Let me quote President Bush (then candidate Bush):
“[There was a question about] deployment. It must be in the national interests. It must be in our vital interest whether we ever send troops. The mission must be clear. Soldiers must understand why we’re going. The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well-defined.”

You say that:
“There are consequences associated with losing a war and I do not believe President Bush entered Afghanistan and Iraq with any intent other than victory”

I am absolutely sure that you are right on this. But good intentions alone don’t make much difference, do they? To achieve “victory”, it needs to be defined, and the way to achieve it needs to be clear. To put it diferently, there has to be a point where the war is over and we won. Victory is not perpetual war, or hasty withdrawal, it is the ability to claim the battlefield by defeating the enemy.

The fact that we’re still in essentially the same fight we were in 1, 2 or 3 years ago, shows that the plans have failed. You can’t blame that on the Democrats, since Republicans were in charge of both Congress and Presidency during most of that time. I find this a compelling argument in favour of incompetent leadership. The alternative is to blame the military, which I think would be unfair, or to point at completely unexpected developments, of which there were none.

“That being the case – an “exit strategy” is incumbent upon Congress, not the president.”

It never is. The US military has more than enough funds to pursue the war, even if the supplementary spending would not materialize. To pare down the defense budget to the point where the army would not be able to fight on in Iraq is simply not possible.

The American people are concerned that there has not been any progress towards victory for years. Congress has tried to make clear to the President that this is a real concern. But it has become abundantly clear that Congress is no longer a counterweight to the power of the Presidency. This has been proven amply by both Newt and Nancy. The balance of power between the branches is gone.

“From my perspective (which includes talking to “high-ranking” as well as not-so-high-ranking military personnel) the overwhelming opinion is that Iraq is winnable if given enough time.”

With enough time and enough people, I believe that the war is winnable too. I’ve discussed this before. With troop levels in the neighbourhood of Shinseki’s estimate (200,000 or more) and a binding long-term commitment (at least 5, more likely 10 years) AT THAT LEVEL of troop strength, I think that the US could still win. It would be enough time to scratch the Iraqi government, impose a fair, moderately federal constitution, help establish non-sectarian parties and have real elections (in a few years).

“What a legacy that would be for the American people.”

I agree. Another Vietnam, but this time with more serious geopolitical consequences. Bush was given YEARS to get some kind of progress, and he was not able to come up with anything. The legacy will be Bush’s, just as in the UK, it is Blair’s.

“There are many legitimate reasons for Bush to want a “war czar.””

Name one. If it is not possible for the US President to act as the commander in chief, then perhaps he should not be allowed to. However, other presidents have been able to fulfill this constitutional requirement quite well. One can only conclude that Bush wants to have a more capable person as commander in chief, or that he wants someone he can fire when things go wrong.

For each disgruntled “high-ranking” military person that is against the war, there are others who believe the war is just and is winnable. Varying opinions… who is right? From my perspective (which includes talking to “high-ranking” as well as not-so-high-ranking military personnel) the overwhelming opinion is that Iraq is winnable if given enough time. If a time limit of a year (plus or minus) is imposed, then most feel Iraq will probably explode as we depart. What a legacy that would be for the American people.

There are many legitimate reasons for Bush to want a “war czar.” Other presidents haven’t used such an office (perhaps because they never thought of it), but that does not mean that Bush has lost confidence in himself. As the CINC he still makes the final decisions.

I do not believe you have made a case to claim Bush is incompetent.

First is the fact that, despite overwhelming military superiority, the fighting continues with no real improvement in sight. There is no clear exit strategy at this point, and that is worrisome. You can blame the army, or you can blame the leadership. But you can’t say that anything unexpected has happened in the Iraqi war.

Second is that several high-ranking military personnel has spoken out against his decisions.

Third is the fact that Bush himself has lost confidence in his ability to run the war. Why else does he needs a war czar?

”And as for the war on terror - what we have is a long and difficult fight turned into an impossible one by Bush’s incompetance.”

To me, that is a an extremely strong statement; one I do not perceive you as being qualified to make; but I may be mistaken – that’s why I asked questions… not to blow you off or “disqualify” your comment as Forrest postulates – but to try to understand your substantiation.

{Again] to me, declaring the president’s war decisions as “incompetent” is a very serious allegation. It ranks along side ‘dereliction of duty.’ It also begs some sort of credential or experience for substantiation. You are certainly welcome to your opinion and you are certainly welcome to others’ opinions, and you are certainly welcomed to express either (or both); however, when you base such a statement upon your opinion or someone else’s opinion it seems appropriate to make that identification.

Very few people are sworn into the presidency with experience running a war from the executive level. Clinton loathed the military and was absolutely clueless about the military, yet he made decisions as the CINC that involved deployment of our armed forces. Were they the right decisions? History isn’t finished analyzing them yet.

In this comment stream, if you perceived me as trying to put you over a barrel, or set you up for some sort of take-down; then I offer my apology – that was not my intent. Hopefully, my explanation makes that clear.

She walks around a Baghdad neighborhood with U.S. and Iraqi Soldiers.

She stops to have tea with Iraqi civilians.

It’s very interesting video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh6xKXUCYzM

If you want me to give you a list of his mistakes - I can do that - but even providing such a list at some point requires referencing the work of others (so - what - I have to work for the CIA now to comment on this website?). Moreover, you specifically asked about my credential - not for an explanation on what I think he did wrong.

jernigan, I could care less about what MG Batiste or LTG Newbold or any “overwhelming list” thinks; I want to know your basis for…

You’re asking someone to explain how they are believe themselves qualified to make judgements on a single issue. I can only assume that if his answer does not meet your satisfaction, you’ll blow it off as uninformed and thus irrelevant. Perhaps you could give a different reason for asking this question?

If it turns out I’m correct, you can expect me to ask the same question of you on issues that you comment on from here out.

If it turns out I’m wrong, you have my apology. But you’ll really be the only who knows why you -really- asked the question to begin with.