Political Crossfire Forums

[Richard Owl Mirror]

The politicians say we're winning. The generals aren't so sure.
Generals must always speak truth to civilian power.
Quote: But do they? Almost every week, President George W. Bush holds a regularly scheduled video teleconference with Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of U.S. troops in the Middle East, and Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top commander in Iraq. Presumably, this would be the time for some truth-telling.
~snip~
How, then, to explain the very different versions of reality in Iraq that come out of the mouths of top Bush administration officials and of senior generals on the ground in Iraq? On Memorial Day, Vice President Dick Cheney declared that the Iraq insurgency was in its "last throes." Yet last week, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Abizaid said that, actually, the insurgency has not grown weaker over the last six months and that the number of foreign terrorists infiltrating Iraq has increased.

Calling the Shots: Should Politicians or Generals Run Our Wars?
Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime. Eliot A. Cohen
Quote: What qualities should we look for in our political leaders in a time of war? The standard answer these days is that they must be able to set precise objectives for the military to meet and then resist any inclination to meddle as the military meets them. They must also sustain popular support and international understanding without revising war aims or interfering in the conduct of operations, for the only thing worse than mission creep is micromanagement.

Why this election is critical
Outcome will determine who runs the war on terrorism
Quote: Scholars use the term critical election to describe those contests that crystallize broad changes in the electorate, when voting blocs shift their loyalty from one party to another, new political alignments form, and one party achieves dominance over the other.

~@~

In another post of mine: IF Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror .....?
I commented about Gen. John Abizaid, U.S. Central Command Commander and what I see as a flaw in the strategy he laid out for Congress during his testimony.
I am not alone in this criticism, Sen John McCain said to Gen. John Abizaid "I don't understand this strategy".

I believe the matrix of this Iraq campaign was doomed from the beginning because it combines a local insurgency,
fighting for the sovereignty of their country with the goals and objectives of outside influences of Al Qeada,
"fighting them there so we don't fight them here".

The example of fighting Al Qeada in AL Anbar province while combating the local insurgency in Baghdad makes this clear.
Which enemy in this WAR on TERROR is Our fight?

That's the kink in America's Armor.

President Bush brought the WAR on TERROR to Iraq, which played no part in it, simply because He had an ulterior motive.
It is this precise reason so many complain about our involvement in Iraq.

[Ameriman]

Since the Korean War...Politicians...

It's why we keep getting our asses kicked.

[Somebloke]

True.

[00timh]

We should have learned the lesson in Vietnam but apparently we didn't. In the 1st Gulf war we could have gone in and taken out Saddam Hussein. We had the Republican Guard on the Run and Hussein was basically defenseless. We had the support of the American people and even the world community to do so and yet for political reasons we opted not to.

In the Iraq war our initial invasion went well but then after that it has become political. Generals have been asking for things and getting denied. Had we given them what they asked for when the insurgency started we most likely wouldn't be in this spot today

[cool_chick]

00timh wrote: We should have learned the lesson in Vietnam but apparently we didn't. In the 1st Gulf war we could have gone in and taken out Saddam Hussein. We had the Republican Guard on the Run and Hussein was basically defenseless. We had the support of the American people and even the world community to do so and yet for political reasons we opted not to.

I don't think it was "political." It wasn't the purpose or intent of the invasion.

Edit: and we didn't have the support of the American people and the world community to take out Saddam. We had the support to get Iraq out of Kuwait.

[Ameriman]

cool_chick wrote: 00timh wrote: We should have learned the lesson in Vietnam but apparently we didn't. In the 1st Gulf war we could have gone in and taken out Saddam Hussein. We had the Republican Guard on the Run and Hussein was basically defenseless. We had the support of the American people and even the world community to do so and yet for political reasons we opted not to.

I don't think it was "political." It wasn't the purpose or intent of the invasion.

It was political.

[Black Sheep 5]

Ameriman wrote: Since the Korean War...Politicians...

It's why we keep getting our asses kicked. Truman started the limited warfare doctrine. Funny since he turned two Jap cities into self lighting glass parking lots.
The fact is that politicians keep fvcking the Army over. Let the people who have studied war for over 30 years make the decisions. A politician gets elected and all of a sudden they are experts on everything from supply and logistics to small unit tactics.

[00timh]

the main problem is that politicians are the ones who give the generals the go ahead to conduct a war. Because of this they feel they should dictate certain directions or strategies. In a politicians world everything is up for debate, compromise and in connection with poll numbers.

On the battlefield those who are fighting it do not have this luxury. There are only two outcomes, winning and losing. It is not a matter of how much or how good it looks.

[Heinz]

Since politics are the main reason we even go to war, they are always going to play a role. However, when it comes to actual strategy, politicians need to rely more on those in place, like generals, who have actual first hand knowledge of combat.

Politicians start the war, soldiers end it.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Heinz wrote: Since politics are the main reason we even go to war, they are always going to play a role. However, when it comes to actual strategy, politicians need to rely more on those in place, like generals, who have actual first hand knowledge of combat.

Politicians start the war, soldiers end it.

Was Donald Rumsfeld acting upon Political will of the Civilian Leadership?
For what we are now hearing, he definitely did not rely on "generals, who have actual first hand knowledge of combat."

Should the Secretary of Defense actually have "first hand knowledge of combat" ?
Doesn't the President, acting as Commander in Chief ensure that the control over the Military remains in Civilian hands?

I believe the position of Secretary of Defense should more resemble a Praetor
When given a task, such as IRAQ the Sec. of Def should be given praetorian power and authority on behalf of the Executive.

Quote: "Let there be two with the authority of the king, and let them be called praetors, judges and consuls from their going before, judging and consulting. Let them have the supreme law of the militia..."

[Tono]

Ameriman wrote: Since the Korean War...Politicians...

It's why we keep getting our asses kicked.

End of thread ™

[Numb]

Politicians and the media.

[FL Conservative]

Numb wrote: Politicians and the media.


Yeah I agree war is ran by the media now days, you can't do anything without the media knowing about it. my brother just got back from Iraq he said he got in a fire fight, and 5 minutes later a hot CNN reporter tried to interview him. Also wars have always been political through propaganda or what have you. But the main thing is that wars are still fought and won by are brave men(and women).

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Tono wrote: Ameriman wrote: Since the Korean War...Politicians...

It's why we keep getting our asses kicked.

End of thread ™

Perhaps, yet your solution doesn't solve the existance of Wars™, future wars™, rumors of wars™ or
those who will fight and die in those wars™.

[Tono]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Perhaps, yet your solution doesn't solve the existance of Wars™, future wars™, rumors of wars™ or
those who will fight and die in those wars™.

Nothing anyone posts on the internet will. What's your point?

[superskippy]

There is no solution to end wars and there never will be save perhaps annihilation.

[agentkgb]

superskippy wrote: There is no solution to end wars and there never will be save perhaps annihilation.
A war to literally end all wars.

[Black Sheep 5]

agentkgb wrote: superskippy wrote: There is no solution to end wars and there never will be save perhaps annihilation.
A war to literally end all wars. MAD

[TheGirlNextDoor]

Generals take orders from politicians. POTUS = CIC.

Every war is political.

[Klondikekat]

Amen to that. Generals just find the best/most effective/brutal way to execute what politicians tell them to do.