Comments on: Thirty-six months http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/03/28/thirty-six-months/ The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy! Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:20:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Bill C http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/03/28/thirty-six-months/comment-page-1/#comment-63457 Bill C Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:25:30 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/03/28/thirty-six-months/#comment-63457 Steve C, I can point to Senator John McCain for one who has advocated a much larger troop presence on the ground, think of it as a "surge", since the beginning. Colin Powell has made the same point since leaving the administration. Where they are coming from is a good foundation in reality about how many troops does it take to effect desired results. The former secdef apparently didn't care for that type advice hence there are 7 or 8 former army and marine general officers who now also have something to say about effective troop strength. You say circumstance and the enemy have made decisions difficult. Welcome to warfare 101. You may have never heard of the rule of the P's. Proper planning prevents piss poor performance. When we have such partisan politics and an openly hostile press no administration can afford the errors made since May of 03. Steve C,
I can point to Senator John McCain for one who has advocated a much larger troop presence on the ground, think of it as a “surge”, since the beginning. Colin Powell has made the same point since leaving the administration. Where they are coming from is a good foundation in reality about how many troops does it take to effect desired results. The former secdef apparently didn’t care for that type advice hence there are 7 or 8 former army and marine general officers who now also have something to say about effective troop strength.
You say circumstance and the enemy have made decisions difficult. Welcome to warfare 101. You may have never heard of the rule of the P’s. Proper planning prevents piss poor performance. When we have such partisan politics and an openly hostile press no administration can afford the errors made since May of 03.

]]> By: lex http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/03/28/thirty-six-months/comment-page-1/#comment-63431 lex Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:09:17 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/03/28/thirty-six-months/#comment-63431 I <em>know</em> Buck, I had to go back and re-read what I'd written... I know Buck, I had to go back and re-read what I’d written…

]]> By: Buck http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/03/28/thirty-six-months/comment-page-1/#comment-63415 Buck Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:28:47 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/03/28/thirty-six-months/#comment-63415 <i>[? [?

]]> By: Buck http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/03/28/thirty-six-months/comment-page-1/#comment-409950 Buck Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:28:47 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/03/28/thirty-six-months/#comment-409950 <i>[…] More at AMERICAblog The Heretik, Think Progress and, especially, Neptunus Lex. […]</i> HOLEEE KREP! Now <i>there's</i> a grouping one doesn't often, if ever, see! And you get the "especially," Lex! While Gandelman and company (i.e., the author of the linked piece) claim to be moderate, my experience in reading these guys is they are moderate <b>Left</b>. Still and even, to be grouped with some of the Lefty Big Dogs just has to be a first... […] More at AMERICAblog The Heretik, Think Progress and, especially, Neptunus Lex. […]

HOLEEE KREP! Now there’s a grouping one doesn’t often, if ever, see! And you get the “especially,” Lex! While Gandelman and company (i.e., the author of the linked piece) claim to be moderate, my experience in reading these guys is they are moderate Left.

Still and even, to be grouped with some of the Lefty Big Dogs just has to be a first…

]]> By: Skippy-san http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/03/28/thirty-six-months/comment-page-1/#comment-63382 Skippy-san Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:02:19 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/03/28/thirty-six-months/#comment-63382 The bill was not what I was talking about. No matter who wins the election, the new President will have to come up with a "Peace with Honor solution" to the Iraq mess. The American people will not stand for this much longer. However misguided the Congress may be in their approach, I do believe they are echoing the sentiment of a lot of Americans who are tired of seeing their blood and treasure spilled for a bunch of Arabs, who continue to fight over useless things. Even Mc Cain won't be able to stay in Iraq. And truth be told he will probably adopt an Eisenhower solution. Except, there is no China to threaten with the H-bomb. China knew when to push their charges to the table-Iran does not. The bill was not what I was talking about. No matter who wins the election, the new President will have to come up with a “Peace with Honor solution” to the Iraq mess. The American people will not stand for this much longer. However misguided the Congress may be in their approach, I do believe they are echoing the sentiment of a lot of Americans who are tired of seeing their blood and treasure spilled for a bunch of Arabs, who continue to fight over useless things.

Even Mc Cain won’t be able to stay in Iraq. And truth be told he will probably adopt an Eisenhower solution.

Except, there is no China to threaten with the H-bomb. China knew when to push their charges to the table-Iran does not.

]]> By: Max Damage http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/03/28/thirty-six-months/comment-page-1/#comment-63263 Max Damage Thu, 29 Mar 2007 04:12:25 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/03/28/thirty-six-months/#comment-63263 Don't be so sure of that, Skippy. First, even if Bush doesn't veto the bill he still has constitutional authority to ignore the mandate from Congress, and so will his successor. Given the US legal system, it would not suprise me to find another two years could be added on just in the court case. Second, and more likely, even if a Democrat succeeds Bush, there is precious little incentive for them to just pull out. Inheriting a war isn't a particularly great way to start an administration, and few Americans see any executive leadership in declaring defeat and going home. I suspect that is why the Democrats wish to set such a firm date, as a damage control policy for the responsibility they might inherit. It's a lot easier to lose a war when you can say your hands are tied, you have to leave because the law says so, and it was all your predecessors fault anyway. Much easier than exercising your responsibilities as POTUS and doing what you think is right for the country, as an example. But, as I've lamented before, that seems to have become less and less a consideration for folks in public office. - Max Don’t be so sure of that, Skippy. First, even if Bush doesn’t veto the bill he still has constitutional authority to ignore the mandate from Congress, and so will his successor. Given the US legal system, it would not suprise me to find another two years could be added on just in the court case. Second, and more likely, even if a Democrat succeeds Bush, there is precious little incentive for them to just pull out. Inheriting a war isn’t a particularly great way to start an administration, and few Americans see any executive leadership in declaring defeat and going home. I suspect that is why the Democrats wish to set such a firm date, as a damage control policy for the responsibility they might inherit. It’s a lot easier to lose a war when you can say your hands are tied, you have to leave because the law says so, and it was all your predecessors fault anyway. Much easier than exercising your responsibilities as POTUS and doing what you think is right for the country, as an example.

But, as I’ve lamented before, that seems to have become less and less a consideration for folks in public office.

– Max

]]>