We are faced with a dilemma that must be faced "up front" in the future. Many of the "secrets and lies" of the past have not served this nation well, no matter how some of us may appreciate the "why" of them.
Getting the American people on board to take their risk of wealth abroad militarily, has ALWAYS been a problem...
...it was a problem in the seventeen hundreds, eighteen hundreds, nineteen hundreds and it will continue to be a problem in the foreseeable future as far as any reasonable expectation based on fact versus wishes.
If, on the other hand, the American people "sign up", it will get done. The "leadership" as exhibited by Murtha, Pelosi, Clinton et al is fairly dubious and if anyone voted to go to war and now say that the only reason they did was that they were "lied too", are themselves lying.
They may have "wished" they had not voted, but they did...
...as it was politically expedient to do so!
But the American people are ill served by that position and the American people should be held accountable as future issues arise.
A President that does not do so, will regret his or her decision, as did Johnson, Nixon... regardless of Party.
Very well stated. I took the time an watched the hearing in its entirety. I think the committee can be assured that the Admiral is
A) not going to fall into partisan traps.
B) knowledgeable of the necessities and requirements of CT, SOF style, if not the minutia of techniques, and he appears to have a handle on utilizing Conventional forces in areas where appropriate, as I surmised from his opening statement.
C) if he has not done so already, he will have a hand in tweaking the Surge plan to lay the groundwork for the future. Placing much of the needed CA funds and resources in local commanders hands is a good and necessary thing.
D) Getting the proper support for and necessary personnel at DOS to get off their duffs and into the sandbox to help is another matter. I assume from the reading I have done that in most cases the mentoring of government officials is happening under DOD which has limited assets in these areas even if their expertise is extensive.
The assertion that one approach, military, diplomatic or economic, can succeed without the pressures that can be brought to bear by the other two is sophistry, MS. Clinton and all who mentioned that as being the"CASE" insult the intelligence of their constituents. I am certainly disappointed that no one on the committee took them to task for making such a sucking sound. I understand that the Admiral is not in a position to lecture about basic political science, or foreign affairs. We are.
