Prosecuting a War

Doing it right, and doing it wrong

from JoeUser Forums

A comment made on another thread got me thinking about how this war is being prosecuted.  The quote:

could it possibly be that bush, cheney, wolfowitz, perle, abrams, negroponte and all the rest of your heroes who've been tossing lives and money at the problem don't know sh*t bout prosecuting a war?

I was watching the history channel the other day, and it was about the Vietnam war and how the bombing campaign was being run.  Nothing could be bombed unless it came from the president himself (LBJ for the liberals hating Nixon for a war he ended).  In fact, every decision made was made in the oval office and then passed to McNamara and then on to the field commanders. 

And as we all know, it was a cluster flop.  For Johnson knew as much about running a military campaign as Generals know about being Senators.  It not only failed to achieve any objectives, it emboldened the North Vietnamese, demoralized the American troops and led to what is clearly the worst beating the US has ever endured.

Now, contrast that with Iraq.  I sincerely believe the poster quote above is 100% correct.  But, those people are not prosecuting the war.  The generals in charge of the troops are.  And that is why Iraq will never be Vietnam.  The politicians named above, from the President on down the list of subordinates, set the goal.  And the military men set the strategy and day to day objectives.

You would have thought that LBJ would have at least learned from history and Hitler that a leader must lead and let his Generals fight the battles.  But Power is a narcissism that clouds many people's judgment and so it did with LBJ.

It did not with Bush, Cheney, et. al.  So the next time you think Bush is so stupid, just remember.  At least he did not flunk history, and learned some lessons that other leaders have not.

Seems the only stupid people are the ones that think a leader has to make every decision regarding battles in war. Or the leaders who think that as well.

2,069 views 21 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is good to be the King!
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
it is too bad that they didn't send the amount of troops the generals asked for...that kind of hamstrings your whole point
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
War Sucks!
War Is Unhealthy For Children And Other Living Things!
Hey Hey JFK... How many kids did you kill today?
Hey Hey LBJ... How many kids did you kill today?

All of the above are slogans from the anti war movement of the 60's...
Ironic that the 2 Presidents named were do-called democrats....
just shows to go ya!
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

War Sucks!
War Is Unhealthy For Children And Other Living Things!
Hey Hey JFK... How many kids did you kill today?
Hey Hey LBJ... How many kids did you kill today?

Do you have your tie dyed shirt and love beads on now?

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do you have your tie dyed shirt and love beads on now?


LOL ... I was the most 'conservative' lefty in the 60s.. never did drugs.. never wore tie dyed anything.. I was such a goody goody its a miracle the lefties didn't brand me a traitor and have me sent to Cuba..
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
never wore tie dyed anything..


I wore Tie Dyed! Home made too!
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wore Tie Dyed! Home made too!


well...I'm a saint and your not obviously.....
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Nothing could be bombed unless it came from the president himself


when a president (or his surrogates) installs a 'second track' group in the pentagon and dismisses generals who question his/their strategy, ya wind up at the same place.
same thing in business or any other hierarchial organization when you short-circuit the organizational chart.

Nixon for a war he ended


after causing it to go one for another 6 years by using backchannel pre-election promises to get the enemy to walk away from the table in hopes of getting a better deal once he was in the whitehouse. hanoidick was somethin else.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
The generals in charge of the troops are. And that is why Iraq will never be Vietnam. The politicians named above, from the President on down the list of subordinates, set the goal. And the military men set the strategy and day to day objectives.


the military men who are still around due to their willingness to go along. it took hitler's generals til 1944 to realize their mistake. by then it was too late.

So the next time you think Bush is so stupid, just remember. At least he did not flunk history, and learned some lessons that other leaders have not.


if that was true, he woulda learned the obvious lesson of what happens to those who go into afghanistan without being fully committed and leave before the mission is accomplished. it's happened several times in the past 2 centuries.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
first off, we were slaughtering the north viets, we won MOST large scale battles, the demoralization came from right here in the states, the media, the war protesters, the so called political doves, they all undercut the military and her troops.

