George Bush - a strong leader...

[JoshK]

All the recent news about Bushie backing up Rumsfeld despite his obvious complete failure had me thinking...how did his supporters come to the conclusion that failure to rethink strategy and change plans in the face of obvious failure is a sign of strong leadership? Last time I checked, inability to adapt to a constantly changing situation and make the nescessary changes was the trait of an extremely weak mind. I find it amazing how the right has been able to portray his weakness as a strength.

[DirtyHarry]

What if Lincoln had stuck with Mclellan? You'd need a passport to visit Alabama.

 

Shit. Kind of wish he had.

[catbirdseat]

The classic definition of insanity is when you keep doing the same thing and expect to get a different result than what you are getting.

[underworld]

The classic definition of insanity is when you keep doing the same thing and expect to get a different result than what you are getting.

 

for example

[KaskadskyjKozak]

What if Lincoln had stuck with Mclellan? You'd need a passport to visit Alabama.

 

Shit. Kind of wish he had.

 

McClellan was a general, not the Secretary of War. Presidents have fired their generals many times; not so with the Secretary of War (Defense since 1947).

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The classic definition of insanity is when you keep doing the same thing and expect to get a different result than what you are getting.

 

Like throwing money at every social problem with new federal government programs? Insanity indeed!

[cj001f]

The classic definition of insanity is when you keep doing the same thing and expect to get a different result than what you are getting.

 

Like throwing money at every social problem with new federal government programs? Insanity indeed!

 

paging Mr. Chertoff and the Republican caucus

[DirtyHarry]

What if Lincoln had stuck with Mclellan? You'd need a passport to visit Alabama.

 

Shit. Kind of wish he had.

 

McClellan was a general, not the Secretary of War. Presidents have fired their generals many times; not so with the Secretary of War (Defense since 1947).

 

Semantics

 

You could make a strong case the Secretary of Defense today occupies a similar position as General-in-Chief of the Union then. As you point out, the position wasn't even created until 1947.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

What if Lincoln had stuck with Mclellan? You'd need a passport to visit Alabama.

 

Shit. Kind of wish he had.

 

McClellan was a general, not the Secretary of War. Presidents have fired their generals many times; not so with the Secretary of War (Defense since 1947).

 

Semantics

 

You could make a strong case the Secretary of Defense today occupies a similar position as General-in-Chief of the Union then. As you point out, the position wasn't even created until 1947.

 

It's much more than semantics.

 

There was a certain famous general who profoundly disagreed with his president's policy and was fired for it. Was he happy about that? Didn't he speak before congress? Or did he just "fade away" quietly? Rumsfeld has shaken up the way the army is run - old school generals, of course, are disatisfied with that. People dislike change.

[DirtyHarry]

People can be resistent to change, but if change gets good results then it is generally supported. On the other hand, if the "shake up" results in utter disaster and failure ...

[KaskadskyjKozak]

People can be resistent to change, but if change gets good results then it is generally supported. On the other hand, if the "shake up" results in utter disaster and failure ...

 

there has been no utter disaster or failure in Iraq. it's gone about average.

[AlpineK]

How are those new rose colored glasses.

[DirtyHarry]

People can be resistent to change, but if change gets good results then it is generally supported. On the other hand, if the "shake up" results in utter disaster and failure ...

 

there has been no utter disaster or failure in Iraq. it's gone about average.

 

Well, I think that depends on what the definition of "is" is.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

How are those new rose colored glasses.

 

rose colored glasses would be saying it was going perfectly well.

 

as for tinted shades, rabid Bush-haters are in no position to be commenting on how someone else views the facts. the hyperbole of "utter failure" and similar characterizations is just a bunch of BS

 

considering that we don't slaughter indiscriminantly or quell all resistence with an iron hand (as would be done by superpowers of the past), that we are dealing with full-on nut job fanatics, and walk a very fine line in what we can and can not do, we've done a fair job.

[DirtyHarry]

"Strategically it has been a disaster, primarily because of a series of very bad decisions. The leader of the department of defence has to take responsibility."

 

- Former Army General John Batiste

[KaskadskyjKozak]

"Strategically it has been a disaster, primarily because of a series of very bad decisions. The leader of the department of defence has to take responsibility," he says.

 

- Former Army General John Batiste

 

this statement says nothing. the guy claims it's a disaster, without saying exactly why, and you believe it because you want to - you like the message. just because a general says it "is" doesn't make it so.

 

I don't see a disaster. the occupation could have gone a lot better; it could have gone a lot worse too

[JackY]

Why did we invade again??

 

Innocent people are being executed daily.

 

Can you pay for this war? (I don't think war is accurate but I'll use it hear to ask this question)

 

How is the US better off??

[DirtyHarry]

"Strategically it has been a disaster, primarily because of a series of very bad decisions. The leader of the department of defence has to take responsibility," he says.

 

- Former Army General John Batiste

 

this statement says nothing. the guy claims it's a disaster, without saying exactly why, and you believe it because you want to - you like the message. just because a general says it "is" doesn't make it so.

 

I don't see a disaster. the occupation could have gone a lot better; it could have gone a lot worse too

 

Come on, man, stop being such an ideologue. Its OK to be critical of Bush. Conservatives and Republicans are doing it too now.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Come on, man, stop being such an ideologue. Its OK to be critical of Bush. Conservatives and Republicans are doing it too now.

