Why is president Bush seeking an "overseer" for the Iraq and Afghan wars? Why have three generals declined?

Question

I read this today on Yahoo- one general (former Marine) said "They don't know where they're going in Iraq. Why go there to get an ulcer and then leave". The other two would not comment. 

One of the roles would be to "issue commands" to the pentagon. That's what Rumsfeld was doing. Isn't that what Gates should be doing? 

And what about Mr. Bush being the "decider" himself? Why is he taking his hand off the wheel now? Is he distancing himself or seeking help? Doesn't he have enough help?

No Comprende

conventional · Accepted Answer

Having a overseer for the Iraq Afghan wars is perfectly acceptable.  The overseer will most likely communicate the information to Bush so he can make a well informed decision... (now whether this is well informed with correct or incorrect information is another topic).  Anyhow, the president cannot be expected to spend all his time on the war, he has many other pressing issues.

However, to note that three generals have already declined seems to show how futile this endeavor is.  These generals aren't stupid and realize a bad career move when they see one.

John B · Answer

Give the Pres a break. With all the Generals quitting, there are no more scapegoats left. He needs to find more.

Anonymous · Answer

I thought overseeing the war was Bush's job as commander in chief. I guess things aren't going so well, so he doesn't want to be the "decider" anymore.

Anonymous · Answer

HE is beginning to see the truth . 
Someone stuck a foot in his butt which dislodged his head from the sand .

voice0f_reason · Answer

Your worrying too much about what our pathetic, worthless president is doing.

Alan S · Answer

these generals aren't stupid, they recognize a scapegoat position when they see it.

Trending News

Why is president Bush seeking an "overseer" for the Iraq and Afghan wars? Why have three generals declined?

6 Answers