Vote out the Republicans.
Mr. Ferry,
We can only hope that people will actually consider who the terrorists**(those who desire to kill us or “covert” us)** support in this election cycle.
The terrorists seem to know who will give them the least trouble in attaining their goals. Hmmmm, does that make them smarter than the lefties?? (Joe Lieberman excepted)
These opinions in support of a war even the military think has been poorly handled ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/welec105.xml) and a multi-trillion dollar debt are brought to you by Halliburton.
If those Generals think the war is being poorly handled now, wait til they get a taste of how the Pelosis, Reids, Kerrys, Clintons, Kennedys and Rangels will handle it.
Generals and politicians rarely agree on how wars should be handled.
Many folks (who have never read any of the volumes by Gibbon) like to refer to the US as in a state of decline, similar to the Roman Empire.
Strangely enough, Gibbon wrote his first (of six books) on this subject in the same years in which our Declaration of Independence and subsequent constitution was being formed. These architects of our system, learning from the Roman decline, chose to put the US military under the control of the President (who, in turn, was under the control of the population) to keep the military - when it disagreed with the politicians - from doing things on their own.
Generals who disagree with an administration should do what other generals did and become politicians, themselves, and try to change things, politically.
By the way, if you were to sit in on a meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, you would find several hundreds of generals who disagree with the remaining generals. It is their nature to be bullheaded and focused on their one, solitary objective instead of a broader view of how they can actually win a battle yet lose the war.
The left just loves to demonize Halliburton while ignoring the facts.
http://www.randomjottings.net/archives/000091.html
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze1tvxm/thepoliticalarena/The%20Truth%20About%20Halliburton.htm
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15426
Yeah, we’re funny about no-bid, blank check contracts being handed out to politically connected corporations.
Could it possibly be that the generals have had their toes stepped on and their favorite programs altered or eliminated during Rumsfeld’s tenure?
He has made whole changes in the military (and made it quickly) in response the the real threat that we face now and in the future.
Does anyone remember the last war that the military leadership agreed with the political leadership?
Joe, You could not possibly have read the links posted in less than 3 minutes.:shock:
Typical, more invective with no relevant facts.:shock:
It is true that the military often disagrees with civilian leadership on tactics. However, they nearly always recognize the importance of subordination and do not publicly call for the ouster of the Secretary of Defense.
This case is strikingly different.
In this case, they are telling their superiors that the inherent strategy of relying on Iraqi nationals to assume the authority for securing the nation will not work for a variety of reasons.
This is not the report of one or two loose cannon generals, but the field experience of dozens of officers who see first hand the unreliability of the Iraqi’s they are supposed to be training, and understand the need to find a way to stabilize the country - or else the US will be stuck as an occupying force in Iraq for decades.
Sparta.
And these guys aren’t doing that, either. They are leaking their discontent to willing scribes who themselves disagree with the policy.
If they are actually telling that to anyone, just who do they have in mind to rely upon to secure the Iraqi nation, Syrians? Iranis? Who?
I actually do not think that “being stuck as an occupying force in Iraq for decades” is a negative. We were “stuck” in Germany and Japan for years and the effect upon those former hostiles of being exposed to American culture and GIs for protracted periods did nothing but bode well for world peace.
I personally would like to see us fly AWACS 24/7 over the entire Middle East, jam all Al-Jazeera-type programming and beam US television and radio programs non-stop.
When Muslim rappers start winning Grammy Awards, the world will be a very safe place, indeed.
Yes Joe we could send thousands of more troops(if we actually had them) to Iraq if our goal was to have a police state occupied by a foreign force, but it’s is not.
We want a stable democracy in the middleeast and selfdetermination for the people of Iraq. We are provding that opportunity. We will see if the Iraqis value that more than their sectarian loyalties.
Actually, that is the exact problem. WE are providing it with no hope of THE IRAQIS ever being able to provide it. The field officers in charge of training are telling their superiors that the Iraqis they are supposed to be training are not attentive, are motivated only by the money they get, do not show up, etc. In short, they are not a reliable alternative to maintain this democracy and self determination. We will have to stay there to maintain it.
The notion that leaking discontent to the media is not the same as public insuborination is also not correct. Previous generals, etc did not use the media to express discontent or call for the ouster of the Sec of Def. These officers did. Any way you slice it - even the military wants a change at the top.
At this point, we are faced with a decades long occupation just to prevent destabilization. But because the administration cannot politically come out and say that (they keep offering 5-10 year time frames), they are “staying the course” and are committed to a policy that will go nowhere.
Freedom for all - even if we have to stay there decards to force it upon them since they are not motivated to preserve it for themselves!!
I heard the very same complaint from my NCOs about the Koreans. My top used to tell me that “These Koreans are like monkeys. What they don’t fck up, they sht on.” And the Koreans weren’t being blown up, kidnapped and otherwise intimidated by the enemy.
Well, it is quite different. If they were publicly insubordinate they would find out very quickly the consequences of that. cf. Truman v. MacArthur
You do not know that. No one does.
They are motivated. You just do not read about in the lefty-dominated US and European press.
They turned out in droves to vote last January, despite a massive campaign of intimidation by the insurgents and the entire Free World Press Corps rooting against them.
Here might be a clue…