Bush to replace Top Generals

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Gunslinger

It sounds to me as if he's finally let all the criticism get to him.

If this we're true, he wouldn't be sending more troops. He'd be bringing them home.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by storch
part of the problem is that it seems washington is micro managing the war.  mr bush could use a page from his father's war book.  mr bush is acting a lot like mr johnson did during viet-nam.

He should have also read this part of his father's book:

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

[Debonair]

i wonder if bush is gonna replace top generals?

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
One of the things I liked about Bush (up until this, and this started a while ago) is that he didn't let opinion polls and focus groups determine his policy.

It sounds to me as if he's finally let all the criticism get to him.

So you respect a leader of a nation that does not follow the will of the people, but stays firm on policies that does not work?

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by storch
no letting the generals run the fight.

Generals should run the fight, but the top dog should run the generals. The military is and should always be a tool for the civilian leadership and not be running itself.

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by storch
part of the problem is that it seems washington is micro managing the war.  mr bush could use a page from his father's war book.  mr bush is acting a lot like mr johnson did during viet-nam.

That is true... the micro managing should be done by the officers in the field under the ROE set by the civilian leadership.

[-tronski-]

Even in the big ones (ww2), Generals were told with whom to fight, with what and where....on all sides...

its when politicians personally start directing conflicts the problems begin...

 Tronsky

[Gnslngr]

Originally posted by Nilsen
So you respect a leader of a nation that does not follow the will of the people, but stays firm on policies that does not work?

You'll have to excuse the "semi-shades" account.  This is the one I used to use at work

To answer your question/troll, if the leader of a nation followed the will of the people AT THAT MOMENT the nation would crumble and die.

People can be easily manipulated and the US while being a democracy isn't a pure democracy.  The "flavor of the month" is a bad way to run govt.  I personally don't think the policies in Iraq thus far have completely failed.

What I think is that the Iraq govt needs more international community support but doesn't get it because most that would support it still think it's a US puppet govt.  I'm in the group that thinks the Iraqis need to hurry up and get off the pot.  It's been too long now for them not to successfully govern themselves.  I don't think more troops is the answer I think less troops are.

We need to reduce the footprint in Iraq and keep turning the job over to them.  Firing the Generals is not the answer.....giving them a direct order to do the job is.

Doing what is right isn't allways the popular choice, but I think he's wrong here.

[SirLoin]

Time to replace Boosh.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Sandman
He should have also read this part of his father's book:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


spooky

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Sixpence

spooky

I prefer the term, "criminal."

[Hap]

Good "NewsHour" profile on the changes.  


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june07/iraq_01-05.html


Brings out some of the points I've seen made in here.  

And missed some of them too.

Regards,

hap.

[WhiteHawk]

Originally posted by oboe
You guys need to have faith that Bush knows this war better than the generals on the ground over there.  Hitler was also forced to replace two top generals during the Russian Campaign, when they suggested retreating in order to save their forces.  He later told Erhard Milch:

We can't settle for anything less than complete victory, and according to Mr. Bush, all it will take is a surge of 20,000 more troops.    How can you fault that logic?    If the trained military professionals can't see that, then we should get them out of there.

Uhhh, could you compare Bushs military experience with the generals on the ground over there?  You do realize hitlers entire Soviet invasion force was wiped out dont you?  I think the generals along with 80% of americans have lost confidence in Bush, since he hasnt once provided any kind of a logical battle plan that would justify the surge in troops?

[VOR]

The additional 20k troops were originally requested by Casey (the guy making the logical battle plan you mentioned), not Bush.

[Hawklore]

Stalin and Hitler did purges of higher military Generals aswell..

Granted they killed them...