Any of the top Generals in the US. millitary have most likely, spent the majority of, if not their entire adult lives learning how to, (most basically put) lead our millitary. The duty given to and the trust that has been earned by our top generals deserve more respect then I think Bush has given them. I think its safe to say no one would vote for Bush to hold any of the top Millitary positions. So why does he think his millitary stratigies are more sound The qualifications to be Commander in Cheif are laughable in contrast to that of Generals. .
I just would like to better understand how Bush could believe his plan could be more sound then a General who have been intruseof the most powerful millitary on the Planet? Does Bush have an obligation to do what the US population demands? Or is he obligated to do what HE BELIEVES is best for the country? As of right now what are Bush's obligation? Would it be ok for him to call all our troops home & let Iraq deal w/ itself?
2007-02-13 03:45:52 · 6 answers · asked by Eric C 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
General Petraeus(excuse the spelling) is the man behind the Iraq troop surge as well as other generals on the field and the joint chiefs of staff along with the Commander in Chief, President Bush, who came to this conclusion after reading and discussing bipartisan reports on the situation in Iraq. Let me say again this wasn't the president's sole idea. I'm sorry for the accusatory tone of my next statement, but it is inevitable, You do not speak for the US population to imply that it demands a pull out or to say that it rejects the new plan for Iraq. It would not be OK for the President to our troops home and let Iraq deal w/ itself. How would you feel If I came into your country (which had sectarian bias brewing for a long time under a brutal dictator), I turn it upside down, because I liberate it from a brutal dictator, then, the people in your country who want to want to win the sectarian war escalate the violence against each other and against me, the invading country, and how would you like it that in face of that I decide to retreat, and leave you to your own devices. Knowing that the war mongers in your country would simply take over and destabilize your region for a long time, wouldn't you feel a little bit betrayed. because no matter what appeaser liberals say, that is what will happen, because Hitler was appeased until Poland and Paris fell, and then the revelation at Auschwitz.
2007-02-13 04:05:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes Generals know more about fighting war than Bush, however you only choose to listen to the ones that want us to pull out of Iraq. I'm sure even you understand that not all the Generals agree on what course to take, that decision is up to the President. Understand that Bush didn't come up with this plan on a napkin while eating at Denny's, he has many advisers telling him what they think he should do. In the end he is to decide what course to take. After all weather you like it or not he is the Commander and Chief of our military. To answer your other questions is he obligated to do what the populous wants, no is he obligated to do what he believes is best, no. I don't know if sending more troops will help but I know that to just leave now and let Iraq deal with itself would be disastrous.
2007-02-13 12:08:20 · answer #2 · answered by ReedRothchild 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Considering that the joint chiefs of staff agree with Bush in keeping the military in Iraq, and the fact that the implementation of the campaign has always been left to those commanders in the field, I think your first point is moot.
The president has an obligation to the constitution of the republic, first and foremost. After that, some presidents believe they are there to follow polls, and others believe to follow their heart. It is not leadership to listen to what everyone else says to do, then do it. If you define the role of the president to lead, then you listen to your heart. If you define the role of the president to defer, then you listen to polls. It depends on your political philosophy.
2007-02-13 11:57:46 · answer #3 · answered by lundstroms2004 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think Bush's plans are just something he thought up by himself. Of course there are those who disagree with him, that is the way it always is.
Nobody like the idea troops going into harms way over to Iraq, but in order for the situation to get better over there we need more troops to provide more stability.
To all those who don't support us being in Iraq......
we can fight them over there, or do nothing.....and fight them over here. I choose over there.
2007-02-13 11:59:30 · answer #4 · answered by to be announced 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He can do what he wants with our military. I would be hurt if he pulled out the troops now. How do we not know he is not listening to generals. You have to pick which generals to listen to. I have to trust him.
2007-02-13 12:18:34 · answer #5 · answered by ALunaticFriend 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my personal opinion, it is his job to do what he believes is best for the country.
And other than Eisenhower, very few Presidents have extensive military experience.
2007-02-13 12:02:45 · answer #6 · answered by Leah 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