Why should the Whitehouse micro-manage the war on terror and set military objects? What have we trained all our generals to do? Shouldn't the plan be coming from the military?
Have you ever seen the mayor of a city at a fire directing firefighters, or directing police at the scene of a crime?
2007-01-18 09:52:12 · 6 answers · asked by Overt Operative 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Power d 6
Don't you think if Bush said to the military, Go catch Bin Laden, that he'd be behind bars now?
2007-01-18 10:07:31 · update #1
Neither the Pentagon or the White House should be managing this so-called "war." Contrary to the belief of the neo-cons and their puppets who believe military action is the solution to every problem, terrorism IS a law enforcement issue.
If one was to propose that the military be marched into New york and New Jersey to deal with the Mafia (when including "associates," a larger and far more centralized organization than Al Qaeda) they would be considered foolish, at best.
The military is (obviously and undeniably) designed to engage an enemy in large scale operations. It is not designed to locate and apprehend fugitives or to develop intelligence on loosely-knit, multi-national organizations.
As for the clowns at the White House, they have again proved what has been proved over and over, throughout history. Politicians are politicians. Warriors are warriors. When either gets involved in the others business, you end up with disasters like Iraq.
.
2007-01-18 11:40:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
As badly as the Bush administration has fumbled on the Iraq occupation, I don’t think it is wise for the military to have complete autonomy in how to conduct the war. As bad as war is, there should be a civilian voice that seeks to moderate and pacify the natural proclivities of the military to seek and destroy at will. Historically, militaries that are left unchecked by civilian authorities and those people who vocalize moral concerns, may win battles, but win it through means that can be absolutely criminal. I think the military should have more independence in making certain decisions on a case by case basis, but the entire direction of the war must be dictated by a political heads, because a military machine left unchecked in its quest for victory, could yield dire consequences for the country and for the world that would eclipse the value it yields from winning the occupation in Iraq.
2007-01-18 11:45:45 · answer #2 · answered by Lawrence Louis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People forget that Generals are selected by the President and approved by Congress.
There comes a time in a Military career when you decide to become a kept boy or retire. Those that stay belong to the President.
I read that most of the Generals are Bush Family appointees. So it's all puppet master stuff.
Go big Red Go
2007-01-18 10:06:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes...
Read the book 'Fiasco' by Thomas Rix - the Washington Post Pentagon correspondent. He points out that the militray has a lot of training in counter insurgency (Viet Nam, Algeria, etc) but that the Iraq situation got out of hand when they turned it over to civilians - mainly Breemer. Bremer ignored the military.
2007-01-18 10:00:10 · answer #4 · answered by papamarlee 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
by the military. do you think an idea,thought or knowledge can be beaten by military force? an example,but on iran. even if the US or israel bomb the nuclear facilities in iran,won't they still know how to enrich and just rebuild.
yes if it is possible. seems to be little interest in it. he may be dead as rumors suggest and the troops were given a distraction. i believe afghanistan will continue to be a problem and our "ally" pakistan is less than helpful. presidents that rarely listen to advisors and generals usually don't have success.
2007-01-18 10:02:33 · answer #5 · answered by J Q Public 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Excellent point. Yes I do think it is the military's job to plan and execute the war.
2007-01-18 10:05:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