We can even accept that you would legitimately not be expected to.

But can we also accept that the political opposition to Bush, people who ARE supposed to know what the hell they're doing, had nothing more to offer than you do? And still don't? It hasn't been just you sitting there with no answers. "Give me the power and I'll fix it all," Kerry said. How? "Somehow." What's HIS excuse? Maybe you can't be expected to know how to fix a web service, but by God the guy who wants to take over as CEO of that web company had better have some specifics.

Battle plan?

The "battle plan" for WWII was to do whatever was required tactically and strategically to destroy the enemy's ability to make war.

In point of fact, that's been the extent of almost every battle plan since the beginning of time. Individual actions are planned on a case-by-case basis to support this goal. And guess what: they change as time goes on and as new information comes in. Draw a tactical decision tree for WWII sometime. See how it goes. And that's with the advantage of hindsight.

The "Great Master Plan" for Iraq is what it has always been: remove Saddam from the list of potential dangers to the rest of the world, and attempt to replace his regime with a free and pluralistic society at the heart of the Middle East. The main idea behind this policy is that totalitarian nations generate terrorists far more often than free societies do.

Ambitious, certainly susceptible to failure, but at least something more than the "hide your head in the sand for twenty years and hope the all-powerful U.N. keeps Saddam in check" policy that was the only alternative offered.

The tactical plan for Iraq at a lower level is, among other things, to destroy the insurgency, block the pipelines of weapons and personnel from Syria and Iran, protect the civilians and infrastructure, transfer military authority to the Iraqis as soon as possible, hold elections on schedule, and as with any war, try to keep any of these spinning plates from falling.

Was this the exact plan going in? No. A lot of predictions didn't pan out, on both the Administration's part and the part of the anti-war political opposition. Troops on the ground adapted, and policies in Washington adapted. That's how it's done. Of course, bailing out is always an option. A simple action, appealing to simple minds.

Meanwhile, I guess you can keep throwing the same old shit from the sidelines. We won't expect real answers. It accomplishes no more than Donald's deathwatch posts, but probably makes you feel better.