Bush has accomplished for this generation, more dissent and thoughts of defeat than dick Nixon ever could, even if he would have had another ten years to work at it, he couldn’t screw things up this bad.
What breaks my heart is the negative impact this bush cheney blood feud will have on our youth and our future Military volunteers. When the populace tires of warring with the stupid people in charge and the body bags continue to arrive home, we will find ourselves contending with angry people who will justly protest this bush war how ever they see fit. What does it mean when a commander and chief is operating with an 18% approval rating?
Right now we are witnessing a historical moment in the relationship of the Joint Chiefs and their president:
http://dogwoodpundit.blogspot.com/2006/12/...-troops-in.html
December 19, 2006
The Joint Chiefs Say No To More Troops In Iraq.
After Vietnam it was common to say that the military
had its hands tied, and was not allowed to win that
war. That was one of the supposed lessons of the
Vietnam War, a mistake we were not to repeat. Now it
comes out that the Bush Administration is pondering a
surge in troops for Iraq, with the Joint Chiefs Of
Staff unanimously opposed to the idea. The lesson of
Vietnam principle applies well here, for if the Joint
Chiefs oppose troop expansion what good could come of
it? To increase troop levels now, and therefor
increase American targets for insurgents, simply for
reasons of political expediency is unconscionable. If
the military leaders can't understand what good more
troops would do, then sending them anyway amounts to
giving the military a mission whose objectives they
increasingly can't comprehend. If the Joint Chiefs
don't sign on, the idea of more troops for Iraq should
be scrapped.
Posted by Michael Oliver at 10:48 AM
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9379.html
Joint Chiefs, public balk at Bush plan for escalation
Last week, the WaPo noted that the White House, hoping
to rally support for a “double down” troop escalation
in Iraq, was running into some resistance among the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. Since then, the division has
grown more stark — the Bush gang has rallied behind
the idea of sending up to 30,000 more troops into
Iraq, and the Joint Chiefs are unanimous in their
opposition.
[T]he Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a
month of talks, still does not have a defined mission
and is latching on to the surge idea in part because
of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the
potential disadvantages for the military, said the
officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity
because the White House review is not public.
The chiefs have taken a firm stand, the sources say,
because they believe the strategy review will be the
most important decision on Iraq to be made since the
March 2003 invasion.
At regular interagency meetings and in briefing
President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that
any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends.
This strikes me as a rather stunning story. The
nation’s top uniformed leaders see a disaster in the
making and appear to be convinced that the president
not only has no plan, but has no clue.
Bush could “surge” 30,000 troops, the Joint Chiefs
believe, but it would likely only make matters worse,
with more al Qaeda attacks, more targets for Sunni
insurgents, and more foreign fighters flocking to Iraq
to attack U.S. troops. For that matter, the Joint
Chiefs suggested that well-armed Shiite militias would
lie low during the escalation, only to retake the
streets after it’s over. The Joint Chiefs also warned,
the WaPo noted, that “even the announcement of a time
frame and mission — such as for six months to try to
secure volatile Baghdad — could play to armed factions
by allowing them to game out the new U.S. strategy.”
But other than that, they love the idea.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/4137
To the Joint Chiefs: Welcome to the club
by P.M. Carpenter | Dec 22 2006 - 8:56am | permalink
article tools: email | print | read more P.M.
Carpenter
There it was, in black and white: one lone sentence in
the Washington Post's lead paragraph on the latest in
Bushian strategery, symbolizing the span of six
sorry-ass years of presidential chuckleheadedness on
one side and an entire universe of informed, expert
opinion on the other.
"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."
Welcome to the club, Joint Chiefs.
I can't think of a solitary issue of national or world
import -- be it fiscal policy, health care, global
warming, preemptive war, torture ... all the
well-known, usual suspects -- in which the vastest
majorities of respective experts haven't wildly
differed with Mr. Bush's ideological instincts in
action, which invariably seem grounded in nothing more
than arrested development.
Now it's your turn, Messrs. Joint Chiefs, to sit in
frustrated anxiety and wonder how in hell a stubborn
child ever gained final authority over you, your
informed judgment, and your cumulative centuries of
studied professionalism.
I've lost track of the number of times Master George
has lied to us, but this -- the administration's
internal tangle with the JCS -- is only the last in a
long, long list.
How many times have we heard the administration
indignantly assert that it listens to and follows the
generals; that it is loathe to monkey with military
strategy like some frothing, mustachioed dictator
moving about toy soldiers and tanks on a map in
contravention of adult, expert opinion.
No, no. That's the military chieftains' job, the
public -- and the chieftains -- have been humored
endlessly. They report, we decide.
But now, in true form, comes the altogether
anticipated addendum: unless we don't like the report.
Also in true primate form comes again the
administration's monkeying with language. It wants a
"surge" of American troops in Iraq. That tactical
concept was once, in the leaner, lesser days of
Orwellian manipulation, called "escalation."
But that terminology gained a rather bad reputation,
seeing how it translated in reality and more lengthily
into "more and more needless American deaths in
someone else's civil war."
Ewwww, bad call. Let's call this one a "surge," which,
by the way, Webster's definition 4(
calls a "jerk orstrain" -- which is likely how the Pentagon views Mr.
Bush these days, so perhaps the designation is apt
after all.
And just why do the Joint Chiefs unanimously believe a
"surge" is a less than a sterling idea? Because they
unanimously know that ...
"the White House, after a month of talks, still does
not have a defined mission....
"[Bush] is latching on to the surge idea in part
because of limited alternatives....
"a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to
virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including
al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and
Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to
the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army....
"a modest surge could lead to more attacks by
al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents
and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters
to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops....
"even the announcement of a time frame and mission --
such as for six months to try to secure volatile
Baghdad -- could play to armed factions by allowing
them to game out the new U.S. strategy."
You think, maybe, that's enough?
Pshaw.
But at least we've solved the riddle of the
administration's curious delay in announcing a new
policy.
Master George has known all along what he'll do. He
also knew it would take time to bully and browbeat the
men with battle-earned stars into submission.
If those men are honorable, they'll just say "No."
They'll resign before signing off on more failure,
more needless deaths.