From the Start

In February of 2004 Presidential candidate John Kerry said that Bush’s failure to plan for postwar Iraq was “utterly staggering”. It has since become etched in modern-day folklore that the Bush Administration had no plan for post-war Iraq. However, there has always been a clear US policy since the liberation of the country.

Critics of the Administration have just taken advantage of the savage terrorism that is waged by the Iraqi insurgency which mainly attacks soft-targets like mosques, restaurants and unarmed civilians. This helps Bush’s critics to paint pictures that are far removed from reality amid this backdrop of criminal violence.

Iraqi insurgents resort to attacks using remotely detonated explosives because they are unable to engage a superior and highly motivated US military, revealing that they are losing the war. Their only hope comes from politicians of the US opposition and the chaos resulting from sectarian violence.

There is a CNN article dated April 9, 2003 which quotes Donald Rumsfield and other US officials as they discusses US plans for post-war Iraq:

“A U.S.-led civilian authority will come into Baghdad once the city is secure and beginning running various government services, Rumsfeld said. Some of those ministries, such as agriculture, will be turned over to Iraqis, but security and other key responsibilities will remain in the hands of coalition forces. Eventually an Iraqi Interim Authority will take charge and that will be replaced by an elected Iraqi government, according to U.S. officials.”

...and that is exactly what happened. There was a plan and the US “stubbornly” stood by it.

So should we turn this country over to politicians like Feingold and Murtha who don’t have any plan other than appeasing terrorism?