Depending on what order they're allowed to speak that may be a good thing.

Sorry, I've got no confidence in the bean counters approach to warfare. The President should pick his generals based on the idea they'll push forward his agenda. If he doesn't trust them to do so, then fire them and get someone who will. His Generals said more than 3 months ago they needed X number of troops and he still hasn't come to a decision. If he thought they were wrong he should replace the officers who made the request and go back to the drawing board.

Actually, that worries me even more.

oh and EXACTLY what L123 said. Make a fookin decision man!

So now this is about Afghanistan and only the generals should be heard?

I agree on the bean counters....but would suggest that a deliberative process involving persons with diplomatic experience, foreign policy experience, an understanding of the geo-political history and structure of the country, etc. is equally important.

More often than not, history has shown that generals believe they can win if given enough boots on the ground and money to fight the enemy.

Winning on the battle field is not the only way to victory nor is it always the best.

Lookout! We're cool! I've always liked your rich white self! :)

Just kinda feeling punk-ish and out of sorts. Plus, we do all know who pays for things. We do. Not the lower 10% not the upper 5% - us.

By you own argument, doesn't the president need to know if we can afford to continue/increase our presence in the middle east? Isn't this like one of those "admirable things" your friend talks about?

My (overly simplified) view is the president sets the agenda, the generals set the strategy, the bean counters find a way to pay for it - in that order.

Strategy and tactics should not be decided on a spreadsheet. The agenda can be if that is what the president wants.

ROFLOL - Stop it with the common sense Lookout.
Go plan someones investments or something.
You're killin' me here.

fair enough. I've got an appointment now. I'll check in with you chucklemonkeys later.

I agree with the "over simplified".

The strategy should also include how to get out and how to maintain peace and stability and security after we are gone....or it might all be for naught.....sorta like, what we didnt do in Iraq.

And we want to repeat that same process?

That's the point Redux.

Get out of Iraq isn't the strategy, it is the agenda. The generals have to come up with the strategy (obviously in conjunction with State where appropriate). The bean counters have to find a way to fund the strategy.

on that note, i really have to run.

I sure hope that the president considers spreadsheets when setting agendas. It's a critical part of the process.

Or at least some nice colorful graphs and charts. Maybe even finding out if we can pay for a war, before just jumping in.

It was going to pay for itself, right?

I'm in - Me likes the charts :o

I don't know about that honestly. I'm one of those old fashioned nutjobs who believes it is never wrong to do the right thing. If the president, congress, and associated elected leaders believe there is a compelling reason to go to war (attacked by Japan) then I want them to do the right thing and then order the bean counters to figure out the payment method. Of course, that would require a nation of citizens willing to actually entertain the idea of personal discomfort and sacrifice so I'm not sure that would work here anymore.