Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
Very well balanced, Jim. So few of us remember how much military training and field experience people like Pelosi, Kucinich, Clinton, et al have - they're far better positioned and prepared to establish timetables for massive troop movements and about-faces of policy and operations (given their close proximity and constant attention to developments on the ground) than the Generals who've blown their entire lives establishing careers and shedding blood to make sure our objectives are met.
Blow it out your asses.
I don't recall the President telling any of us what his specific goals are for this quagmire he created. I also don't recall any of the Generals who have blown their entire lives establishing careers and shedding blood to make sure our objectives are met being consulted on what the objectives might require to achieve.
General Petraeus gets tagged often these days with being the inventor of the surge. Read his written works on the subject. He is quoted in Fiasco
as recommending a surge of over 250, 000 troops to tamp out the chaos and establish order in Iraq. He is a good soldier, and he got 10% of what he asked for, made a case for, and shut his mouth. He is very careful to couch his expectations and makes it clear his success depends on diplomacy. Which, given the Bush team's diplomacy skills, is a get out jail free pass for Petraeus.
Review the history of this conflict and how many of the USA's Generals with Vietnam experience, and more, have resigned because Rumsfeld made it clear they were at odds with his direction and he didn't need Generals like that ( here is a link to an article that describes the way Bush's administration listened to our Generals: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...goncontra.htm)
. Shinseki retired after being replaced by Rumsfeld with Shoomaker for telling Congress several hundred thousand troops were needed in post war Iraq to maintain order (here is a link : http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...goncontra.htm)
. Others have too. In fact, it seems we have lost more senior level, combat experienced leaders in the Armed Forces since this team arrived and repeated the folly of Vietnam against all advice from senior military leaders than at any time in our history. The stream of retiring Generals and Admirals who have made their feelings known is truly remarkable.
I think any of the names you mentioned have a better chance at getting advice from Generals and listening than Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rice ever would. Their record is to replace anyone who has the gumption to disagree with them on such issues, which leaves them only candidates to replace them with who won't disagree, or to sucker someone like Petraeus, who is already on record with a figure (same as Shinseki's), yet is given 10% of that number.
So, yes. Bush is not the King! He is truly and singularly responsible because, as he puts it, he has been the "decider" on this Iraq quagmire from day one and looks to be willing to throw temper tantrums and spit in the face of the American public to keep that role. Congress needs to depose him and begin to take action to wrest control of this disaster from him. Jim