ummm...maybe becuase what we're doing now isn't working? I can just see the article now:

General Schmo talks about how brilliant the current strategy is, and rebukes those that claim mistakes were made.

That of course is a right wet dream...and likely will be the lead story on Fox tonight :rolleyes:

I think that many would agree that the going is sometimes tough...but I also think they would tell you that the war has been very well run. Yes, quite a few retired generals have come on Fox and said just that...but they would never be allowed on 60 Minutes...wrong point of view.

"es, quite a few retired generals have come on Fox and said just that...but they would never be allowed on 60 Minutes...wrong point of view."

Once again, you appear to have missed that 60 Miunutes invited the other side to respond.

And how many generals opposing the war have been invited to appear on Fox?

Come on Fint - do I need to remind you that Bush just went on tv to say, amongst other things, that things weren't going to plan.

The first quote from the article which struck me was:

Do you agree or disagree with the first point (about number of troops on the ground). I ask because, in hindsight, it is clear that there are not even close to enough troops to "win the peace".

And saying "in hindsight" is worthless, because Zinni and others gave Rumsfeld et al plenty of warning about more troops being needed.

He screwed it up, its pretty simple.

According to all accounts, the president provided the troops that the theater commanders requested. Why would he send more than they wanted? I guess that is why military folks like Bush better than his predecessor...he doesn't think he knows better how to fight a war than they do.

On the contrary..I watched Zinni being interviewed last night on Fox. I watched retired Major General Bob Scales discuss the same subject on Fox tonight. He supported the war quite well. I guess that is why Fox makes the "fair and balanced' claim whereas 60 Minutes cannot.

I had to read your answer pretty carefully. You might well be right - the theatre commanders may well have requested only those troops.

However, the Army Chief of Staff had quite a stoush with Wolfowitz about how many troops were needed.

See a NY Times article here

Or another one here, about the stoush

It makes Wolfowitz look like a real *********. Like this bit:

It makes it look like his plan was basically "lets just plan for, and provide for, the best possible outcome". I thought you were supposed to overbuild things in the military.

Your article does back up my assertion that Gen Franks made the decision. Selection as the Chief of Staff for a service is much more a political role than a warfighting one. Shinseki, was a great guy, but many thought that he and a lot of the Army generals were still trying to fight tha last war and not the next one (a lot of my work as a military analyst at the time seemed to bear that out)...There was a big turf battle for money...which the army always seem to lose based on the (perceived or actual) lack of flexibility by their leadership. Some of those are the retired folks you see on TV crtical of the administration...so he retired mid 2003. In our system, the military folks make recommendations, but the final decision on which horse to take is by the elected civilians.

Ah, I see. Under neocon logic, military decisions made under Clinton were Clinton's personal responsibility, while military decisions made under Bush are the responsibility of everyone else.

Got it.

The buck never stops there.

Oh for crying out loud. You're missing the point that he is obviously completely correct. Their aren't enough troops and now you discount his insightful comments prior to the problem eventuating as the ramblings of a political appointee still trying to fight tha last war and not the next one .

Is it so hard to admit that it might be easier to keep the peace with the right number of troops there?

Is it only hard to admit that because to admit it would also be to admit that GWB would never have got permission to go make war if he said "We'll need at least $100b and a few hundred thousand troops"?

In fact, the irony is so thick I can hardly breathe. I'm a liberal trying to convince a hawk that there isn't enough military on the ground.

I just don't consider them insightful. We have won the war and are turning returning soveignity to the Iraqis next month with the smaller number of troops. Based on the requirements in Iraq and our other obligations...I think the number of troops has been about right. Recently the number was temporarily increased due to changes in requirements. The fact is, we simply do not have unlimited troops to send. Shinseki was making the point that the Army was just not large enough to fight the war the way he envisioned it would be fought. He also thought it would take months or years to take Baghdad. It was a political move. The army has bee trying to increase their end strength for years...maybe rightfully so...but that is up to congress.

we have won the war!!!? which one? i can't hadly wait for the new government to tell the u.s. to pack it's bags and clear out. i'm sure your leadership position while on active duty was far superior than zinni's. i could care less, or is that couldn't?

If you use that logic, then obviously you musty believe that the many Generals that outranked Zinni (such as Powell or Meyers) who think Zinni is incorrect are the ones to trust.