Why do Americans tolerate Bush letting the 'Generals' dictate our level of involvement in Iraq?

[bigtree]

That's supposed to be Bush's job. HE'S the one who's responsible for the deployment of our soldiers.

This bunch that he's put in charge in Iraq are getting our soldiers killed as they fight and die in defense of the Maliki regime; in defense of Iraqis whose fellow countryfolk are killing our soldiers daily.

Bush, as president, as the civilian boss of the Military, is supposed to draw the line; not the generals. Every time he says he's 'leaving it up to the generals', he's giving our nation over to the military.


Thomas Jefferson:

"The supremacy of the civil over the military authority I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

"The freest governments in the world have their army under absolute government. Republican form and principles not to be introduced into government of an army." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes Concerning the Right of Removal from Office, 1780. Papers 4:282

" great military contest with wisdom and fortitude invariably the rights of the civil power through all disasters and changes." --Thomas Jefferson: Address to George Washington, 1783.(*) Papers 6:413

"Instead of subjecting the military to the civil power, the civil subordinate to the military. But can thus put down all law under his feet? Can he erect a power superior to that which erected himself? He it indeed by force, but let him remember that force cannot give right." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774.(*) ME 1:209, Papers 1:134

"No military commander should be so placed as to have no civil superior." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Smith, 1801. FE 8:29

"It is probable... that not knowing how to use the military as a civil weapon, will do too much or too little with it." --Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1789.

"To carry on our war with success, we want able officers, and a sufficient number of soldiers. The former, time and trial can alone give us; to procure the latter, we need only the tender of sufficient inducements and the assiduous pressure of them on the proper subjects." --Thomas Jefferson to John Clarke, 1814. ME 14:79

"Bonaparte will conquer the world, if they do not learn his secret of composing armies of young men only, whose enthusiasm and health enable them to surmount all obstacles." --Thomas Jefferson to Barnabas Bidwell, 1806. ME 11:116

"There should be a school of instruction for our navy as well as artillery; and I do not see why the same establishment might not suffice for both. Both require the same basis of general mathematics, adding projectiles and fortifications for the artillery exclusively, and astronomy and theory of navigation exclusively for the naval students." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1821. ME 15:334

"Neither a nation nor those entrusted with its affairs could be justifiable, however sanguine their expectations, in trusting solely to an engine not yet sufficiently tried under all the circumstances which may occur, and against which we know not as yet what means of parrying may be devised." --Thomas Jefferson to Robert Fulton, 1807. ME 11:328

"I believe now we should be gainers were we to burn our whole navy, and build what we should be able on plans approved by experience and not warped to the whimsical ideas of individuals, who do not consider that if their projects miscarry their country is in a manner undone." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, 1779. Papers 3:39

"If no check can be found to keep the number of standing troops within safe bounds while they are tolerated as far as necessary, abandon them altogether, discipline well the militia and guard the magazines with them. More than magazine guards will be useless if few and dangerous if many. No European nation can ever send against us such a regular army as we need fear, and it is hard if our militia are not equal to those of Canada or Florida." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788.

"Our duty is... to act upon things as they are and to make a reasonable provision for whatever they may be. Were armies to be raised whenever a speck of war is visible in our horizon, we never should have been without them. Our resources would have been exhausted on dangers which have never happened instead of being reserved for what is really to take place." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806. ME 3:424

" 'As soon as one prince augments his forces, the rest, of course, do the same; so that nothing is gained thereby but the public ruin.'" --Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book.

"The following would have pleased me:... All troops of the United States shall stand ipso facto disbanded at the expiration of the term for which their pay and subsistence shall have been last voted by Congress, and all officers and soldiers not natives of the United States shall be incapable of serving in their armies by land except during a foreign war." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:451, Papers 15:368

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1480.htm



http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[aquart]

1. The generals are NOT dictating. They are covering his ass.

As per the orders of their Commander in Chief.

[bigtree]

2. That's not what I see. They ARE dictating policy.

Bush is hiding behind them.

Bush: Generals, Iraqis will decide troop strength
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/26/iraq.troops/index.html


Bush: Generals Satisfied With U.S. Troop Levels in Iraq
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226963,00.html?sPage=fnc.politics/youdecide2006

[aquart]

3. Clean your glasses.

[bigtree]

5. He's letting them dictate our involvement in Iraq.

I don't need to clean any goddamned glasses to see that. Where has he opposed their recommendations to increase the troop levels? Where has he opposed their decision to cordon off Baghdad? Where has he opposed their statements today where the generals rejected withdrawal proposals?

Where has Bush stood up to the military? He's hiding behind them.

[boolean]

11. No....They're COVERING for him

The generals didn't want to go in with a "small footprint". Rumsfeld told them to.

Their recommendations are not *real*

[bigtree]

14. I don't think their recommendations for MORE troops is especially bright

MORE troops to squash the Iraqis. I'm looking for someone to stand up and say the invasion and occupation was wrong, a military and political blunder, and that we should end it immediately. No way I'm following the generals who are arguing that there's something to 'win' in Iraq. The top brass is either with Bush or against him. If they're merely covering for him they are just as complicit. They can't and shouldn't escape accountability just for following orders. Especially since everyone knows Bush is too stupid to find Iraq on a map.