LBJ had his head up his ass trying to run a war from 8 thousand miles away, the hands off the north {no troops} except for a few F.O."S and some special forces that were north for one purpose only not to make war but to murder high ranking n viets.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Isn't it ironic, they whine and moan about Prs. Bush not being involved enough in fighting the war in Iraq, when the best thing for him to do is exactly what he is doing.... setting policy and letting those in country to the jobs they were sent to do.... Imagine!

As far as "enough troops" why is it that the anti war crowd complains we have too many of our troops involved in Iraq with one fork or their tongue and "we don't have enough troops there" with the other?

On that topic, Gen. Abizaid himself stated:

I also would just like to finish by saying, you know, we have over 1 million people under arms in the United States of America and it didn't protect us from what happened on 9/11. And the Israeli army, for all of its strength, was not protected from what happened in Jerusalem the other day. I mean, terrorist attacks can happen regardless of the strength of the military commitment. But over time, you'll see that we'll continue to make good progress on security.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030821-secdef0604.html


So, anti war (or more specifically "anti Bush) crowd. How many more troops do you think are needed? How many more would secure Iraq? and if Gen. Abizaid hasn't whined for more troops (although I'm sure he wouldn't turn you away if you volunteered to relieve him of what you think are "too few troops"), where do you get off saying the president is wrong for not agree with him?
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Isn't it ironic, they whine and moan about Prs. Bush not being involved enough in fighting the war in Iraq, when the best thing for him to do is exactly what he is doing.... setting policy and letting those in country to the jobs they were sent to do.... Imagine


isn't it ironic, you've totally misconstrued and misrepresented my point. i didnt say bush wasn't involved enuff. nor did i say anything bout the troops in iraq doing anything wrong.

my bitch is with an administration in which there was--and remains--a powerful contingent who, despite having very little military experience between them (like dick cheney, they saw no point--as in: i'm too good for this--in wearing a uniform), set up a backchannel thru which they dictated strategy to the military. those generals who objected or disagreed with these self-professed military prodigies had their careers terminated.

furthermore, more than a couple of these wanna-be wellingtons' had already accumulated a pretty dismal record of doing this kinda nonsense as members of the b-teams who second-guessed and co-opted the cia for more than a decade. their abyssmal performace there shoulda been enuff to disqualify them from being allowed to plan a picnic much less a major military campaign.

As far as "enough troops" why is it that the anti war crowd complains we have too many of our troops involved in Iraq with one fork or their tongue and "we don't have enough troops there" with the other?


it's called needlessly opening a second front, ted. by insisting on declaring victory in afghanistan no matter what was and is going on there in order to invade iraq asap, these brilliant strategists did exactly that. i don't know if they actually believed the troops would be welcomed with flowers--if you wanna talk about forked tongues that would be a good fuckin place to start tho--but i'm guessing they felt by claiming their pet project wouldn't require more than half the troops ALL the generals claimed were needed, they hoped to make the plan a bit more palatable. so yeah, you wind up with 20k soldiers on the ground in afghanistan...and 130,000 in iraq. not nearly enuff for either place, too many in the wrong place for the time.

as far as your call to arms goes, rove and scott mcclellan aint too old to put their asses on the line. nor are the bush twins.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

after causing it to go one for another 6 years by using backchannel pre-election promises to get the enemy to walk away from the table in hopes of getting a better deal once he was in the whitehouse. hanoidick was somethin else.

when a president (or his surrogates) installs a 'second track' group in the pentagon and dismisses generals who question his/their strategy, ya wind up at the same place.
same thing in business or any other hierarchial organization when you short-circuit the organizational chart.

You like to throw around facts not in evidence.  The facts are you have no facts. The first is a supposition with no supporting documentation, and the later is a revisionist theory on History.

Unlike Clinton, Nixon tried to get us out of there without creating a vacuum.  You cannot have it both ways.

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

the military men who are still around due to their willingness to go along. it took hitler's generals til 1944 to realize their mistake. by then it was too late.

Let us be glad that the Vietnam Generals did not try the same thing with LBJ.  Or are you saying they should have?

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

if that was true, he woulda learned the obvious lesson of what happens to those who go into afghanistan without being fully committed and leave before the mission is accomplished. it's happened several times in the past 2 centuries.

