US Military Seeks To Silence Officers Who Speak out about Illegal Wars

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

Tribesman, they're not talking about 'the troops.' Unless I'm mistaken, they're discussing the military leadership, and the issue at hand is not the quality of the plan, but the unwillingness of congress to commit itself. If they assign generals to accomplish a task and then block those generals' plans, they show either that they are determined to fail or that they don't trust their own appointees, either of which is discouraging.

Ajax

---

Yup, he's got it. :bow:
General Petraeus was confirmed unanimously by the Senate with the many of them going out of their way to gush and heap praise on him. However, they oppose the plan to secure Baghdad that was written in a large part by and certainly supported by Petraeus. It's mind boggling cognitive dissonance and smacks of political pandering.

I'll agree with you wholeheartedly that the quality of the plan is an issue. The point is that it is not the issue Del Arroyo and Xiahou were discussing. No need to sound like a broken record, as there are certainly plenty of opportunities here to address the issue you'd prefer to be discussing (and I'm sure you'll take advantage of them ~;)) without the danger of starting a needless flaming session when folks are discussing something else.

Ajax

Quote:

---

General Petraeus was confirmed unanimously by the Senate with the many of them going out of their way to gush and heap praise on him. However, they oppose the plan to secure Baghdad that was written in a large part by and certainly supported by Petraeus. It's mind boggling cognitive dissonance and smacks of political pandering.

---

Yep , yet while the gave him the shoo in they were still questioning how according to his own expert writings on counter insurgency he would need 120,000 troops just to secure Baghdad .


So if he has written that in his expert opinion a certain level of troops are neccesary then that means to recommend or agree to go with less is a severe cognital malfunction and political pandering on the part of the General .

Since they retain the ability to challenge the plan itself then the fact that they approved the nominee for the job has no relevance at all .

Appointing someone because you have faith in their abilities is no reflection at all on having faith in a policy . The policy is what is screwed up .

So to paraprhrase some of the "gushing praise " heaped on the General at the time of his appointment ."Its screwed but if anyone can make some sort of sense out of the mess then Petraeus is the fella , the plan stinks but lets give him the job"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So if he has written that in his expert opinion a certain level of troops are neccesary then that means to recommend or agree to go with less is a severe cognital malfunction and political pandering on the part of the General .[/I]

---

So in your opinion our Generals should be making fantasy plans based on imaginary armies? At any rate, it's rather clear you are missing the point of delegated authority and teamwork.

Quote:

---

So in your opinion our Generals should be making fantasy plans based on imaginary armies?

---

No , it is my opinion that the fantasy plans based on imaginary armies are what you have had since 2003 and are still getting .:yes:

Quote:

---

At any rate, it's rather clear you are missing the point of delegated authority and teamwork.

---

And you are clearly missing the point , general Keane the co-author of the plan is highly critical of Bush and Gates implementation of the plan , so does ...."it makes no military sense , but it might make political sense" ......mean that it is the administration who are the ones playing silly buggers and not being part of the team and going along with the delegated authority .

This is a topic which you clearly misunderstand. The Surge is the best hope for a way forward given our current strategic orientation and the situation on the ground. If Congress would like to change our strategic orientation, to, say, immediate withdrawal, that would be one thing. Dickering over tactical matters which are clearly out of their scope is just illogical, straight-up, and this illogical nature cannot be mitigated by anything related to the President's actions or the merits of the plan itself.

Congress' lack of substantive action means that the Surge is going to happen whether or not their pathetic non-binding resolution passes. So, what gives?

The preceeding 17 posts have been about "the surge", not Lieutenant Watada's 'silencing' court-martial - so I guess we've exhausted that original topic, pending new developments.

Thanks to all contributors.:bow: Those who wish to continue discussing the surge, and future startegies & tactics in Iraq, are invited to view this thread , specificly about that topic.

Closed.