We used to get rid of generals who lost battles

Back in WWII ... you remember, back when war was real -- when a general lost a battle he was replaced, not booted upward.

But not anymore. Petraeus is a perfect example. We lost the war in Iraq and we're losing the war in Afghanistan -- and the cheatin' little general held the reins in both theatres. It figures that he would be booted uphill to the CIA where his side games would finally bring the axe.

Why do we keep generals who lose battles or who lie to the public in order to please their bosses?

Maybe Markle can explain it.

Wordslinger wrote:Back in WWII ... you remember, back when war was real -- when a general lost a battle he was replaced, not booted upward.

But not anymore. Petraeus is a perfect example. We lost the war in Iraq and we're losing the war in Afghanistan -- and the cheatin' little general held the reins in both theatres. It figures that he would be booted uphill to the CIA where his side games would finally bring the axe.

Why do we keep generals who lose battles or who lie to the public in order to please their bosses?

Maybe Markle can explain it.

Ask Obamer

nochain wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:Back in WWII ... you remember, back when war was real -- when a general lost a battle he was replaced, not booted upward.

But not anymore. Petraeus is a perfect example. We lost the war in Iraq and we're losing the war in Afghanistan -- and the cheatin' little general held the reins in both theatres. It figures that he would be booted uphill to the CIA where his side games would finally bring the axe.

Why do we keep generals who lose battles or who lie to the public in order to please their bosses?

Maybe Markle can explain it.

Ask Obamer

Who appointed Gen. Petraeus?...With the headlines calling this situation a "Four Star Circus"....Who is the Commander-In-Chief?....Sec of Defense?...

Wordslinger wrote:Back in WWII ... you remember, back when war was real -- when a general lost a battle he was replaced, not booted upward.

But not anymore. Petraeus is a perfect example. We lost the war in Iraq and we're losing the war in Afghanistan -- and the cheatin' little general held the reins in both theatres. It figures that he would be booted uphill to the CIA where his side games would finally bring the axe.

Why do we keep generals who lose battles or who lie to the public in order to please their bosses?

Maybe Markle can explain it.

Why have American politicians, since Korea, played for the TIE in every war? Truman could have used a heavier hand in Korea, he did not and was called out for it by MacArthur. Vietnam was fought by brave men who had the ROEs turned against them, the press turned against them, and politicians who were again playing for the tie. Gulf War I, when we drove Iraq out of Kuwait, what did Bush I do when the Republican Guard was on its heels and heading back to Baghdad as fast as it could go? We had them all as sitting ducks on the Road to Basra and Bush I told Schwarzkopf to reign in the offense and cease fire. We could have avoided Gulf War II had Bush I let "Stormin' Norman" finish the job. It would have made an example to the Arab world as well and I guarantee you Osama would not have been as tempted to hit the United States in 1993 and then 2001.

Don't blame the generals as they are controlled by civilian authority. It is in the Constitution. Generals do what they are told and when they are told and if not, guess what? The end up like Doug MacAthur.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:Back in WWII ... you remember, back when war was real -- when a general lost a battle he was replaced, not booted upward.

But not anymore. Petraeus is a perfect example. We lost the war in Iraq and we're losing the war in Afghanistan -- and the cheatin' little general held the reins in both theatres. It figures that he would be booted uphill to the CIA where his side games would finally bring the axe.

Why do we keep generals who lose battles or who lie to the public in order to please their bosses?

Maybe Markle can explain it.

Why have American politicians, since Korea, played for the TIE in every war? Truman could have used a heavier hand in Korea, he did not and was called out for it by MacArthur. Vietnam was fought by brave men who had the ROEs turned against them, the press turned against them, and politicians who were again playing for the tie. Gulf War I, when we drove Iraq out of Kuwait, what did Bush I do when the Republican Guard was on its heels and heading back to Baghdad as fast as it could go? We had them all as sitting ducks on the Road to Basra and Bush I told Schwarzkopf to reign in the offense and cease fire. We could have avoided Gulf War II had Bush I let "Stormin' Norman" finish the job. It would have made an example to the Arab world as well and I guarantee you Osama would not have been as tempted to hit the United States in 1993 and then 2001.

Don't blame the generals as they are controlled by civilian authority. It is in the Constitution. Generals do what they are told and when they are told and if not, guess what? The end up like Doug MacAthur.

_____________________

I think I agree with you partly. You're right about our generals being told when to back off instead of being allowed to win. But what about all the generals who, in order to butter up their civilian bosses pretend they can win the next war with just what they have in troops and equipment, and it's all a damned lie. Petraeus is a good example. In many cases, it seems like the commanding general is so hot to trot, he'll say anything to get a chance to fight. The problem is, we tend to trust these arrogant little basta_ds.

I'm glad we have some common ground.

Fox News claims they have proof Arab and African prisoners were held and interrogated by CIA at the Benghazi consul annex.

That means that the head of the CIA, a former top commander, was telling secrets to his mistress.

Hang the little bast__rd!!!