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

[Xiahou]

Don't be silly Xiahou , they can support the troops yet not support the plan , and anyone the supports the new halfarsed plan is even more stupid than anyone who supported the original plan .
Now if someone really supported the troops then they wouldn't send them off on an idiotic mission in the first place .
So Xiahou , since you support this madness in Iraq it does raise the question , why do you hate the troops so much ?

Another swing and a miss.
Want a clue, or would you like to flail away some more?

[Tribesman]

EDIT: Removed personal attack. BG

[Banquo's Ghost]

Let's try and see if we can disagree without insulting each other, shall we?

[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

[Tribesman]

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.

But the issue is the quality of the plan isn't it , the administration was offered several plans , it chose a crap one (again) . Why should the senate or congress commit to it without thourough debate . A major issue in the mid-terms was sorting the mess out in Iraq , the plan does nothing of the sort and there is cross party support saying this ,though not in sufficent numbers from either side to resolve it yet .

But I must say the change in attitudes towards Casey is quite funny .

[ajaxfetish]

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

[Tribesman]

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"

[Del Arroyo]

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.

[Xiahou]

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.
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.