Salam's blog, like any other, has opinions that are all over the map. And like most blogs, the opinions sometimes depend on if the writing is before or after the morning coffee.

I don't see why it is odd for me to point out things he says that are sensible, and say so, while also pointing out things he says that are outright stupid, and also say so. Heck, I do that to everybody. Why should he be an exception?

Second, I'm also getting a little tired of the antiwar "plan" myth. What they would like you to believe is:

A) We went into Iraq with no idea at all of what we would do when we won.

B) It would actually be physically possible to have gone into Iraq with a plan that would have been the exact right plan for what we eventually had to deal with. Not being psychic, Bush and his crew failed to come up with this mystical Plan, so are obviously stupid and ineffective. Oddly, no one else has shown that they had such a Plan either, but there it is.

Our military planned for many things that didn't happen. They planned for many things that did, and those things were effectively dealt with. Oddly enough, they didn't have plans for things that were not foreseen. (Reporter: "did you have anything set up ahead of time to deal with unforeseen problems, General?"

The coalition has done an excellent job of adapting to the changing situations, creating organizations on the fly, methods of doing things no one anticipated, and ways of handling curve balls being thrown in their direction. In this approach, they vary very little from every other military action ever fought in history.

Antiwar types who claim they foresaw all of the current situation are mostly lying. Much of what they did predict did not happen. Much of what did happen surprised them as much as anyone else.

Maybe we can discard this myth, too.