Atrios points to an NYT article [behind the paywall] from May 3, 2003, which shows just how badly our plans in Iraq have gone awry.

The Bush administration is planning to withdraw most United States combat forces from Iraq over the next several months and wants to shrink the American military presence to less than two divisions by the fall, senior allied officials said today...If the administration plan is carried out, the effect would be to reduce the number of American troops in Iraq from over 130,000 soldiers and marines at present to 30,000 troops or fewer by the fall.

That obviously did not happen, and the failure of the plan shows just how poorly Bush and his team understood what they were getting us into, and how poorly they reacted to reality when it hit them.

But the failure in Iraq has larger implications for US strategy and security, as another clip from the article shows:

The Bush administration's aim is to bring most of the American troops here back to their bases in the United States and Europe so they can prepare for potential crises.

The administration does not want substantial numbers of American forces to be tied down in Iraq. It is eager to avoid the specter of American occupation, and it is hoping to shift much of the peacekeeping burden of stabilizing Iraq to other governments.

In other words, we didn't just mess things up in Iraq -- we tied our own hands in terms of being able to respond to other crises, and we compromised our credibility by becoming an occupying force.

The saddest part may be the kicker, which follows a list of potential problems to be overcome before the plan can work: [T]he administration is calculating that these are temporary problems and that political trends will improve and will allow the disengagement of most American troops.

Comments

[Kirk D.]

Talking Points Memo also has a story related to how badly things have been going. They've published a chart of insurgent attacks against coalition, civilian and Iraqi security forces based on figures from the Government Accounting Office. The results paint a clear and bleak picture for where things are heading in Iraq.

[The CA]

You're right, Ed. Every war always goes as planned and ideas and strategies never have to change to adapt to them. Isn't this exactly the reason you have been bitching about Bush ad infinitum- that he won't change his plan? Yet, here you go complaining because the plan was changed when events changed. That's the real kicker.

[Bubba]

"Yet, here you go complaining because the plan was changed when events changed."

Ssssh....you weren't supposed to figure that out, Sam.

[Kirk D.]

Classic, avoid the main crux of the post boys. Typical.

[Bubba]

"Classic, avoid the main crux of the post boys. Typical."

As usual, Kirk misses the point of Sam's post.

Are we really surprised?

[The CA]

Kirk, the post has no point at all if its sole purpose is to bash the President as opposed to truly discuss the issue. How do we know this? By the duality that I pointed out. Why waste time with someone who doesn't truly believe what they say as evidenced by their past comments? You won't get anywhere because they have already demonstrated that their position is subject to radically change at any given moment for reasons that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. In the end, it is such a person who avoids the crux of the issue.

[Fred Gregory]

Let's lighten up and have some fun.

Danny Bonaduce puts one a nutroot with microphone and camera, here:

Vaffanculo Jerk

[Kirk D.]

Sam, please show me where Bush has acutally changed course. As far as I know, its business as usual in Iraq right now so the point you and bubba were trying to make is actually moot. Am I wrong?

[The CA]

Yeah. Ed's post shows a very clear change in course. So much so that he complains about how things have changed since then. It also depends on what you mean about a change in course. The military plans and political plans have all changed incrementally over time in response to the situation. As far as a major shift, Bush will be announcing one in the next three weeks.

Tell me, when should have Bush made a major change and what should the change have been? The problem I have with all these complaints is that they are generic and operate on a subjective timeline.