 

really? it's OK? really, really, really? Gee, I'm glad it's OK now. I've been holding back for so long!

 

the facts are that the left has been 100% critical of everything Bush has done since the day he was "elected" (selected as you put it). talk about the boy cry wolf syndrome... magnified a few million times. heap on piles and piles of hysterical hyperbole and the 'criticism' takes on comic proportions of fanaticism.

 

sorry, but even KK can't compete with that level of one-sided, unadulterated abuse!

[DirtyHarry]

First, the Bush team underestimated the enemy and never understood the complexity of Iraqi politics. At the outset, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his generals saw Iraqi Freedom as a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War. They believed that, as in 1991, the Republican Guard would be the primary adversary and that Baghdad was the "center of gravity," the capture of which would end resistance. As a result, they ignored indicators that the Iraqis had chosen to fight a different kind of war — an "asymmetric," unconventional one.

 

Second, they failed to bring the right tools to the war, relying too much on technology. Rumsfeld's thinking about how to conduct the war was greatly influenced by his concept of military "transformation," which stressed speed and agility instead of mass. Accordingly, say the authors, the war was undertaken with the minimal acceptable force.

 

Third, once things began to go badly, they failed to adapt to the new circumstances, remaining wedded to their prewar estimates and even canceling badly needed reinforcements. For instance, Rumsfeld canceled the scheduled deployment of the 1st Cavalry Division to Iraq just as it was becoming clear that more "boots on the ground" were necessary. Gordon and Trainor write that the chaos that followed the war "was not a matter of not having a plan but of adhering too rigidly to the wrong one."

 

Fourth, the decision making process they employed discouraged alternative political and military perspectives.

 

And finally, the Bush team continued to reject the need for nation-building, planning instead to leave reconstruction to the defeated Iraqis and allied nations that were ambivalent about the war at best. The failure to plan adequately for post-combat stability operations created the necessary, if not sufficient, conditions for the insurgency, which was exacerbated by the decision to disband the Iraqi army, placing 300,000 angry and armed men on the street.

 

- Central points of "Cobra II" by Michael Gordon and General Bernard E. Trainor

[DirtyHarry]

the facts are that the left has been 100% critical of everything Bush has done since the day he was "elected" (selected as you put it).

 

I don't disagree. But unfortunately that's how our 2-party partisan politics works in contemporary America. I'm personally extremely critical of such bullshit, but even you have to agree that the right does the same exact shit to the left. And anyway, that's pretty much irrelevant to the points I'm making that the war was mishandled from the get go, regardless of partisan politics.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

First, the Bush team underestimated the enemy and never understood the complexity of Iraqi politics. At the outset, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his generals saw Iraqi Freedom as a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War. They believed that, as in 1991, the Republican Guard would be the primary adversary and that Baghdad was the "center of gravity," the capture of which would end resistance. As a result, they ignored indicators that the Iraqis had chosen to fight a different kind of war — an "asymmetric," unconventional one.

 

Second, they failed to bring the right tools to the war, relying too much on technology. Rumsfeld's thinking about how to conduct the war was greatly influenced by his concept of military "transformation," which stressed speed and agility instead of mass. Accordingly, say the authors, the war was undertaken with the minimal acceptable force.

 

Third, once things began to go badly, they failed to adapt to the new circumstances, remaining wedded to their prewar estimates and even canceling badly needed reinforcements. For instance, Rumsfeld canceled the scheduled deployment of the 1st Cavalry Division to Iraq just as it was becoming clear that more "boots on the ground" were necessary. Gordon and Trainor write that the chaos that followed the war "was not a matter of not having a plan but of adhering too rigidly to the wrong one."

 

Fourth, the decision making process they employed discouraged alternative political and military perspectives.

 

And finally, the Bush team continued to reject the need for nation-building, planning instead to leave reconstruction to the defeated Iraqis and allied nations that were ambivalent about the war at best. The failure to plan adequately for post-combat stability operations created the necessary, if not sufficient, conditions for the insurgency, which was exacerbated by the decision to disband the Iraqi army, placing 300,000 angry and armed men on the street.

 

- Central points of "Cobra II" by Michael Gordon and General Bernard E. Trainor

 

I see those points, but looking at the results don't see a disaster. If I graded the occupation on a straight-curve, I'd give it a C or a C+. Obviously, you can do a lot better.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

the facts are that the left has been 100% critical of everything Bush has done since the day he was "elected" (selected as you put it).

 

I don't disagree. But unfortunately that's how our 2-party partisan politics works in contemporary America. I'm personally extremely critical of such bullshit, but even you have to agree that the right does the same exact shit to the left.

 

Things have gotten extremely nasty with the last two administrations.

[whirlwind]

a c or a c+ in school is ok but in war it means lots of dead people which is never aceptable

get A clue

[KaskadskyjKozak]

a c or a c+ in school is ok but in war it means lots of dead people which is never aceptable

get A clue

 

compare the death toll to other wars.

 

we lost an order of magnitude more in each of WWI, Vietnam and Korea. Were those utter failures too? what exactly did we accomplish in those wars, anyway? do you hate Wilson, Truman and LBJ as much as you hate Bush?

 

We lost 300,000 in WWII, was that an utter failure? How do you feel about FDR?