Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
What was the point of having confirmation hearings and taking a vote?
|
Perhaps the point is something as mundane and trivial as the Senate's advise and consent responsibilities under the Constitution.
Where is the hypocrisy in performing the confirmation function on Petreaus and also expressing personal opposition and the sentiment of the majority of one's constituents on a policy of the confirmed persons superior?
Quote:
|
we have the Senate who apporves Patraeus but then plan on sending a resolution to the enemy (oops to the Presidnet) stating that they don't support the plan. I know I am kinda slow, so can some one explain this to me? Can someone tell me why this is not political grandstanding while our military is at risk?
|
We have a DoD posting online last month its recently developed counterinsurgency manual (
background with link to manual) of which Petreaus was the principal contributor.
In the manual's foreword, Lt. Generals David Petreaus and James Amos write in part, "With our Soldiers and Marines fighting insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is essential that we give them a manual that provides principles and guidelines for counterinsurgency operations."
How would a U.S. soldier or Marine now in Iraq or Afghanistan feel knowing the hot-off-the-presses counterinsurgency manual is available to the "bad guys" at the same time it is available to the "good guys"?
(I could be as cynical as you and suggest that posting it online was "political grandstanding" to show how much "progress" we are making in fighting the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq?. Why else would it be posted? So field commanders and ground forces can download it in the desert? Cant we keep it off the net and have military transport planes deliver pocket-size edtions or fedex it?)
Which of the two potentially places our military more at risk - a statement of political opposition to a policy or sharing general counterinsurgency doctrine with terrorists and insurgents.