Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by Sasquatch, Sep 12, 2007.
Sen. Warner to Gen. Petraeus.
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.
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.
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...
PS - For the most part I detest congressional hearings.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is Petraeus qualified to answer the question or not?
Petreaus and Sen. Bayh.
Yes ..... the terrorist are fighting Soldiers and Marines instead of women and children.
Regarding the question posted in the thread title, is it even possible to objectively answer whether the war makes us more or less safe? How do we measure that?
You could say the war puts us at risk militarily (spreading our troops/exhaustion), economically ($billions spent on the war/deficits), bad international PR, etc. But safe/unsafe is kind of a simplistic question that only generates a response based on one's opinion of the war. If you oppose the war, then obviously it makes us less safe. If you support the war, then obviously you think it makes us safer.
It's like that column the other day about sports questions. This smacks of the "are you worried?" question - are you worried, coach, that you have four key starters out for this week's game? How else are they going to answer that but with "we still have 53 players and guys will step up" type response.
Thats why I just gave him the answer he has been digging for since he started this silly thread.
You mean if it weren't for the invasion of Iraq the terrorists would have a free hand to slaughter women and children right in our midst? We better stay the course then because since we couldn't possibly prevent that horrific scenario by any other means.
For the record, at least 900+ US civilians have died in Iraq since the invasion.