Posted on 07/17/2012 5:17:53 AM PDT by bestintxas
Actually, no. Gov. Romney hasn't named his choice for vice president. But were you electrified by that headline? Did it pull you out of your chair, pump up your heart rate and make you believe, for the first time, that Obama's on the ropes and this election is ours to win? I thought so; me, too.
If the talking heads are right (and on rare occasions they are), Romney is playing this decision close to his chest. No one seems to know whose advice, if anyone's, he's seeking. But in the highly unlikely event that he calls me to chat about this, I'd tell him to go big, and to go for General David Petraeus. Here's why:
Petraeus is, quite simply, the most highly-regarded American in public life. Even those who opposed our military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq admire and respect this general. He's so obviously a brilliant, competent man. And he's always come across as low-key and personally modest. By choosing Petraeus as his running-mate, Romney would send out a message to voters that he isn't playing politics as usual; that he wants the most qualified people he can find for his administration -- and that he'll put the varsity team in place to confront a dangerous world.
Choosing the general also would stop the Obama attack team dead in its tracks.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
NOT I!
SEE: Afghanistan facts: rules of engagement for allied troops—insane
By Michael M. O'Brien
http://americasfailureiniraq.com/2011/07/10/afghanistan-facts-rules-of-engagement-for-allied-troops-insane/
Imagine you’re a soldier in Afghanistan and you see an insurgent in the act of laying a roadside bomb. You may have lost a buddy to an IED. You capture the perp, but then your commander tells you to release him because there is no “immediate threat to life.”
Sounds insane doesn’t it? If you came home and told your family and friends, they’d think you were crazy. Who could blame them? But it’s not a joke. It’s happening in Afghanistan right now, and has been for a while.
On April 16, 2011, I wrote about how American soldiers in Afghanistan are being ordered to release insurgents they capture in the act of planting IED’s, because there isn’t enough ‘evidence’ to make a legal case stick in court. Who’s talking about court? We’re at war, but lawyers are running the show in combat now as much as senior officers.
An article in The Telegraph on July 10, 2011 tells a similar story of how this insanity has permeated into the other allied armies, in this case the UK’s. This policy takes political correctness to new levels. (Every time I think I’ve seen it all, PC throws a curveball and surprises me again!) Based on empirical evidence, political correctness leads to actions and decisions that are contrary to rational thought and behavior, such as this stupid policy not to blow to pieces the scum who’s planting an IED intended to kill our soldiers.
It stands to reason, therefore, that political correctness is insane. The really sad part is that policies like this are executed by officers whose primary concern should be the safety of their soldiers, but who don’t have the courage to tell their bosses to pound sand.
If the story of modern day rules of engagement linked above isn’t bad enough, another story in the MailOnline on July 5, 2001 tells of a British soldier who was captured and then shot in the back of the head by the Taliban, the same guys who plant IED’s and are then released to kill another day. Hey, he’s just a soldier. He’s not important. Who cares about his family and those who loved him and waved goodbye as he left to fight this ten year old war? Politics and profits are more important, and the marching drumbeat of political correctness.
David Petraeus proved to everyone that his counter-insurgency doctrine was a complete failure in Afghanistan. (More American soldiers in Afghanistan have died since Barack Hussein Obama became president than all the years prior.)
As his reward, David Petraeus has been promoted to head the CIA, where he can spend all the money he wants without any accountability like he did in Iraq. Instead of destroying the Taliban we are now going to hold hands with them, the same guys who are killing allied soldiers. We’re now inviting them to the peace table, just like we did the North Vietnamese when we asked them to join us in Paris. But it appears the Taliban don’t like talking peace. They like killing people, like those they killed last week at the hotel in Kabul.
When will we learn that in war there is only victor and vanquished, winner and a loser? (Obama doesn’t like the word “victory.” It’s too strong, too harsh, too warlike for his immense intellect and sensitivities.) Only after the conflict is over can there be reconciliation and rebuilding, but not while the conflict is engaged, not while it’s in progress. It must be fought to a conclusion one way or the other, and then negotiations can begin after the fighting is over.
Petraeus ticked me off when he went after a private citizen for exercising his right to free speech, when he went after the Florida Koran-burning Pastor.
NO!
Nope. Petraeus is a self-promoting gas bag who seems to know to get out just before things go sour.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.