Monday, April 23, 2007

Who is actually prosecuting the IRAQ war? Who do the generals take their orders from? Is this war being manager by the generals or by the Command-in-Chief?

I ask this because President Bush has stated that "I believe strongly that politicians in Washington shouldn't be telling generals how to do their job"

Excuse me! I was under the impression that the President himself was deciding on strategy (supposedly with the advice of his generals in mind) and that the generals then execute the strategy that the President approves. To my mind, that's a politician in Washington telling the generals how to do their job.

And since when is it wrong to have an opinion about the war? Yes, Harry Reid has influence over congressional actions relating to the war but if he believes that the war has been lost at this point then is it not his duty to state that to the American people. The people elect their representative to be an advocate for them in the political arena. I actually agree with the administration when they say that if a congressman believes the war is lost then that congressman should vote to defund the war and Harry Reid should do that.

I am reminded of a quote from the movie "1776" when the delegate from Georgia states
"'that a representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion.' It was written by Edmund Burke, a member of the British Parliament." If any member of Congress believes that the war is lost at this point based on his judgement and the information that he is afforded as a member of the legislature, then no matter how unpopular the action may be, he should vote to defund the war.

The other point that galls me no end is the idea that the administration trumpets that any action against the current war footing is a betrayal of the troops, a morale crusher, an aid to the enemy, etc. I don't believe that. If the action is to bring the troops home, then I see that as more supportive of the men and women who have pledged to fight for our freedom(s) then to use them as cannon fodder in a bloody civil conflict a half-a-world away.

Ulysses S. Grant used superiority in numbers to force an end to the United States Civil War with the loss of a great number of lives. Robert E. Lee tried to use the same tactic to win the Battle of Gettysburg with Pickett's charge and failed although he lost a great number of men in the attempt. The President must believe that success in IRAQ will mirror Grant's success while the general population and the Congress are coming to the conclusion that Lee's failure will be the model for our fight in IRAQ.

Either way our troops are being sacrificed on the altar of freedom.



Post a Comment

<< Home