What qualifications does Bush have that make him a better strategist than Generals in the military?

Ideally a president will let the professional military decide how to carry out a mission. But as CinC of the armed forces, he is, in our republic, a representative of the people of the United States who elected him, and he is a civilian.

This is a way better system than the kind of thing we have seen in Argentina where military generals ran the country. But the problem with a fool like Bush is that while he commands the military by virtue of his status, he does not command the respect of the American people.

So the will of the people of the United States has no expression except through Congress. Most Congressmen are too chicken to take a clear stand against him.

At his point in his career, the Decider should decide to retire early. If only we had a parliamentary system we could get rid of him by a "no confidence" motion and bring about an immediate election. But we don't so we are stuck. The system is not working.

Our votes and the Constitution of the united states. But until we elect generals as we continue to police the world, this question will continue to be asked.

Of course we do love our separation of church and state, military and civilian. The trick is following the advice of the experts over the political correct position. We need smart politicians and diplomats to make peace in the world not war. But if it comes to war, give the generals the objective and get out of the way. Where at war' the Constitution takes a back-seat to the Geneva convention. At least as it relates to the enemy.

Sadly, there are no qualifications needed to run a war if you are the President of the United States.

Our fellow countrymen gave him the authority to lead an army, and hoped for the best. They now know that was a cowardly decision.

Our country used to look like the blind leading the blind, concerning the war in Iraq. Hopefully, congress will be able to derail any future incompetent planing, and restore the honor we once held in the world's eyes.

Is this John Kerry or Dan Rather asking?

I thought the AWOL thing was settled a long time ago when Bush put his service records on the internet.

Was anybody aware that John Kerry did not make the same disclosure because he got a bad conduct discharge from the Navy and did not want that seen in public?

FYI, as soon as the Dan Rather "documents" were put on the internet, it was obvious the "documents" were written from somebody's personal computer.

Tommy Franks takes the credit for pre-war planning, and Bush lets the generals take charge and plan on the ground.

You must understand the Air/Land Battle doctrine that the military had been training on for over 20 years. This doctrine was not used in 2003, which states that when either on offensive or defensive you must make sure your flanks are not exposed. It Iraqs case going for the capital instead of securing the borders first, this is why we are where we are at this point. This is the reason Bush has made changes, he had no choice in the matter.

None. Your premise is false: he is not being a "strategist" but, rather, listens to various opinions from the top ranking generals (e.g. first the Joint Chiefs [JC], Rumsfeld and Franks, then the JC, Rumsfeld and Abizaid, and now the JC, Gates and Petraeus).

The President, like any President, will hear various points of view and then make a decision; that decision can either be executive or delegated, where appropriate. Obviously, U.S. citizens - otherwise known as constituents - will agree with some decisions and disagree with others. And those who didn't vote shouldn't complain.

If you don't like this President's decisions, cast your vote in November, 2008. Remember to ask yourself these questions:

What military experience do I have that makes me so sure the President and/or Secretary of Defense is making a wrong decision?

Who are our enemies, what do they want, and do we stop them, negotiate with them, or appease them? If stopping them is best, how and when?

How would you improve the establishment of an independent government to become self-sufficient admidst both progress and chaos? Be sure to back up any claims and findings with facts and real-life experiences.

He's POTUS. Comes with the job. And the officers of the military wouldn't want it otherwise. Civilian control of the military is one of the most important of our institutions. And you can say he's ignoring and firing general officers, but what he's doing is listening to various opinions and picking one. It does no good to overstate your case. He may not always have chosen the wisest course, or the one I would have chosen, but it's a bit disingenuous to Monday-morning quarterback.

He was in the Military actually. The only prewar planning he dismissed was the number of troop that would be originally sent he sent less then what others thought were need.

what makes democrats in congress and liberal media watchs and makers think they know more than the generals and the president? well? dont know do you. see Robert E. Lee said it best when he said,...

“It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command our forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers! In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late.

Accordingly, I’m readily willing to yield my command to these

obviously superior intellects, and I’ll, in turn, do my best for the cause by writing editorials - after the fact.”

i dont know why you think you know more.

He has only intervened a few times. The point is WHY DO DEMOCRATS THINKS THEY AS THE HOUSE AND SENATE MAJORITY THINK THEYSHOULD BE DECIDING HOW THE WAR SHOULD BE FAUGHT, WHETHER WE HAVE WON OR LOST, OR WHETHER WE SHOULD PAY FOR MORE SUPPLIES FOR THE TROOPS. The democrats want to tie the generals hands, and they arent even teh commander in chief, they are just the checkbook!!!!