The references to SecDef Rumsfeld 'ignoring Pentagon advice' that more forces would be needed than were allocated are, on the face of it, troubling. Reading a bit further into the article summary, however, the tone of the source of the allegations sounds more like a disgruntled partisan in the ongoing internecine infighting that occurs within the five sided wind tunnel. And a pretty immature one at that. It is one thing to advocate a certain position during the decision making process, to make your case, and seek your contribution's incorporation, sometimes vehemently - that's what those folks get paid the big extra staff bucks to do. It is quite another to continue the knife fight into the public realm when your pet approach is dismissed or rejected. That's just plain petty, vindictive, and cowardly.

::Crossblogged at Silent Running::

So, Mr. 'unidentified senior Pentagon planner' got the satisfaction of dumping his load of sour grapes. Bully for him. Maybe he was just shooting his mouth off. That's ok, right?

Sure, until you take that and combine it with 'an unnamed former high-level intelligence official' (translation - out of the loop, uninvolved with current planning or situation, but happy to pontificate to his bud Mr. Hersch about crap he really doesn't have the facts on) saying 'the war was now a stalemate' and..guess what, spin city time.

So what have we got? The formula reads out as: disgruntled whiner + clueless loudmouth windbag + journo itching to dish dirt and sell copy.

Final product? The steaming POS article going out under the New Yorker banner in its 7 April edition.