I know you are making the rounds promoting your new book you co-authored with Tom Clancy. You are a well respected General and you have years of service to your country. That notwithstanding, you are another in the growing line of former Bush administration officials that has a) written a condemning book in an election year, and b) addressed the issue of the neocons. I will not address the neocon issue, as I am sure you are not an anti-Semite. No, I would never accuse anyone of that. Even though neocon is code for Jew, you named all Jews, and you claimed that Israel was behind the Iraq war, I am sure it was mere coincidence.

Before we examine the ten mistakes that have been made, let's first examine the good that has come out of it so far. Clearly the war has affected Libya, North Korea, and Iran. We uncovered the nuclear trade program from Pakistani AQ Khan. Just the other day the Arab League pronounced a commitment to democratic reforms. As far as Iraq goes, most of the country is stable, the insurgents are being marginalized, the Shiites are condemning Sadr, oil and electricity are above pre-war levels, real-estate is booming, and our shame, Abu Ghraib is being handled openly and swiftly. This is a sampling. Now, on to the 10 mistakes.

1) the first mistake that was made was misjudging the success of containment.

I was responsible, along with everybody from General Schwarzkopf to his two successors, that were my predecessors, myself, and my successor, General Franks, up until the war, we were responsible for containment.  And I would like to explain a little bit about that containment, because I thought we did it pretty well, given the circumstances.

Exactly. Of course containment worked. It was your responsibility. "We did pretty well, given the circumstances" will not be an acceptable answer when a chemical laden bomb blows up in a subway in downtown Manhattan.

It certainly worked against the Soviet Union, has worked with North Korea and others. Really? I can think of dozens of countries that would argue that containment of the Soviet Union was a failure. North Korea? They restarted their nuclear program even before the ink was dry on the deal, and the US ambassador was out of the country. That you claim North Korea is an example of containment working is humorous.

Now, let's go to Hans Blix last report. He claimed that:

Mr. President, Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programs. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections. It was a disappointment that Iraq's declaration of the 7th of December did not bring new documentary evidence...

David kay had this to say:

-In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the Iraq Survey Group, and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of [U.N.] Resolution 1441.

-It would be hard to come to a conclusion other than Iraq was a gathering, serious threat

-Iraq was in clear and material violation of 1441. They maintained programs and activities, and they certainly had the intentions at a point to resume their program. So there was a lot they wanted to hide because it showed what they were doing that was illegal. I hope we find even more evidence of that.

-Absolutely no doubt Saddam harbored ambitions to develop and use WMD.

-We have learned things that no U.N. inspector would have ever learned given the terror regime of Saddam.

Clearly containment didn't work. But let's just assume for a moment that it did. We should just continue to blockade the country, patrol the no-fly zones, and hope we never grow weary? Sir, that's not a plan, that's an excuse for inaction. And certainly our "containment" didn't stop Saddam from training terrorists at Salman Pak, harboring terrorists like al Zarqawi and providing his surgery, providing haven for Abu Nidal, or sending $25,000 checks to Palestinian terrorist who blew up Jewish buses.

2) The second mistake I think history will record is that the strategy was flawed.

I couldn't believe what I was hearing about the benefits of this strategic move.  That the road to Jerusalem led through Baghdad, when just the opposite is true, the road to Baghdad led through Jerusalem.  You solve the Middle East peace process, you'd be surprised what kinds of others things will work out.

I don't remember the president directly talking about Baghdad and Jerusalem. And you have this to say:

"All those that believed this was going to be the catalyst for some kind of positive change out there, or some sort of revolutionary change in the region, I think got more than they bargained for, and didn't understand the region, the culture, the situation, and the issues, and the effect that what they were about to do was going to have on those.

Saddam sent thousands of dollars to Palestinian homicide bombers. Clearly the peace process wasn't helped by that one. And as for revolutionary change, you ever study Japanese history? Not too much democratic tradition there. Yet they seemed to take nicely to it. Are Arabs not up to it, General? Keep in mind of course that Baghdad was once the cradle of the cultural, artistic, scientific, commercial and scholarly world. Sure it was 900 years ago. And what exactly is wrong with the spread of democratic ideals. Something about all men being created equal, unalienable rights, etc. And I seem to recall that President Clinton tried to make a "democratic, multiethnic Balkans region."

3) The third mistake, I think was one we repeated from Vietnam, we had to create a false rationale for going in to get public support.

Let's see, besides clearly being in violation of 1441, let's see what David Kay had to say.

would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war -- certainly, the French president, [Jacques] Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD.

The Germans certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD.

