Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Rich Lowry :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Shame of the Chiefs
by Rich Lowry
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will Congress pass Obamacare by the end of the year?

In his classic book on the Vietnam War, "Dereliction of Duty," H.R. McMaster excoriates the Joint Chiefs of Staff for acceding to President Lyndon Johnson's flawed war plan and his dishonest salesmanship of it. McMaster dubs them "the five silent men."

What adjective best describes the equally shameful conduct of the men of the Joint Chiefs during the Iraq War? "Silent" is the least damning of the possibilities.

In his latest insider account of the Bush administration, "The War Within," Bob Woodward provides a window into the cluelessness of the chiefs and their seeming disinterest in victory that will fascinate and appall students of civil- military relations for decades to come.

In 2006, it had become obvious to almost everyone that we were failing in Iraq, with the exception of top U.S. generals. The general in command on the ground, George Casey, and his immediate superior, the head of U.S. Central Command John Abizaid, were focused on U.S. troop withdrawals the way Mr. Dick in "David Copperfield" is focused on King Charles' head.

When President Bush told Gen. Casey in a trip to Baghdad in June 2006 that "we have to win," Casey replied, "But to win, we have to draw down." It remained his dogged mantra as Baghdad collapsed all around him.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Peter Pace, commissioned a group of colonels to review war strategy for the chiefs. One of their presentations ended starkly, "We are not winning, so we are losing." Woodward writes, "Chairman Pace had an unusual sullen look on his face, almost crestfallen, as if to say, 'How could I not have realized this.'"

Good question. Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld had created an environment that valued convenient fictions over hard truths, and the chiefs hoped to muddle through with the Casey strategy so they could rid themselves of the Iraq War, and its strain on the military, as soon as possible.

President Bush had his own revelatory moment when in a meeting with military experts, retired Gen. Jack Keane told him, "We don't have a plan to defeat the insurgency." When Bush set about getting one -- the surge -- he had to do an end run around the chiefs. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Rich Lowry's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Few, if any, Pattons left in this world.

Gotta face it! The time of large numbers of real fighting generals is in the past.

Ceasar wore a red cape and often led from the front. Alexander fought in the front lines.
So did Hannibal. Even Patton as late as 1944 exposed himself to enemy fire. So did MacArthur in the Pacific. In the US Civil War most of the generals were exposed to shot and shell.

We have a different breed of "men" today. The DC politicians for the most part stay safe to the rear, and are not gonna get anywhere near a battlefield, but they'll send the women into combat zones in a heartbeat. Well over 90 women have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since those wars began, and that's not counting the wounded. Wives, girlfriends, mothers, sisters.
It is a national disgrace and a national policy sin just like Abortion and No Fault Divorce.

And save the "they volunteer" BS ~~ the DC politicians still let them do it. Men that let women do their fighting for them are less than men.

None of our forefathers would have agreed to let women do their fighting for them.

Much different breed of "men" today in America.

Of course there are still millions of men in America that think our forefathers were right
in their beliefs and attitudes.


God Bless America
hectormanjack@aol.com

Know
The big problem is Generals know what it takes to win quickly. As usual the civilian counter parts do not. They do not have the stomach or the will so you get prolonged conflict.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.