Does Iraq War Make America Safer?

[Sasquatch]

Sen. Warner to Gen. Petraeus.

LINK

[Crown Royal]

This comment is the one I agree with:

"I'm a huge opponent of the war, but quite honestly I thought his answer was on the money. It really isn't his job to determine if the war makes America 'safer'. It's his job to conduct the war he is ordered to wage."

[jterrell]

Originally Posted by Crown Royal

This comment is the one I agree with:

"I'm a huge opponent of the war, but quite honestly I thought his answer was on the money. It really isn't his job to determine if the war makes America 'safer'. It's his job to conduct the war he is ordered to wage."

To a certain extent I agree but then again it is also a cop out.

He has that task(blindly waging war) by being an expert in the area of waging war and in doing so should have an opinion about its effects.

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by jterrell

To a certain extent I agree but then again it is also a cop out.

He has that task(blindly waging war) by being an expert in the area of waging war and in doing so should have an opinion about its effects.

Why? He isn't a policy maker. He runs a military. There is absolutely no place for the military leadership to take place in policy making. The end result of that is dangerous. He might have an opinion, like all of us, but that isn't part of his expert testimony - he isn't an expert policy maker.

[trickblue]

Originally Posted by Crown Royal

This comment is the one I agree with:

"I'm a huge opponent of the war, but quite honestly I thought his answer was on the money. It really isn't his job to determine if the war makes America 'safer'. It's his job to conduct the war he is ordered to wage."

Exactly... soldier are supposed to complete orders...

It wasn't a question he could honestly answer as he's been overseas for four years now...

[Crown Royal]

PS - For the most part I detest congressional hearings.

[Sasquatch]

But the administration claims that we are in Iraq to protect the United States, so isn't it reasonable to ask the man in charge of that operation whether or not the mission is succeeding in that respect? If not him, who? The Iraq Study Group?

[trickblue]

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

But the administration claims that we are in Iraq to protect the United States, so isn't it reasonable to ask the man in charge of that operation whether or not the mission is succeeding in that respect? If not him, who? The Iraq Study Group?

No... it's reasonable to ask the man if his objective is being accomplished...

It's like asking a district manager if his company's mission statement is being met company wide... He doesn't know. He manages his district and reports to his superiors on his progress...

He's not a politician. He's not a bureaucrat. He's not a CEO. He's a manager...

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by trickblue

No... it's reasonable to ask the man if his objective is being accomplished...

It's like asking a district manager if his company's mission statement is being met company wide... He doesn't know. He manages his district and reports to his superiors on his progress...

He's not a politician. He's not a bureaucrat. He's not a CEO. He's a manager...

So who is qualified to give this assessment if not the military commander in charge of the largest theater, both in terms of manpower and expenditure, in the GWOT?

I don't think your analogy is a good one. He overseas all coalition forces in Iraq which supposedly is the MAIN front in the GWOT. I'm not sure that's the equivalent of a mere district manager.

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

So who is qualified to give this assessment if not the military commander in charge of the largest theater, both in terms of manpower and expenditure, in the GWOT?

I don't think your analogy is a good one. He overseas all coalition forces in Iraq which supposedly is the MAIN front in the GWOT. I'm not sure that's the equivalent of a mere district manager.

The only assessment he is qualified to give is if he feels that his objective (which is to setp a safe and democratic Iraq) is being accomplished.

That wasn't the question - the question was whether the Iraq war makes America safer. That isn't something he is an expert in. The question should be posed to the administrators who sent the general to Iraq in the first place.

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by Crown Royal

The only assessment he is qualified to give is if he feels that his objective (which is to setp a safe and democratic Iraq) is being accomplished.

That wasn't the question - the question was whether the Iraq war makes America safer. That isn't something he is an expert in. The question should be posed to the administrators who sent the general to Iraq in the first place.

The administrators who claimed that the Saddam had stockpiles of WMD poised to launch in as little as 45 minutes and that the insurgency consisted of Baathist dead-enders who were in their last throes? Are those the people who are supposed to give us an objective and realistic assessment on whether or not the Iraq War is making America safer?

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

The administrators who claimed that the Saddam had stockpiles of WMD poised to launch in as little as 45 minutes and that the insurgency consisted of Baathist dead-enders who were in their last throes? Are those the people who are supposed to give us an objective and realistic assessment on whether or not the Iraq War is making America safer?

I didn't say that it would be objective and realistic. They are the ones who are ultimately responsible for the war in Iraq, though, and are the ones charged with justifying their war.

A military general who answers directly to the commander in chief, however, is not responsible for giving an opinion on such a matter. It's not his job.

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by Crown Royal

I didn't say that it would be objective and realistic. They are the ones who are ultimately responsible for the war in Iraq, though, and are the ones charged with justifying their war.

A military general who answers directly to the commander in chief, however, is not responsible for giving an opinion on such a matter. It's not his job.

Just pressing you guys a little bit.

I think it's obvious what Sen. Warner thinks and what he was trying to communicate to the viewing public in asking that question.

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Just pressing you guys a little bit.

I think it's obvious what Sen. Warner thinks and what he was trying to communicate to the viewing public in asking that question.

Which is exactly why I don't like congressional hearings. They are meant to be information gathering events used to become better informed on an issue and thus provide more intelligence in policy making.

Unfortunately, they are instead used to promote political opinions and leanings, and, to some extent, show their constituents how they 'drilled' the bad guys.

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by Crown Royal

Which is exactly why I don't like congressional hearings. They are meant to be information gathering events used to become better informed on an issue and thus provide more intelligence in policy making.

Unfortunately, they are instead used to promote political opinions and leanings, and, to some extent, show their constituents how they 'drilled' the bad guys.

I always thought that Warner was regarded as friendly to the military?

Besides I don't think that Warner's caveat that a successful surge, itself a highly dubious proposition, doesn't necessarily mean that the War in Iraq is making American's safer is tantamount to taking a cheap shot at the "bad guy".

That is the ultimate question after all.