Before you go espousing conspiracy theories about what happened, Red, understand that members of the Joint Chiefs serve in their positions for a fixed term. General Sheneski's time was simply up. As to the other generals, well yes, if they disagree openly with SecDef or the President, particularly in a time of war, they will be disciplined in some manner. These guys have been soldiers long enough to know what happens when you openly criticize your superiors. The military is not a democracy Red. When you enlist, you give up certain things, one of which is the right to unfettered free speech.
Not so fast, my friend. The normal term is six years. General Shenseki was forced into retirement 14 months early. Stars and Stripes "Shinseki is believed to have been forced out by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after the Army leader told Congress that pacifying Iraq after the war would require “hundreds of thousands” of troops, rather than the smaller force Rumsfeld and other civilian Pentagon officials advocated." Fact-Check FactCheck: Shinseki retirement was pushed but not forced Kerry: General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, told him he was going to need several hundred thousand [troops in Iraq]. And guess what? They retired Gen. Shinseki for telling him that. FACT CHECK: Kerry claimed, as he had in the first debate, that the Army's Chief of Staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, was forced to retire. It is true that Shinseki said on Feb. 25, 2003 that "something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would be required for an occupation of Iraq. And it is true that the general retired several months later on June 11, 2003. But the administration didn't force Gen. Shinseki to retire: he had plans to retire since 2002. There was some truth to Kerry's comment, however. According to the Oct. 9 Washington Post , the story of Shinseki's replacement was leaked "in revenge" for Shinseki's position on troop requirements, which he was already expressing in private. By naming a replacement 14 months early, the Post said Pentagon leakers effectively undercut Shinseki's authority. military.com "In the middle of the ongoing Iraqi guerilla war, with more military actions awaiting, the new U.S. Army uniformed leadership has forced at least six senior generals into early retirement, with another half-dozen earmarked for the same treatment in the near future. ... By all appearances, the announcements represent a "housecleaning". When one observes 150,000 of America's finest troops virtually pinned down in a country without an opposing army, it becomes difficult to dismiss the critics' fears as unfounded. Re-arranging the foundation of the U.S. Army during an ongoing military campaign is dangerous, especially for an obviously under-strength Army" Which is why one must listen to the retired generals if one wants to get the whole story. The point I'm trying to make is that the civilian authority in the Pentagon did not heed the advice of their top generals when they made the poor decision to occupy Iraq with too few troops to maintain order. (incidently, the generals didn't enlist, they were commisioned).
You're splitting hairs here, my friend. You know good and well what I meant. Besides, don't you know what a Mustang is? There are a few of those, too. In case you don't know what I meant, let me rephrase: ALL members of the US military, commissioned OR enlisted, know that when they agree to enter the service, they give up certain things, including the unfettered right to free speech. Better? And as I stated before...these generals have been soldiers long enough to know (and once they've obtained that first star on their collar, you can bet that they've also been politicians long enough to know) that if you publicly disagree with the boss, there are going to be repercussions...some less subtle than others, depending upon the severity of the disagreement.
I really don't see the relevance in this discussion? The bottomline is that whether Red is right or wrong doesn't matter. In other words, no matter what the generals would've advised the Bush Administration would've tried to do things their way in Iraq because they want to use the strategy of winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. They think that doing this would turn Iraq into a democracy, allies, and would also help spread democracy to the middle east therefore giving their people better lives and would help eliminate the desperate elements in their society. Interesting concept but time will tell if it will work. I don't like it, I would rather geaux un a win the war first and try and be friends afterwards, We don't control the Iraqi borders so terrorists and "soldiers" can cross the borders with weapons and attack us. One thing George Bush doesn't understand is protecting borders either in Iraq or the US. If we don't have the manpower in Iraq, we could at least have done something such as laying down land mines. I don't understand the Democrats point of view unless its hate George Bush and undermind anything he tries to do which it seems to be. I always thought that the Democrats were for spreading freedom and democracy, human rights and doing away with bad dictators, etc. Just like in Kosovo which I don't remember anyone objecting too? We should've went into Rwanda btw also. You think the "world" would be happy and that it would've been a worthy cause to get rid of Saddam after all the thousands of people he killed and the problems he caused his neighbors including Iran. I also think its pointless to argue why we went into Iraq, we are already there and there aint nothing anyone can do about it at this stage of the game.
no i didnt. read what i say. i am talking about one thing only, when people (and not even necessarily you) act like they know how wars should be run better than military strategists., look what i said: again, i am only referring to people who have opinions regarding specific military strategy. i know more than ministers, they are superstitious fools. correct, the difference is in the specifics. i understand the concepts well enough to be right about the general concepts about the government and the economy, but that doesnt mean you should hire me to be your accountant or campaign advisor. similarly, i think people can oppose war or favor it, but still be unqualified to know how to actually run the specific strategy of the war better than those who are actually fighting the war. pay close attention, i am not saying anyone is unqualified to posess an opinion (i often say "unqualified to know"), or that i dont enjoy their ignorance.
Then we agree. 1. The people running religion, government and the war in Iraq know the situation better than us. Yet they still make errors in each case. Errors anybody can see. 2. We both know enough about these situations to hold valid opinions and we will comment on anything we damn well please and question policies that we think are wrong. My comments that started this whole subthread were criticisms of the public policies of public officials Bush and Rumsfeld (not military strategists) and their public comments concerning troop levels (not "specific strategy of the war"). I also commented that these policies were at odds with many general's (military strategists) public comments. All this business about not being qualified to question military strategy is quite beside the point. We are perfectly "qualified" to discuss disagreements between public comments of the principals. And nobody ever claimed to "know more than those actually fighting the war". In any case, Bush and Rumsfeld are "actually" in Washington polishing chairs with their asses.
i dunno if i even go that far. i cant even tell what is a mistake and what isnt. maybe you understand military tactics better than i do. they can tell me a certain task takes 300 guys or 3000 guys, i have no idea and i dont think my comments on it have any value. you are still confusing the right to have opinion with having an opinion worth listening to. maybe not you, but some people do that. (not necessarily you). some people enjoy claiming they know how many troops it takes to accomplish various military goals. right, where they are privy to a thousand times more timely and relevant and secret information than anyone else.
:::rolls eyes to this entire thread::: bush met with this lady, but now someone is trying to spin it like she didn't. So did she or didn't she? Seems to me like she did. Lady I know youre distraught about your son dying. But bashing the president isnt going to bring him back. bashing the war, isnt going to bring him back. I know for a fact that president bush visits bethesda, maryland all the time , visiting with , marines,and sailors. Here's the fact though: The President isnt going to be able to visit with every single household that has lost a child. It just isnt going to happen. This lady is crazy.
Speaking of Cindy, I can't believe she didn't make a statement blaming Bush for her familys demise. He son and now her mother, If A+B wouldn't have happened than C wouldn't have. If I was Cindy's father I would be so angry at her I would've blown a head gasket! Its like a conspiracy by either people or the Wackos on the left? Its like all those deaths tied to Bill Clinton during his reign as King.
