Originally posted by Reap
Bush may have input however the when and how is not his domain
He is supreme commander of all american military forces. Agreed, he is not a general, but that doesn't matter, HE is responsible for the success or
failure of the military.
And regardless of the small scale strategy, he IS responsible for the large scale strategy. He has to know at least enough to be able to tell that his
general who've been saying 'its going to magically get better by doing nothing' needed to at least be replaced, even if he himself couldn't think
up a better alternative strategy to theirs. Just like with Lincoln, he didn't know how to win the civil war in terms of tactics, but he knew that
when a general constantly failed, he needed to be changed.
So its his reponsibility.
I suppose, like vietnam and the deaths of millions in the aftermath, absolutely no responsiblity lies with the leftist anti-american groups who spread
propaganda which emboldened the enemy and got americans killed?
An entirely different situation. Rumsfeld was no kissinger, and Nixon, he went after
the bastards, and at least he knew when to pull out.
SO no, its not 'the lefts' fault that Bush is an incomepent commander in cheif. Iraq isn't in chaos right now because of the left, its in chaos
because the military hasn't been able to control the situation, and that is ultimately Bush's fault. He shoudl've seen, at least by the time that
the mosque of the Golden Dome was bombed, that they'd need to 'change tactics'. But he didn't, because he's a nitwit, more concerned about how
that'd look in terms of domestic politics than with winning the war.
but President Bush made a mistake in invading Iraq.
Invading IRaq wasn't the mistake, failing to secure the country was the mistake. Heck, even that wasn't the mistake, it was continuing to fail to
secure the country that was.
THe military made a bold and risky decision in having a small invasion force, they figured it'd defeat the iraqi military easily (it did), and that
it, being small, wouldn't have much of a 'footprint' on iraq, and the public wouldn't resent it as much and they wouldn't feel like they were
being oppressed and under occupation (that didn't work). If it had worked, it'd've been a stroke of genius. BUt it didn't. So it should've been
changed once it was obvious that it wasn't working.
They didn't change it. THATS where Bush's responsibility, as civilian Commander in Cheif of the military, lies.
United States will loses not because of President Bush who wants the Military to stay there till the job is done that meaning Iraqi Security can
control the problems themselves.
It will rest on the shoulders of the House and Senate that try and bring them all home.
Thats simply nonsense. Iraq CAN NOT be controlled through american support of internal police forces, certainly not at this point. We need either a
radically different plan, or we need to just leave. Beacuse without a radically different plan, all we are doing is loosing more soldiers and delaying
the inevitable withdrawl, after which iraq will be ruled by whichever dictator can establish himself. And then we'll probably find ourselves back
he would be blamed for bringing them home to early and letting Iraq fall to terror once again.
Iraw WILL 'fall to terror', and it IS bush's fault, because he was too incompetent to actually win the damned war. Its not the democrats fault for
this. With Bush, we're going to do to same old thing, and thats clearly never going to work there. Bush has the power to make a
radically new strategy, but he's not, thats why we're failing to maintain security there, and thats why we're going to leave, not because of 'the
left', but because bush has completely failed.