"But it was shocking to me that the secretary of defense would tell the Army how to fight. He doesn't know how to fight; he has no business telling them. It's completely within civilian authority to tell you where to fight, what our major objective is, but it is absolutely no one's business but uniformed military to tell you how to do the job. To me, it was astonishing that Rumsfeld would presume to tell four-star generals, in the Army thirty-five years, how to do their jobs.

Now here's another thing that Rumsfeld did. As he was being briefed on the war plan, he was cherry-picking the units to go. In other words, he didn't just approve the deployment list, he went down the list and skipped certain units that were at a higher degree of readiness to go and picked units that were lower on the list -- for reasons we don't know."
~Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy

When I was commander of CENTCOM, we had a plan for an invasion of Iraq, and it had specific numbers in it. We wanted to go in there with 350,000 to 380,000 troops. You didn't need that many people to defeat the Republican Guard, but you needed them for the aftermath. We knew that we would find ourselves in a situation where we had completely uprooted an authoritarian government and would need to freeze the situation: retain control, retain order, provide security, seal the borders to keep terrorists from coming in.

When I left in 2000, General Franks took over. Franks was my ground-component commander, so he was well aware of the plan. He had participated in it; those were the numbers he wanted. So what happened between him and Rumsfeld and why those numbers got altered, I don't know, because when we went in we used only 140,000 troops, even though General Eric Shinseki, the army commander, asked for the original number.
~Gen. Anthony Zinni

"Well, they didn't expect it to be a fiasco"

I wouldn't be so sure of that.  They deliberately sent 1/3 the troops that was needed to do the job and picked units that had lower degrees of readiness, "for reasons we don't know."  Well if you understand the globalist you can understand the game.  If they would have sent 400,000 troops toppled Saddam in a week and stabilized the country in a year or so what would be our options?   We would force to leave the country just like his NWO father 15 years ago.  What better way to maintain a permanent presence in Iraq and plunder their resources under the guise of "incompetence".  Bush is expendable to the globalist.  When he is done he will be replaced by another cast of characters that will follow the same game plan.  All that matters is we keep a permanent troop presence in the heart of the golden triangle.

The military plans "crazy" things all the time:
http://tinyurl.com/64r7m

Bush is there for a reason.  He is the "incompetent dope" so it seems plausible that we could screw up this bad in Iraq while Cheney sits in his bunker and carries out the globalist plan with the real powers that be.
==AC