Heckuva Job, Lutey
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in National Security — Comments (36) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I was never in favor of having a "war czar." At the rate we are going, we will end up having more czars than Russia ever did or could hope to have. I always thought that the responsibility for a war rested with the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense. I understand that the task assigned to Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute basically amounts to helping ensure that the war in Iraq gets the kind of high level staffing attention that it needs at the National Security Council, but since Stephen Hadley is the National Security Adviser, I always thought that it was his role to ensure that the NSC was on top of things.
As if this bureaucratic muddle is not enough to deal with, we now learn that Lt. Gen. Lute has decided to opine about the draft. It was, of course, the great and good Milton Friedman who brilliantly demonstrated the benefits of having an all-volunteer military instead of one that relied on the draft. Those benefits continue to assist the military in its performance. I am happy with an effort to increase recruitment but that effort need not be achieved via a draft and neither the Secretary of Defense nor the President nor any member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said anything to the contrary regarding that issue.
Lt. Gen. Lute could, of course, have simply responded to any questions about a draft by stating that "such decisions can only be made by the civilian leadership and thus far, the civilian leadership has made it clear that a draft is not needed." Then he could have gone back to do the utterly redundant job he was asked to do in the first place. His foray into policymaking is neither necessary nor welcome. One hopes that his civilian superiors remind him of that.
« Boeing v. Airbus — Comments (7) | Dirty Hippies Be Afraid — Comments (28) »
Heckuva Job, Lutey 36 Comments (0 topical, 36 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
the number serving in our armed forces after 911. I think we can do it without a draft, but if a draft were necessary we should do it. How we would do it and in what context of national service, I think should be looked into.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
unecessarily burden ourselves as some of the left suggest. Burdens are bad. I don't think this war has to be fought the same way as past wars and you will note that as soon as we got the bombs we fought it with the enola gay.
we still could
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/will_main_street_bail_...
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Burdens are not always bad. They give you focus and generally unite people. The Burden of the Battle of Britain brought the entire country together and created a more unified and stronger country.
Nuclear weapons are not strategic weapons just tactical. If you want to kill a bunch of people really quick and leave a wake of devestation that is the way to go. If 1 nuclear weapon is dropped not only would it be a huge moral mistake but it would be a huge strategic mistake. Entire Middle East and our "allies" there would immediately turn against us destroying all hope Iraq and Afganistan has. Europe would most likely turn on us economically and would give China a better justification to spread its influence in Asia.
The problem with the "War" we are fighitng now is to many people keep saying what the enemy wants us to do and then why we shouldn't do it. The fact is what the enemy wants us to do is completely misleading and not trustworthy period. Lets do want Americans have done before. Trust our gut and heart and pray that we are doing the right thing.
burden before I would and I think GWB is doing para 3, and I favor his policy.
My points are that we shouldn't impoose burdens on ourselves for burdens sake; that the world should understand the level of our goodness from the fact that we don't just kill masses with nukes or not since we can but dont unlike most all other superpowers in the past have done; and I am still a classic lib on foreign policy. A JFK dem, ie a Reaganite
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
that's your business. No government can enforce equality, whether it be of wealth or of burdens.
But Pejman's point, I thought, was that the remark contradicting the President's stated policy came from a Presidential advisor. That's a heck of a way for an Executive Branch to be run, and I would be in favor of at least a private Presidential reprimand for Lute.
Although it is a struggle for our survival, that does not mean that we must handicap our forces with people who do not have the "right stuff" for the mission.
I spent nine years in the Army when there was a draft. Almost all of the draftees that I served with were good people but few of them had the motivation that volunters had.
You might just as well use a lottery to pick people to go to medical school without consideration of either talent or desire. How confident would you feel in a system like that if you were scheduled for open-heart surgery?
Tell us your opinion instead of just trying to poke at the opinions of others... Flyerhawk's position has already been filled ably.
Mostly because people don't support this war. I don't think this war would've began at all if a pre-requisite of the conflict was that we would have to draft. That is to say that this war was one of choice and that people would vote out whomever tried to force their kids to fight for a war they don't perceive to be vital. Whether that is true or not is of course up for debate. I think we all know that this country will not support a draft for this conflict. That is a fact. One reason it has went as long as it has is because the majority of sacrifice has been thrust solely on military families. Those in power aren't sacrificing their kids and many Americans don't have a son or daughter over there. If the sacrifice call was shouted from the rooftops and expected of all Americans the withdrawal would begin posthaste.
The war has gone on so long due in part to the above choices, because it is hard, and because we have compassionatley decided not to go Nagasaki.
You choose surrender and defeat and that has nothing to do with a draft. It has to do with your judgment.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
You talk about us "going Nagasaki". In the context of the GWOT, what city would we be dropping a nuclear bomb on?
-jb
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
the majority of sacrifice has been thrust solely on military families.
