« A More Effective Course for Libertarians and Centrists
Joseph Barbera: Cartoon Genius Of Hanna-Barbera Fame Dies (UPDATED) »
Joint Chiefs of Staff vs. Bush
Please read Shaun’s post from today: The Generals Draw a Line in the Sand. This post is merely a round-up with opinions from other bloggers about this.
Here we go:
Eventually true statesmen recognize that their historical moment has passed and subsume their ego to the good of the country. LBJ did it. Sadly, I think that we can all acknowledge that Bush is not LBJ. Recognizing failure is not in his lexicon. The idea of Bush subsuming his ego to anything is laughable. The fighting will go on, the army will break and the political ground will continue getting worse for Republicans until they find some way to pull the plug.Particularly note that last bit – when it comes to personal gratification versus the good of his own party the President has no qualms about choosing the former over the latter. Ask any ex-Congressman whether he or she would have preferred to see Rumsfeld gone sooner.
I have no doubt that Bush was dead serious when he said that he would go on with nobody but Laura and Barney at his back. So what does his party plan to do about it?
How many more years will it take before we get “a plan”? Honestly, how many more? And why aren’t all Americans standing up and asking that same damned question? And beyond that, why aren’t more people asking this:
Will anyone get beyond the view that “we have to succeed” to actually ask the question as to whether it is possible or likely?
What we shouldn’t do is reinforce failure, and if the plan is to just enlarge operation “Forward Together” then the JCS have to advise against it and ask for a more specific mission with a time frame for the deployment. The time for one-over-the-world nebulous missions is over.
It is important that politics don’t dictate a move, but instead sound military planning is its impetus.
It is the leadership’s job to properly utilize the military within their capabilities and capacity. That means providing a precise mission which fits those characteristics. The JCS are completely correct to oppose anything less.
Rick Moran at RWNH:
The point is simple: There is no purely military solution – either American or Iraqi – to the security problems in Iraq…Any actions we take to increase our troop strength must be taken in concert with political moves by the Iraqi government and – if it can be done – with other countries in the region who have either an involvement in the conflict or a stake in the outcome. I am not overly optimistic about a regional conference to help resolve the problems. But there is simply no alternative to working with the Iraqis on the political problems that fuel the insurgency and the sectarian violence. If the Iraqis refuse to help themselves by trying to heal the numerous cracks in their fractured body politic, I fear that any additional American troops would simply add to the problems and not accomplish much of anything.
…I just wish I didn’t have to think: “Great, if the Joint Chiefs are saying it’s a stupid idea, liberals can’t be blamed for stabbing the Army in the back when it doesn’t work.” I hate feeling as if I have to worry what side the military leadership is on politically — I don’t like it whichever side they’re taking. It’s not the Joint Chiefs’ fault; they haven’t done anything wrong. But they should be technical advisors, not leaders of a politically influential faction, and they’re getting treated in the media as the latter rather than the former.
James Joyner at Outside the Beltway asks:
Unless there is a fundamental restructuring of the strategy, there is no reason to think adding more “boots on the ground” at this stage would be helpful. What, precisely, would be the military objective?
Here’s my advice: listen to the Generals. Believe it or not; they tend to know a lot about this kind of stuff.
21 Responses to “Joint Chiefs of Staff vs. Bush”
Mikey! The generals stopped Bush from attacking Iran and you already said we had to do it even after the generals said we shouldn’t, so they’re liberal, terrorist traitors and you’re a great man, but if you start supporting them now you’re full of sh*t!
Tremendous… the troll is released from prison.
Dittohead
Whenever someone points out mikey’s hypocrisy he calls them a name. It’s his way of avoiding the issue.
Michael: Not that you need me jumping to your defense, but there’s a big difference in the two situations. As to attacking Iran, that is a policy decision that the generals are obligated to carry out to the best of their abilities. In the case of sending more troops to iraq is a tactical suggestion, and tactics on how to fight the wars the civilians start is indeed best left to the generals.
It is interesting, but not surprising, that bush, for so long offering up the ‘what the generals want, I give them’, is now looking to force things down their throat.
Steve, well said. And… funny how trolls who disagree with me call me Mikey.
Michael, it’s called a parody, thats what dittohead is doing. I bet you’d call Stephen Colbert a troll if he made fun of you as well.
Your ego and self importance overrides your humility.
” Here’s my advice: listen to the Generals. Believe it or not; they tend to know a lot about this kind of stuff.”
The explain your acceptance of Bush ignoring the generals in the beginning? I seem to remember you claiming the whole operation was just fine about a year ago, what happened? Reality bite you?
Pyst, I am not afraid to admit what I already admitted. I find your question to be strange. Seemingly you missed some important posts. I have come to the insight that Bush et alia have messed it up tremendously. That, when the military gave advice, it was systematically ignored (especially by Rumsfeld) that Bush is intellectual too lazy to ask questions that need to be asked, that the aftermath of the Iraq has been mishandled in an unbelievably amateuristic manner, that – in my opinion – Iraq cannot be saved anymore, etc.
Are you saying that one is not allowed to change one’s opinion? I’m not a politician Pyst, I don’t care whether you think I am consistent or not… As long as I know that I am being consistent, there is no problem: consistency, in this case, existed in the idea whether the war could be won or not: if it could be won (which I thought it could), certain policies had to happen / change… if it could not any longer be won… the situation changes.
