|
Intellectually Honest
Quote:
Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
He has directly engaged the enemy in combat. Among other things, I believe this gives him a healthier respect for who knows how to accomplish particular missions in the military and where deferral to the brass is advisable.
One of the major failures of the Bush Presidency has been the mindless pushing of the Rumsfeld doctrine over the objection of the brass. It is possible to do amazing things with our light and highly mobile forces, but at the end of the day when you have to put boots on the ground, hold territory, and keep it orderly you need heavier forces. The fact that Rumsfeld's broad plan going forward appears to be continued emphasis on light forces over heavy forces while Kerry is explicitly supporting the creation of two new divisions (as well as the expansion of special forces) tells me that our forces will be better prepared and equipped to do the job under Kerry.
Put this one in the category of learning from our mistakes - a second major problem of the Bush administration is that they do not seem capable of learning from mistakes such as the Rumsfeld Doctrine.
|
We are on the same page on tactics. My absolute doubt is on strategy and committment. Rummy sucks and needs to go so that our soldiers are allowed to fight the way they were trained. But I'm not sure that Kerry puts them into the fight in the first place, except as a limited reaction to events. I hate to keep harping on the "reaction" vs. "preemption" thing, but its really a core issue now.
__________________
Man, back in the day, you used to love getting flushed, you'd be all like 'Flush me J! Flush me!' And I'd be like 'Nawww'
|
