More of that abdicating authority I see. The will of the people concerns elected officials. The general is appointed by the commander in chief. The failures ans successes of this war belong to only one man, the elected commander in chief.

I take that back, our armed forces deserve to have their successes trumpeted because they are performing amazing feats despite a flawed policy and strategy. My point still stands though, the general is not the "decider." He serves at the pleasure of the president, not our electorate.

Nice fliflop carsick. Took you five minutes.

Ol' Blood'R'Guts Petraeus did not see combat until 2003. I think I'll take my chances with the Will of the People, thanks, and I think the People would rather do the same as well. Got any other generals you want to dump on us?

Wait..Who elected General Petraus? This is typical double-speak for Democrats. Why doesn't the mainstream media ever call them out?? Even lastnight's debate lacked in the "serious question" category. There were a couple good ones here and there, but overall, they had it easy. It'll be interesting to see what questions will be asked of the Rep. next week.

Uh oh, the crap is hitting the fan. An active duty officer has written an op-ed asking Congress to get more involved and condemning the poor performance of his superiors.
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198

" For the second time in a generation, the United States faces the prospect of defeat at the hands of an insurgency. In April 1975, the U.S. fled the Republic of Vietnam, abandoning our allies to their fate at the hands of North Vietnamese communists. In 2007, Iraq's grave and deteriorating condition offers diminishing hope for an American victory and portends risk of an even wider and more destructive regional war."

"These debacles are not attributable to individual failures, but rather to a crisis in an entire institution: America's general officer corps. America's generals have failed to prepare our armed forces for war and advise civilian authorities on the application of force to achieve the aims of policy. The argument that follows consists of three elements. First, generals have a responsibility to society to provide policymakers with a correct estimate of strategic probabilities. Second, America's generals in Vietnam and Iraq failed to perform this responsibility. Third, remedying the crisis in American generalship requires the intervention of Congress."

Imagine that, carsick, the left leaning Gannett Corp publishes an account by a 'light' Colonel who knows better than those 5 ranks above him.

Makes one wonder about the Democrat majority in the Senate who unanimously selected one of Lt. Col. Yingling's "failures" over the 'light' Colonel.

Car,
Good post, just saw it myself -- looks like morale may not be quite as fantastic as we're being told.
But wait -- that Yinling fellow is just another defeatist traitor. Afterall, everyone knows that the deputy commander of the 3D ACR is a liberal activist that hates America and the troops.

Carsick,

Interesting article, he really puts alot of blame on the prev C&C, (Clinton) for only talking about restructuring and not really doing anything. Regrettably to the Libs, restruct means cutting and defunding.

Pretty much sums up his whole 8 years, alot of talk and not much substance.

I have to agree with alot of his assessment of the lack of open minded, free thinking leadership. Where is Storming Norman?

I won't discuss the war anymore. It is useless to try truth and logic with people that don't find any problems with Harry Reid.

Lew Waters
Of course, standard reaction is attack the messenger.
I'm curious do your credentials trump his?

"Yingling's comments are especially striking because his unit's performance in securing the northwestern Iraqi city of Tall Afar was cited by President Bush in a March 2006 speech and provided the model for the new security plan underway in Baghdad.
He also holds a high profile for a lieutenant colonel: He attended the Army's elite School for Advanced Military Studies and has written for one of the Army's top professional journals, Military Review."

I won't discuss the war anymore. It is useless to try truth and logic with people that don't find any problems with Harry Reid.

Joel, I think a number of us have reached that conclusion.

Joel,
Your reading comrehension skills must truly trump my own -- where on earth in that journal article did you dig up an attack on Bill Clinton? Please enlighten me.
In his analysis of the lack of transformation during the 1990's, Yingling clearly lays the blame on the generals and the services themselves -- I fail to find even a reference to Clinton.
The only criticism of an administration that I could find was broadside at some generals' excuse for not properly carrying out their duty to inform civilian leaders of military realities -- that the heavy-handed management style (could that be a reference to Rummy and Wolfie?) of the current civilian leadership made it hard to rock the boat.
Yingling goes on to chide them [the generals] for a lack of "moral courage."
You certainly seem to have a gift for reading between the lines -- or projecting your hatred for the former president into whatever it is you read.

What credentials do you require of me? Since I'm on the right, do I not also have freedom of speech and expression? Am I not allowed an opinion? Is that reserved for the left only?

But no, I didn't serve in Iraq. I served in South Viet Nam, (1st Avn Bgd) 69 to 71. Then on to Germany, (2nd ACR) 71 to 74. Afterwrds, finished up in Ft. Bragg, (XVIII Abn Corp Arty Avn) N.C. until ETSing after Carter declared amnesty to draft dodgers.

And no, I wasn't an Officer either. I was just a lowly NCO that got my hands dirty everyday (and not in the Motor Pool).

Surely you realize that 'Light' Colonel Yingling isn't the only Army Officer to be published by Military Review. Some of those very "failures" mentioned also have prominent articles published.

But, let's face it. Your main draw to 'Light' Colonel Yingling is that he published an article that you feel is critical of current leadership.

Lew Waters
I wasn't really asking for your resume but thanks for your sincerity (no snark intended).
I found it worth posting because it is highly unusual for an active duty officer to go outside the chain of command and publish criticism. It is particularly unusual for a guy who still wants a career in the military ie. he's not seeking early retirement which, at his level, the military is having a hard time retaining.
I also posted because he is reiterating some of the ideas that many retired officers have already been saying regularly.

zackster

DemocRAT's reserve the right to change their minds for any reason and at any time. Look at the abortion issue, or the war issue or any issue that supplants accountability with convenience.

Sorry Leo, maybe if it was 50-50, but I will take my chances onwith the will of the 70% vs a lone general. By your thinking you would be happy in Nicaragua, word has it General Noriega is making a come back. He will be more than happy to make all of your decisions for you.

Sorry, carsick, but he is only reiterating what very few Clintonoid retired generals have said.

But, reading his article, it isn't as anti-Bush as you seem to think. The following sentence makes me wonder, "War is not a military activity conducted by soldiers, but rather a social activity that involves entire nations."

Another is, "The greatest error the statesman can make is to commit his nation to a great conflict without mobilizing popular passions to a level commensurate with the stakes of the conflict."

He doesn't seem to take into account that other 'statesmen' (and women) that work dilligently to undermine national popular passions can do much harm to the morale of the Troops and the nation.

Instead, he seems to try to put it all off on General Officers 5 grades above him.

Somehow, he seems to miss out on the fact that we have been under attack, both overseas and twice at home, since 1979. Past administrations and members of both parties have failed to address the enemy that continues attacking us while they downsized the Military, cut the intelligence budgets and tried to transform the Military into a place for social experimentation, not elite fighting groups.

Any fault for that lies with the past and present politicians, not Generals.