It’s the only kind of comment he leaves and I’m not about to argue with you about this. Satire is fine, but add – at least occasionally – something to the debate or please refrain from leaving a comment, that’s my view.
Humility?
I’m don’t know why you’re all attacking Michael. He changed his opinion when facts prove his old ones wrong. That’s what intelligent people are supposed to do. That’s the only way we ever steer away from disaster. The only person I know who doesn’t think that way is the president himself. He decided long ago what an invasion Iraq would look like, and he’s never wavered in his beliefs no matter how much chaos ensues.
So now the Generals have to make strategies to fight in George’s fantasy world instead of planning for the situation on the ground.
MikeF: thanks and… i agree. that’s what I think of it. If only Bush’s mind would have been changed…
I’m glad that people change their mind in the face of contrary evidence, but I have a problem when the change takes much longer than everyone else, and that person has spent a lot of time denigrating those people who were indeed actually correct.
Your admissions are more than a day late, and a dollar short Michael. Common sense alone without political leanings should have told you 4 years ago invading Iraq would be a foolish move. The advice of the generals were out there back then, but scoffed at by the very people you still champion and link to….often. You yourself were still cheering this debacle on when it was clearly a debacle months back.
I guess what I’m saying is welcome to the party 4+ years late, but some of the people in the world aren’t going to let you forget it for a long time. More or less you come to the party as damaged, and your points of view now and for a good while won’t be taken seriously by some.
A good place to start is by not linking to the biggest of the fools that egged the “visionaries” of Iraq on, like Krauthammer for example.
Rememeber the responses that got?
And as far as dittohead, I find him quite funny. He does the war hawking right winger to a T, and if it weren’t obvious satire you’d be lavishing thanks upon him like you often do for anyone else that praises your point of view. And he was responding to the post by commenting on the subject, he just stuck it you some but you can’t seem to take any jibe without it puncturing your ego apparently. Funniest part is if he did the exact same thing at Powerline, LFG, or Redstate they’d think he was serious, and he’d have fans LOL.
And lastly….I meant LACK of humility, as in you’re not humble, as in you run around here with a chip on your shoulder. Learn to take some jabs, I take them and don’t froth at the mouth, or if I were you threaten people constantly for giving you a hard time within the rules. People should be allowed to remember your positions as well shouldn’t they?
Obviously the generals are right. Even at Vietnam troop levels, you can’t win an occupation or outfight an insurgency. Iran? Are you guys crazy? We can’t even lick Afghanistan!
You’re a blogstar now Michael, you have to take the slings and arrows like one, and whatever you’ve said or will say can and will be used against you in the blogcourt.
We are paying attention, and you didn’t think we cared.
Well, I don’t blame Michael for coming a little late to the table on Iraq. Look at the 27% who still think the bad news is just due to MSM bias, LOL! Those are the people I feel sorry for, because they lack the ability to independently analyze information that doesn’t come from right wing sources. Its stuck in their brain that if we just send more troops in, we can make our failures in Iraq and Afghanistan into brilliant successes. In their magical land the military is at a breaking point because Bill Clinton downsized it, and Nancy Pelosi is the biggest threat to family values that we’ve ever had as Speaker.
As long as MvdG and others like him are open to new information, and will honestly admit when they were wrong about something, I have no problem with them.
Kim
While I agree with your last statement I do believe what pyst is referring to is not old information. General’s gave opinions before the invasion and people like Mvdg chose to ignore the generals and go with the opinions of the likes of Rummy’s, wolfie &Pearl’s.
Now Mvdg is saying the opposite.
After my first visit to this site I google’d Mvdg and it brought up link to article on the huffington post entitled.
“Beware of False Moderates”
I’d have to say based on what i’ve read since those comments in the article were bang on.
Hey Mikey
sticks&stones, sticks&stones
Yes because the HufPo is a terrific centrist site.
O wait…
Anyway, I am a (moderate) liberal conservative. Look that up Corvus.
Because I’m quite sure that you have no idea what it is.
You know, it would require you to do some research.
And, o, when did I say that I agreed with everything Bush did and say? My support was not based on ‘everything is okay’, my support was based on the idea that attacking Iraq was the right decision (still believe so), that tragic mistakes had been made (still believe so), but that the situation could still be saved (don’t believe so any longer).
Read Corvus, read.
Unbelievable.
Corvus- nevertheless, a convert is a convert. How many who regularly comment on this site and seem like reasonably intelligent people still have their head in the sand about the war? There is a certain type of mentality that thinks that overwhelming force is the answer to every foreign policy problem we face. They chafe at the restrictions of limited warfare, because they live by the motto that “might makes right”. In exerting force over others the US of A is just maintaining its natural superpower status. They never get beyond calling for a total military defeat—never understand the political repercussions or the nuanced positions that we have to put forth. In otherwards I don’t think Mikey is a neocon.
Kim thanks for the support but…
do you have to call me Mikey?
lol
do you have to call me Mikey?
Just wanted to disprove your little theory there, LOL! But since I’m in the holiday mood, I promise not to until 2007. Call it an early Christmas gift!
Whats wrong with Mikey? It’s common for people that are used to eachother, and talk alot here to use shortened versions of peoples names.
An example is my name, Bryan. People often call me Bry, it’s no big whoop.