More from the Iraq Report...

[280plus]

P 73 Par. 1/2

Having rejected the notion of a troop buildup in the 100,000 to 200,000 range for various reasons they continue:

"We could, however, support a short term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S Commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective.
   We also reject the immediate withdrawal of our troops, because we believe so much is at stake."

I think to myself, Mr Bush seems to be following the recommendations while the other side of the is aisle screaming that he is not. However I DO see the snag with him changing commanders. Can it be truthfully said that he changed commanders simply over them not wanting to put more troops in. If so, why did he disagree with his generals? Were there any other circumstances that anyone is aware of that might have caused him to want to make a change? Why were the generals against more troops?

[Perd Hapley]

I seem to remember a time some months ago when calls for more troops were routine.  Bush's response was always that his commanders weren't requesting more troops.  Maybe now they are.  Or maybe Bush changed out a few leaders because he found them lacking.  Didn't Lincoln go through two or three generals before he put Grant in charge? 

The lesson we all should have learned by now is that anything - ANYTHING - Bush does in any field is treated as some new tyranny (or incompetence) never before practiced in America. 

[wingnutx]

Petraeus is considered to be as good as it gets on counter-insugency ops.

http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume4/april_2006/4_06_2.html

[The Rabbi]

Maybe.  But I read a book from someone there who said he really screwed up returning property to Baathists and evicting the Kurdish owners.

As I said, the Democratic plan is to hamper Bush's efforts, declare failure, and then run the issue for '08.

[280plus]

Thanks, so what I gather is it's not altogether fair to say he changed commanders just because they weren't in for more troops AND he's doing at least some of what the Group recommended even though the Democrats insist vehemently he is not. Geez them people are tickin' me off. Lyin' SOBs. Politics as usual only gambling with all our lives in the process.

[CaptainCaveman]

Or maybe Bush changed out a few leaders because he found them lacking.  Didn't Lincoln go through two or three generals before he put Grant in charge? 

Actually, many of those earlier Generals were severely hampered by "Washington" and its desire to tell the Gererals how to fight the war.  Some very qualified officers  declined command of the Army of the Potomac because of that very reason.  By the time Grant came into being, many things had also changed in how "Washington" involved itself.