Common sense should tell you that a person with no military background in tactics or strategy should take the word of generals that do have a military background. I heard today that our President was looking at sending more troops, that what the general on the ground wants, or a better strategy. Let us look at what as happened in the past. President Johnson and Viet Nam, that went will, right? President Johnson did not want the nomination of his own party because of his taking an active role in military strategy and tactics. President Johnson was in the military but was not in a position to have known about military strategy or tactics for that matter. President Carter and Iran, we all should know haw that turned out. Although, President Cater, like President Johnson, did have a military background in the Navy, was not in a position to have known tactics or strategy. Now we have a President that does not have a military background but doesn't seem to like the military much going to see if there may be a better military strategy. That is hard to believe, don't you think so? I hope it turns out better then the others but I don't have much hope.
Thanks
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nowhere did he say he wasn't going to send more troops. First, he said he hasn't received a request from any of the US Generals to send more troops. While the NATO commander in Afghanistan has urged us to send more troops, it's fascinating to me how NATO always seems to think that America is the one who should pony up more troops to send. I think it is incredibly reasonable to say that we need to look at our strategy before we just send in a flood of troops without any guarantee that is going to make the situation better. This isn't a war we are ever going to "win." So, I would prefer a more reasoned approach to an escalation in troops. And, nowhere did he say he wasn't going to listen to what the generals have to say either. I hardly think that just because a President doesn't have any military strategy experience that doesn't mean that the people running our wars should be given free rein. Didn't that same problem crop up with MacArthur??
ReplyDeleteIt took a number of years for Bush to get us into this mess. I'm not sure why people seem to hold Obama to the expectation that he was going to come in and everything would be perfect in a few short months.
And you say that common sense says that a person with no military background should take the word of the generals. Point me to where a U.S. General has come out and said that we need more troops right this minute.
(Love you, Dad!)
SPEC5: Daughter, the general was asked not to request more troops in the report, that was to be saved for later. We need combat troops, combat troops, if they can come from NATO fine but so far President can't get his Europe friends to do so. President Obama is the one that said he could get more from NATO because Bush was not liked. So far it looks like President is not doing much better. President Obama,said during his campaign, we could not win in Iraq but the reason that things a worse in Afghanistan is because things are better in Iraq, Bush's fault, right? President said we needed to win in Afghanistan, Bush's fault, right? President said that he would end the Iraq war with in months of taking office, it is still going on, Bush's fault right? The congress could have ended the war in Iraq anytime they wanted, by pulling funded, Bush's fault ,right? Facts are facts, just because you don't agree with them don't make them any less factual.
ReplyDelete