Taking a point of off Kos's thread on Rumsfeld of this:
In practice, Feith said, this meant being ready for whatever proved to be the situation in postwar Iraq. "You will not find a single piece of paper ... If anybody ever went through all of our records--and someday some people will, presumably--nobody will find a single piece of paper that says, 'Mr. Secretary or Mr. President, let us tell you what postwar Iraq is going to look like, and here is what we need plans for.' If you tried that, you would get thrown out of Rumsfeld's office so fast--if you ever went in there and said, 'Let me tell you what something's going to look like in the future,' you wouldn't get to your next sentence!"
I'm not an MBA, I'm an accountant. In order to earn my accounting designation I've taken plenty of courses that MBA's take. One of them is a course that deals with the study of risk, which is essentially what Mr. Rumsfeld was dealing with. Business theories on dealing with risk are nothing like Rumsfeld's plan of action.
The method is called something like scenario analysis (it's been a few years). The executive is expected to analyze the situation and figure out the most likely possibilities that can occur. From there, actions for how to deal with those potential scenarios are considered.
If George W. truly is an MBA, he would have taken classes on this, and I can't believe he wouldn't have overruled Rumsfeld's ostrich approach.