Article

2006-04-25 Science & Technology

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2006-04-25 09:42|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 1. Its the two of the 6 who WERE recently active duty in Iraq that matter, not the others.

2. They had a better view of how many troops are needed, and more importantly, of whether OSD is listening to the generals on troop requirements (as OSD has consistently claimed) or not than any sergeant, no matter how brave.

3. No, the generals cant dismiss the SecDef. Only POTUS can dismiss SecDef. POTUS, and all elected officials who support POTUS, are answerable to the voters of the United States. And said voters want and need info on how OSD made and makes such crucial decisions as the number of troops required for an occupation. They especially need this when further wars and occupations are contemplated. The generals are providing that info.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-04-25 10:06|| 2006-04-25 10:06|| Front Page Top

#2 Elliot Cohen's editorial in WSJ hit these fellas right between the eyes with a sledge hammer. Next stop, majors retiring to rat out generals, and so on down the chain of command.

Posted by Captain America 2006-04-25 10:11|| 2006-04-25 10:11|| Front Page Top

#3 two who matter, the rest don't LH? Knee's jerking again...restless liberal leg syndrome

Posted by Frank G 2006-04-25 10:19|| 2006-04-25 10:19|| Front Page Top

#4 The difference between the generals and the sergeants is that the sergeants aren't auditioning for the number two slot on Hillary's ticket.

Posted by Matt 2006-04-25 11:22|| 2006-04-25 11:22|| Front Page Top

#5 "The generals are providing that info."

Out of their finely-tuned sense of duty, no doubt.

Posted by Fordesque 2006-04-25 11:36|| 2006-04-25 11:36|| Front Page Top

#6 The problem is LH, the generals where wanting a civilian fired because he didn't agree with them and that rub alot people the wrong way. Even people I know that dislike Bush was saying they didn't want military men decideing who get fired and who doesn't. We don't like military controlling govt. it is a slippery slope.

Posted by djohn66 2006-04-25 12:56|| 2006-04-25 12:56|| Front Page Top

#7 I know when I want info on how OSD made and makes such crucial decisions as the number of troops required for an occupation I turn to TIME, the weekly Newsmagazine.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-04-25 16:47|| 2006-04-25 16:47|| Front Page Top

#8 That's my best source too Nimble. Maybe he should have had more troops. Maybe. Or, maybe not. Either way, firing a guy for a single decision that was less than ideal is assinine. Anyone who says otherwise can feel free to kiss Rummies ass, because what they say, don't mean shit. It's not Veitnam anymore, stop whining. Losers.

Posted by Mike N. 2006-04-25 17:31|| 2006-04-25 17:31|| Front Page Top

#9 Hmmmm....which CENTCOM commander asked for more troops and was refused? Please fill in the data, otherwise you're not in the proper chain of command in accordance with the Goldwater-Nichols Act.

Posted by Ulonter Flinelet6090 2006-04-25 18:48|| 2006-04-25 18:48|| Front Page Top

#10 The difference between the generals and the sergeants is that the sergeants aren't auditioning for the number two slot on Hillary's ticket.

No, they're running for Congress on the donk ticket.

Posted by Captain America 2006-04-25 22:39|| 2006-04-25 22:39|| Front Page Top

23:52 Anonymoose
23:46 Frank G
23:43 rafael
23:22 3dc
23:09 Frank G
23:00 Captain America
22:58 Captain America
22:56 Captain America
22:48 Fun Dung Poo
22:40 Fun Dung Poo
22:39 Captain America
22:35 borgboy
22:33 Fun Dung Poo
22:30 Desert Blondie
22:22 asymmetrical triangulation
22:22 DMFD
22:18 3dc
22:13 Frank G
22:10 Frank G
22:03 Glavick Angease1706
21:59 Frank G
21:54 Frank G
21:52 Frank G
21:50 Frank G