Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: DREDIOCK on January 05, 2007, 11:46:23 PM
-
Bush to Replace Top Generals (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070105/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq)
The question is... WHY?
Bush's own hardheadedness in being unwilling to not "Stay the course"
and not take a fresh approach sooner When it became painfully obvious the current course wasnt going to work is in large part the problem.
Looks kinda like the typical Shift the blame mentality so prevelent these days
Not to mention we needed more troops two years ago.
Nows the time to start making our footprint less obvious. Not more
Its well known I have supported the operation in Iraq all along.
For those who might think I am having a change of heart. I am not.
I was and am still in support of going into Iraq.
What I am against. Is how its been handled since the fall of Bahgdad
-
Because they do not support the troops.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Because they do not support the troops.
You liberal commie :)
:)
-
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.
-
Originally posted by storch
mr bush could use a page from his father's war book.
Getting hit with ack and bailing?
-
no letting the generals run the fight.
-
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.
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.
-
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:
I had to act ruthlessly. I had to send even my closest generals packing, two army generals, for example … I could only tell these gentlemen, "Get yourself back to Germany as rapidly as you can — but leave the army in my charge. And the army is staying at the front." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28World_War_II%29#Leadership
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.
-
Originally posted by storch
no letting the generals run the fight.
you mean like Truman did with MacArthur in korea?
bush can't win , if he makes no changes libruls say he is wrong, if he makes changes libruls say he is wrong.:lol
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Getting hit with ack and bailing?
is that braver or stupider than LBJ's combat experience of running away & letting the other B-26s fight Saburo Sakai
-
oboe,
Using Hitler as an example to support your point is pathetic. Historians unanimously agree that Hitlers meddling was ruinious for the German Armed forces.
Bush doing this is no different that when he destroyed the careear of the former JCS (forgot his name) for saying that occupying Iraq would take a couple hundred thousand troops.
His new "strategy", Lol, this is from the moron that put us in this position in the first place.
-
Originally posted by john9001
you mean like Truman did with MacArthur in korea?
bush can't win , if he makes no changes libruls say he is wrong, if he makes changes libruls say he is wrong.:lol
if mr truman had allowed general macarthur a free hand in korea vietnam wouldn't have happened and our kids wouldn't possibly become slaves to china in the future. so yes mr truman, like all democrats was a traitor and an imbecile.
-
Holy crap, what is going on with this thread? Like time warps and none of the posts seem to be in order(posts being quoted before they're posted)
-
choocha,
I agree completely. You're thinking of Gen Eric Shinseki, the man who's estimate of the requirement of several hundred thousand occupying troops to stabilize post-invasion Iraq was flatly rejected by Bush and his cronies, and he was sent packing. Ultimately he may have been correct, many are saying that now.
Pretty sad. Herr Bush is sure he's got it figured out now though.
Storch,
you are delusional.
-
Bush is the worst president the us has ever had.Don't believe me?watch the middle east crisis seriously escalate over this year.see ya suckers.
:aok
-
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.
-
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.
-
i wonder if bush is gonna replace top generals?
-
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? ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Time to replace Boosh.
-
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
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
spooky
I prefer the term, "criminal."
-
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.
-
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?
-
The additional 20k troops were originally requested by Casey (the guy making the logical battle plan you mentioned), not Bush.
-
Stalin and Hitler did purges of higher military Generals aswell..
Granted they killed them...
-
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.
Always remember that Hitler was a madman too :) BTW if he'd had listened to his generals instead of replacing them we'd all be speaking German right now.
-
Originally posted by dmf
if he'd had listened to his generals instead of replacing them we'd all be speaking German right now.
Not true!
The prevailing language in the inner cities would be Gerbonics. :p
-
Originally posted by dmf
Always remember that Hitler was a madman too :) BTW if he'd had listened to his generals instead of replacing them we'd all be speaking German right now.
Oh pish on the 2nd sentence.
Regards,
hap
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
Not true!
The prevailing language in the inner cities would be Gerbonics. :p
:rofl
-
Originally posted by VOR
The additional 20k troops were originally requested by Casey (the guy making the logical battle plan you mentioned), not Bush.
Gen Casey was against the addition of more troops, before he was for it:
DefenseLink News, 23 Dec 2005 (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2005/20051223_3740.html)
"As I've said before this is not a conventional war, and in this type of war that we're fighting, more is not necessarily better," he said. "In fact, in Iraq, less coalition at this point in time, is better. Less is better because it doesn't feed the notion of occupation, it doesn't work the culture of dependency, it doesn't lengthen the time for Iraqi forces to be self-reliant, and it doesn't expose coalition forces to risk when there are Iraqi forces who are capable of standing up and doing it."
Bush had been dropping hints for weeks about increasing troop levels - long enough for the story about the Joint Chiefs to come out against additional troops before Gen Casey flip-flopped and asked for them. There is a lot more to this story than we'll probably ever know.
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
Not true!
The prevailing language in the inner cities would be Gerbonics. :p
Ok your right LMAO
-
Originally posted by Hap
Oh pish on the 2nd sentence.
Regards,
hap
Oh pish on your psih :)
-
Oboe, that only paints half a picture without looking at the shifting strategic climate within the theatre from then to now. Iraq 2007 isn't Iraq 2005.
I'm skeptical of the conspiracy angle. I just can't figure what's to gain by an unpopular prez sending more troops into an unpopular war when there's no perceived need by the top brass.
-
Heres an Idea, pull all our troops out of there and let them kill each other, If they complain, tell them they had plenty of time to take over for them selves, whats it gonna do make the world mad at us?
-
Originally posted by VOR
Oboe, that only paints half a picture without looking at the shifting strategic climate within the theatre from then to now. Iraq 2007 isn't Iraq 2005.
I'm skeptical of the conspiracy angle. I just can't figure what's to gain by an unpopular prez sending more troops into an unpopular war when there's no perceived need by the top brass.
Your example gives the impression that his comments are 2 years old (2005 to 2007) but in reality his comments are a little more than 1 year old. I do take your point though - this has been a horrible year in Iraq, and maybe that has changed some minds with regard to necessary strategy.
-
Originally posted by VOR
The additional 20k troops were originally requested by Casey (the guy making the logical battle plan you mentioned), not Bush.
There still is no battle plan, or maybe ive missed it/ In a country the size of irq, what are 20k troops supposed to be able to do? And how does this lead to an American victory. In order to tell us how the 20k troops are going to do this, you need to define 'victory in iraq'? If we send 20k troops over there and there is no reasonable change then what? More troops, and more? I say bahhh, we either need to support the sunni's in an attempt to exterminate the shi'ites, or pull out.There is no way to occupy a country peacefully.
-
Whoa, Whitehawk. I'm not on the battle staff. What goes on behind closed doors at theater-level command is as much a mystery to me as it is to you.
-
whitehawk, 20,000 combat troops is ONE HELL OF A BUNCH OF WARFIGHTERS....don't be fooled by all the pelosi rhetoric escaping the nations anus.....err capitol
Also, 20,000 additional warfighters although a nice tidy sum, when added to whats already in country doesn't bring us anywhere near the 200,000 level. As you should know this amount inst anywhere near the 500,000 we had gathered to expell saddams sneaker shoe rag tag army back in 91. If rummer can be faulted for any one decision, using so few combat troops back in 03 is a primary reason we have the force failure we are experiencing now.
Lastly, I regret to see so many Americans so eager to abandon Iraq today, regardless of what tomorrow brings. I have always been of the opinion this country deserves the future it gets and giving Iraq to the wrong people sets us up for a major war that would otherwise be avoided with even a semi stable Iraq.