I've often thought that it is more effective to train people who volunteer to fight - let call them 'soldiers' - and then send them into harm's way to defend the nation rather than scooping up city blocks worth of random people - let's call them 'civilians' - and sending them off untrained to do the work.
Strange as it may seem, the 'soldiers' more willingly bear the sacrifice than the 'civilians'.
Someone once told me that was part of their job and they were proud to do it. I know I was and I'm proud my son is doing this today.
I think I missed your point.
...is that he'd have an easier time getting his policy positions carried out if your son was a slave.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Should attempt to take on other sacrifices as well though. During WWII people were put on rations and asked to conserve as much. In other wars we were asked to pay more (taxes) in order to support the war effort.
Whether or not either is needed is not the issue, but we shouldn't expected our soldiers to sacrifice only because if that is the case then our all volunteer military will soon not be able to recruit
as it has because the American leftists have supported the terrorists every step of the way, with their Anti American leftist never ending refrains;
(A) that we must surrender because America can never win,
(B)-the terrorists are too strong-
(C)the free Iraqis are not doing as much as they should.
(D)Pres Bush isn't fighting the war the right way.
(E)America is not worth fighting for.
Or any of a thousand other excuses the American left use to justify defending our enemies instead of America.
Lets have an honest measurement of why this war has gone on so long. I really don't think it has to do with political support for it at all because if that was the case then it would of been over before 2004.
We are all Americans so lets not act paranoid about our neighbors and fellow citizens. I am swinging back and forth myself now of whether or not to continue to support us in Iraq and it has nothing to do with me wanting us to lose, but what is best for America and what will the most likely outcome be if we stay or leave.
War is always an issue that will cause frustration. The biggest problem with Iraq isn't the "left" it is that Bush is failing to motivate the American people. He has said the same thing for now almost 3 years and nothing has changed and the fact is that people do lose hope if they don't see real change. LBJ had the same problem with Vietnam and then Nixon got in. Nixon ran on a platform like most against Vietnam but against an immediate pullout. In the years that followed he increased the number of troops but American people didn't seem as frustrated because they saw a leader trying something new.
quit earlier and prevented Iraqi allies from joining sooner.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
are you? I'm 69 and in my world, Nixon is known for drawing down US forces in Vietnam. By 1973, all that was left of "MacNamara's Army" was some advisers and support personnel.
I'm so tired of these Faux Noise talking points. As the poster above says, we were all together after 9/11--we all want to get Bin Laden and his gang of terrorists. But that's not what happened, is it? You call it surrender. But I call it a more practical strategy. Let's get the Islamic nations around Iraq involved in finding a better way. We invaded a country for no reason (please no "There was Al Queda in Iraq before 9/11" We all know that there was a pathetic training camp in Kurdistan, the part of Iraq that Saddam DID NOT control. Saddam did not have anything to do with Bin Laden and Al Queda).
Now, we made the mess and need to find a way to clean it up. This war is not about defending America. It's about the Center for a New American Century's plan (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle) for the US to be a first-strike aggressor in the Middle East. So we invaded Iraq (according to plan) and got ourselves in this mess.
America IS worth fighting for. So, let's get the guys who crashed the planes--Bin Laden and Zarkawi and their pathetic band of losers.
You are a raving lunatic. Go bay at the moon. This post is so stupid it's not worth deconstructing.
Your time would be better spent organizing rallys for Cindy Sheehan.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
given the numerous attacks against the US initiated from there in the 90s? Remember the african embassy bombings? UBL scattered his forces confident that Clinton would invade or at least bomb the nation into smithereens. But we didn't and so our weakness invited 911 aggresion.
UBL himself said that the US's refusal to remove Saddam in 1991 evidence a paper tiger he could defeat.
Saddam was defying the US and waging war against us before and after 911.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
the agreement that ended the Gulf War called for Saddam Hussein to perform certain actions to end the hostilities. He was in material breach of that agreement (as determined by the United Nations on 18 different occasions!)
In truth, no additional reason needed to be named! And YET, the President allowed Congress to debate and then sanction through a vote, to follow the actions he, as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF deemed necessary for national security.
Add in Israel while you're at it. That's neither an idle comment nor a suggestion. It's mandatory.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
the Jooooooooooos.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
mb
Gotta do it Imus style, the Jeeeeeews, notice the eeee sound not the ooooooo sound. The oooooo sound would be just silly.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
your saying the Juuuuuuice! and then everyone thinks your taling about O.J.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Look, I raised the ire of many here by being opposed to the FIRST gulf war. I felt that Saddam was at that time our client, and could be controlled. But after we went to war the first time, (and did not finish the job) then he was our problem and we had to solve it.
It really is as simple as that, we made him, and we had an obligation to unmake him.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
_______________________________
None of the Above !
Great post, as most of yours are.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
If this conflict is like World War 2 and indeed our survival is at stake...then why not? Surely the American people would be galvanized to be "vounteer draftees" which is to say you draft them but they want to defend the country. Or is there significant doubt as to the necessity of the conflict among the American people?