Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (192911)	1/14/2007 1:49:34 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793927

Very enlightening thoughts by Petraeus, LB. And yes, scary...Some thoughts and questions.... Perhaps he explains in the paragraph below exactly why the civilian leaders of this Administration let the Generals decide exactly the troop strength they needed. The Generals were certainly asked enough times by Mr. Rumsfeld and Congress if they needed more troops. The answer was always No. >>>>>This feeling springs from conviction that the U.S. military in Vietnam were so hemmed in by restrictions that they could not accomplish their mission. The lesson for those of this persuasion, therefore, is that the military must be given a freer hand in future military operations. <<<<< The military must be having some sincere qualms now that the Dems are in power in the Congress. Just look at who has been appointed to various important committees, including Pelosi. Biden, Kennedy, Durbin, Reid, Rangle, etc etc etc. If you were the Generals, what would you think if you had to rely on these people? <<<<<The military also took from Vietnam (and the concomitant activities in the Pentagon) a heightened awareness that civilian officials are responsive to influences other than the objective conditions on the battlefield. A consequence has been an increase in the traditional military distrust of civilian political leaders. . . . While the military still accept emphatically the constitutional provision for civilian control of the armed forces, there remain from the Vietnam era nagging doubts about the abilities and motivations of politicians and those they appoint to key positions. Vietnam was a painful reminder for the military that they, not the transient occupants of high office, generally bear the heaviest burden during armed conflict.<<<<< Points 1, 2, and 3, are well taken, (assuming that war is ever nice and tidy and has not much opposition) but #4, in todays environment....is it even semi-realistic? >>>>> 4) You can ensure sufficient public support to permit carrying the commitment through to its conclusion." <<<<< Given the attention span of the average American, especially those under 50 years old, and a raging media who need 24/7 BAD NEWS to cope with advertisers who want eyes for their products inbetween all the bad news. ...maybe it would be a better policy to not go to war ever, unless we are struck here on own homeland... OH, WAIT.....THAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.....AND WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT?