from the experts.

It may very well be the point of the article, but it's complete bullsh/t. Novak pulls these "facts" right out of his ass.