In what sense is that document a plan, Tom? It enunciates principles but isn't prescriptive. It lacks the element of time, both in the sense of duration as well as sequence: "Do A, then B, then C". It isn't predictive or goal-oriented: It talks glowingly of "benchmarks" the Iraqis have met, but doesn't lay out future benchmarks; the benchmarks sound distinctly ex post facto, like the teacher contriving reasons to hand out gold stars to make sure all the kiddies get one.

The only sense that I can see in which it might be a plan, is if the "plan" is to stick a bunch of Americans in Iraq for several years, force them to read this manifesto every day, and hope that it inspires them think of something specific to do.

It's not a bad thing to have a manifesto to provide philosophical guidance, but it's insufficent to achieve victory on its own. This manifesto only suffices to explain why things are so badly screwed up in Iraq.

And that's the bottom line, really: If this is the plan, then, judging by the results, it's a really bad plan. Why would you expect it to change peoples minds to know that the chaos in Iraq didn't just happen, but that Bush has a plan that isn't working? How is that exculpatory?