...which is why he's appeasing them by sending half the requested amount and less than the bare minimum, so he won't look like he's some whacky militarist expanding the war. He's also giving time tables.
Right. However this isn't about being a Republican, this is about being a soldier. This isn't about the Commander In Chief ignoring the minority opposition; this is about him ignoring the military he is supposed to command.
A war with American lives involved should never be a compromise. The object of war is victory, not prolonged involvement.
War shouldn't be about public opinion. A Commander In Chief should do what is necessary and proper to bring victory in a just war. Obama himself has called this a war of necessity, so his main objective should be winning it and not worrying about poll numbers. A man who would let his poll numbers prevent him from executing just wars doesn't belong in the White House. This is no different than Lyndon Johnson playing politics with the Vietnam War by selectively choosing which targets American forces could bomb rather than letting the military do its job and end the war quickly. All this indecisiveness does is get more people killed and prolong conflict.
Most of those generals were retired, were opponents of the president politically, or making suggestions that the president did in fact listen to. So armchair generals, the Colin Powells of the world, and every officer with something to gain by criticizing war efforts. Otherwise though, the main leadership like General David Petraeus, suggested more troops for Iraq and Bush supplied them in the troop surge. I'm not a fan of officers, especially guys like my buddy that go to ROTC and suddenly outrank guys that have been in for years, but the generals by and large have been around the block and are on the ground with the rest of the troops and know what's going on. These aren't armchair generals on the sidelines that don't understand the situation. Coincidentally General McChrystal was picked by Obama to be the Commander of Afghanistan Forces who he said knew what he was doing should be listened to since he was right for the job, and now after giving a 66 page report showing why we need 60,000 more troops, he isn't listening.
The military certainly shouldn't be able to decide things and expect everyone to follow them. It's a hammer and all it sees are nails. It needs checks and balances like everything else.
Yeah, and it's called the Constitution. The problem isn't that the military doesn't have sovereignty over itself, the problem is that there's an ineffective Commander In Chief. The checks and balances for the military are the Congress. Regardless, that has nothing to do with what I said. Public opinion shouldn't guide wars, those fighting them should. The Commander In Chief should listen to his officers and not the polls.
The 60,000 would help achieve the same results in Afghanistan that we had in Iraq. A troop surge would help alleviate strain in certain areas and clear out strongholds for insurgents. No, numbers aren't everything. The Soviets proved that. However the Soviets were incompetent, and those before them were cowards. We accomplished more in our invasion of Afghanistan than the USSR did their entire war there. We've been able to reconnect with the Northern Alliance, overthrow the Taliban, secure gas pipelines and resources, and force the terrorists into hiding along the border. What problems we have left now, yes, can be dealt with with a strong enough force.
