General Paul Eaton: “Dick Cheney and the Bush administration were incompetent war fighters.”

by Ben Hoffman

“The record is clear: Dick Cheney and the Bush administration were incompetent war fighters. They ignored Afghanistan for 7 years with a crude approach to counter-insurgency warfare best illustrated by: 1. Deny it. 2. Ignore it. 3. Bomb it. While our intelligence agencies called the region the greatest threat to America, the Bush White House under-resourced our military efforts, shifted attention to Iraq, and failed to bring to justice the masterminds of September 11.

“The only time Cheney and his cabal of foreign policy ‘experts’ have anything to say is when they feel compelled to protect this failed legacy. While President Obama is tasked with cleaning up the considerable mess they left behind, they continue to defend torture or rewrite a legacy of indifference on Afghanistan. Simply put, Mr. Cheney sees history throughout extremely myopic and partisan eyes.

“As one deeply invested in the Armed Forces of this country, I am grateful for the senior military commanders assigned to leading this fight and the men and women fighting on the ground. But I dismiss men like Cheney who inject partisan politics into the profound deliberations our Commander-in-Chief and commanders on the ground are having to develop a cohesive and comprehensive strategy, bringing to bear the economic and diplomatic as well as the military power, for Afghanistan — something Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld never did.

“No human endeavor can be as profound as sending a nation’s youth to war. I am very happy to see serious men and women working hard to get it right.”

Source

13 Comments to “General Paul Eaton: “Dick Cheney and the Bush administration were incompetent war fighters.””

  1. Hello Ben,

    General Eaton missed the most galling aspect of war mis-management: the leaders at the time cycled through commanders who were willing to ignore their education and training to follow the steps to waging a successful war as outlined by the Bush administration.

    Ring-knocking West Pointers were retired in favor of officers more in tune with Bush/Cheney. That’s bad for fighting wars and bad for the military on the ground, air, and sea.

    The guys taking the hits deserve better. Keeping an eye on the big guys gives the little guys a chance.

    David Gillaspie, pfc
    deegeesbb.wordpress.com

    • Hey David,

      I agree. They installed commanders who were in lockstep with the Bush agenda and then claimed they listened to the commanders on the ground. How convenient!

      Ben

    • David – that extended to all the civilian personnel there as well. People with very deep experience and knowledge were replaced by twenty-something campaign workers and kids of cronies. DAvid Kay, who was the ‘guy’ before Brenner tried to stop so much of this and was quickly and utterly marginized.

    • David – that extended to all the civilian personnel there as well. People with very deep experience and knowledge were replaced by twenty-something campaign workers and kids of cronies. DAvid Kay, who was the ‘guy’ before Brenner tried to stop so much of this and was quickly and utterly marginalized.

  2. Barak Obama wanted the job. Stop blaming Bush and Cheney for Afghanistan, and just make a decision. All through the campaign your guy waxed eloquently how Afghanistan was the good war. He was going to win it, he was going to get Bin Laden. He would do what ever it took for victory. He would give the generals what ever they requested to win.

    What the hell happened to Barak Fire and Brimstone? In the end he is a wimp like Jimmy Carter. In the end he does not dare anger his anti war, peace and love, street mob.

    Uh, you do remember Obama the war monger, don’t you? The guy who was tough as a candidate on our enemies. The wuuse who then gave away the eastern missile shield and got nothing for it.

    • No, you’re just setting up a strawman so you could knock it down. What Obama really said was “Afghanistan and Pakistan are the central front in the America’s war against terrorism and the deteriorating situation in the region poses a grave threat to the global security. It’s an international challenge of the highest order. That’s why we are pursuing a careful review of our policy.”

      And that’s exactly what he’s doing.

    • Ah Alan: You say
      “All through the campaign your guy waxed eloquently how Afghanistan was the good war. He was going to win it, he was going to get Bin Laden. He would do what ever it took for victory. He would give the generals what ever they requested to win.”

      Nope. Sorry. Obama said Afghanistan was something we had to do; it was the right thing to do. The rest? Get Bin Laden, do waht the generals want? Never happened.

      Eastern Missle shield – we got plenty for that. We got Russia to join in the conversation with Iran – a hell of a lot more important than protecting Poland or something.

      And one more comment Alan; Jimmy Carter was a soldier. He was career Navy. Other than George Bush 41, he’s the only pres since Kennedy to have had any military experience.

    • I really should leave this thread alone! But Alan, you compel me to keep coming back. Not to go all blog whore here, but at
      http://maureenholland.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/from-one-who-was-there/
      check out what Richard Haass, one of Bush’s top foreign policy people had to say in 2006 about the wars. If you don’t want to go all the way over, here’s something he said about Bush, as he left office:
      ” I am hard pressed to find another set of back to back presidential transitions in which so many of the basic features of the domestic and international landscapes changed so dramatically for the worse. “

  3. Alan, you do realize that a General offered his opinion on Bush and Cheney and their monumental failures here, right?

  4. wok3,

    Sure and I do not have to accept that opinion either. I was merely highlighting the contrast between Senator Obama and President Obama. Candidate Obama used the Afghan war as a weapon to bash Bush on the Iraq war.

    8/1/07 Candidate Obama said,” Our troops have fought valiantly there [Afghanistan], but Iraq has deprived them of the support they need — and deserve. … As president, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counterterrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts against the Taliban.”

    I’m not sure what 2 brigades are equivalent to , but Obama was sure a bigger hawk before becoming President. This is not the first time President Obama forgot what Senator Obama said. For that matter you don’t seem to care much about what Candidate Obama said.

    • My god Alan, do you really think a comment made over two years ago has any relevance at all to today’s situation in Afghanistan? I’m delighted he’s not following some campaign rhetoric from 2007 as we move into 2010.

  5. Moe,

    You said, “My god Alan, do you really think a comment made over two years ago has any relevance at all to today’s situation in Afghanistan? I’m delighted he’s not following some campaign rhetoric from 2007 as we move into 2010.”

    Uhh, yea!!!!! Well maybe you are right. Maybe all of the promises of how his policies on say,,, health care would bring down long term costs, will have no relevance 10 years from now when Obama- care is a trillion over budget.

    The man says things. We on the right keep telling you south paws that he does not mean what he says on anything. You have now admitted, you don’t care.

Leave a Reply to Alan Scott Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: