DAS Blog

Lessee if I have this right: the Army now "officially" blames its commanders for the disastrous lack of military follow up in Iraq post-invasion. But suddenly we forget that GW "Commander Guy" Bush has this horrible habit of making sure the only commanders that survive are those which tow the line he wants towed (that way he can disingenusouly claim he always follows what his commanders say?). Doesn't that mean that no matter what a commander felt post-invasion, there would have been a declared "Mission Accomplished" and inadaquate resources to deal with the insurgency, 'cause any commander who said otherwise would have found himself out of a job?

Come-'on media -- let's have less "the Army is so wonderful its self-criticism: maybe if Gen. Franks were more like Gen. Patreus, everything would be different in Iraq" and more examination of what the actual political situation was at the time? Does the name Shinseki ring any bells to the media?