What would have happened if congress had have told General Eisenhower that D DAY was a failure??

Question

and the troops needed to come home.. Since when does the Congress know more about what the military operations than the topped ranked General in the field?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070912/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_troops_react_2

oohbother: My comparison is that General Eisenhower was respected and honored by the Congress and nantion of his time.. Not told straight out your wrong, we know better than you even though your the one on the ground.

Fallen: Thank you for gettin the point.. I new it would blow right over some..

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22404771-5005962,00.html?from=public_rss

These short little Liberal answers are great arent they.. and Im the one that is not bright?

Answer 1

Well, by changing the way history, if that did happen, you think a real man like Eisenhower would bend over backwards and be walked on by politicians who sit in a room all day pushing paper? Good God, he was a general and a general for a reason! He knows what to do in a war and how to win a war. That is the problem today. Too many politicians trying to fight a war the political way instead of the military way! If we had more men like Eisenhower, MacArthur, Patton and the motivated soldiers of WW2. The soldiers are great today, don't get me wrong. But the problem is, is they do not know what they are doing from lack of leadership. How can you fight a war when you are one, given restrictions of how to fight a war after you go through the rigorous and tough basic training (especially Marine Corps), and two, when you have no real leaders giving objectives.

I'm not even liberal, and this guy sees something he does not like and says it is liberalism? Nice logic.

Answer 2

There is no comparison to D-Day and Iraq, unfortunately.

Iraq is the worst foreign policy decision, maybe, in U.S. history. I blame both partys, not just the Bush administration, as, there was ample evidence back then by the DIA and CIA that Iraq posed no serious threat. We also should have been more patient with the U.N. sanctions and inspections of facilities in Iraq.

But, fact is, we invaded a troubled region.

Now, we are there, and 4 years later, it is a mess, but really, no matter, we are there. Should we leave, chaos will ensue, and it is hard to imagine Al Qaeda and enemy factions, THAT CONSIDER US AN ENEMY and given the chance, will attack us with anything they can bring.

All told, shouldn't we stick this out, even knowing it was a snafu and fubar beyond comprehension

Answer 3

That's the whole issue, Bush fained what the Mideast scholars said and instead relied on Rumsfeld's assessment. Rumsfeld based his thoughts on the word of Ahmed Chabali, an ex-Iraqi national and CIA operative. Chabali, who was on the CIA payroll with an open budget (which means he didn't have to account for spending) of 4million dollars. It would be like Ike planning D-day without any military intelligence based solely on the information from the guy who Hitler beat up in second grade.

Answer 4

Of course the answer, to those with a knowledge of history, is that while Hitler still may have been defeated by the allies, the Russians would have moved into all of Germany, and eventually all of Europe would have become Soviet Bloc nations. The American presence in Germany, combined with the success of the Berlin Airlift in winning over the hearts of the defeated Germans are all that kept the Soviets at bay. Tom Lantos, who appears to be in his 80s, knows this, however his obvious marxist leanings, combined with a complete lack of decorum when dealing with a superior (Gen Petraeus) makes his efforts to discredit the General akin to sedition.

Answer 5

Ah, but D Day wasn't a failure. I am amused by those who have the audacity to compare Bush's little war to WWII. They are totally different. WWII was conventional army against conventional army. Iraq is conventional army against guerrillas. Weaponry was different too. The mere size of the forces was also different and the total length of the war was different.

Answer 6

Your comparison has no relevance, this is:
- A war of our own making
- A war in which the public has been repeatedly misled
* about progress
* about the reason for the war
* about the future of operations
- A war against no distinct entity capable of surrendering or negotiating peace


What would happen if a person went over the side of their bathtub in a raft like people go over Niagara falls?

Your simplistic "A general is a general and should always be believed" is just plain weak.

Answer 7

Dubya and Cheney are the non-military 'deciders' who have consistently ignored what our commanders and soldiers in Iraq have advised. if you don't acquiesce to Bush, then you're quickly removed from your position.

Besides, the US didn't 'create' a war in Europe as we've done in Iraq.

Answer 8

Congress would have been ignored - pretty much like it has been since the Democrats took 'control'.

Seriously. Does Harry Reid look like he can control anything beyond his bowels? And sometimes even that's in question.

Answer 9

Cons are comparing Iraq to WWII now...

LOL

Answer 10

They would have been treated as the TRAITORS they ARE!

The problem is in this day and age of political correctness, nobody cares that many Americans are traitors and support th "Freedom Fighters" aka TERRORISTS!!!!