Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: P-Marlowe; 1rudeboy; blue-duncan; jude24
Our enemies can read our weakness.

How incredibly true that is.

In war, generals have made it a point of reading the nature of their opponents. They study their personal, tactical, and strategic weaknesses (and strengths.)

President Bush is no exception. Both his foreign and domestic enemies have noted his tendencies. We can count on that.

But, let's go beyond that. It is time (or incredibly close to it) to move from the cheering section to the analysts booth. We must choose a new leader in 2 years, and it's good to know the weaknesses we want to avoid and the strengths we want to encourage.

It is not disloyalty to Pres. Bush to begin dissecting his performance with withering honesty. In the same way that our system demands that we give a President steadfast backing, it also demands that near the end of that presidency we get brutally honest about good and bad performance; strong and weak characteristics.

That analysis should form some template for determining what we're looking for in the man who will replace the sitting president.

The system forces us to this. We would be grossly negligent not to do it.

The Bush Team has miserably failed at public communication and information warfare. If there's any weakness that stands head and shoulders above the rest, this is the one I would choose.

They have been playing defense for nearly 4 years now, and they absolutely abhor going on the offense. The last truly aggressive behavior on this administration's part was in its first year. The fight for Florida against Gore and the resolve to strike back against Al-Qaeda both showed stiff backbone that must have been the only backbone allowance that had been granted this crew.

The most egregious mistake in the war has been the failure to include the general public in the war effort. It's hard to fight a war when the nation thinks it's bread and circus as usual. And if you tell me that that was the media's fault, then go to my first criticism above about information warfare.

There's more, but these are those that will form part of what I'm looking for in the next republican candidate.

399 posted on 01/24/2007 7:35:06 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies ]


To: xzins
The Bush Team has miserably failed at public communication and information warfare. If there's any weakness that stands head and shoulders above the rest, this is the one I would choose.

I could not agree with you more. FDR, for all of his faults, managed to rally the people of the United States and keep them rallied while Americans were dying by the thousands in far away lands fighting over real estate that was at best of questionable strategic value.

Bush could have sold the whole Iraq war as part and parcel to the war on Terror, but he didn't. He backtracked from it and then when it actually became the primary battleground for the war on terror he could not then claim that it was.

Additionally he did not have the good sense to realize that when there is a Civil uprising, like there is in Iraq, that the proper rules of engagement are shoot first and ask questions later. In Bhagdad the rules of engagement should be that if a soldier percieves a threat, he should eliminate that threat. History has shown that ruthlessness is the only method of quelling unbridled civil unrest. Bush is too concerned about image and if you are too concerned about image, if you are not willing to do whatever it takes to win a war, including sending in the nukes, then you should not get involved in a war in the first place.

It is imperative that we prevail in this war. Surrender is not an option. But tying the hands of our soldiers is tantamount to surrender. We would not have lost 1/3 the soldiers that we have lost to date if our soldiers had been allowed to act as if we were at war. This is not a police action, it is a war. The stops must be pulled. But quite frankly I do not believe that Bush has the political will to pull out the stops. And the enemy knows it. And the enemy has a lot more patience than the American people.

The most egregious mistake in the war has been the failure to include the general public in the war effort. It's hard to fight a war when the nation thinks it's bread and circus as usual. And if you tell me that that was the media's fault, then go to my first criticism above about information warfare.

Everyone was involved in WWII. Everyone had a job to do to support the troops, whether it was in saving animal lard for explosives, walking in order to conserve gasoline, volunteering as a Civil Defense worker, building bombers or tanks, growing food to ship to the troops, or sending packages of goodies and letters to the troops.

In this war we all sit and watch TV and go on as if there was no threat to our existence. But the threat is there. Bush has not communicated that threat, nor has he called upon all Americans to join in the fight and do whatever we can as civilians to ensure victory for our troops and our nation.

Bush has two years to pull it off. If the last two years are any indication, then it isn't going to happen.

BTW did you know it was against the law to broadcast weather reports during WWII?

401 posted on 01/24/2007 7:52:52 PM PST by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson