The point of the article is that amateurs are making the plans without input from the experts.
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.
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.
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.
That may be the point, but Novak doesn't make the case.
The small fry who are complaining to Novak are not in the loop, and deservedly so. The fact that Rumsfeld has friends and advisors who are non-military does not prove that the top brass are not fully onboard and providing the proper input.
Novak has an agenda, and it's not the same one as the President's.
It states clearly that he meets with General Myers and members of the Joint Chiefs. They ARE experts.
Where to start on this one...
To you remark, no, professionals are/have been making the plans, and those not in the know, including the author, are frustrated because they dont like being excluded from that process. Tough!
The real problem here is typical of all war planning. Exit strategy is tough. Mission creep seems the order of the day, though Bush seems to be doing decent job of preventing that in Afghanistan. (can't say the same for Klintoons Bosnia fiasco where we still cant seem to ully extract our forces - no forethought there by the powers at the time). Regime change has been touted as the objective of an Iraq operation. Translating that to guns, beans, and bullets is difficult since the pace and events in war are often unpredictable. While outcome is certain here, the pace of achieving that is up to factors that we do not control (though we can influence heavily).
I think that the seemingly long delay we've experienced in going into Iraq is giving planners time to look out at exit strategies far beyond what military planners are normally tasked. Logisticians can tell you where every plane, tank, bomb, and person will be for about the first two weeks of the war. They can give you a good idea for the next 2 months. After that, it is pretty much make it up as you go because too many unplanned contingencies (aircraft losses, unplanned port closures, etc) make it impossible to guarrantee that supplies will be there or even still needed at the originally planned point.
It appears that in any scenaio, Iraq will be a long term commitment. The big sweeping moves of the war will be early and well scripted, then there will be an 'Afghan' like lull as the slow grunt work continues. How long will it be before a responsible govt can reside in Bagdad? If you can answer that, then we can firm up our plans a little.