BUSH BASHED BY LIBERAL CRITICS ON IRAQ WAR PLANNING

President Bush's Iraq war planning has left a great deal to be desired.

But in doing a poor job of war planning, the President is in some very good company.

Very good Presidential company.

• General George Washington was a terrible strategic war planner. He became so fixated on New York City that he almost lost his army in a hopeless defense against overwhelming British land and sea forces in 1776. Toward the end of the war, he still persisted in hoping for a grand battle for New York. Fortunately for him, the French insisted that he march his army down to Yorktown, where British General Cornwallis had trapped himself and his army. With the French navy cutting off his escape and Washington's cannons bombarding from the high ground, Cornwallis was cooked. And so were the British in America. In seven years of fighting, Washington never came up with a good war plan. Which is probably why, as President, he advised against "foreign entanglements."
• President James Madison was full of hubris and without a war plan for the War of 1812. As a result, he managed to get the city of Washington burned and barely escaped capture with his cabinet. Poor Dollie barely made it out of the house with her gowns and crockery. Cocky, clueless and planless, Madison had to watch the British land troops wherever and whenever they chose, almost without opposition. Madison was lucky the Britain wasn't serious about reclaiming her colonies.
• President James K. Polk's grand plan for the Mexican-American War of 1846-48 amounted to sending General Zachary Taylor's army across the Neches River, over the Rio Grande and south into Mexico. But old "Rough and Ready" got badly bogged down after winning four minor battles which were over-hyped in the press. Eventually, General Winfield Scott made a daring amphibious landing at Vera Cruz, winning battles from Cerro Gorda to Chapultepec against overwhelming enemy forces lead by Santa Anna. Hindered by the combination of a lack of supplies, a jealous President Polk, politically appointed subordinates, rampant disease and a well-trained and hardened enemy, Scott prevailed, marching into Mexico City five months later. Scott's great victory resulted in over 500,000 square miles of territory being added to the United States.

Residents of what are now Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California and Utah owe their U.S. citizenship to General Winfield Scott. And it all happened without a war plan on Polk's desk.

• President William McKinley had no plan on how to conduct the Spanish-American War in 1898 when Teddy Roosevelt won fame for charging up Cuba's San Juan Hill, another vastly over-hyped skirmish. But the war did give us the Philippines, or so we thought. Instead, American forces were opposed by the Philippine National Army. Moving without a war plan, American forces defeated the Philippine army, losing fewer than 400 men in the short campaign.

But then an unplanned-for insurgency erupted which lasted three years. Although we lost fewer than 400 men in "the war," more than four thousand troops died in the three-year insurgency. And we never did subdue the folks on Mindanao, who are still rebelling more than 100 years later. Sounds a bit like a war precedent for Iraq, doesn't it?

• President Woodrow Wilson had no war plan for World War I, having successfully run on a campaign of keeping us out of war. When General Pershing was eventually sent overseas with raw, untrained doughboys to rescue the exhausted French and British forces, there was no plan. In fact, no one was sure whether Pershing was supposed to train and supply American units to French and British generals or whether the American Army was there to fight as a single unit.

Quickly seeing that the French and British generals were mentally fogged in to perpetual trench warfare, Pershing had the good judgment to use his army as a fresh unit. German General Ludendorf was winning when Pershing attacked in April 1918. Pershing's forces tipped the tide of war in favor of the Allies and the Armistice was declared seven months later. Again, we won, without a war plan.

• President Franklin Roosevelt had developed a war plan for the European theater during World War II. We would supply ships, tanks, rifles and trucks by "lend lease" to England, thus evading the Neutrality Acts. After the declaration of war in December 1941, the concept of lend lease expanded to include the desperate and beleaguered Soviet Union. Thus, Roosevelt planned for the U.S. to become the "Arsenal of Democracy" while others supplied the bulk of the manpower. But there was no plan for the war in the Pacific. We were taken completely by surprise, surviving because of the courage of our sailors and marines -- and the brilliance of Admiral Chester Nimitz, our best World War II commander.
• Harry S Truman had no plan for the Korean War. We were saved by the creative tactics of General MacArthur, whose amphibious landing at Inchon severed the supply lines of the North Korean army, causing its collapse. MacArthur, in turn, had no plan for the Chinese intervention and proceeded to incur heavy casualties while losing all the territory he had gained in North Korea.
• President Lyndon Johnson had no plan for the Vietnam War, beyond winning lots of battles under the leadership of General William Westmoreland. Like British General Howe during the America Revolution, Westmoreland won lots of battles. He claimed the army never lost a battle while he was losing the Vietnam War. Just as Howe lost the American Revolution 190 years earlier while bragging to King George, "I won every battle I fought against Mr. George Washington."
• Now, there was one president who did have a war plan: Abraham Lincoln.

General Winfield Scott, the hero of the Mexican-American War, commanded the U.S. Army from 1850 through 1861. Seeing approaching hostilities with the South, Scott offered President James Buchanan a war plan that called for the reinforcement of all southern forts. Buchanan ignored the plan. When the Civil War started, Scott expanded the plan, code named "Anaconda," to call for neutralizing southern ports, seizing control of the Mississippi River and striking against Atlanta, thus cutting the Confederacy in two.

But Scott's "Anaconda" was opposed by General George McClellan and General Henry Halleck, who promised Lincoln "a short war." Lincoln rejected "Anaconda" and went into the Civil War without any plan at all. Two years later, a desperate Lincoln begged his generals to follow Scott's original plan. General Grant attacked the forts along the Mississippi. General Sherman marched on Atlanta, and Admirals Dahlgren and Farragut blockaded the Confederacy's ports. Grant's stunning victory at Vicksburg raised the morale of the Union and assured Lincoln's reelection.

Because Lincoln rejected Scott's comprehensive war plan, he prolonged the bloody and bitter Civil War. If he had chosen to follow "Anaconda," a four-year war could have been won in just two years. Not exactly a short war, but considerably shorter than the one that evolved without planning.

So before we get too harsh with President Bush, we might look back on our history and see that he's probably no worse and no better than his predecessors in planning for war.