Where were these people before the war?

100% spot on article in The Independent today which asks where were all of the doubters who today complain and pile on Rumsfeld and the disastrous war planning? I had been told before that it's a matter of unofficial military code that you accept orders without criticism but as with just about everything, times change. I have always bristled when hearing such after-the-fact criticisms and have fallen into the "where were you when we needed you?" camp.

And why all this talk of "post-war planning"? Do those who led us into this war still cling to the notion that the war was a brilliant idea, brilliantly executed – until Mr Rumsfeld and his inept planners mangled the follow-up? Or are they just saving their skins?

The truth, though, comes ever closer. Listen to Maj-Gen Cross. "Right from the beginning," he says, "we were all very concerned about the lack of detail that had gone into the post-war plan."

I am sure they were. The many leaks to journalists from unhappy members of the defence and diplomatic establishment over those months testify eloquently to these worries. But if there was so much concern at the time – from the British head of mlitary planning, from Britain's newly appointed chief of the general staff, among others – why in heaven's name were they not more open about it? Why did not any
which one of them – dare one mention the word – resign?

It is unfair to restrict ourselves to the top brass. A few more names could be added. The Prime Minister's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, Sir Stephen Wall, said 18 months after the invasion – after he had left for a secure berth in the private sector – that in the run-up to the war "we" - note the plural - had allowed "our" judgement of the "dire consequences of inaction" to override our judgement about the legality of the war.

Absolutely. What ever happened to true leaders instead of this bunch?

Chris in Paris, AmericaBlog.com