And perhaps you want to overlook the reports of Saddam's WMD's going to Syria. Here's a link from the Beeb (BBC) referring to the foiled bomb plot in Jordan. Al Qaida, chemical weapons, Syria, Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi. Hmmm...where did those pesky weapons come from. Here's a link from the Washington Times (article) from Sept. 2003 that investigations are going on into Iraqi WMD's being transported into Syria. Given that plenty of trouble has flowed into Iraq from Syria, could not have weapons gone into Syria? And didn't many of top Ba'athists also hide out in Syria?

An article from the CBC (article) has this to say back in April 2003:

Mr. Akbulut, from Erzurum in eastern Turkey, had moved into northern Iraq nine years ago to be with his wife. He ran a textile business that kept him traveling back and forth from Baghdad to the Kurdish enclaves in northern Iraq. And on many of those trips he claimed he saw: "Trucks and buses moving at night. It began over a year ago. Always going west to Syria. Always full of containers with Russian lettering and almost always with no passengers."

Let's take it one step further. President Clinton, Madeline Albright, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden, et al., all claimed Saddam had WMD's and posed a serious threat. Given what we thought was, and still might be, accurate intelligence on Saddam's WMD's, given his known ties to terrorists, and given the aftermath of Sept. 11th, did the president have any choice but to pursue war with Iraq? Could we reasonably continue the path of containment, which didn't work too well regarding al Qaida? Was not the only responsible action to act on this?

If we were wrong, than we were wrong, as David kay said. but being wrong is hardly creating a false rationale.

4) We failed in number four, to internationalize the effort.

The president did try to get the UN approval. Besides 1441, we and the British proposed another resolution authorizing the use of force. If I remember correctly, de Villepin told Powell privately that he would support us, then he turned around and stabbed us in the back, and lobbied other countries to follow their lead. Of course, now we know why. They were neck deep in the oil for food scandal.

You say, "Where we felt that we had to lead because we were the only ones that could do it, or it was in our vital national interests, we led."

Well, on Iraq, the president did lead. Should we hold our foreign policy hostage to the whims of other nations. Back in Kosovo, how many nations helped? President Clinton US took the lead and acted without a broad coalition and without UN authorization to stop the slaughter in Kosovo. Clearly, Iraq was in our vital national interests whereas Kosovo was not.

5) I think the fifth mistake was that we underestimated the task.

This again is a value judgment on your part. I remember the president telling the public precisely that it wouldn't be easy. While it is true that we had bad intelligence on the true condition of Iraqi infrastructure, the CIA problems go back a along time. But to say they simply underestimated the task is simply your opinion, and you offer no speeches or other proof.

6) The sixth mistake, and maybe the biggest one, was propping up and trusting the exiles.

I agree that perhaps our "friends" weren't the best company to keep. But, looking back, didn't President Clinton support Aristide in Haiti? You are right here, 1 for 6 so far.

7 - 10)
The seventh problem has been the lack of planning.
The eighth problem was the insufficiency of military forces on the ground.
The ninth problem has been the ad hoc organization we threw in there.
(T)he tenth mistake, and that's a series of bad decisions on the ground.

We'll not really know the outcome of the planning, size of forces and organization problems until down the road a few years. But let's look at another operation that 7-10) could very well apply to: Normandy.

We went ahead with the operation without a port, instead relying on the mulberries which proved susceptible to weather. Cherbourg was stiffly defended, and was destroyed before we could capture it. Antwerp was not cleared until November, and without adequate ports we had a huge supply problem, and had to curtail offensive operations in the West. This allowed Hitler time to plan the Ardennes offensive.

The bocage country was a major intelligence failure. The failure to appreciate the terrain and the necessary equipment cost untold thousands of lives and prolonged the Normandy campaign. We clearly had insufficient forces as units such as the 101st, who were told they'd be on the line for a few days, were kept in combat for a couple of months.

You claim, "Imagine throwing the Communists out of Russia at the end of the war." You criticize de-ba'athification, but weren't we actually doing the same thing in Germany with de-nazification? A mistake sure, but it was a judgment call. Could we honestly have said that we'll do business with former ba'athists? We'd have never gotten the majority Shia to play ball with us.

You are adamant the we go back the UN. The Iraqis are well aware of the UN, the same one that helped Saddam plunder billions and build palaces instead of feeding his people. Why the fascination with the UN? They turn a blind eye to genocide in Sudan, Burundi, Congo and Zimbabwe. According to Amnesty International, "The UN’s main human rights body has demonstrated an incapacity and unwillingness to address serious human rights violations and must reform, said Amnesty International as the 60th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights drew to a close.

This the same body has as its Human Rights Commission chair Libya and Security Council member Syria, both State Department listed state sponsors of terrorism. Please tell us again why the UN approval is so important?

The biggest beneficiary of the Iraq war will be the UN. How much credibility can the institution have if it passes 17 resolutions and refuses to enforce them. By continually citing the resolutions, the president demonstrated that he wanted to lend credibility to the UN. By getting 1441 passed 15-0, he again wanted to show that Iraq's violations were a matter of international concern. The failure to achieve a second resolution was the result of subterfuge by the French and not failed diplomacy by Bush and Powell.

