He said that war is too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, that may have been true. But now, war is too important to be left to the politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination toward strategic thought."
2006-12-11 06:35:55 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
The U.S. has about the best system anyway. The Argentine constitution is based largely on the U.S. constitution, but leaves wiggle-room for the military to stage coups. The Meiji constitution put the military in charge of the government in time of war, and that drove the Japanese into WW II. Civilian control of the military is essential.
The President is in the best position to make decisions on a grand strategic scale. The Pentagon is full of bright people who will do their best to carry out the President's policies. But they are where they are because they're good at taking orders, and they have a "can-do" attitude.
To paraphrase Rumsfeld, we went into Iraq with the armed forces we had, not the armed forces we wanted. And they've performed quite well. Compare to the U.S. military in 1915, or 1940. The argument can be made that it was he, as Secretary of Defense, who should have predicted that the "can-do" attitude of the military might get us into a spot that would be uncomfortable to a lot of American civilians, but that is not a military matter, it's political.
And not having the right force to do best is to criticize your local congressman for not having a crystal ball. After all, it's not exactly unheard of to have somebody at DOD before congress asking for more this or better that. Congress has been downsizing the military for a long time because of the apparent lack of serious threats.
Also, we'll never know what Bush-Cheney would have been like without 9/11.
So howl at the moon, if you want, but that's the political process. Next time, vote for a strict isolationist and prepare for $20 a gallon gasoline, or vote for a congressman who wants to expand and restructure the military. That, after all, is where it all starts.
2006-12-11 07:12:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
And our Politicians took it to heart in Korea and Viet Nam.
Look what happened there.
Clemenceau was an idiot.
Thank you very much, while you're up!!!
2006-12-11 14:53:36 · answer #2 · answered by producer_vortex 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well the French are experts at losing wars . . .
2006-12-11 15:00:35 · answer #3 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
War is Hell....
2006-12-11 14:38:26 · answer #4 · answered by J-Rod on the Radio 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
what is it good for ?
2006-12-11 14:43:11 · answer #5 · answered by pariah6 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