Again, your misinformed opinion. If we put another 250k troops into Afghanistan, no more would be accomplised that what already is.  Except in your uninformed opinion.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

LBJ had his head up his ass trying to run a war from 8 thousand miles away, the hands off the north {no troops} except for a few F.O."S and some special forces that were north for one purpose only not to make war but to murder high ranking n viets.

Notice he does not speak ill of LBJ, just Nixon, who ended the stupid war! (in 4 years, not 6 kb).  I pity him as he sure did not learn any history when he was in school.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

So, anti war (or more specifically "anti Bush) crowd. How many more troops do you think are needed? How many more would secure Iraq? and if Gen. Abizaid hasn't whined for more troops (although I'm sure he wouldn't turn you away if you volunteered to relieve him of what you think are "too few troops"), where do you get off saying the president is wrong for not agree with him?

So far, even kingbee has no answers.  misguided information and out right falsehoods, but he has no answers, just the left's mantra.

Bleat with me.  Bussshhhh baaaddddddd, LBj goooodddd.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

my bitch is with an administration in which there was--and remains--a powerful contingent who, despite having very little military experience between them (like dick cheney, they saw no point--as in: i'm too good for this--in wearing a uniform), set up a backchannel thru which they dictated strategy to the military. those generals who objected or disagreed with these self-professed military prodigies had their careers terminated.

Again you throw around your opinion and state it as fact.,  The facts are you dont know wwhat you are talking about, and you have no facts to back up your incorrect opinion.  You only have black helicopters and the lies of Michael moore.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

as far as your call to arms goes, rove and scott mcclellan aint too old to put their asses on the line. nor are the bush twins.

So you are advocating a draft?  Why is it that only democrats and liberals are advocating bringing back a draft?

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Isn't it ironic, they whine and moan about Prs. Bush not being involved enough in fighting the war in Iraq, when the best thing for him to do is exactly what he is doing.... setting policy and letting those in country to the jobs they were sent to do.... Imagine


isn't it ironic, you've totally misconstrued and misrepresented my point. i didnt say bush wasn't involved enuff. nor did i say anything bout the troops in iraq doing anything wrong.

my bitch is with an administration in which there was--and remains--a powerful contingent who, despite having very little military experience between them (like dick cheney, they saw no point--as in: i'm too good for this--in wearing a uniform), set up a backchannel thru which they dictated strategy to the military. those generals who objected or disagreed with these self-professed military prodigies had their careers terminated.

furthermore, more than a couple of these wanna-be wellingtons' had already accumulated a pretty dismal record of doing this kinda nonsense as members of the b-teams who second-guessed and co-opted the cia for more than a decade. their abyssmal performace there shoulda been enuff to disqualify them from being allowed to plan a picnic much less a major military campaign.

As far as "enough troops" why is it that the anti war crowd complains we have too many of our troops involved in Iraq with one fork or their tongue and "we don't have enough troops there" with the other?


it's called needlessly opening a second front, ted. by insisting on declaring victory in afghanistan no matter what was and is going on there in order to invade iraq asap, these brilliant strategists did exactly that. i don't know if they actually believed the troops would be welcomed with flowers--if you wanna talk about forked tongues that would be a good fuckin place to start tho--but i'm guessing they felt by claiming their pet project wouldn't require more than half the troops ALL the generals claimed were needed, they hoped to make the plan a bit more palatable. so yeah, you wind up with 20k soldiers on the ground in afghanistan...and 130,000 in iraq. not nearly enuff for either place, too many in the wrong place for the time.

as far as your call to arms goes, rove and scott mcclellan aint too old to put their asses on the line. nor are the bush twins.


Hey ignutz! Do you deliberatly have your head up your butt? Both Rove and McCellan are over 35 years of age, Yes? As such that puts them over the max allowable age limit for induction into military service.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

Hey ignutz! Do you deliberatly have your head up your butt? Both Rove and McCellan are over 35 years of age, Yes? As such that puts them over the max allowable age limit for induction into military service.

I dont know their ages, but just find it mind boggling that it is only the democrats that want a draft.  And then there is Charlie Rangel that is bitching because the Army is offering $20k signing bonuses to poor kids!  He would rather they mug people to get the money!  What a jerk!