Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If Petraeus has no good news from Iraq then what is the anti-war crowd all in a dizzy tizzy about concerning his report? Why are they already working so hard to discount anything and everything he might say as neocon propaganda?
Sheesh. The willfull blindness by some in here is absolutely staggering in its proportions. And people wonder why the anti-war types are called swamp-fevered and moonbats? The answer to that question is painfully obvious.
How many leading Generals has Bush switched over the years of this war? Is it because they speak critically of the failures of this admin and so bye bye they go?
Bush is trying to politicize the military to fit the PNAC Design
Can yiou demonstrate that other administrations have not made changes to the military command structure during the course of a war? If you can then you may have a point.
Can you point out where in the modern history of war that politicians dictating the field of battle has actually worked?
I can highlight some major examples of where politicians dictating the rules of war despite strong military dis-approval has failed.
1. WW2 - Hitler dictating that Stalingrad *had* to be taken, focusing their power there and eliminating their biggest advantage, speed. The symbolic focus bogged down the war and essentially lost it for Hitler. He might have lost either way, but this definitely harmed the efforts significantly.
2. Post WW2, when we had the armies in place to go after the Soviets, we did not. This lead to pretty much every post-WW2 conflict, including Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and helped in the current situation in the ME.
3. N. Korea. Had we not been so timid about going after N. Korea and also putting full weight behind going after China, things might have been drastically different. Again, the military was limited by politicians.
4. Vietnam. Classic textbook case of limiting military efforts through political means. This conflict probably wouldn't have even happened had it not been for our timidity post-WW2. Despite that, the political nature of target choosing and the shackles of not winning a war as opposed to not losing it cause this quagmire.
5. GW1. I agree with the rationale behind not going after Saddam, it wouldn't have been prudent at that juncture (hah).
6. GW2. Instead of following our Generals, Bush/Rummy/Cheney decided we didn't need 2x the forces, which the Generals said were essential for victory. We went in with a faction of what they said, instead of overwhelming and smothering, we bypassed, dodged, and allowed pockets of resistance to fester into gangreen. We ignored history in not going after the Fadayeen, which required bypassing Baghdad for a few days. Had we done that we would have ripped the core out of the most fanatical portion of Saddam's army, which later became the core of the insurgents. Instead, much like Stalingrad, politicians wanted the symbolic victory, driving straight to Baghdad. This effect was multipled by our ineffectual protection of key military supply dumps, we again went after symbolic victories rather than protecting these key sites. We compounded this mistake by dismissing the entire Iraqi army, which then bolstered the insurgency which already had thousands of tons of weapons from the above sites. Then, instead of smothering the resistance there and co-opting the Iraqis, we pissed them off more by creating problems with private contractors, who were not answerable to the CMJ or any Iraqi Law, thanks to Bremer and his lackeys who were there to just pilfer Iraq.
You see, the military is to be used when politicians have failed. It is not to be limited afterwards except for strategic levels at the 10k foot view. Tactical levels and theater strategic issues should be left to theater commanders.
Every time a political leader attempts to control theater strategy and tactical strategy, the effort fails. Failure to learn from history in this matter results in repeating it.
Patraeus will probably do what every general after Shinseki did, waffle.