Quote Originally Posted by Stu-6 View Post
While there is nothing wrong with a president listening to his generals it does not relieve him of his responsibilities. Yes the president is lacking in military experience but to be fair who has experience in commanding a counter-insurance in Iraq, or anything comparable? If the president is not getting the kind of advice he needs from the generals in command it his responsibility to educate himself enough on the subject or at least find better generals.

Lincoln’s military experience was limited to say the least but he managed to take charge and find generals that could do what he thought needed to be done. Think of how different things might have turned out if he had just listened to thoughts first generals (you know the generals he had not the generals he wanted)?

Goldwater-Nichols may have its problems but ever president has had to deal with the legal constrains and flaws of their time.
I'm with you. There is "listening" and there is "listening." I think that in the case of Iraq, the administration "listened" to its military commanders, but only in a certain way. It was perfectly clear that the administration was not willing to listen to military advice that in any way challenged the idea that the administration's strategic objectives were unrealistic, or that the costs of attaining them would be significant. Rumsfeld populated the senior leadership with flag officers who would not challenge strategic assumptions.

I do believe Iraq will be seem as a monumental blunder. The administration's die hard apologists will blame the military but I'm convinced that the consensus position will be that we acted with flawed strategic assumptions that no military leader could have turned into success.