I suppose you can take your pick- either the generals are incompetent or the guy who hires them is. Personally, I go with the latter.

I find it pretty disheartening that the ‘Surge’ really seems to have little relationship to the counterinsurgency ideas that made General Petraeus famous in the first place.

Left by Preston on June 14th, 2007 at 10:34 pm

so i suppose that “incompetence” is the only solution here, huh? if shotcallers were more competent then what would be different?

we can always count on you for more liberal fingerpointing without any applicable suggestions.
great innovations; thanks!

Left by adam on June 15th, 2007 at 10:25 pm

Suggestion:

Leave Iraq.

Thanks for asking.

Left by Preston on June 15th, 2007 at 11:15 pm

“Leave Iraq.”

i think we should get you a position in the administration. such eloquent speakers and well explained policymakers are tough to come by. have you made any attempts to gain support for this detailed plan for success? how are those working out?

Left by adam on June 16th, 2007 at 12:51 am

Well, it looks like the merry-go-round of pointless debate is kicking into second gear where each of my posts is volleyed back with the accusation that my 50 word blog comment has somehow not managed to address all contingencies.

It’s true- I concede your point.

Back to the thrust of the initial post- I find it completely unAmerican for Republicans to attempt to imply that US Senators are forbidden from criticizing US military policy and those responible for creating it. Just a reminder: this country has civilian control of the military.

Left by Preston on June 16th, 2007 at 1:37 pm

And historically, most of those civilians had prior military experience.
And historically, those civilians didn’t have such an obvious disdain for those who do serve.

Left by Robbie on June 16th, 2007 at 8:42 pm

Oh come on-

I don’t believe that it makes any difference to you whether a war critic has military experience.

Left by Preston on June 16th, 2007 at 9:26 pm

You’re partially right, Preston.

I don’t care whether or not most war critics — such as yourself — have military experience or not.

I do care that our Congressional leaders or President of our country as military experience or not.

I DO care when anybody smears or denigrates our Soldiers though — for instance by calling them incompetent — especially when they don’t have any prior service.

Left by Robbie on June 17th, 2007 at 8:45 am

Actually, I prefer for critics of the Iraq occupation to refrain from ad hominem attacks but when it comes down to it is essentially the same to say ‘policy in Iraq is counter to US interests’ as to say ‘the policymakers are incompetent’.

Remembering the American legacy of civilian control of the government both statements are legitimate and necessary- though perhaps a bit uncomfortable to some ears.

Left by Preston on June 17th, 2007 at 9:02 am

I think our support for the war has to be measured in how well the IRAQ GOVERNMENT does their part to maintain a government their people can live with. Reid makes me ill for a number of reasons, but criticizing our troops, and that’s what he’s doing, is totally out of line.

IF the IRAQ GOVERNMENT doesn’t uphold their part of the bargain, then we need to get out and unfortunately let the chips fall where they may. If they prize their lunatic religion over their country, then I want no part of shedding one more drop of American blood over there.

But in the meantime, Harry Reid better STFU.

Left by Dianne on June 17th, 2007 at 12:01 pm

Dianne- I agree with that but it’s not like political instability was unexpected after the fall of Saddam. That is, of course, one reason that many Americans opposed this invasion. It was expected that Iraqis would fight back and it was expected that rival ethnic and religious groups would fight each other; the inability to foresee predictable circumstances falls on American policy-makers.

Left by Preston on June 17th, 2007 at 2:28 pm

pres,
after breaking and rereading my post, i apologize. my criticizms were quite vague and tough to view as catalysts to informed debate. my intention isn’t to be pointless. sorry dude!

Left by adam on June 18th, 2007 at 10:12 am

Preston - I agree. It should have been predictable. Bush screwed this one up royally. I think his heart was in the right place but he listened to the wrong people. I still believe the country is at grave risk of another attack and hope the next Pres, whoever he/she is, doesn’t make the same mistake. Our lives depend on it.

Left by Dianne on June 18th, 2007 at 11:15 am

i also agree that post saddam should have been and was predictably an up hill battle. i agree that bush was/is doing what he feels is best. again i concur that the country is facing a grave risk of 9/11 like attacks; that said, i believe the threat to be diminished since 9/11.

i also feel that the iraq war is not making the ameican public more susceptible to such an attack. i concede there are downfalls to many viewing america as imperialistic(wrongly or not), but few can seriously say that they didn’t expect drastic american reactions post 9/11. if nothing else, the world knows that while bush is in office terrorist-sponsoring states will largely be held accountable by our government. will any democrat be able to attain this? your wrong if you believe that governments in syria and iran aren’t doing everything they can to help change our post 9/11 pro-active foreign policy. i hate to say it, but in that respect, liberals are they’re allies.

dianne is right, our lives will soon depend on the next president, but i suspect that this bush will not be judged so harshly in about 50 yrs. in fact, regardless of the outcome in iraq, history will show that this man made very difficult decisions (some right/ some wrong) in order to protect americans. now everyone talks about what a texas idiot he is as they monday morning quarterback his foreign policy. the fact is, radical islam hasn’t claimed the life of another american civilian here since 9/11. i would call that almost 6 consecutive years of evidence suggesting competence. i sometimes wonder what i may have done that bush chose not to do, and then i’m forced to ponder if those differences would have gotten american civilians killed.

Left by adam on June 18th, 2007 at 3:05 pm

i apologize.

Is that the real Adam?

I agree- online conversations are imperfect and people often talk past each other. It takes faith in the other person’s goodwill for the conversations to keep from becoming pretty useless.

I still believe the country is at grave risk of another attack and hope the next Pres, whoever he/she is, doesn’t make the same mistake.
I’m pretty sure we’ll see that some of the candidates are committed to fighting terrorism with a wider range of tools than we’ve seen over the last six years.

Left by Preston on June 18th, 2007 at 8:09 pm

“I’m pretty sure we’ll see that some of the candidates are committed to fighting terrorism with a wider range of tools than we’ve seen over the last six years.” what tools?

terrorism (at least the radical islamic variety) hasn’t killed any americans at home since 9/11. can bush earn any points, in your book for this, or is he just really lucky?

Left by adam on June 18th, 2007 at 9:27 pm

what tools?

Diplomacy for starters. This administration believes that you don’t talk to nations that the US has disagreements with. Checking out the Gaza Strip and North Korea shows how well this has worked out. Our policies have allowed nuclear weapons in the hands of a tyrant and have empowered Islamic extremists in Gaza. (We can add Iraq to this list if we include weapons inspection into the catagory of ‘diplomacy’)

can bush earn any points, in your book for this, or is he just really lucky?
It’s a fair question- I certainly expected more attacks by now. There is no question that the FBI is taking terrorism much more seriously than it did before 2001. It remains to be seen if the men swept up in sting operations were truly threats to national security but I don’t think that the diligence of the FBI is in doubt.

Whether Bush’s foreign policy has resulted in reduced terrorism, I will have to let you explain what chain of events starts with Iraq and ends with less terrorism. Sincerely, the concept makes no sense to me.

Left by Preston on June 19th, 2007 at 9:26 pm