Pentagon Games
Poor El Presidente Bush! He just can’t fathom why he is despised, and why the jackals are constantly biting at his ankles.
Habla espagnol? Arabic?
Perhaps when the malls close Americans will vote for another “Rough Rider”.
I wish us well.
I wonder? Could it be the Generals see us possibly going into another war without the will to win on the part of the politicians? Could it be they see American lives being sacrificed on the alter of political correctness? Men died in Vietnam and Iraq because politicians wouldn’t “unleash the dogs” and allow our military to do what it does best...rage relentless war upon our enemies. No General wants to lead troops into battle when the deck is already stacked against him by his political leaders.
If the senior military commanders cannot support the President, then the honorable thing for them to do is resign. General Fogelman, USAF Chief of Staff, did when he could no longer support Bill Clinton. Here’s an interesting read, Ethics in War Time, which mentions Gen Fogelman. Also, not long after Gen Fogelman resigned, Sec of the Air Force, Dr. Sheila Windnall resigned too. She was probably one of the best SecAF we ever had.
That is an interesting point, Bob. I’m glad you brought that up. Perhaps the generals are more concerned about support from Congress and the American people than they are about Bush’s leadership. We have the arms and technology to flatten Iran in a matter of days and if necessary we could re-insitute the draft and have a million men in the field within a year .... but would Congress or the people stand for it?
Maybe this is their way of sending a message to the CIC, warning him of the danger of failure through no fault of their own - or his.
Hmmmm. I shall have to ponder this some more, I think.
Thanks.
Skipper, I have to throw the BS flag on the Tracinski column.
First, I am suspicious when foreign news sources are trumpeting a potential revolt of the generals. There will always be a few that will fall on their swords over an issue like this-that’s their right. What they don’t have the right to do is snipe and hinder any operations with which they disagree and I think that was your point. But any competent military officer has an obligation to provide his professional opinion and speak his mind about the feasibility of any military option, even if it doesn’t follow the party line.
Second, we need smarter pundits. Yesteryear’s Army was trained in linear warfare. Today’s Army trains in asymmetric warfare. Tracinski’s comparison of Iran’s defense expenditures with ours is stupid. Our soldiers are paid better, we have better equipment and we have a sizable portion of our budget spent on strategic weapons. That said, Iran has a shitload of fanatics who are willing to kill our troops using cheap, simple, and plentiful things by exploiting our known weaknesses-such as our compassion and concern for non-combatants. So they use their strengths against our soft spots. That’s asymmetric warfare. Tracinski appears to be an obliviot with respect to modern warfare.
Third, what exactly are the operational definitions here. “Attack Iran” can mean many things and about what exactly would we be talking:
nuke them back to the stone age?
conventionally bomb them from afar and declare victory ala Clinton?
strategic raid on critical facilities (panty raid)?
full-scale invasion and occupation of the country????I’ve actually looked at the issues concerning an attack on Iran for a variety of reasons which I won’t detail here. Bottom line, what do we want to accomplish, do we have the stuff to do it, and do the American people have the spine and stomach to support this?
Finally, does Tracinski have any experience or skin in this potential game, or is he another arm-chair expert who would soil his pantaloons if he were tasked to take part in a little kinetic action?
Unless and until he has an appreciation of what’s required to “attack Iran,” whatever that means, he needs to STFU with his advice to our senior military leadership. Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way is understood by every soldier worth his salt, generals included.
Sorry for the vent, but Tracinski’s BS is something I normally associate with the socialist shit-stains of the left. grrrrrrrrr
Posted by Annoying_Mike
02/27/2007 at 02:42 PM
Pretty good info Annoying Mike. I like the conventionally bombing them from afar idea as I believe that would work great with Iran. Within a couple days we would gain Air Supremacy and could bomb at will. With surgical precision, our B-2’s could take out their military infrastructure without any collateral damage. If the need did arise, B-52 and B-1’s could carpet bomb select areas chosen by military commanders...Washington would be informed after-the-fact. By doing it this way, we wouldn’t risk one American Soldier or Marine.
One thing we cannot forget and that’s we have Jimmy Carter to thank for the mess in Iran.
