Reporters, who never served in the military, and whose attitudes toward the services are colored by their pot-smoking college days have no sense of history.
The Pentagon, I am quite certain, has war plans against every nation on earth. It's not like we are about to start bombing Paris (although that might not be a bad idea), but imagine if some sort of seismic event occurred requiring action against France, and we didn't have plans for it. The same with the other 200 nations on earth.
With World War II looming the US had plans for war against Japan: Code Ornage. But, guess what, we also had plans for war against Great Britain: Code Red (and for dozens of other countries).
Having plans for war against Iraq was prudent and necessary. It is the reporter's lack of historical precedent and hatred for Bush that are driving this story.
Excellent points. What I do not understand though is what Michael Smith is trying to do - he supposedly has been in the military and is a long time defense correspondent. He has written a book on the breaking of the Japanese code in WWII. Is he simply looking for a payday? Or does he have T. E. Lawrence delusions? We clearly understood where Dan Rather was coming from. Where is Michael Smith coming from?