I think most disturbing is your denigration of the 38 coalition members. "Just being able to tick off a list of countries - some of which that most of us without a globe or a map would have difficulty locating". The failure of public schools to adequately educate students with respect to geography is hardly grounds to belittle the contributions of other nations. If you check the White House's web site, you'll see there are actually 44 members.

While I agree that the Palaus, Solomons, and Marshalls are not going to be the decisive factors, perhaps the Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Albanians, Bulgarians and other former Soviet satellite states can lend a little reminder that freedom is a wonderful thing. Knowing what we do now regarding the UN scandals, we'd have never gotten the French, Russians, or Germans on board. Their participation was unattainable.

Let's go to the Q&A section: In a response to a question about Iraq, quagmires, and Vietnam, you have this to say:

They’re willing to die because there’s a political, economic or social reason.  Some sense of disenfranchisement.  Some sense of oppression that makes them angry, fires them up, and makes them tempted to come to al Qaeda.  Now, that isn’t enough to get them to blow themselves up and to do horrific acts.  You need a rationale.  You need something that justifies what they do. 

At the operational level, the center of gravity is the aberrant form of Islam that they’re able to use on them to provide the sense of reward, and rationale and justification for what the do.  And then the set of tactics that work so well against us, because it is asymmetric. 

If you think about it on those three levels, I have to go after this “War on Terrorism,” which is even a bad name.  I have to go after this movement of extremism at three levels.  How do I cut that flow of angry young men?  How do I make sure that aberrant form of Islam is rejected?  Or encourage others to, and I’ve got some thoughts on all this, but I won’t go into it here. And do the things that we do well at the tactical level.  But, you don’t have that kind of strategic thinking

And bringing democracy to the region is not going to help with this?

Next, you say, "The second point about strategy is, we always underestimate the American people.  We never sell the go to war on the strategic…on the strategy." Well, perhaps you aren't to familiar with the US press corps. Michael Barone has a fairly good analysis. There is no way possible that Bush could have gotten an opportunity to present his plan to the public. And can you imagine the Democrats' response.

In total, we've made plenty of mistakes, but even you admit, "Well, I want to be clear.  I don’t have a plan.  I have some ideas or thoughts in each of the areas: political, economic, security." We made plenty of mistakes after World War 2, namely letting the Soviets have half of Europe. This cost us untold trillions, enslaved tens of millions, and even brought us to the brink of nuclear war in 1962. I think the worst mistake we can make is to judge Iraq so quickly after the war and 25 years of Saddam.

Support for the war erodes with each passing day. The combination of incessant reporting of bad news, the dearth of positive reports, and the endless attacks on the administration are only ensuring a failure in Iraq. What do we accomplish by this? Even you say this is an undesirable outcome. Even if we are successful, what have we shown the terrorists? We have shown them that we are unwilling to fight the long war, that we can be worn down rather easily.

I fear that more, not that Iraq fails, but that as a result of the unending second guessing, "expert" criticisms, and politicization of the war, we will not be able or willing to pursue our enemies further. General, to compare this war to WW2, we are still in the Solomons. If FDR had gone through the exact same scrutiny and assault that President Bush has, how would the war have turned out?

Are we winning or losing Iraq? Much to the chagrin of the left, not only are we winning, we have pretty much already won. Now, don't expect Bush's speech to announce victory, considering the furor over the "Mission Accomplished" speech. But, he'll hopefully list all the accomplishments, and here's a short list from the US Agency for International Development:

1) Iraqi oil production is above pre-war levels.
2) Electricity surpassed pre-war levels months ago.
3) millions of children have been vaccinated
4) thousands of schools have been rehabilitated/opened
5) real estate is booming.
6) businesses are opening, and average income is growing
7) Sadr and his "insurgents" are being marginalized and killed
8) life IS getting back to normal, no, normal was living in fear. Iraqis no longer live in fear.
9) The transfer of sovreignty is on track
10) Iraqis are protesting against the terrorists and thugs like Sadr

Blinded by their hatred, the left cannot see the success that Iraq already has become, leaving idiots like Nancy Pelosi to droll on about the president being incompetent. She is so inept and clueless, I almost feel sorry for her. Bush has shown steadfast leadership, will ride out the recent storm, and hasn't bothered to worry about the polls. Thankfully he didn't listen to the State dpeartment.

Iraq could still come apart. The terrorists know that public sentiment is leaning against the operation. But events are headed towards a successful transfer not away from it. Around the Arab world, change is afoot. The Arab League has promised to promote democratic reforms and has condemned attacks against Palestinian AND Israeli citizens. Saudi Arabia has agreed to pump more oil, and they are leading a call for peace with Israel. This is in addition to the Libyan capitulation on WMD's, Iran's opening to inspection, and North Korea's going back to the bargaining table.

