Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
You reading comprehension is diminishing again. Civilian control of the military has nothing to do with Congress.
|
Our government has three branches, not one.
Quote:
|
Depends on the fight. If they are fighting the good fight (a fight for a policy that is the best interest of US security), and Bush can't carry the water anymore but the military picks it up then that is good for all of us.
|
We'll just have to disagree there, because my view is that our government gets to decide what the country's foreign policy is, not our military, and it's not the military's place to argue with the government about what's in the best interests of the country.
Quote:
|
The ridiculousness of your position is that people may assume Warner speaks for the military, but in this case they are clearly wrong because the military disagreed with him. So in this case he clearly is not speaking for the military.
|
You don't seem to have understood what I said there.
Quote:
|
If memory serves, Patreus was voted in unanimously and congress asked for a report from him in September. So Congress chose this general, now that are just upset because he is not telling them what they want to hear.
|
They're not happy that he's allowing himself to be the tool of the White House press office.
Quote:
|
Cite (and please make it a primary source; otherwise it is not really a cite.
|
It's no secret that much of the military disagreed with the surge. See the article Cletus cited. Here's
an article from two days ago (titled "Among Top Officials, 'Surge' Has Sparked Dissent, Infighting"):
- The polite discussion in the White House Situation Room a week ago masked a sharper clash over the U.S. venture in Iraq, one that has been building since Fallon, chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees Middle East operations, sent a rear admiral to Baghdad this summer to gather information. Soon afterward, officials said, Fallon began developing plans to redefine the U.S. mission and radically draw down troops.
One of those plans, according to a Centcom officer, involved slashing U.S. combat forces in Iraq by three-quarters by 2010. In an interview, Fallon disputed that description but declined to offer details. Nonetheless, his efforts offended Petraeus's team, which saw them as unwelcome intrusion on their own long-term planning. The profoundly different views of the U.S. role in Iraq only exacerbated the schism between the two men.
"Bad relations?" said a senior civilian official with a laugh. "That's the understatement of the century. . . . If you think Armageddon was a riot, that's one way of looking at it."
Nominally Petreaus reports to Fallon, but we know that Bush is the decider here.
On the specific assertion that I made re the Joint Chiefs, how's this for support:
- The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.
WaPo, 12/19/06.
