| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 6:57 pm Post subject: Who said it? |
 |
|
And when will the US Congress condemn them?
| Quote: |
| The general�s relationships with official Washington remain intact. Yet he has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life. He has failed his country. History will not judge him kindly. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Come on! Petreaus is attacked and NONE of you have anything to say on it? He's a traitor to his soldiers!! Read it! Surely you all are not hypocrites...? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| He's a traitor to his soldiers!! |
That's a pretty strong charge. Being convicted of treason can even lead to death. Care to share with us under which statutes or which codes under the UCMJ General Petreaus has violated? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 7:43 am Post subject: Re: Who said it? |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The general�s relationships with official Washington remain intact. Yet he has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life. He has failed his country. History will not judge him kindly. |
|
Andrew J. Bacevich
My turn. Who said:
| Quote: |
| Patriotism is easy to understand in America. It means looking out for yourself by looking out for your country. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| Quote: |
| He's a traitor to his soldiers!! |
That's a pretty strong charge. Being convicted of treason can even lead to death. Care to share with us under which statutes or which codes under the UCMJ General Petreaus has violated? |
This is funny. You didn't just fall in the trap, you got spiked when you hit bottom.
Come on, you C/N-Cs!! Where is your righteous indignation now?
Freaking hypocrites. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sycophant Savior
| Quote: |
General Petraeus wins a battle in Washington�if not in Baghdad.
by Andrew J. Bacevich
David Petraeus is a political general. Yet in presenting his recent
assessment of the Iraq War and in describing the �way forward,� Petraeus demonstrated that he is a political general of the worst kind�one who indulges in the politics of accommodation...
What then should he have recommended to the Congress and the president? ...then what should the senior field commander be asking for next?
A single word suffices to answer that question: more. More time. More money. And above all, more troops.
It is one of the oldest principles of generalship: when you find an opportunity, exploit it. Where you gain success, reinforce it. When you have your opponent at a disadvantage, pile on. In a letter to the soldiers serving under his command, released just prior to the congressional hearings, Petraeus asserted that coalition forces had �achieved tactical momentum and wrestled the initiative from our enemies.� Does that reflect his actual view of the situation? If so, then surely the imperative of the moment is to redouble the current level of effort...
Yet Petraeus has chosen to do just the opposite...
There is only one plausible explanation for Petraeus�s terminating a surge that has (he says) enabled coalition forces, however tentatively, to gain the upper hand. That explanation is politics�of the wrong kind...
Given the current situation as Petraeus describes it, an incremental reduction in U.S. troop strength makes sense only in one regard: it serves to placate each of the various Washington constituencies that Petraeus has a political interest in pleasing.
...Above all, a modest drawdown pleases President Bush.
Petraeus has now given this charade a further lease on life. In effect, he is allowing the president and the Congress to continue dodging the main issue, which comes down to this: if the civilian leadership wants to wage a global war on terror and if that war entails pacifying Iraq, then let�s get serious about providing what�s needed to complete the mission�starting with lots more soldiers....
...This defines Petraeus�s failure. Instead of obliging the president and the Congress to confront this fundamental contradiction�are we or are we not at war?�he chose instead to let them off the hook.
Politically, it qualifies as a brilliant maneuver. The general�s
relationships with official Washington remain intact. Yet he has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life. He has failed his country. History will not judge him kindly.
Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at
Boston University. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 7:31 pm Post subject: Re: Who said it? |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| keane wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The general�s relationships with official Washington remain intact. Yet he has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life. He has failed his country. History will not judge him kindly. |
|
Andrew J. Bacevich
My turn. Who said:
| Quote: |
| Patriotism is easy to understand in America. It means looking out for yourself by looking out for your country. |
|
Coolidge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
