« Rudy's Frontrunner Status | Main | Gonzales to be Replaced by Chertoff? »

August 25, 2007


I think all those that really care for the troops and not just use them as props for the latest political kabuki would naturally support something like Jim Webb proposed. That no troops can be placed into combat without adequate rest, training and equipment. There's got to be some minimum standards before soldiers are placed in harms way.

That's true. Casey as I understand supports limits on deployments, but they don't want to see them set out in statutes. Nor can they publicly advocate for them. Bush, of course, does just see the troops as props. But then he seems to see everyone as just an extension of himself.

Thanks Mimi.

Rant directed at no one here

My position has always been that Democrats lose once they make the mistake of calling this a war. It's always been an occupation. Wars have MILITARY objectives. The military is trained to take objectives with the emphasis on "take." "If you really need it blown up before 10:30 tomorrow, call the Marines." Despite Bush's fantasies, however, there are no MILITARY objectives in Iraq. How many times have we "taken" Fallujah? We've turned a damn fine military into a glorified police force. That's what the goddamned Generals ought to be saying. This occupation has and continues to violate every principle of the Powell Doctrine.
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

The Powell Doctrine is an anvil on which the Democrats could hammer Bush and the GOP. Why they don't use it is beyond me.

I just finished a fascinating article in the Dead Tree version of the Sunday NYT Magazine on the "gap" between the generals and the on-the-ground officers re what's going on in Iraq, and what needs to go on.

The author made the point that most of the generals were school in, and have experience in "conventional" warfare, and that the "orderliness" of such combat is nothing like what's going on in Iraq and what's required to deal with it.

A fascinating twist to the "he doesn't listen to the generals" refrain.

Here's the link to the NYT Magazine article:


Well, here's a synopsis of the same things back here at homebase, something everyone can identify with. How many times do the CEO's and the managers at the top of companies relate to the peeps at the bottom and their wishes and ideas? Never,....they say they do but really don't, it's totally tongue in cheek to the little guy on the totem pole. Every once in awhile do you hear about companies that listen to what the bottomdwellers have to say..and amazingly those companies prosper. But when they don't and go about arrogantly cavanting along...skimming and making all the quick profits at the top....the tree finally falls over when it's not stable at the roots any longer. Something like what is slowly happening with the military.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad