I'll skip the myriad of issues from Bush's "non-political" reflections on 9/11 last night :rolleyes:

But instead post this question.

If Iraq really is the "central front on the War on Terror", that our strategy is to "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here", that the War on Terror does indeed "represent the primary idiological struggle of the 21st century", that "this is World War III" etc...

...then why did they execute the war on the cheap and fail to plan for the post Saddam insurgency most experts predicted?

I'm really at a loss as to how people can brush this off as a few mistakes when the price of failure was clear at the start.

Please discuss...

-spence

Kinda sound like what Kerry was telling America...

All Kerry told America was that he fought in Vietnam and that he had a plan. Whether or not he actually had a plan is debateable, but he was not able to convince most Americans that he had one. Now it seems that the democrat party wants nothing to do with him.

And I don't know what failure you are talking about? There is going to be a fight, no matter what. In the past 5 years the administration has managed to keep the fight elsewhere. Last month they were able to stop a plot to hijack and destroy 10 international flights into America. That is a sucess in my mind. Funny how that victory is quickly forgotten (because the media downplays it).

I think the point that post Saddam Iraq planning was deficient has become almost moot at this time as has the original justification for the Iraq war. The focus now must be on the current situation on all fronts of the Terror War. Whether Iraq is the central front of this war on Terror is debateable put it is certainly a front of the war. Monday morning quarterbacking takes away from that focus and is detrimental to Americas security. If we cannot replicate the focus and unity this country displayed in WWII our chances of defeating this proven enemy are small.

All Kerry told America was that he fought in Vietnam and that he had a plan. Whether or not he actually had a plan is debateable, but he was not able to convince most Americans that he had one. Now it seems that the democrat party wants nothing to do with him.

And I don't know what failure you are talking about? There is going to be a fight, no matter what. In the past 5 years the administration has managed to keep the fight elsewhere. Last month they were able to stop a plot to hijack and destroy 10 international flights into America. That is a sucess in my mind. Funny how that victory is quickly forgotten (because the media downplays it).

I thought that was a British thing?

Yes they were arrested over there, but the focus of the attack was the United States with US carriers. US intelligence had a hand in the operation.

The success was not because of compromise, diplomacy or understanding why our enemy hates us.

So if we're winning... When will the war end?

So if we're winning... When will the war end?

We need to be prepared to fight this war for a very long time.

So if we're winning... When will the war end?


Never... this will be the Mother of all long hauls but we have no choice now do we.

read about the "with my family looking iraqi husband ", with his beard all shaved off who said... "he drives around with his family to not get caught or shot...
so he can be out planting i .e .d.'s and he's always home for dinner!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
.......thinking about that ...is why the war cannot be fought on their terms........We have more than adequate firepower and military strength
to defeat the enemy times ten....or twenty...but when they are intermingled with the general population of so-called civilians then it becomes just a con game.... of who's who....

this means that wives and children are participating also whether coherced or volentary ...........nobody knows....

with that strategy: on their own turf, they have the supreme advantage which we shouldn't be giving to them...:hs:

when we do finally leave Iraq , everyone ...men, woman and children will be jumping up and down celebrating....like on day 1 when sadamn's statue got pulled down..

I like to think that since 2001, there have been no acts of terrorism in the US. Can we agree to that? I almost have no choice but to believe that our government is doing all it can to protect this country and I do feel safe. Then again, when I am in the woods riding my dirtbike and snowmobile in circles with other like-minded grown men, I am still on the lookout for any terrorists and still feel safe. Likewise when I'm on the water, I'm always looking out and still feel safe.

I have to believe that there are people out there, like in the movies, who are making sure that no bad elements are entering the US.

I also have to look at it this way. There could be those who come to the US with the intention of doing harm to its people. It could be that the spend some time in the country, whether they visit the city or the country, they might see that they are able to walk freely in the streets and for the most part, do not have to worry one single bit about anyone doing them harm. They might see kids of all ages, all races, ethnicities, all going to school together, playing together and think 'This country is not so bad after all.', and abandon their ideas of doing harm to the citizens of the USA. I have to believe this, I have no choice.

Yes they were arrested over there, but the focus of the attack was the United States with US carriers. US intelligence had a hand in the operation.

The success was not because of compromise, diplomacy or understanding why our enemy hates us.

I thought it was almost all British and the plan was to detonate over the water?

Who said they failed to plan for the post Saddam insurgency other than us. Maybe they knew all along what was going to occur, that is: all the other nations sending thier people to fight us in the streets of Bagdad that hate us. They will run our of dopes who think they will get 72 virgins in heaven eventually. We have to remember that Saddam let 100,000 people out of prison before we arrived in Bagdad and it has been said that most of those were people who IQ was under 70. Where do you think they are?

I thought it was almost all British and the plan was to detonate over the water?

The plan was to detonate over major US cities. British and US Intell had a huge part in stopping this. And i even heard secret wire tapping was involved! Oh my god not that!:smash:

You just can't give the US intell any credit can you?

Anyone who thinks the US is no safer since the 9/11 attacks five years ago is in denial. We have taken out and captured MANY senior Al-Queada members in the last five years, and stopped many terroists plots. Yet we are not safer?? I credit the Government big time for this. Wether you support or hate Bush with a passion, you can't deny he has taken the fight to the terroists, and captured and killed god knows how many Al-Queada members. The goverment is doing thier job in protecting America, and taking the fight to the terroists, the fight they %$%$%$%$ing started i might add!

I'm sick of all the Monday morning quarterbacks. Do you know how many plans got %$%$%$%$ed up in WWII?? More than anyone can count i'm afraid. Remember Operation Market Garden? A total %$%$%$%$ up in Intell, and it turned into a bloody defeat for the allies in Holland. Intell said the germans in the area were mostly old men and boys, turned out to be hard core SS troops. Nothing in war goes perfect, thier will be %$%$%$%$ ups. It sucks, but it's reallity.

Even Spence, Mr. Perfect, couldn't come up with a perfect plan. It just doesnt happpen! You have to asses the situation on the ground as it is NOW. And go from there. This coulda, woulda, shoulda, is really getting old and tiring.

Skip...as usual :love: ..... " I can never give US Intel any credit".... where do you get that from my brief post? You just make up stuff and whip it out there.

The discovery of the plan and dealing with it was largely British and US Intel was called on it.... I missed the detonating over US city thing.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We are creating more terrorists by our war with Iraq. Not that they don`t have some terrorists but are not most of the current leading terrorists from Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Palestine.... not to mention all the other countries with Muslim terrorists at the helm or working on it.Or the non Muslim countries with terrorists.

If we said we needed to build military bases in Iraq to further our interests in that region and we hoped to get a bunch of oil for $7 dollars less a barrel than the larger market charges our war there would be more open and honest.


I look forward to your interpretation of my thoughts as always :) .

The spin doctor's on W's team must be getting hard up for new material.

Agent infiltrated terror cell, U.S. says

Air travel in chaos after plot to bomb airliners exposed


Friday, August 11, 2006; Posted: 3:33 p.m. EDT (19:33 GMT)

var clickExpire = "-1";

var cnnStoryUrl = 'http://robots.cnn.com/2006/US/08/10/us.security/index.html';var cnnDisplayDomesticCL = 1; var cnnDisplayIntlCL = 1;[/URL]



SPECIAL REPORT


[URL="http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2006/fighting.terror/"]http://i.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2006/fighting.terror/images/ft.include.jpg (javascript:CNN_openPopup('/services/overture/cl/frameset.exclude.html','620x430','toolbar=no,locat ion=no,directories=no,status=no,menubar=no,scrollb ars=no,resizable=no,width=620,height=430'))




WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Terrorists were in the "final stages" of a plot to simultaneously blow up as many as 10 jets leaving Britain for the U.S., sending the planes and thousands of passengers into the Atlantic Ocean, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Thursday.
British and Pakistani authorities teamed up to thwart the attacks, and 24 men were arrested in overnight raids in Britain, authorities said.
An undercover British agent infiltrated the group, giving the authorities intelligence on the alleged plan, several U.S. government officials said.

I look forward to your interpretation of my thoughts as always :) .

Why bother? it's the same BS you spew all the time. If we use your logic for the war on terror, the US can never take the fight to the enemy overseas, after all, if we go after the enemy in a middle eastern country, we will only cause anger and and create more terroists right? So i guess the US must sit around and do nothing so we don't cause more poeple to hate us? Actually we tried that before, we tried ignoring the threat of terroism, and guess what happend? 3000 americans we're slaughtered in cold blood 5 years ago yesterday. And now people like you imply we can't go after the terroists, because it might casue more people to hate us? You havent learned a damn thing about terroism after 9/11.

Dude, thats some crazy ass thinking! Using your logic, we can't go anywhere to fight the radical muslims who want to do us harm!

Thank god someone like you will NEVER be in the White House running the show.

We have to remember that Saddam let 100,000 people out of prison before we arrived in Bagdad and it has been said that most of those were people who IQ was under 70. Where do you think they are?


How did the democrats wind up in Sadam's prison?:rude:

Skip.... you don`t make any sense and your crazy... where do you get your information? I love how you twist everyones comments to some wacked out version of a reply :claps: .

Yeah i'm crazy alright, if understanding that radical Islam needs to be fought and defeated, then yes, I guess i am crazy.

Are you French by any chance?

How did the democrats wind up in Sadam's prison?:rude:

:rotfl:

the US can never take the fight to the enemy overseas, after all, if we go after the enemy in a middle eastern country, we will only cause anger and and create more terroists right? So i guess the US must sit around and do nothing so we don't cause more poeple to hate us? Actually we tried that before, we tried ignoring the threat of terroism, and guess what happend? 3000 americans we're slaughtered in cold blood 5 years ago yesterday. And now people like you imply we can't go after the terroists, because it might casue more people to hate us? You havent learned a damn thing about terroism after 9/11.


I really, really try to stay out of these things but.....Skip, I agree 100% with your above statement. The "we cause more terrorists by attacking them" theory does not work for me. My issue is that mistakes were made but.....did we learn from them? Mistakes were made in every war, but look at how many times generals were shullfed around? I cant justify that Rumsfeld is still in his position. we have made NO progress in a few years other than Zarqawi (sp??) and a few high priortiy hits. Lets get some new thinking and strategy in there.

I guess it depends on where you get the news from.

Here is an excerpt from the BBC that quotes Tony Blair. While it doesn't say where the planes were to be detonated, it does say that the US intelligence was involved.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4778575.stm

Just wondering.........but does anyone actually believe that we should cease violent action against Terrorism?

I guess it depends on where you get the news from.

Here is an excerpt from the BBC that quotes Tony Blair. While it doesn't say where the planes were to be detonated, it does say that the US intelligence was involved.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4778575.stm

Every report I heard on the matter shared credit with US, British, and Pakistani intelligence.

1. I never said US Intel was`nt involved.....I did say it was mainly British ......but the US was called in on the side to assist.

2. Did we go to war with Iraq because there were terrorists there?

3. People fighting back are now terrorists? With this reasoning we are terrorists.

4. I think we should fight and destroy real terrorists who attack us or espouse the agenda that we should be killed.... which will keep us more than busy forever.

Yeah i'm crazy alright, if understanding that radical Islam needs to be fought and defeated, then yes, I guess i am crazy.

Are you French by any chance?


:hihi: Thank you for supporting my statement.

:hihi: Thank you for supporting my statement.

You're welcome! I'm proud to be called "crazy" if being crazy means going after Terrorists.:)

4. I think we should fight and destroy real terrorists who attack us or espouse the agenda that we should be killed.... which will keep us more than busy forever.

The ones in Iraq harming our troops arent "real" enough for ya? Try telling that to our troops, they might disagree with ya on that!

Should the the US only be aloud to attack terrorists that attack us first??? God i hope you're not going there. Gee, let's wait till we get wacked again before we attack them. Yikes!

I think the point that post Saddam Iraq planning was deficient has become almost moot at this time as has the original justification for the Iraq war. The focus now must be on the current situation on all fronts of the Terror War. Whether Iraq is the central front of this war on Terror is debateable put it is certainly a front of the war. Monday morning quarterbacking takes away from that focus and is detrimental to Americas security. If we cannot replicate the focus and unity this country displayed in WWII our chances of defeating this proven enemy are small.
Well, since this is the only post that even hints at responding to my initial post I'll start here.

How is it moot? The President's own words seem quite contradictory, with themselves and reality.

This isn't Monday morning quarterbacking, I'm trying to understand the real strategy so we can improve it. If this is a "spin in process" perhaps we need to assess our position and options.

-spence

Spence I think the overall strategy is pretty clear. Damage the groups and individuals who wish and plan harm to America to the point that they are incapable of executing a viable attack. The subsets of that strategy are highly complicated ranging from protecting our troops on the ground to creating a Democratic stronghold in the Mideast and many components in between. The tactics to achieve the goals of our strategies are and must be fluid and robust as all strategies and tactics in all wars are. The specifics of those subset strategies as always will be developed and executed by those whose job it is to do so. You and I are not empowered to specifically develop or improve those strategies. Our power lies in our voting rights, and in support of the Democracy which i believe in I'm willing to let our elected officials do their job whatever their political party affiliation is. If and when the actions they take don't agree with my position on the issue then I will consider that the next time I excercise that right to vote.

The reason we went into Iraq is now moot because the fact is we are there. Debating and second guessing the justification is done and complete and those on both sides have made up their minds. Rather than continuing that debate its time to refocus on the matters at hand.

As far as the Presidents words seeming to be contradictory I'm not sure to what you are refering. There is no doubt in my mind that Bush is a poor communicator but it doesn't change the fact that he is President for the next however many days.

Somewhere within a compilation of your ideas and opinions and my ideas and opinions lies the solution that will defeat our common enemy and it is our job to elect the officials that best represent that idea. I think the time to debate the History of this war is when the war is History. It is time now to support Iraq until the point that they are capable of supporting themselves against foreign insurgents and Terrorism. By doing this we have created a new ally in the War on Terror.

I think that you will agree that a unified stand on Americas part is required to win this first of its kind War. I think the often maligned "Stay the course" is misunderstood. In my thinking stay the course means maintaining unrelenting pressure on our enemy even though the tactics used to do so will change as the situation requires.

but it doesn't change the fact that he is President for the next however many days.


417 Days 18 Hours 50 Minutes 14...13....12...11...10.....

But who's counting

http://thebushcountdown.com/

"Let's count on it!"

Spence I think the overall strategy is pretty clear. Damage the groups and individuals who wish and plan harm to America to the point that they are incapable of executing a viable attack. The subsets of that strategy are highly complicated ranging from protecting our troops on the ground to creating a Democratic stronghold in the Mideast and many components in between. The tactics to achieve the goals of our strategies are and must be fluid and robust as all strategies and tactics in all wars are. The specifics of those subset strategies as always will be developed and executed by those whose job it is to do so. You and I are not empowered to specifically develop or improve those strategies. Our power lies in our voting rights, and in support of the Democracy which i believe in I'm willing to let our elected officials do their job whatever their political party affiliation is. If and when the actions they take don't agree with my position on the issue then I will consider that the next time I excercise that right to vote.

The reason we went into Iraq is now moot because the fact is we are there. Debating and second guessing the justification is done and complete and those on both sides have made up their minds. Rather than continuing that debate its time to refocus on the matters at hand.

As far as the Presidents words seeming to be contradictory I'm not sure to what you are refering. There is no doubt in my mind that Bush is a poor communicator but it doesn't change the fact that he is President for the next however many days.

Somewhere within a compilation of your ideas and opinions and my ideas and opinions lies the solution that will defeat our common enemy and it is our job to elect the officials that best represent that idea. I think the time to debate the History of this war is when the war is History. It is time now to support Iraq until the point that they are capable of supporting themselves against foreign insurgents and Terrorism. By doing this we have created a new ally in the War on Terror.

I think that you will agree that a unified stand on Americas part is required to win this first of its kind War. I think the often maligned "Stay the course" is misunderstood. In my thinking stay the course means maintaining unrelenting pressure on our enemy even though the tactics used to do so will change as the situation requires.
A great response :claps:

But it still doesn't answer my initial question.

Why we went into Iraq and how we've f'ed up the aftermath are still valid issues as many of those who perhaps were most central to the policy blunders are still running the show.

These are people who have in the opinions of many experts and Americans done a simply pathetic and incompetent job, and have shown little ability to adapt because of a systemic inability to see the world for what it is.

And we're supposed to trust them with out future?

There is a serious divide in this country on how to fight the enemy, assuming you can even articulate what the enemy is! The brush Bush is painting is so broad he is lumping all the Worlds problems into a single bucket, and in doing to pushing Islam towards the unified state that Bin Laden so wants!

I'd agree that unity is necessary, but Bush didn't really ask for unity last night...he asked for everyone to just go along with this plans...

Unity requires compramise to find common ground, and it doesn't appear to me that Bush is willing to budge.

It's not computing :chatter

-spence

Terrorism in Iraq is like: "Get the F out of my country" Terrorism:bl:

A great response :claps:

But it still doesn't answer my initial question.

Why we went into Iraq and how we've f'ed up the aftermath are still valid issues as many of those who perhaps were most central to the policy blunders are still running the show.

These are people who have in the opinions of many experts and Americans done a simply pathetic and incompetent job, and have shown little ability to adapt because of a systemic inability to see the world for what it is.

And we're supposed to trust them with out future?

There is a serious divide in this country on how to fight the enemy, assuming you can even articulate what the enemy is! The brush Bush is painting is so broad he is lumping all the Worlds problems into a single bucket, and in doing to pushing Islam towards the unified state that Bin Laden so wants!

I'd agree that unity is necessary, but Bush didn't really ask for unity last night...he asked for everyone to just go along with this plans...

Unity requires compramise to find common ground, and it doesn't appear to me that Bush is willing to budge.

It's not computing :chatter

-spence

Okay for the sake of argument: Bush comes on television tonight and says our motives for entering Iraq were flawed and we had no plan for the aftermath. End of debate. That in no way changes the status of the current situation in Iraq. Thats why the point and debate is moot.

no more terror in the United States? I think Bush is doing a great job.

A great response :claps:


There is a serious divide in this country on how to fight the enemy, assuming you can even articulate what the enemy is! The brush Bush is painting is so broad he is lumping all the Worlds problems into a single bucket, and in doing to pushing Islam towards the unified state that Bin Laden so wants!

I'd agree that unity is necessary, but Bush didn't really ask for unity last night...he asked for everyone to just go along with this plans...

Unity requires compramise to find common ground, and it doesn't appear to me that Bush is willing to budge.

It's not computing :chatter

-spence
If there is a divide in how to fight a War as there always was in every war and always will be in every war it comes down to someone making a decision. Whose decision is it going to be?
Last I checked we did not have a Parliamentary form of Government.

Whose plan do you think Bush should ask America to go along with?

no more terror in the United States? I think Bush is doing a great job.

Yea, before Bush there were frequent terrorist attacks...:rolleyes:

That in no way changes the status of the current situation in Iraq. Thats why the point and debate is moot.
Does it mean a change in leadership and attitude?

The problem with our policy isn't bad intel or some casual mistakes, it's an idiology that's not in synch with reality.

I'd add a lack of conscience as well, but I'll try to keep this on the level ;)

-spence

Whose plan do you think Bush should ask America to go along with?
It's not really even about a "plan" as much as it is about a process...

From David Cameron, the UK's Conservative Party leader:

...But I believe that in the last five years we have suffered from the absence of two crucial qualities which should always condition foreign policy-making. Humility, and patience. These are not warlike words. They are not so glamorous and exciting as the easy sound-bites we have grown used to in recent years. But these sound-bites had the failing of all foreign policy designed to fit into a headline. They were unrealistic and simplistic. They represented a view which sees only light and darkness in the world - and which believes that one can be turned to the other as quickly as flicking a switch. I do not see things that way. I am a liberal conservative, rather than a neo-conservative. Liberal - because I support the aim of spreading freedom and democracy, and support humanitarian intervention. Conservative - because I recognise the complexities of human nature, and am sceptical of grand schemes to remake the world. A liberal conservative approach to foreign policy today is based on five propositions. First, that we should understand fully the threat we face. Second, that democracy cannot quickly be imposed from outside. Third, that our strategy needs to go far beyond military action. Fourth, that we need a new multilateralism to tackle the new global challenges we face. And fifth, that we must strive to act with moral authority...

The Bush Administration has centralized power to a tiny group influenced heavily by a radically progressive and militarized idiology that has complete control.

To this end they have fought the war on their terms, and in doing so silenced the diverse voices that would typically call attention to potential pitfalls, disasterous misconceptions and obvious historical precident.

These perversions of objective thought have not only hurt our actions in Afghanistan, but led us foolishly into an Iraqi scenario without any real exit strategy.

These perversions of objective thought are uniting a billion Muslims rather than dividing the extreme from the mainstream.

They try to convince Americans that our longstanding International treaties, our own rule of law and civil liberties are not existent if we're dead...so they migt need to be sacrificed because terrorists hate us for our freedoms?

What the %$%$%$%$?

We need a united voice that will lead the world by example, and today we have anything but.

Stay true to this course and the solution will find it's way.

-spence

I don`t think we should have gone there. I`d rather have seen all that money go into more highly trained and better equipped special forces for more precise targets of terrorism backed up of course with massive air support where appropriate.

I don`t think we should have gone there. I`d rather have seen all that money go into more highly trained and better equipped special forces for more precise targets of terrorism backed up of course with massive air support where appropriate.
Whimp :devil2:

-spence

Perhaps I`m jaded and more but all this debate about political nuances for me is too much blah blah blah. I do believe the real truth is more perfect and simply said even if its nature is fully chaotic.


Remember: all life is an illusion..... or if you prefer....So it goes .... K.V.


Dark... have been my dreams of late :hee:



An aging warrior once said.... I am now dead.

from a Lou Dobbs editorial on CNN today. Good stuff
The American people cannot be reasonably asked by this president or this secretary of defense to "stay the course" without evidence of a strategy to successfully prosecute the war and defeat the radical Islamist enemy. Otherwise, why are we there? The loyal opposition on Capitol Hill cannot reasonably ask the American people to elect them without articulating a clear new direction and offering a concrete plan for victory. Otherwise, why do we even have a loyal opposition?

Both the White House and Congress should be demanding accountability from our generals who have failed so far to succeed in destroying our enemies. Not a single general has been fired for failing to lead our men and women to victory against the insurgencies of Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe it is time for all Americans -- Republicans, Democrats and Independents -- to demand such accountability.

I, for one, do not want to hear another of our generals urge the American people to be patient. Patience favors the enemy. And our generals have the responsibility to our brave troops and this nation to deliver certain victory, and that responsibility rests first and foremost with the commander in chief.

from a Lou Dobbs editorial on CNN today. Good stuff
The American people cannot be reasonably asked by this president or this secretary of defense to "stay the course" without evidence of a strategy to successfully prosecute the war and defeat the radical Islamist enemy. Otherwise, why are we there? The loyal opposition on Capitol Hill cannot reasonably ask the American people to elect them without articulating a clear new direction and offering a concrete plan for victory. Otherwise, why do we even have a loyal opposition?