[babylonsister]

4. * has said he abides by the military decisions, but I don't believe

that for a second. I think he's calling the shots, w/Cheney and Rummy til recently.
Hopefully that will change now that grown-ups with common sense are in charge.

[bigtree]

7. I don't think that's the way to approach this

The generals need to be confronted about their 'assessments' which keep our troops bogged down there looking for the 'victory' the generals say they want. They're the ones putting foward the recommendations which created the fiasco. Bush isn't hunching over some map in some war room somewhere. Sure, he's hired these men to do his bidding. That's without question. But, the generals are dictating the way our soldiers execute the occupation.

We probably can't fire Bush as fast as we can censure these generals. Force them out and force Bush to replace them with someone who understands the Democrat's and voter's demands for withdrawal. That's how to get to Bush's Iraq policy. Right now he's saying the generals should determine how many of our soldiers are deployed there and how long. There has been vitrtually no resistance to that equation from Congress. They need to tell the generals to change their policy or get out. Bush should, of course, be pressured to remove them if they don't advocate a change in course.

[babylonsister]

8. I think the generals were taking orders from dimson and co.

I prefer an investigation into the actions of this admin instead of going after generals who have been following orders. "That's" their job.

[bigtree]

9. This is not the way we should approach our government

The generals should not be considered blameless for policy in the same way we regard the troops under THEIR command. Especially since Bush does NOT have anywhere near the brain to begin to order them to do anything but go there and stay. The generals are the ones rejecting the timeline for withdrawal. If they disagree with that assessment then they've LIED to Congress and should be held accountable. They don't get a bye just because they were following orders.

If the generals want that consideration they should resign. If not, they bear responsibility for staying. In your equation, Rummy was just 'following orders' too. Cheney as well.

[babylonsister]

10. Have we heard from every general in the field there? We've

heard from the head shed today, and he's trying to stay the course, but it isn't working. I haven't heard what Pace has said. There have to be others, and they are silent, at least to my ears.
You are right-they should resign or retire. Or just maybe they were waiting for a regime change.

[bigtree]

12. well, let's go after them. We don't have to ignore Bush while we're pressuring them

Pace is close to breaking, but I think he's still holding out for a chance to 'win' in Iraq . . .


Speaking on Friday, General Pace said he and other leading officers including General George Casey, the U.S. commander in Iraq, and General John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, were working on a review of Iraq policy.

"We have to give ourselves a good honest scrub about what is working and what is not working, what are the impediments to progress and what should we change about the way we are doing it to make sure that we get to the objective that we set for ourselves," Pace, chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on the "Early Show" on CBS television.

http://www.fox6.com/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=4B62D73D-DE70-4CA0-9935-04C4F6C25AD8&rss=national

[kentuck]

6. I think that is an excellent question.

The military in this country is supposed to be supervised by civilians. We do not ask the "Generals" what we should do - we ask them for advice and synopsis of the strategic situations that might arise. We don't say that we will do whatever they want to do.

[Ksec]

13. Military will always choose war over peace

Thats who they are. They like to fight.

Bush is just using them.

[bigtree]

15. Then, they are allowing themselves to be used

They are ordering our soldiers to fight and die for that choice. Unlike the soldiers, they can walk away from Bush. They can stand down at anytime and protest.

[Leilani]

17. No, the Military does not choose war

Those who have been to war are the least likely to want to wage it again.

The uniformed people at the Pentagon were AGAINST this war.

Everyone who pushed this war had never been on a battlefield.

Wolfowitz, Perle, Adelman, Feith, Kristol, etc.

And of course, Bush & Cheney.

[bigtree]

20. the ones 'against' the 'war' have resigned

the ones for the occupation remain in place, making the decisions about where our troops are deployed in Iraq.

Bush says he is the decider, but he's merely parroting the recommendations from the commanders 'on the ground'. He's admitted that over and over without being confronted on it.

The generals are 'pushing' an escalation of the occupation to achieve that 'victory' they say they want. Bush should be held ultimately responsible for deferring to them, but the GENERALS are dictating the course of the occupation, from the siege of Baghdad, to the bombing of civilian areas. They should be held to account for their decisions. That doesn't let Bush off of the hook. He should be challenged to replace them for their reckless directing of our soldiers and their insistence that they should stay. It would be different if they had gone before Congress and repudiated Bush. But, they didn't.

[EFerrari]

16. Do you honestly believe that BushCo would let ANYONE

let alone guys in UNIFORM dictate ANYTHING?!

[bigtree]

18. Yes. He's a weak idiot. He wouldn't know the business end of a rifle

without being told.

Bush: Generals, Iraqis will decide troop strength
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/26/iraq.troops/index.html


Bush: Generals Satisfied With U.S. Troop Levels in Iraq
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226963,00.html?sPage=fnc.politics/youdecide2006

[EFerrari]

19. You're right. He wouldn't. But his handlers would.

Sorry, I have a very hard time believing for a second that he's ever been in charge of anything.

