Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
How can you possibly argue that he is the right man for the job but the main strategy he is proposing is instrinsically flawed. I am not sayig he is all powerful or infallible, I am just saying that is ridiculous to say he is the right man for the job but then question either his strategy or his ethics.
|
Because the plan is influenced by outside factors. He can be the right man for the job, even if the job is doomed because the plan does not go far enough. Or if the plan serves a policy that is likely to fail.
In sum, the plan and the man are not concentric, you know.
Quote:
|
What you are saying is that these Senators know better what military strategy is good for Iraq than the military man that they believe is best suited for the job.
|
No. What I am saying is that when Bush calls up Petreus, he says, "General, I need to you come up with a plan to brings peace and stability to Iraq, and you need to do it without a major committment of more forces."
Then the General makes a plan.
He can still be the man best suited to the job even if the job is undoable.