Both the White House and Congress should be demanding accountability from our generals who have failed so far to succeed in destroying our enemies. Not a single general has been fired for failing to lead our men and women to victory against the insurgencies of Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe it is time for all Americans -- Republicans, Democrats and Independents -- to demand such accountability.

I, for one, do not want to hear another of our generals urge the American people to be patient. Patience favors the enemy. And our generals have the responsibility to our brave troops and this nation to deliver certain victory, and that responsibility rests first and foremost with the commander in chief.

Do we set a deadline for the Generals to achieve Victory before we fire them? Should we give them a year, six months? What factor determines how long a War must be? Have we ever given deadlines to Generals as to long how long they have to win a war? If we are mandating the length of Wars lets make them real short, less casualties.

I think so, do we give them unlimited funds? resources?
I am a project manager, I have a budget and resources to get the job done. I need to show results and keep to a budget. Shouldnt we hold the generals to the same? How would you feel if you were a solider? wouldnt you want to know there is a plan and the people in charge are accountable?

I think so, do we give them unlimited funds? resources?
I am a project manager, I have a budget and resources to get the job done. I need to show results and keep to a budget. Shouldnt we hold the generals to the same? How would you feel if you were a solider? wouldnt you want to know there is a plan and the people in charge are accountable?

If it takes indefinite funds and resources to win a war then thats what it takes. What are you going to do surrender because your over budget? This is Apples to bananas. The ramifications of losing a War in no way equates to missing a cost budget. I know several soldiers quite well and they are very aware of their plan and work to that plan every day. They also understand that plan is fluid and requires constant adjustment. Any idea how long we fought an insurgency in Germany post WWII?

If it takes indefinite funds and resources to win a war, it is poorly planned war and one that cannot be sustained since there is no such thing as indefinite resources. All I am saying is there needs to be clearly outlined goals. Runsfiled should have to say to Congress that on 1/15/XXXX the Iraqui army will be trainined, equiped and deployed. Every month leading up to that time, he should have to report on the progress, demonstrate success and how close he is to acheiving the goal. If he doesn not meet the goals, he should be out of a job, period. The generals should be held to the same. I really cannot beleive anyone would argue with that?

If it takes indefinite funds and resources to win a war, it is poorly planned war and one that cannot be sustained since there is no such thing as indefinite resources. All I am saying is there needs to be clearly outlined goals. Runsfiled should have to say to Congress that on 1/15/XXXX the Iraqui army will be trainined, equiped and deployed. Every month leading up to that time, he should have to report on the progress, demonstrate success and how close he is to acheiving the goal. If he doesn not meet the goals, he should be out of a job, period. The generals should be held to the same. I really cannot beleive anyone would argue with that?

If its simply a matter of accountability I'm sure we are all in agreement. I think the military chain of command is probably unsurpassed in the area of accountability and if I'm not mistaken miltary leadership in Iraq has been changed at least once. Accountability in Government........not so much. Nothing new there. My only point was Wars do not have deadlines. And we don't pack it in and give up the fight because we missed budget. Basic principles of business dont meld well with the basic principles of fighting a war.

Basic principles of business dont meld well with the basic principles of fighting a war.

Followers of Sun Tzu would disagree
:)

Yes, war is business (and the other way around)...

I pretty much agree with Dobbs, although I don't think we can hold generals accountable for the big picture stuff as the civilian leadership is really running the show.

The administration has been very careful in how they articulate their goals so they can be easily manipulated on the fly ;)

What really exacerbates the problem is how our policy seems to always be justified on worse case assumptions, and always planned with only best case assumptions!

I think the American people are pretty sick and tired of the "shut up, we know what we're doing" rhetoric we hear day in and day out.

Perhaps when they show some results people will listen, but more "stay the course" and "be patient" when it's clear they're neither objective or competent just doesn't make any sense.

-spence