[ComerPerro]

21. This is the kind of shit that got him elected in the first place, remember

Remember back when Bush was campaigning, but nobody really thought he stood a snowball's chance?

Well, the general concensus among most Americans was "he is a fucking moron".

And, the moderates, independents, Republicans, and other clueless morons who liked him expanded on that:

"He isn't the smartest, true, but he is at least smart enough to recognize that, and he surrounds himself with good people."

Surely we all remember hearing that talking point.


Well, this "I listen to the generals" thing is just an expansion on that.


As in, "yeah, Bush is a moron and he is really fucking up, but at least he is willing to listen to the Generals"

[bigtree]

22. and the generals are wrong. they should be held to account for that

by our Congress demanding their removal if Bush insists he's deferring to them. Call him on it. The situation we have now is Bush is being allowed to hide behind that "I listen to the generals" thing.

He's supposed to be the one setting the policy in Iraq, not the generals. It's one thing to avoid micromanaging them, it's another to allow them to dictate troop levels and deployment locations.

[ComerPerro]

23. you realize you are asking for accountablity from a member of the Bush family?

[blogslut]

24. Read State of Denial by Woodward

The Generals were shut out by Rumsfeld. Bush let that jerk ruin the war and the chain of command.

[bigtree]

25. Are these generals who rejected withdrawal today before Congress

shut out?

They should resign if they disagree with the policy. If not, they are complicit, even more so in the face of Bush's mindless parroting of the ones who advocate keeping our soldiers in place. Where was the opposition to Bush's ambitions today before Congress? It's just not credible to suppose the military hawks in place aren't pushing to stay and fight to achieve some 'victory' in Iraq. The one's opposed have resigned. These generals who insist we should stay and continue to press the occupation are just as complicit as Bush in the needless deaths of our soldiers under their command. If they think differently they should call Bush on his assertion that he's "listening to the generals, and advocate a true "change of course."

[blogslut]

26. Just read the book

Yes, the current Generals in place are go-alongers. However, Bush actually wasn't listening to any Generals before Rumsfeld "retired". Used to be the President got reports directly from the Joint Chiefs. Rumsfeld killed that. Bush got all his info from Rummy. It didn't matter what the Generals said because Bush would never have heard them.

[bigtree]

27. what does any of that have to do with anything that's going on now?

The commanders 'on the ground', that Bush says he's taking his lead from, are advocating escalation and stay the course in Iraq.

Bush has been saying this all along, no matter what the reality is. That's where we should hold him to account. The generals are wrong. They should be called on it. Then, Bush should be told that the generals have to go. He should be forced to PUBLICALLY denounce the recommendations of the generals which don't comport with the wishes of the American people as expressed in the last election.

What has been accomplished by allowing the general's assessments to stand unassailed? Bush shouldn't be allowed to hide behind them. They should be taken down along with Bush. It's not like Congress didn't just call these officers before them. Did they lie when they advocated staying the course? Have they recommended to Congress that we withdraw?

Allowing the 'go-alongers'' views to prevail, allows Bush to prevail as he parrots them.

[blogslut]

29. I'm just clarifying things

You made the point that Bush had been listening to the Generals all along. He hadn't. In fact, he didn't do shit as far as his responsibilities as Commander in Chief were concerned. He let Rummy do it all.

And now, here he is with a bunch of crappy yes-men Generals. Bush can't run this war. He's simply not capable of the task. He will rely on bad information, spewed out by men that shouldn't be in the positions they're in in the first place.

I agree. They all suck and they all need to go, Bush included.

[bigtree]

30. My point is None of the idiots in the WH leadership have any idea how to best manage

our military forces and keep them safe from unnecessary engagements. Nor, do they give a shit about our soldier's safety. The generals who are advocating they remain in Iraq don't give a shit about their safety either. The 'mission' and their commission are all that matters to them.

[Golden Raisin]

28. Why do Americans tolerate Bush is more to the point.

[bigtree]

31. good point

gotta break it down, though

[Jack Rabbit]

32. The question raises a very good point

When Truman fired MacArthur, it wasn't a question of who was right, just who was boss.

When General Singlaub questioned President Carter's desire to scale down US troops in Korea, he found that out, too.

The only reason I can thing of for the American people to tolerate genrals telling the President (or presumptive President, as the case may be) is that they have so completely lost faith in Bush's ability to do anything at all right that it doesn't bother them the generals are behaving as they are.

It really isn't a matter of policy they're arguing. That was MacArthur's problem with Truman or Singlaub's with Carter. The problem is that Bush thinks he can defy the law of gravity in Iraq and the generals are trying to tell him what is possible and what is not.

I keep reading over the sentence I just wrote. It send chills through my soul.

[bigtree]

33. feingold kick

Feingold: We Should Challenge Generals Whose ‘Assessments…Were Wrong’
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/16/feingold-abizaid/

wth? two great minds :P