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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (271548)	11/17/2009 7:08:02 PM
From: Hawkmoon	2 Recommendations Respond to of 281500

do you recall the question I asked you several times without an answer? I think I answered that already.. You'll have to look back through my postings. But I'll summarize again as a courtesy. "What do you think the role of the generals versus the President ought to be with respect to the decisions pending in Afghanistan? Generals are tasked to be versed in using "Military Science" to fulfill the policy goals set out by the Commander in Chief. NOW.. that said, we've had a change in command in the White House, as well as in the Afghan theater of operations. Thus, it's incumbent upon McChrystal to review closely the various military options and provide them to the President for consideration. But it's difficult for ANY General to come up with plans when they don't have a clear signal from the President as to his commitment to the mission. The President should tell the Generals "this is what we want to achieve.. can we do it?" and the General should advise him as tot he resources he will require to undertake the strategy that will have the best chance of accomplishing that mission. Specifically, would you want the generals or the president to decide if the war was winnable at a cost the nation should pay? That's for the President and Congress to determine (since Congress handles the purse strings). The Generals job, again, is to provide a strategy and resource request to carry that strategy out. That's how a professional military is supposed to work. And ultimately the success, or failure, of the military mission is the responsibility of the commander in chief. Now consider this. In WWII, we put 12 million men and women under arms, provided them quality equipment in the numbers they required, fed, sheltered, and transported them, while also insuring that very few American civilians suffered from starvation. We're not even NEAR that kind of effort in this war (and I hope it never gets to that point). Btw, I have a copy of Petraeus' counter-insurgency manual (and refer to it often). Do you? As I stated previously, I consider the war we're in to be preemptive in nature, destroying the illegal combatants that are threatening us, while using political and economic means to wage a more subtle battle for hearts and minds through political and economic development. I consider what we're doing now, difficult as it might be, to be the "ounce of prevention" that prevents and inevitable "pound of cure" that will send our children (and theirs) into bloody conflict with one another. Despair is far more contagious than Hope. I'm currently experiencing just that scenario with a sibling. It's easy to make an excuse as to why we can't accomplish something, but it takes work to bring a vision of hope and opportunity to fruition. Hawk