From what I understand, (and correct me if I'm wrong), the force that we currently have in Iraq was deployed to take out Saddam, not quell an insurgency. The civilian miltary leadership made this mission very clear, and general's accomplished their mission incredibly efficiently.
Now the generals are faced with a new task. Defeat an insurgency and support the development of a new democracy. As I see it the Generals will never be able to be successful in this task unless they have clearly defined goals, and are equipped for this new mission.
As I see it the civilian administration has failed horribly to define this second mission, and until it is clearly defined, the military leadership will find it impossible to succeed.
The debate right now is not about cutting and running, but it is about clearly defining the mission so that the military succeeds. A clear set of goals that are acheivable, and time bound will not only increase troop morale, but will increase support for the war on the home front.
The people of the Unitied states as well as many of the Democratic and Republican representatives in the legislature are asking the President to define what success means.
His failure to do so is dissapointing Republicans and Democrats alike accross this country.
By the way. This news just out.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The top U.S. commander in Iraq has submitted a plan to the Pentagon for withdrawing troops in Iraq, according to a senior defense official.
Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades -- usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each -- begin pulling out of Iraq early next year.
I say listen to the Generals.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/18/iraq.plan/index.html
