I wonder if ever in the history of the USA there has been such statements by retired military leaders about an acting President? I doubt it highly, but if any of you US history buffs know otherwise, let me know.
The President vetoed our troops and the American people. His stubborn commitment to a failed strategy in Iraq is incomprehensible. He committed our great military to a failed strategy in violation of basic principles of war. His failure to mobilize the nation to defeat world wide Islamic extremism is tragic. We deserve more from our commander-in-chief and his administration.
-Maj. Gen. John Batiste, USA, Ret.
This administration and the previously Republican controlled legislature have been the most caustic agents against America’s Armed Forces in memory. Less than a year ago, the Republicans imposed great hardship on the Army and Marine Corps by their failure to pass a necessary funding language. This time, the President of the United States is holding our Soldiers hostage to his ego. More than ever apparent, only the Army and the Marine Corps are at war – alone, without their President’s support.
-Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, USA, Ret.
Could the Republican revolt be underway? Could Bush be forced out by the Right? I wonder if these fellows read this? Though note these guys are both coming, more or less, from a “more troops, more war” point of view; but still, that’s the point: Bush could never have gotten enough support from the American public to wage this war if it actually meant anything to everyday lives (ie, the draft); and the US military could not have prosecuted this war successfully without, several hundreds of thousands of troops (so said Gen. Shinseki, among others). That would have meant: draft.
Whether double, triple or quadruple the troops would have really made the difference is another matter; but it seems as if, whatever the thoughts there, more high-level military people are speaking up.
(UPDATE: Batiste apparently consults with Hillary Clinton … don’t know about Eaton, and not surprisingly, both have been long-time critics of the prosecution of the war. Not sure what they thought of the invasion itself).