Who knows more how to conduct a war a general or community organizer?

You're right.

Somehow , people in this country have forgotten or just don't know the chain of command under our constitution. The generals by design are not the ones that should be making these decisions.The military have constant input but the President and the Congress are the ones that make the call. There is a need for the generals but there is only one reason for them and that is to fight wars. They will always choose war over peace because this is what they do! ....As a mater of fact the only problem with the pull out of Nam was that we were to slow doing so! Although there has not been the loss of life in these current wars they are just as wrong and in terms of cost they are off the board. We need to get the hell out of the entire middle east NOW! Civilian leadership is by far a better way to operate. Had we listened to our generals we would still be fighting the second world war! What many have completely lost track of is that the generals work for us and not the other way around. ....

No. The military should NOT have the final say on whether a war should end. Once we allow them to do that, then we open the door to tell us when they can start one. That is the point of having a Commander in Chief. The buck stops there, no exceptions. Whether or not it's the right decision to do so is something that can be debated, however, to say or infer the President of the United States cannot pull out forces is absolutely ridiculous. May as well hand the country over to the military if you feel as though they should make any & all military decisions. While your at it, hand them the Constitution so they can piss on it & burn it.

The obvious answer is a General. With saying that, you didn't ask if this is a War that should have been fought to begin with or if the original mission goals (assigned by GW Bush) was one that was realistic.

Bin Laden & Al-Queda, both of which have been eliminated from Afghanistan, were our first priorities. That is the whole pretext of our invasion of Afghanistan. The Taliban, leaders of Afghanistan, wasn't involved in 9/11. They simply tried to get in our way when we told them to hand of Bin Laden & Al-Queda.

Dragging on a conflict in which the primary mission has been achieved is pretty f--king stupid (IMO). This is especially true since we are dealing with a culture / society that is so fundamentlist it would take 30+ years before we saw any head way (something the Russians learned the hard way). IMO, dropping $100 Billion a year & spinning our wheels for 30+ years isn't a good National policy.

Edit: "The way to win a war is not by killing everybody on the other side, It is by getting everybody on the other side to give up."

But the most effective way to get everybody on the other side to give up is to prove to them you have the capacity and will power to destroy them and their future offspring (and there is no hope for victory). Think Japan.

Total War has always be far superior to actually resolving military conflicts. The "surgical strikes" and lets not target civilians etc. has failed us time and time again. Conflicts drag on, our soldiers die for no reason etc. Of course that only works when we are involved in a conflict whereby we are at war with the whole Nation. When we try to get in the middle of a civil war or change a countries culture, we screw ourselves by limiting our military options.

Don't get me wrong, I think U.S. Troops should all be returned home (including the ones in Europe & Asia). However, when politicians decide to use the military..it should be a formal declaration of war and we should bluntly tell the military "Do what you need to do to finish it."

How many Presidents were generals before they were Presidents????

Yah that's right it's only 12....

however

John Adams

John Quincy Adams

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Warren G. Harding

Calvin Coolidge

Herbert Hoover

Martin Van Buren

Bill Clinton

Barack Obama

didn't serve in the military at all.

while presidents like

Abraham Lincoln & Ronald Reagan

was enlisted but never saw combat.

After a particularly costly victory. Abraham Lincoln once said "When all of the experts agree they very well could be wrong." There was also something like a couple of more victories like that and we will lose the war.

Generals focus on winning battles but actually winning a war is usually a political process. The way to win a war is not by killing everybody on the other side, It is by getting everybody on the other side to give up.

Obama, purely like countless president there has ever been, has a team of militia advisors. And he did have 30,000 extra troops to make the finished just about one hundred,000 and just about $30 billion to spend in Afghanistan and what does he could teach for consequences? And in case you listened to Obama on the instant he pronounced not something undesirable related to the overall performance of McChrystal. yet it quite is the third time McChrystal has shown habit unbecoming an officer, insubordination, and straightforward undesirable person-friendly sense. each and every militia man or woman alive knows in case you have a criticism you persist with the chain of command, you persist with militia protocol. - McChrystal became attentive to the subject concerns with the Pat Tillman loss of existence. He suspected friendly hearth and pronounced not something. some say he lined it up. - McChrystal in a press convention in Germany publicly criticize his commanding officer (the president). - And McChrystal cricitizes Obama and the militia joint command team interior the Rolling Stone article McChrystal mandatory to pass.

Depends on the type of war.

If it is a war on banks, based on equality, then the community organizer does that best.

Otherwise Generals usually "do war" the best.

This is not an important , nor logical question for me. It is childish, the real question is why in the hell are we there to begin with.Our Country needs that money here, for our own rebuilding.

A General.

Remember, Hitler thought he was a military genius also.