http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/15/obama-ignores-generals-on-troop-levels-for-unprece/
Oh my. I thought that liberals held advice from the military to be well-nigh sacred. At least that’s the impression that one might get from the ferocious criticism of Bush’s decision to ignore advice on how many troops would be needed in Iraq.
How times have changed.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Liberals are generally for a smaller military force. We’re distrustful of our military. We’re the ones who have been trying to decrease the numbers deployed in the area.
Bush was criticized for not realizing he couldn’t accomplish his objectives. He was criticized for making a really boneheaded decision to go to Iraq. But I’ve never seen him criticized for sending too few soldiers except by the right.
Plus, **Flyer **thinks President Obama is a liberal. That’s adorable.
It is obvious that Obama stopped caring about Afghanistan a long time ago. Even our counter-IS strategy is a bunch of half-assed measures designed to appease critics while keeping us out of a war he knows we have no business being in.
Nevermind the fact that neither Obama nor Bush has had any interest in permanently “winning” Afghanistan. They continue to fund Pakistan, which both Presidents KNOW channels those funds to the Taliban. As long as the Pakistani military continues to exist, so will the Taliban.
Continuing to commit soldiers to a war you do not want to win is immoral as fuck.
I spent 37 years as part of the DOD, both military and civilian. Like any other organization, the military considers itself to be of ultimate importance, plus it wants as big a piece of the budgetary pie as it can get, just like everyone else. So while, for the most part, military people are conservative, they’re not going to be conservative in what they request. And, at least from my experience, some are just bat-shit crazy in assuming that the whole rest of the world is evil and must be subjugated.
As a result, they’ll ask for more than they really want, knowing full well someone higher up will cut their request. It’s how the game is played. I’m just a tad cynical, but in this, I’m pretty sure I’m on target.
All presidents should ignore military recommendations.
OMG! A black conservative.
Wait a minute…
Well not really, they should not ignore them but they should not feel themselves compelled to abide by them. It should be given a large weight in the decision but in the end the decision must be his.
& if someone tries to force your decision, you can just punish & sue them.
Not really, The Washington Times has always been that bad. Even among newspapers founded by nutty religions, they are still second-rate.
Clever.
That’s my take on it as well.
Something like that. In our system the idea is that the CiC is a civilian, and he or she should always be wary of recommendations from the military. Of course they could be perfectly good recommendations, but as you say, that they came from the military should not be weighted in their favor.
My doctor recommends a medication or surgery? I’m gonna be wary cuz the recommendation came from a doctor and I’m the Commander in Chief of my body.
My auto mechanic recommends a repair to my car? I’m gonna be wary cuz the recommendation came from a mechanic and I’m the Commander in Chief of my vehicle.
Yeah, ya gotta be wary of recommendations from people who are experts in their field, especially when you have no expertise or background in the subject.
I’m not sure how you think that actually advances your argument. At the end of the day, it’s MY body, and MY car. I’m going to do as much research as I can- usually in the form of second opinions.
I’ll take the professional’s opinions under advisement, and I’m likely to accept their advice- but ultimately, *I’m *the one who’ll be paying for it if they’re wrong.
Originally you said be wary and not under advisement which I see as a difference. Military commanders are not known for advising a path that puts the troops at a greater risk, they advise a path that will achieve the mission with the likelihood of having the fewest casualties to their troops.
And what price will a lame-duck president pay if he’s wrong? He’s not going to not be reelected, his pension isn’t at risk, his life isn’t in danger if he’s wrong. In this specific instance the military personnel will pay if he gets it wrong.
The CINC should lay out the political objectives and the military should tell him what it’s going to take to accomplish those objectives. Then it’s then up to him or her whether or not to go ahead with that plan and provide the armed services with the requested manpower and equipment.
This is like telling the mechanic, “Yes, go ahead and fix my car like I’ve asked you to, but you can only use these 4 wrenches and a flathead.”
If Obama thinks we can only afford to leave 5500 troops there, then he needs to dial back his objectives until the commanders agree they can accomplish it with the manpower provided. Otherwise this is just setting them up to fail.
We have an anti-IS strategy? Since when? 
Our current policy is basically one of prentending to care, while mostly just sticking our heads in the sand and letting Russia step in to fill the power vacuum. I guess you could call that a strategy, in the same way a 10-speed mixer counts “Off” as one of the speeds.
so dump the military down so low that we can’t defend ourselves?
anyway, professional politicians like war, they profit from it so that is why it just continues on…
yes that was me ending a sentence with a preposition…also I never really know what I am saying so I just spit out whatever floats my boat
Nor am I any good at debate since I can’t defend my statements, just another reason to ignore me. It all entertains me so ya know…I just keep on keeping on 
what price would he pay for leaving 10,000 troops there? None. So why isn’t he? He’s just dong what he thinks is right, I assume. Personally, I trust his judgment