Petraeus '12

I'm with Chuck on this very rarely do they turn out to be good political figures. Military logic is not the only way things should work, regardless of how much sense they make.
 
MEAT said:
no more posting until u take that disgusting guy licking that chicks nose off... thats foul
Click to expand...

I liked it :-( ... oh well, I'll change it to something more "upstanding" :-/

Edit: There, I hope that works :-/ ... by the way:

khan3.gif
khan4.gif

khan3.gif
khan4.gif

khan3.gif
khan4.gif

khan3.gif
khan4.gif
 
Bob369963 said:
I'm with Chuck on this very rarely do they turn out to be good political figures. Military logic is not the only way things should work, regardless of how much sense they make.
Click to expand...


you have a point there. However, someone's performance in the military, can also be correlated to how they will perform in civilian leadership; remember the military is also very political.


Good Example: General Dwight D. Eisenhower


Bad Example: Sen. John Kerry.



Both served in the military, one commanded a Nation at War in one of the most historical events of Humanity, the other most likely barley made it through basic training.


In my opinion, I honestly believe that if a Politcal figure, who has direct authority, and responsibility over the most power military force on the planet, needs to have/had military background, or experience where that person had a position of leadership.

I do understand where your coming from chuck, however most our contemporary military leaders know better than to step into the world of politics, unless we are in a desperate time.
 
Ike was an anomaly; he oversaw an incredibly complex system as allied commander. No one in today's military has had to juggle the complexities Ike dealt with. Kerry was not in any real leadership capacity in the military -- his came via traditional politics, and his larger issues were a) he is a strictly New England sort of guy and b) he was/is too timid. He allowed his military record to be bashed by a bunch of deferment kids (and I am no Kerry supporter).

On the military experience Lex, I think it is definitely a positive but can be somewhat overcome with the right people around you or the right education/perspective. The Bush administration is a prime example: Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld lacked any real military experience OR education and seemed to have a very naive view of conflict. Seriously, it's like they thought taking Baghdad would be the end of things. Contrast their views/approaches with that of Colin Powell or, later, Patraeus and the difference is stark. The latter understand raw power only goes so far and that, in many cases, it's what you can do after a show of force that matters. Again the Ike anomaly arises: he was there for the coordination of a global military/economic/political effort AND for the rebuilding. Petraeus seems a bright guy, but commander in chief is only one aspect of the job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top