Bush has transformed the Middle East and the world. His accomplishments are all the more remarkable as he has had to fight enemies both abroad and at home. The left is deathly afraid, not because he is wrong, but precisely because he is right. We are winning, and that is their greatest fear.

Wacht am Rhine. Watch on the Rhine, commonly known as Hitler's Ardennes Offensive, the Battle of the Bulge (map). December 16th, 1944, Walter Model's Army Group B sent three armies, Sepp Deitrich's 6th SS Panzer, Manteufel's 5th Panzer Army, and Brandenberg's 7th Army into the Ardennes in a last ditch attempt to turn the war in the West. Designed to break through the allied lines, get to Antwerp, and cause the allies to sue for peace this was the most critical juncture in the war. What appeared to be a huge German counter offensive and major victory, turned into a crushing defeat and showed the Germans, and the world, that we had the resolve to fight and the perseverance to achieve final victory. It wasn't just at Bastogne, but at places like Losheim in the Schnee Eiffel to Houffalieze in the middle of the Ardennes, small pockets of Americans fought and held up the German advance. By the time the battle was over, we had suffered over 41,000 casualties. Yet, the German army was in disarray, in full retreat, and soon would be surrendering. It was the most precarious moment of the war, and the most decisive.

Jump ahead to Fallujah, Najaf, and Baghdad. We have just suffered through the worst month of the war, April, with over 125 soldiers dead and many more injured. We saw radical cleric al Sadr's forces take over parts of Baghdad and push southward as far as Basra. Fallujah became a center of revolt, and it appeared that within the span of a few weeks, the US had lost control of the situation, Iraq was descending into chaos, and the transfer of sovereignty doomed. Topping everything else was the Abu Ghraib scandal that removed the one thing the US had, moral superiority. So what has happened since?

Besides the press continuing to post new photos and the democrats mindlessly blathering, a major turn of events has quietly happened. Rather than respond with overwhelming force in Fallujah, the US showed restraint, allowing the Iraqis to maintain face. An Iraqi face was put on the Fallujah operation, and we began to slowly attrit (kill) the insurgents with the help of the locals. Today, Fallujah is getting back to normal, shops are opening, and people are going out into the streets Sadr has been marginalized by Shiite clerics, the locals have helped us kill his people, he has left Karbala, and even Iran wants nothing to do with him any more. Even today, dozens of Sadr thugs are being killed with the help of Iraqi counter-terrorism units. Sadr is done, finished, yesterday's news.

So, have we won? No. We still have to finish the job. The vast majority of Iraqis want us out, as we want want out, but they want a stable Iraq even more. The oft-repeated claims of the defeatists, that the Iraqis don't want or can't handle democracy are not only arrogant and insulting, they are ignorant. They are based on a world view that was wrong from the beginning and today is not only wrong, but dangerous. For example, on the History Channel show "Hard Target", Lawrence Korb and Michael Rubin were debating the Bush Doctrine and Iraq. Korb was highly critical and claimed that it was an unnecessary war. But his big lie was that we "had to live with the Soviet Union for 50 years". Actually, we didn't. Perhaps he forgot his boss' desire to confront and defeat the Soviet Union which led directly to their collapse.

Finishing the job means that we turn over control on June 30th and let Iraqis govern themselves. The insurgents through everything they had at us, and they failed. The only thing that can stop Iraqi success is lack of US resolve. We must prove to the Iraqis that we will stay the course and we will not leave. They have long memories, and haven't forgotten Bush Sr.'s encouragement to overthrow Saddam then his refusal to support the uprising. They remember all too well Saddam's retribution and the thousands and thousands killed and tortured. They see they democrats relentless political attacks, the unending negative press accounts, and declining US sentiment and they fear we will leave. I don't blame them.

April could very well be another Tet. Of course Tet became "Tet" by the actions of the press, the anti-war left, and the failure of the military to capitalize on the victory. Whether April becomes a "Tet" or an Ardennes remains to be seen. At the most critical point of WW2, we faced serious challenges to our war effort. We rebounded, and within 6 months, the only place swastikas were popular were with GI's looking for souvenirs. So far, the military has handled to situation with precision, and within a month, the transfer will be complete. Then attacks will be against Iraq itself, not some "occupying" power.

But before that time, we have to continue to hunt down and kill the insurgents and convince the Iraqis we are serious about finishing and then leaving. Looking at a map, the "bulge" has been reduced, the enemy is being defeated and victory is in sight. If we keep up the pressure we will have the Ardennes not Tet. The one thing that has not changed throughout all this is President Bush's leadership and courage. It has remained consistent and firm, which is why April, Fallujah, Sadr, and Abu Ghrib will be the Ardennes of Iraqi Freedom, not the Tet.