Politically speaking, G. W. Bush has a premature ejaculation problem

Great Debates
41

When did I jump into the Pit? Or do you have a cite for this?

No, he’s not. But I hear this a lot, so let me see if I can set the record straight on this argument.

People are not saying that the troops are going to be depressed and throw tantrums or stop fighting if people criticize the President. But surely you’ll admit that morale is quite a bit more important to soldiers in wartime than, say, accountants during tax season. Soldiers have to believe that they can get their job done, because if they don’t get their jobs done, they die. So, to the extent that criticism hurts the belief of the soldiers that they’re capable of doing their jobs, then I think that’s important.

But the main crux of the argument is that realistically, the Iraqi resisters know they have no shot of driving the Americans out of Iraq with head-on force. All they can hope is that the Americans will go home on their own. So the Iraqi resisters are basically trying to make life as miserable for the American soldiers as they can for as long as they can, and to create as much bad publicity as possible. They’re hoping that American resolve will falter, and they’ll leave.

Meanwhile, the hope of the Americans is that the Iraqi resisters will realize that we’re not going anywhere, so the resisters will give up fighting and accept a more peaceful lifestyle without Saddam in power.

So to some extent this becomes a battle of resolve. Who will last longer – the Americans or the Iraqi resisters? Because one of us probably has to quit before the other can quit.

So, by insinuating that American policy will change, you’re raising the morale of the Iraqi resisters. You’re giving them hope that their tactic is working, and if they hold out just a little longer, then they’ll be able to win. And by allowing them to hold out longer, you’re actually hurting the effort to suppress those resisters. And, to some extent, you’re increasing the number of resisters. And, common sense tells us that the number of Iraqi resisters is directly related to the number of casualties suffered by our side.

For my part, I think that the benefit of criticism generally outweighs the harm to our soldiers (although I admit that it’s a close question for me). Regardless, I don’t think Hillary’s comments were all that bad, and if the question was what she said it was, then I actually think her answer was pretty good.

42

Soldiers know they are capable of doing their jobs, and no one questioned that, so what’s your point? The things being debated are larger policy issues, and the troops aren’t idiots. They almost certainly understand the real impact of many of these issues better than most of us.

Hillary’s two main criticisms are

  1. not enough troops there, and not enough of the right kind (need more intelligence and translators)
  2. the President has us leaving too soon, we need to stay longer

So care to explain how her insinutaing that our policy should change to the extent of putting MORE troops in Iraq and staying LONGER, is encouragement to the resisters?

43

Age Quod Agis, I think (?) you’d agree that whatever the merits of your position in general, Hillary isn’t the poster child for this. If anything, she’s more hawkish than Bush.

I don’t like her in general, and I sometimes suspect her motives, but she is not a voice of defeatism.

44

No, soldiers don’t know they’re capable of doing their jobs. When bullets and bombs are flying, no soldier is immune to being stopped from doing his or her job by death or capture or serious injury, and every soldier is acutely aware of that fact. So when a retired general goes on tv and says that the President hasn’t committed enough troops to the field for the soldiers to do their job, there’s a chance some soldiers will believe him, or at least the seeds of doubt will be sown in their minds.

And you’ll have to explain to me how “There aren’t enough troops in Iraq to do the job” is a “larger policy issue.” It’s exactly the size of policy issue that is so often accused of hurting the morale of our troops and giving comfort to our enemies.

The resisters will be lead to believe that we haven’t don’t have enough troops there now, and that we’re not planning to stay in long enough now. And there’s the added problem that our troops may begin to believe that’s true, too.

Of course, if you’d been able to stop your knee from jerking before getting to the end of my post, you’d have seen that I don’t have a problem with Hillary’s statements.

Agreed. I’ve praised her consistent, hawkish stance in other threads (she’s the anti-Kerry). As for my position on her statements here, please read the last paragraph of my prior post.

45

I just can’t follow your reasonning. If said retired general actually believe there there isn’t enough troops to do the job, wouldn’t it be his duty to say it loud and clear, in the hope that when people will be aware of the issue, it will be adressed, hence it will avoid more losses in the future?

Taking a caricatural example, let’s assume that an american battaillon is surrounded by a whole ennemy division, and that the powers that be don’t seem to care about it. What should the retired general do? Stay silent in order to avoid hurting the morale of the besieged troops, or stating loudly that reinforcement are urgently needed?

46

You’re welcome :confused:

47

So, one more time with feeling – CRITICISM MAY HURT TROOP MORALE AND AID OUR ENEMIES, BUT IT SHOULDN’T BE SILENCED.

clairobscur, I have no idea how you quoted portions of my post, but artfully missed the portion that answered your question.

If you’re asking me to guess what others would say in response to your hypothetical, I’m guessing they’d say, “Yes, the retired general should shut the hell up. He doesn’t know better than the active generals what’s going on on the battlefield, or whether additional troops can be spared, or whether this is a trap, or whether we’ve actually got the capability to win this battle. I’m reminded of a column by the inimmitable Maureen Dowd appearing in the New York Times that accused Rumsfield of sending too few troops into Iraq. Obviously, Ms. Dowd wasn’t the only one with this criticism. And thus, Ms. Dowd wasn’t the only one that was wrong, and wasn’t the only one that probably did our troops a disservice by questioning their ability to wage the war successfully.”

Happy?

48

Look, here’s the thing. Our society is a democracy, so speech should be encouraged. But the military is not a democracy, and with good reason. If it was, it wouldn’t work. And as a result, speech on military operations does not serve the same interests as speech on public policy. We have to trust that the generals on the field have the soldiers’ best interests at heart, and wouldn’t send them to die for no reason. But there has to be a first wave at Omaha beach, and the decision of where to land, when, and with whom cannot be made by committee. At least not if we want to keep winning wars.

Having said that, I think speech in our society is important enough, and the lines between the President’s roles as Commander-in-Chief and leading figure in public policy are blurred to a sufficient degree, that criticism of ongoing military operations should be allowed. I’m not exactly enthused when people do it, but I don’t think it should be suppressed.