Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wesley Clark releases military file Civilians wouldn't know how operations work. Just ask those who were victims of civilian running the show in Vietnam.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wesley Clark releases military file that opinion has nothing to do with Clark's decisions in the war. they weren't his decision. under the constitution of the united states, civilians ultimately command the military. civilians decided they didn't want ground troops. not clark. civilians. if you disagree with that decision, your beef is with Clinton/Blair/Schroder/Chirac/other NATO leaders. they made that decision, so how you blame clark for this is beyond me. Further than that, it sounds like you need to start amending national constitutions since you seem to dislike civilian control of the military. on an easier path, i hear parts of Africa are lovely this time of year.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wesley Clark releases military file Keep it up. More men will die needlessly because a civilian wouldn't know what a soldier is even if it sat on their face.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wesley Clark releases military file so I assume you oppose Bush and Rumsfeld's leadership in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wesley Clark releases military file They've left it to the military to see things run fit.
Point #1: In all probability Clark is going to be on the November ballot either as the Pres. Nominee or more likely as the Vice Prez nominee. Point #2: The nastiness and immediate nature of the attacks from the right against this guy tells me all I need to know about him. They perceive him as a threat and want to neutralize him now before he gets out of the primary. Therefore right now it is Clark or Dean who has my vote. I would love to see a Clark/Dean ticket. Point #3: The hyprocisy of the Bushies never ceases to amaze me. They can, with a straight face, question a man who has served this country for 30 years while defending the likes of Bush, Rumsfield, Cheney who ran like little girls when asked to serve and now have no problem sending a hundred thousand of our young men and woman into harms way. Really it is pure genius in the evil genius kind of way.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wesley Clark releases military file I guess you've flushed down the memory hole all the stories about Rummy overruling the military wanting a bigger force, and the controversy about Shilakshavili (or whatever the hell his name was), and the pros telling them that Saddam didn't have chemical weapons, and that he didn't have nuclear weapons nor a meaningful program, and about the "16 words".... Seriously, you're mentally ill. With this post, you go onto the ignore list.
So you would vote for someone simply because the opponent sees him as a threat? I have very conservative leanings but I will vote for who I feel is the best candidate, regardless of political party. Now that's a mature attitude.
I call Bullsh$t. So if you lived in California you would have voted for Mclintock over Ahhhnold? As for who I will vote for...I am going to vote for the man who can coherently and forcefully advocate why 4 more years of Bush will be a disaster and how their policies will move thiscountry in the right direction again. I am also going to take into account electability. I think too much is riding on this election. I never dreamed after 2000 that Bush would be capable of destroying so much in such a short period of time. Four more years of this and we, as a country and the world will be irreparably harmed. I truly feel that strongly about this. So, while my political leanings point me to a Kusinich I am going to be supporting a moderate candidate (with balls to go against the Bushies unlike Lieberman) who can beat Bush and right now that means Clark or Dean (sorry Kerry you just haven't lit a fire....YET).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wesley Clark releases military file Obvious you need a memory check yourself. We know how the Vietnam War was basically run from the White House. Acts that would've been within guidline while providing a positive effect were overruled. The civilian pencil-pushers were more concerned about puching their ticket instead of using some common sense. Does Rummy tell the miltary into Iraq where to do the next operation or who to hunt? No, that is left up to the men in command in the field. That's where it should remain. As for the mentally ill part, your the one who seems facinated every time a soldier is killed in Iraq.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wesley Clark releases military file The Viet Nam war was the classic case of the civilian command running the war rather than setting the guidelines and letting the military guys figure out the details to get the job done. No one since has done what LBJ did. Beyond that, there has been grumbling in the Pentagon because they believe that the Bush White House tries to play too big a role in the decisions and doesn't give them the space the Clinton WH did.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wesley Clark releases military file I hope that isnt the case man. The reason we didn't win the Vietnam war was becuase it was handcuffed by the self described geniuses in the WH. If you let the men on the ground make the call, you will get a positive result.
It isn't near the levels of Viet Nam; where individual bombing missions were reviewed by the WH. It has more to do with the civilians at DoD (supposedly Wolfowitz is bad about this) countering many of the determinations of the military command of what is needed for the operations undertaken. The troop number controversy is a good example.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wesley Clark releases military file No US military man, no US civilian, in fact no Vietnamese military man or civilian, could have continued to prop up the South Vietnamese regime longer than we did. Even the conquest and subjugation of North Vietnam would only have delayed the inevitable. Our puppets had no popular support. About the time an argument has to lump together "civilians" as diverse as those of the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon White Houses is the time to realize Humpty Dumpty needs some more duct tape.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wesley Clark releases military file the height of the VN war was under LBJ, that was the period i was referring to. i'm not speaking from Eisenhower through Nixon. sorry if that's what you thought. a few posts back i did clearly mention LBJ though. by the way, i don't think that's the only reason we lost in VN. i don't really think the US could have ever won there (without killing most of the national population, if you can genocide a 'win'). but the President micro managing war to that level is a real mistake
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wesley Clark releases military file Hmm, doesn't it depend to some extent on the specific reasons for the micromanagement? If giving commanders discretion in choosing targets might set off WWIII, for example, it might be better to keep them on a shorter leash, even at the cost of some strategic or tactical disadvantage. You don't want your big foreign policy decisions being made by generals in the field. The problem I see with some of Rumsfeld's interference is that (my subjective impression is) it's been done for the wrong reasons - in particular, his desire to use Iraq as an example to prove that his vision of the future of the US military is the right vision.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wesley Clark rele Leave General Wes Clark out of this. Oops, I forgot this thread was about Clark. Carry on.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wesley Clark releases military f Then again. Generals in the field have a better grasp of what's going on compared to a civilian leader who sits in a bunker thousands of miles away.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wesley Clark releases milita The problem is that decisions about how to fight a battle sometimes can have effects that go way beyond the limits of battlefield. In those cases, there has to be some sort of balance between the military leaders who are focused on narrow tactical and strategic considerations, and the political and diplomatic people who deal with the big picture.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wesley Clark releases mi Take the case of the train in Kosovo that got hit. A small squad of Special Forces, SAS, or JTF2 could've done a recce on the target area. They would give the signal to hit the target, improving the odds of NOT hitting that train.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wesley Clark release That's fine and I agree, however, you're blaming Clark for not having these troops in the field is seriously misplaced. It wasn't his decision.
a Bush hater. "irreparably harmed" - sorry I would rather go with leadership that chooses to fight terrorism on foreign soil than wait passively and defend against terrorism on our home soil. Although the press does not much report it - many of the dead paramilitary we are killing now in Iraq are not being buried by the Iraqi population. That is because they are from Syria and Iran. Think about that one. Clark will not be elected. He is more a retired self serving general than a true war hero. The true heros don't spend time trying to gather the spotlight. He ought to at least run for election to the House or Senate or a governorship and then go from there.
Ok, since there was apparently no significant connection between Saddam's regime and Al-Qaeda, you need to explain exactly why you think the Iraq invasion represented such a big advance in making the USA safe from terrorism. Remember, it has to be a big enough advance to justify the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of innocents, to justify spending hundreds of billions of tax dollars, to justify tying down over a hundred thousand troops for an unspecified number of years (with the likely resulting negative effects for recruiting), and to justify significantly damaging the the United States' image around the world and generating more support for radical, anti-American tendencies within Islam internationally. So, tell me exactly how the Iraq invasion has made such a major contribution to protecting the United States from terrorism that it justifies those immense costs. No vague slogans like "We're taking the fight to them," please; I'd like to hear specifics.