How many wars have been won by putting it through a committee? Or by having it run by politicians?

Question

I have gone back in my history books and I can't find one war ever won because politicians were in charge of how the war was fought...

Maybe I am missing something.

I mean I looked as far back as Julius Caesar. Even out numbered by General Pompey and his senate allies; Caeser managed to beat them because the politicians like Cato, tried to exert control over the more experienced Pompey.

A small dedicated army defeated a larger army led by a general who had to cowtow to politicians... Now that I have seen a few times in history.

So have I missed some rare event where Politicans and committees won a war? or how about a battle?

That-guy: but how many lives could have been won by Pre-emptive war? say like stoping hitler in 1937 rather then 1945? another political blunder by the way... Thank the isolationist movement for that one.

October: LOL read what I asked. I never mentioned Bush, not once. I am asking about politicians being put in charge of how a war is fought.

Let me guess you are an anti-bush bot right? every question has to be about Bush right?

This question has nothing to do with Bush and I would NEVER compare Bush to Caeser.

Caeser was Caeser and Bush is Bush.

You say I need history leasons? you should try a class in reading comprehension.

ZenBull: good point about dictators haveing military experience, another good reason to seperate politics and war.

let generals lead the wars, let politicans lead the homefront.

That_guy: I don't recall compareing Saddam to Hitler... I do recall makeing a historicaly accurate point about how the world could have been saved a lot of suffering if it stopped a mad man.

Again, READING COMPREHENSION PEOPLE it's not hard.

Kelly B: You don't see a similaity between General Petraeus and Pomey do you? did you even read my question? or did you just spout off your anti-military, anti-Bush retoric on automatic impulse?

A general whho has to cowtow to politicians has to worry more about pleaseing his handlers than doing his job.

I know I could not do my job if I spent all my time reporting to them each time I did one thing then had to wait for them to tell me to procede or not.

Answer 1

It seems like it is a good idea to have civilian control of the military if a country desires to be strong yet successful in a defensive posture. In the Cuban Missile Crisis, it seems as if the US military Joint Chiefs of Staff were very willing to be provoked into war, but President Kennedy, his brother, and other advisers had a better way of solving what was a very dangerous provocation of the Soviet Union placing medium range nuclear warhead missiles in Cuba.

Answer 2

Eartha, Britain did fight on the European soil alone for nearly two years granted. Hitler as we know was a runner between trenches during the Great War. Funny thing here is that runners actually knew more about the battle conditions than did any push pin German, English, or French General during this war. We sort of see this carry over in the Second World War don't we? He removes the General's ability to make independent decisions per the fluid battle field conditions on both the East and Western Fronts. I think too often there is a European tendency to look at the US as only gaining our "blood stripes" in North Africa in Operation Torch and then toward Operation Husky in that part of the world and your dates seem correct enough within the time frame. But, what amazes me is how these same people who continuously criticsize the USA will automatically forget about the battles in the Pacific. I am the first to commend our Commonwealth and Russian Allies during the Second World War; but, I find it rather unfortunate that these same good people choose to forget that there was also Pacific Theatre of Operations that we quite frankly supported with supplies alone to include the limited Australian and New Zealand Forces that weren't in North Africa or later Italy. Do the Commonwealth text books teach that the British Lend Lease payments were completed on 26 December, 2006? If not then this would show likely that the Second World War in the ETO was won by Commonwealth Forces alone (or so it would seem). Sir Winston Churchill is a hero to me, and the British Nation for taking a bloody nose during the early part of the war but the good Brits stayed in the fight and never tossed in the towel. Battle of Britain or Battle of New Britain? Which do you think Commonwealth nations recall the most today? To me this is the same as not recalling the Kokoda Track anymore than merely recalling the heroric effort of Dunkirk by the British in a stand alone manner. All the best Eartha, Gerry

Answer 3

I agree. If the politicians in Washington when we invaded Iraq (i beleive the republicans had control over congress and the executive branch back then), had paid attention to the requests of the generals (they knew we needed alot more troops than dubya said we did) then we may have actually been able to set up a secure state in Iraq.

Answer 4

Camel: A racehorse built by politicians.
Elephant: A mouse designed by a committee.
Committee: Fourteen bodies, twenty-eight legs and no brains.

Answer 5

How many preemptive wars have been won since 1914?

None.

Hitler wwas the one who attacked preemptively.
And to compare Saddam to Hitler is to lie.Not exaggerate.It's a lie.

Answer 6

War is too important to be left to generals.

BTW, have you noticed that all dictators always have an extensive military experience? Coincidence?

Answer 7

If you are comparing George W Bush to Ceaser you don't have much of a grasp of history.

Answer 8

You are not missing anything. War is won with victory. War is won when we break things and kill people.

Answer 9

Will General Petraeus' speech before Congress be absolute truth or political truth?

Answer that question and you'll have your answer.

Answer 10

None. But plenty have been lost.