AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Irvine511 said:
i can agree with this.
but with the caveat that we'd have needed a different president and SecDef.
And I can agree on the SecDef....
Irvine511 said:
i can agree with this.
but with the caveat that we'd have needed a different president and SecDef.
kellyahern said:^ The most important moment of the hearing. "Is this making America safer?" "I don't know". From the general in charge. Wow.
kellyahern said:^ The most important moment of the hearing. "Is this making America safer?" "I don't know". From the general in charge. Wow.
kellyahern said:^ The most important moment of the hearing. "Is this making America safer?" "I don't know". From the general in charge. Wow.
AEON said:
It is not his job to assess the entire global climate. His mission is Iraq.
anitram said:
Surely if you believed Iraq was a threat to the US and/or harboured terrorists then you should believe that controlling the situation would at least partially increase security in the US.
AEON said:Next time - please give the FULL answer:
Petraeus: "Sir, I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multi-National Force in Iraq."
AEON said:
Assessing threats on US soil is the job of our intelligence agencies, not the commander of the forces in Iraq.
Irvine511 said:
i don't see how this changes a thing.
he's in control of the whole opereation.
AEON said:
It is not his job to assess the entire global climate. His mission is Iraq.
kellyahern said:
Then what is the point of fighting in Iraq if the general whose mission is Iraq is not sure if fighting there is making us safer? Why are we there?
AEON said:It is not the job of the soldier to understand the entire reason he or she is being sent into battle. They are given a mission. The "why are we there" question is to be answered by those that send the soldier into battle (Congress and the President)
That being said, I am quite certain this general believes that his mission in Iraq is legal and moral. However, he is unable to draw a direct parallel between his mission and the overall safety of America because that is quite frankly WELL beyond his scope of responsibilities.
You must admit - this man is not an idiot. He was 5th in his class at West Point and has a PhD from Princeton - not something to ignore. He is wise to admit that his focus is Iraq.
AEON said:
That being said, I am quite certain this general believes that his mission in Iraq is legal and moral. However, he is unable to draw a direct parallel between his mission and the overall safety of America because that is quite frankly WELL beyond his scope of responsibilities.
phillyfan26 said:
He is wise, which is why he didn't answer truthfully.
Irvine511 said:
(also, it's kind of sad to see the STING-like insistence on a 'multi-national force')
AEON said:
That is his actual title: Commander of Muti-National-Force-Iraq
deep said:Aeon is right
and if he is asked if he thinks we (the US) are safer because of the surge
he would not have the luxury of even speculating
deep said:I still believe that is something he can not speculate on
his job is to complete the tasks given him
and he can report on the status of those tasks
Irvine511 said:
hasn't the whole "lack of a big picture" been the problem here?