Posted on 07/02/2009 10:34:09 AM PDT by penelopesire
Obama and his media lap dogs are already in spin mode on this ‘leak’.
Under a liar-in-chief (also childish-idiot-in-chief, and psychotically-detached-head-case-in-chief) a General must of necessity give a poorer grade of commands and guidance. Second guessing what a General means costs lives. But there is little to be done straight-forwardly and unambiguously until the time such a C-I-C is replaced.
Under an Obama or a Clinton — under all mendacious and/or emotionally unstable leaders every command is weakened and confusions develop. Why? Because the authority and integrity of all command is rooted in the highest commander. There is no getting around it.
The German General staff under Hitler’s emotional instability scrambled to work around him, as recently made public actually made secret overtures for a ceasefire to the Allies, and in one plot attempted to assassinate him. It wasn’t because they loved peace or hated the Holocaust — it was because every responsible rational leader comes to despise and hate being subordinate to the whims and manias of the morally insane or emotionally unstable.
In our more tolerant of variance and individually independent American military history we may deal with the issue differently, but the feelings are the same towards such a commander. But still, the MINIMUM reaction that will happen is what I said — a weakening of the force of command (for it relies on trust and integrity) and an increase in these kind of cloudy statements, which are not straightforward.
G-d help our troops.
My advice to you is don't play with sharp things, might hurt yourself.
Thank you.
Great photo! Thank you.
;)
I thanked you, know I would like to reflect upon and consider your sage advice. Yet I am stymied. What exactly are you saying? Is that fogspeak advice you gave? That would explain it. Just like any General would have to use under a mendacious or treasonous CIC.
Wasn’t there severe criticism of Donald Rumsfeld because he tried to do things “on the cheap” and “without overwhelming force” ala the Powell Doctrine?
Or am I missing something here?
Do you really think President pantywaist is going to authorize 32,000 more troops?
As far as the Taliban is concerned I'm sure they are very happy to see the ”Killing the enemy is secondary.” is a ROE. They must be s***faced happy as a virgin goat to know they are not a target
What does Rumsfield trying to reduce costs have to do with Obama signaling, through this lackey, that he doesn’t want the advice of the military on the ground?
President Bush wanted the advice of the military and took it on most occasions. This new Obama clown is telling the military not to offer advice, even in the heat of battle, because the new CIC doesn’t want to hear it. Big difference.
Also of big note is the fact that Obama has changed the rules of engagement to favor our enemies. If you can’t see that that is a dramatic turn of events and war planning you are indeed uninformed.
I am often uninformed. That's why I ask questions. Thanks for your answer.
We all learn on this forum..that’s why it is a great place. I can’t tell you how much I have learned from my fellow freepers...there isn’t enough time in the day or space in this forum to do it.
Have a nice 4th!
:0)
Don't you mean "carrying Kool-Aid"?
Nothing like hanging them out to dry as if they have enough to worry about like their brethern next to them. Prayers for every single soldier and ally of our great nation at war. This isn’t Bush’s war, nor Obama’s, this was islam from the beginning...Obama should take note and quit kissing the house of Fudd’s six.
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.