To assert that there have been lots and lots of plans, heck, everybody had a plan, is to admit that there was no singular master plan that would have coordinated all those individual efforts into a coherent strategy for victory. I'm sure you realize full well that a myriad of uncoordinated plans can produce results worse than no plan at all...and the results Bush has produced bear that out with a vengeance.

I also can safely assume that you know the difference between strategy and tactics. You make much of the tactics described by generals and others you interviewed, but again, where's the strategy that makes those tactics effective?

Bit of a red herring to ask about plans for past conventional wars. Bush insists that this (the overarching WOT) is a new and different kind of war, of which Iraq is his centerpiece. Assuming, purely hypothetically, that that statement isn't just an excuse for lack of ideas, then we can expect our leaders to devote considerable thought to analyzing and understanding this new threat, and sharing with us their new and detailed ideas for responding. Instead, Bush sums up his "thinking" in simple-minded content-free jingoisms like "they jes' hate us!".

I'm asking if there's more behind the simplistic sound bites, some "secret plan to end the war" that Bush won't condescend to share with the American people, and it seems that your answer is "no".