|
Despite
the vaunted "lessons learned from Vietnam" when politicians decided
they were great military strategists (and tacticians, if you're LBJ),
nothing seems to have really changed as far as I can tell.
|
| “
|
What I am hearing is that [top U.S. commander Gen. Raymond] Odierno is profoundly frustrated with [Amb. Christopher] Hill,
who despite knowing almost nothing about Iraq has decided after a short
time there that it is time to stand back and stop influencing the
behavior of Iraqi officials on a daily basis. In addition, I am told,
the ambassador believes the war is an Iraqi problem, not something that
really concerns Americans anymore, despite the presence of 125,000
American soldiers. On the other hand, the diplomats respond, the
military guys believe they have good relationships with Iraqi
officials, but, the dips add, how would the soldiers really know?
Because unlike Hill's posse, they don't speak Arabic. Which brings to
mind my favorite saying of Warren Buffett, that if you've been playing
poker for half an hour and you don't know who the patsy at the table
is, you're the patsy. [unraveling continued]
|
” |
This
stinks. Once the politicians trigger a war, the generals ought be
unencumbered in their mission (the only mission in war) of destroying
the enemy, utterly, by any and all means. If sniveling
back-stabbing politicians engage in intrigue, kill them too, a lesson
Hannibal learned only too late. Then install someone like me to govern for a generation. Anyway, if all this is your bag, skip
to Taylor Marsh (Tensions)
| “
|
No matter what side you’re on regarding Afghanistan, Karzai and corruption are our biggest enemies right now.
Progressives from all quarters want to completely withdraw. MoveOn.org
is pushing hard on that score. Sen. Feingold wants a timetable. The
overwhelming majority of readers around here wanting out altogether as
well. .
|
” |
|
|
