Posted on 06/24/2010 5:01:33 AM PDT by USALiberty
The fawning mainstream media has stated that with the choice of Gen. David Petraeus to assume McChrystal’s post, he chose a “a popular and press-savvy military leader.” Is that what is needed right now: a “popular” and “press-savvy” leader? What about someone who can win in Afghanistan? Are military promotions purely political?
What type of leadership would follow the orders of a usurper to the presidency? Are they protecting their own positions and income by denying discovery to Lt. Col. Lakin? Are they upholding the oath they took to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic when the person giving the orders could be foreign-born with foreign allegiances? How could any general or officer operate under such conditions?
What has happened to our once proud military?
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
The United States WILL lose the war in Afghanistan. As in Vietnam, DIPLOMATS and POLITICIANS armed with nothing more than bright ideas, academic theories, and fervent wishes are putting their noses into places they don’t belong.
Any “GOOD” executive realizes you get the best, most able and competent leaders and then get the hell out of the way.
Even Roosevelt and Truman, while they set national policy did NOT direct minute by minute, hour by hour, and day by day strategy for the military. Eisenhower was ordered to invade Europe and he was allowed to plan the greatest invasion in history and was given the tools to do the job. The same held in the Pacific. I may well be wrong, but I think the ONLY “specific, direct, single (double) event personally directed by Truman” was the dropping of the two Atomic bombs, which ended the war.
Truman did NOT interfere with day to day operations in Korea, but the men on the ground fought the war according to national policy. When MacArthur vocally criticized that policy and desired to expand the war, Truman did what the president had to do. MacArthur never “offended” Truman, he challenged him openly and loudly.
We are going rapidly down an oft traveled road to a bad result. As usual the price will be paid in waster American blood, while the denizens of ACADEME will smile.
Always has been.
You forgot the other parallel. As in Vietnam we're supporting a corrupt regime that doesn't have the support of a majority of its people, and we are surrounded by people who see is as part of their problem and not the solution to their troubles.
Of course it is.
For the last 18 months, every important topic has been asked:
"What political gain is there for me?"
Instead of:
"How can this problem be solved for the benefit of America?"
The quota’s have been reduced because of the Lamberth decision. The uniform picture is to simply make sure you don’t look fat and present a military appearance in uniform.
My question as well.
I was about to post the same thing. War is the continuation of politics by other means.
I wish you were wrong but I know you are right.
“Absent a decision to glaze the countrside wit nuclear weapons, there is no “win” in the word “Afghanistan”. Thirteen centuries of Islam overlying even more centuries of tribal alliances drive everything. We would have been better off keeping things in the spec ops world, finding and killing Taliban and AQ leadership.”
Amen Brother!
What type of leadership would follow the orders of a usurper to the presidency? Are they protecting their own positions and income by denying discovery to Lt. Col. Lakin? Are they upholding the oath they took to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic when the person giving the orders could be foreign-born with foreign allegiances? How could any general or officer operate under such conditions?
All of the above questions are my questions as well, especially, "What type of leadership would follow the orders of a usurper to the presidency?"
All of the above questions are my questions as well, especially, “What type of leadership would follow the orders of a usurper to the presidency?”
From the Uniform Code of Military Justice:
“Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.”
The de facto officer doctrine has been spelled out very precisely by the Supreme Court since 1886:
“The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). “The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.” 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees § 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984).”
Clearly Petraeus is a an Obot.
Darn straight.
Also, we’re not willing to do what would be necessary to win in Afghanistan.
He probably attended public indoctrination centers as a child, too.
Personally, I would resign or retire if I had any doubt about the natural born legitimacy of the “defacto” person occupying the White House. If I had to strain to swallow any “defacto officer” rationalization, I would be out of there.
No matter what Zero says or who he sends, no matter how many more troops they surge, even if they change the withdrawal date, it’s not possible to “win” in A’stan.
Ask the Russians. Ask McChrystal. Ask the soldiers that are on their 3d and 4th tours in that Godforsaken hell-hole. It’s one step forward and two steps back.
Personally, I would resign or retire if I had any doubt about the natural born legitimacy of the “defacto” person occupying the White House. If I had to strain to swallow any “defacto officer” rationalization, I would be out of there.
I have no problem at all with folks who choose to resign, that’s their right. I have no problem with folks within the military who in their free time organize and campaign to defeat national leadership that they can’t support or believe in. That’s the right of every American.
But if you have accepted an Obama administration paycheck since January 20, 2009, I suggest that you either do your duty or get out. If you elect not to follow orders of your superiors, expect to be court martialed, convicted, sentenced and punished. One of the punishments that is available for a conviction for refusing to deploy is “dropped from the rolls” which is the military equivalent of being fired from the military by President Barack Obama.
Ask the Brits. After the initial disaster, they managed a win. So did the Mongols and Alexander the Great.
If you’re willing to be nasty enough (as nasty or nastier than the natives) you CAN win.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.