Policy > Strategy > Operations > Tactics
ILLUSTRATED: The civilian political leadership sets policy, not generals
Here what Democrats need to say: "General Petraeus has done a great job executing a security strategy. However Bush's policy is a failure. Presidents set policy and (our nominee) will set a new policy...It will be to disengage, bring most troops home, a few left to fight terrorists, and send a few to beef up Afghanistan."
A week or so after the November '06 elections, I saw a leading political reporter speak. He said that by the turn of 2008, all major Republican candidates would be against the war. WRONG. Tonight was the Michigan Republican Primary, the third different winner after as many serious contests. The exit polls showed support for the war among the voters. Given that there is no front runner, we can expect that it will be difficult for the eventual GOP winner to change positions before the fall.
Basically our nominee, will be calling for a fast reduction of the vast majority of troops. Leaving a couple of divisions to fight terrorists and maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq. I suspect the GOP nominee will do as Bush does and parrot whatever General Petraeus calls for.
France's World War I Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau said that "war is too important to be left to the generals". This does not mean that the President and Secretary of Defense need to pick targets and schedule supply convoys. It does mean that they are to set policy.
Several times on this blog I have commended General Petraeus for doing a yeoman's job at counterinsurgency and tamping down the violence. But he is doing what good generals do: execute strategy. As an air force cadet, I learned the three levels of war are strategic, operational, and tactical. The abstraction beyond strategic is policymaking. President and Cabinet secretaries are supposed to set policy in the Middle East and the military's force structure.
Democrats need to start hammering this home so the population gets it.
Here what Democrats need to say: "General Petraeus has done a great job executing a security strategy. However Bush's policy is a failure. Presidents set policy and (our nominee) will set a new policy...It will be to disengage, bring most troops home, a few left to fight terrorists, and send a few to beef up Afghanistan."
A week or so after the November '06 elections, I saw a leading political reporter speak. He said that by the turn of 2008, all major Republican candidates would be against the war. WRONG. Tonight was the Michigan Republican Primary, the third different winner after as many serious contests. The exit polls showed support for the war among the voters. Given that there is no front runner, we can expect that it will be difficult for the eventual GOP winner to change positions before the fall.
Basically our nominee, will be calling for a fast reduction of the vast majority of troops. Leaving a couple of divisions to fight terrorists and maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq. I suspect the GOP nominee will do as Bush does and parrot whatever General Petraeus calls for.
France's World War I Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau said that "war is too important to be left to the generals". This does not mean that the President and Secretary of Defense need to pick targets and schedule supply convoys. It does mean that they are to set policy.
Several times on this blog I have commended General Petraeus for doing a yeoman's job at counterinsurgency and tamping down the violence. But he is doing what good generals do: execute strategy. As an air force cadet, I learned the three levels of war are strategic, operational, and tactical. The abstraction beyond strategic is policymaking. President and Cabinet secretaries are supposed to set policy in the Middle East and the military's force structure.
Democrats need to start hammering this home so the population gets it.
posted by Teka Thomas at 10:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home