It is incredible how an appearance in the media lends immediate and pretty well unfettered credibility. This morning I watched General Franks deliver a very articulate and succinct rationale behind his battle plan (the real thing as opposed to much of the conflicting blitz of reports furnished by sideline players). We are entering a War on Semantics of this between various pundits and the United States Government amidst it’s War in Iraq.

I’ve watched Mr. Pollack since his appearance on my radar about a week ago and I understand that he has authored a book (which gets plugged on absolutely every appearance that he makes) "Threatening Storm" in which he sets out his philosophy on how things were to unfold in Iraq as he saw it before the conflict began.

I haven’t read the book and I doubt that I will. I’ve been a student of Sun Tzu pretty well all of my life and guess, based on the flood of expertise I see coming in from everywhere, I could probably convince myself that my intellectual perspective may carry some merit. I think I could even publish a book forecasting, or possibly reviewing occurrences relating to a military conflict.

Do I think that my perspective could remotely be paralleled to or compared against that of the in-depth around the clock constructed plan implemented by General Franks and his team? Absolutely NOT! Even if I published all my thoughts and concepts in a hard cover book (with which I could hit the "mother load" if promoted right amidst the conflict)? Who knows. My fear would result from concerns of my being seen as an opportunist. Could I remotely hope that my published works should be used as some kind of measuring stick against the real life situation unfolding in this far away Arab nation? I don’t think so!

So I come back to my fundamental question, the one that forms the heading of this article: Who Is Kenneth Pollack?

This morning I saw Rumsfeld clearly explain to the media that there is "No Halt To Plans" resulting from having "insufficient troop strength and access to supplies for the front troops". Rumsfeld’s briefing was followed by General Franks who words echoed those of the nation’s ___ aired just shortly before him.

Following these briefings that really became hung up on the phrase "Operational Pause" (1,100 sorties flown and dozens of intense fire fights on the same day does not suggest an "operational pause" to me. We’ve heard the logic to troops needing rest after eight or nine days of intense ongoing fighting. This fighting is not like the last war "Desert Storm" which really constituted bombing, bombing, bombing and a show of force on the ground which led to an immediate conclusion.

The top General spearheading the conflict and the Secretary of Defense of the United States Government each specifically articulated a unified and very solid perspective that they "are right on plan" with accompanying mechanisms to allow the Press to confirm their representations (troop deployment requests are pretty concrete public information). I haven’t heard any Press representatives confirm that these representations are true however. Surely this confirmation would settle down the Press and the Administration would be allowed to focus on what the Administration must focus on. Has anyone calculated the cost and burden imposed on the Administration to answer the relentless questioning of the Press.

I see absolutely NO "speculation" introduced by the Administration (nor would I expect to) yet "speculation" appears to run ramped in the Press. This speculation frequently (usually) ends up formulating an "issue" that must be handled by the Administration and it is this burden that I feel to be inappropriate.

On the contrary I can conclude only that Mr. Pollack’s book is all "speculation" as it was written before the fact. It appears to me that Mr. Pollack is trying to support the unfounded allegation that the war plan is somehow wrong to justify what I understand he represents in his book. Listening to him over the past couple days, but specifically this morning, he wholly endorses an intellectual argument (public argument at this point!) that the battle plans of the American Administration are "flawed and that the troops are now forced to stand still due to lack of supplies".

I don’t intend to take sides and I’m not here to defend the American Administration. I intend to comment on what I see as a (somewhat frustrated) "Uninvolved Bystander". Listening to the reports from the field that suggest to me that major casualties and fatalities are being handed out to fierce resistance from cruel combatants using "terrorist" tactics with minimal coalition forces losses, that the Americans and British are doing a great job. It appears obvious to me that the Battle Plan adapted by General Franks is being masterfully employed by a skilled and disciplined force of professional soldier who introduce moral integrity to a battle field that is showing itself totally lacking of.

This is not a military to military conflict. The Iraqi Regime has announced to the world it’s "Terrorist Doctrine". It’s treatment of POW’s qualifies them under UN Doctrine as "Terrorists". The use of women and children as "Human Shields" in combat is a "Terrorist Act". The recent announcements from Mohammed Saeed Al Sahaf (Iraqi Minister) that "more suicide bombings will be employed by the Regime’s troops" is distinctly a proclamation that Saddam Hussein’s troops are "Terrorists"! The Global Community was unanimous in its commitment to fight Terrorism yet many, like Canada are failing to deliver on their obligations to the world community.

My problem, by the way, is not in credible journalists writing books about anticipated developments in the world. More power to them. I do have some reservations about having these authors forecasting (correct or incorrect) being used to lend merit to their isolated perspectives. Listening to Mr. Pollack and the questioners, one would conclude that possibly this gentleman did Donald Rumsfeld’s or General Frank’s job prior to writing the book.