« Sununu targeted | Main | Romney backs Bush »
April 11, 2007
Victory is not pragmatic
According to the Washington Post, that is. In a front page article that claims the Bush Administration has a recruiting problem, Peter Baker and Thomas E. Ricks report that three retired generals have declined offers of overall command of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Two of the the three had little to say about the matter, retired Army Gen. Jack Keane and retired Air Force Gen. Joseph W. Ralston. The third was more forthcoming for the Post.
"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq.
Maybe it's just Jack Sheehan who doesn't know where the hell they're going. The administration understands the mission, but the question has always been whether or not that mission can succeed. The administration, and I by the way, think we will succeed. The great majority of Iraqis hope we succeed. Unfortunately, al Qaeda, congressional Democrats, and the mainstream press, notably the Washington Post, all aim to break the American will to fight. It's a race against the clock.
Posted by Tom Bowler at 06:38 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ece669e200d8352afe4369e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Victory is not pragmatic:
Comments
al Qaeda, congressional Democrats, and the mainstream press, notably the Washington Post, all aim to break the American will to fight.
boy, what nice little associations you can make there, pal! Maybe you are just too blind/stupid to realize that the Americans don't want to fight this anymore.
'libertarian' is just another word for embarrassed republicans. or, you could simply call it 'anarchy for everyone except me and my stuff'.
Posted by: prozacula | Apr 11, 2007 10:42:52 AM
Maybe you are just too blind/stupid to realize that the Americans don't want to fight this anymore.
Maybe you just don't realize that we have to fight this, and that if we don't fight it now, we'll just have to fight it later.
And as for the "nice little associations, they can be purely coincidental, but the fact is there is a common goal among them -- getting American troops out of Iraq.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | Apr 11, 2007 11:15:44 AM
Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha! You know that the military needs the help, enlist! No excuses, just go fight the good fight. It's never too late. Look at all the cool stuff on the left of your page, do it, be a mensch!
Posted by: Bat Guano | Apr 11, 2007 11:39:51 AM
You're kidding right? You're suggesting that a HIGHLY decorated Marine Corps general, with 34 years of active duty service, doesn't understand the problem, but you of course do. Do I have that right? And you're not putting that up as some kind of snark?
I don't know, what am I saying, you've probably got plenty of years of service experience to draw on, right? Spent some time at the Navy Post Graduate School or the Army War College, right?
Of course you do...
Posted by: JCS | Apr 11, 2007 11:51:08 AM
You're kidding right? You're suggesting that a HIGHLY decorated Marine Corps general...
I think General Petraeus believes we can win. I'm not allowed to agree with him?
Posted by: Tom Bowler | Apr 11, 2007 12:16:07 PM
Ah, but Mr. Bowler that's not what you said - "Maybe it's just Jack Sheehan who doesn't know where the hell they're going" - Which I'm sure you'll have to agree is vastly different than saying that Gen. Patraeus believes we can win or disagrees with Gen. Sheehan, correct?
There's another troubling aspect to this whole "War Czar" thing that I'd like to see addressed. Wouldn't the "War Czar" essentially be a "Commander-in-Chief" in everything but name? And if so, don't we already have one?
Posted by: JCS | Apr 11, 2007 12:38:04 PM
Good point on the Commander-in-Chief issue, JCS. I will admit that I had not said anything about General Petraeus in my original post. But I should also point out that I said, "Maybe it's Jack Sheehan who doesn't know... which I would expect people to understand leaves open the possibility that, maybe he does. In any case I don't share his gloom.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | Apr 11, 2007 1:40:17 PM
overall command of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq
I thought that job was taken? Commander in chief or something like that...
Posted by: Sarcastro | Apr 11, 2007 4:10:22 PM
Wouldn't the "War Czar" essentially be a "Commander-in-Chief" in everything but name?
Yes, exactly. The new position would dovetail nicely with what we have now: a Commander-in-Chief in name only.
Posted by: buddhistMonkey | Apr 11, 2007 5:06:14 PM
Wow! All you "different" commenters seem to speak with one voice in the same annoying, insipid tone! And what interesting email addresses you all have!
Posted by: PJ Smith | Apr 12, 2007 11:03:27 AM
