...will die in their beds, never having their theories tested nor been held accountable for their failures.
Just for the record, Mr. Brooks, it had little to do with arrogance . For most of us it had everything to do with faith and preserverance, even in the darkest hours. Because, to quote Churchill:And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day. - Henry V, Shakespeare
- It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required.
There you go again, clinging to those outmoded notions redolent of guns, religion and fly-over peasantry. How can we ever expect to make any decent headway in Obie's campaign -- ummmmm, i meant, "significant progress in Iraq" -- if we don't change the way we deploy our troops (to AfStan -- all of them, even if they have to walk there) and then *hoping* things will get better?
Ummmm -- the surged *worked*? Did anybody tell Howard?
There have been 2 phases to the Iraq War: 1) The initial invasion and combat operation to remove Saddam; 2) the insurgency. Each of these required different approaches.
Franks, Abizaid, Casey, et al may have been very effective leaders in the first phase, steeped as they were in the more conventional orthodoxy of massive, armored maneuver operations such as was planned for in Europe and which we saw in Desert Storm.
But once the situation in Iraq morphed into the insurgency phase, different skillsets and strategies were needed. Leaders like Petraeus, Odierno, McMaster, et al met this need.
Unfortunately, as is often the case, there was a delay between the time the situation actually changed and the point where this change was recognized and acknowledged, and then there was a delay during which Bush listened to the counsel from the more orthodox military leadership before recognizing that, though they were well qualified generals whose advice he should heed, they were simply not up to the task of dealing with the insurgency and new leaders with different ideas needed to be brought in.
Had Bush really been ignorant, stubbon, and arrogant, he would simply have continued to stick with his original plan, placing all of his confidence in the military leadership that had achieved the first phase, and never recognized that the sitation had changed and that a new approach was necessary.
Had he been more interested in being popular and liked, as Bill Clinton would have, he would have done the most politically expedient thing as soon as his poll numbers started to fall .... he would have withdrawn forces from Iraq as soon as he could have. As Obama wants to do now.
Fortunately, Bush knows what is at stake in Iraq, and is determined to weather the criticism and his unpopularity to achieve it.
But, John has rulez and it would have broken them at least twenty times.
Obie keeps talking "hope" and "change". I think McCain ought to hit him with a "courage" and "faith" campaign.
Don't Vote for CHENGE
http://shop.cafepress.com/design/28402569