You guys gonna slam him now?

[TexasTiger 13,556]

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/david-petraeus-u-s-cant-be-air-force-iraqs-militias-n135311

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I don't know. He's putting forth some ideas for deep thinkers. 'Muricans prefer easy solutions....bomb something.

[autigeremt 6,970]

That's his opinion and I'd trust it more than others. I guess it's time to totally disengage from the middle east and become a Republic again????

[Weegle777 78]

His opinion I respect because he has been there and is highly decorated. These are the type people that should be running our country. Military leaders.

[autigeremt 6,970]

His opinion I respect because he has been there and is highly decorated. These are the type people that should be running our country. Military leaders.

Some of them....not a lot of Ikes around these days.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

His opinion I respect because he has been there and is highly decorated. These are the type people that should be running our country. Military leaders.

Being a military leader is only one narrow aspect of being the type of overall leader required of a president. autigeremt is right...they aren't all cut out for that kind of power. Dwight Eisenhowers don't grow on trees.

[Strychnine 1,804]

That's his opinion and I'd trust it more than others. I guess it's time to totally disengage from the middle east and become a Republic again????

Indeed. Considering that the majority of oil we import from the Middle East comes from Saudi Arabia, I think it is overdue. Canada is our largest source of imported oil. We could likely do without Middle East oil at all if it were necessary. No one has effectively used bullets and bombs to get the point across in the region, so let us make our point with dollars. I also think the region would begin to change rapidly if the rest of the world followed suit in that regard. Let the stream of oil money stop coming in to places like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, and I bet you soon see a crackdown on violent extremists. Of course, that is extraordinarily unlikely to happen, but it's probably the only way for outsiders to effectively accomplish anything there.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Stry......I agree. And when folks see the price of gas go sky high in the near term as the militants take control of Iraq's oil refinery, maybe we will take on our own militants (environmentalist extremists) and get on with the Keystone Pipeline.

[Weegle777 78]

His opinion I respect because he has been there and is highly decorated. These are the type people that should be running our country. Military leaders.

Being a military leader is only one narrow aspect of being the type of overall leader required of a president. autigeremt is right...they aren't all cut out for that kind of power. Dwight Eisenhowers don't grow on trees.

Let me rephrase, since you guys didn't understand what I meant. People that are in the office of Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces, in my opinion, should be those that have served in the military.

[homersapien 11,812]

His opinion I respect because he has been there and is highly decorated. These are the type people that should be running our country. Military leaders.

Being a military leader is only one narrow aspect of being the type of overall leader required of a president. autigeremt is right...they aren't all cut out for that kind of power. Dwight Eisenhowers don't grow on trees.

Let me rephrase, since you guys didn't understand what I meant. People that are in the office of Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces, in my opinion, should be those that have served in the military.

That sort of rubs against the concept of civilian control of the military.

[Tigermike 3,425]

His opinion I respect because he has been there and is highly decorated. These are the type people that should be running our country. Military leaders.

Being a military leader is only one narrow aspect of being the type of overall leader required of a president. autigeremt is right...they aren't all cut out for that kind of power. Dwight Eisenhowers don't grow on trees.

Let me rephrase, since you guys didn't understand what I meant. People that are in the office of Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces, in my opinion, should be those that have served in the military.

That sort of rubs against the concept of civilian control of the military.

No it doesn't.

[Tigermike 3,425]

His opinion I respect because he has been there and is highly decorated. These are the type people that should be running our country. Military leaders.

Being a military leader is only one narrow aspect of being the type of overall leader required of a president. autigeremt is right...they aren't all cut out for that kind of power. Dwight Eisenhowers don't grow on trees.

Let me rephrase, since you guys didn't understand what I meant. People that are in the office of Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces, in my opinion, should be those that have served in the military.

I don't think that should be a requirement. But you did say it was your opinion didn't you.

[alexava 6,974]

I want a strategist. I guess military experience can't hurt unless you have a John McCain who always wants to go to war and it don't seem to matter who or why.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

His opinion I respect because he has been there and is highly decorated. These are the type people that should be running our country. Military leaders.

Being a military leader is only one narrow aspect of being the type of overall leader required of a president. autigeremt is right...they aren't all cut out for that kind of power. Dwight Eisenhowers don't grow on trees.

Let me rephrase, since you guys didn't understand what I meant. People that are in the office of Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces, in my opinion, should be those that have served in the military.

In the past, I would have agreed with the concept. However, not because of military experience but, because at one time, I believe our military leaders served a higher calling than politicians, lawyers, or bureaucrats. I believe that our military leaders were more dedicated to public service and, many did in fact stand on higher ground, ethically, and in principle. Today, I believe we have military leadership that is just as driven by politics and bureaucracy as the rest of the government (this is a generalization intended to mean most, not all).

I truly believe we don't need military leaders, liberal leaders, or conservative leadership. What we need are leaders who will more likely to compromise their ideology and, less likely to compromise themselves ethically. All of the talent, force of will, and ambition are worthless if a person is lacking ethically. In fact, that type of individual is probably more of a force for destruction than progress.

[autigeremt 6,970]

His opinion I respect because he has been there and is highly decorated. These are the type people that should be running our country. Military leaders.

Being a military leader is only one narrow aspect of being the type of overall leader required of a president. autigeremt is right...they aren't all cut out for that kind of power. Dwight Eisenhowers don't grow on trees.

Let me rephrase, since you guys didn't understand what I meant. People that are in the office of Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces, in my opinion, should be those that have served in the military.

In the past, I would have agreed with the concept. However, not because of military experience but, because at one time, I believe our military leaders served a higher calling than politicians, lawyers, or bureaucrats. I believe that our military leaders were more dedicated to public service and, many did in fact stand on higher ground, ethically, and in principle. Today, I believe we have military leadership that is just as driven by politics and bureaucracy as the rest of the government (this is a generalization intended to mean most, not all).

I truly believe we don't need military leaders, liberal leaders, or conservative leadership. What we need are leaders who will more likely to compromise their ideology and, less likely to compromise themselves ethically. All of the talent, force of will, and ambition are worthless if a person is lacking ethically. In fact, that type of individual is probably more of a force for destruction than progress.

Good take. I'm all for a man or woman with military roots being in a leadership role but only if he/she knows the difference between civilian leadership and military command and control. It's great background to have a service attachment but we've all seen enough of the military industrial complex over the last half century.

[AUFAN78 4,060]

His opinion I respect because he has been there and is highly decorated. These are the type people that should be running our country. Military leaders.

Being a military leader is only one narrow aspect of being the type of overall leader required of a president. autigeremt is right...they aren't all cut out for that kind of power. Dwight Eisenhowers don't grow on trees.

Let me rephrase, since you guys didn't understand what I meant. People that are in the office of Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces, in my opinion, should be those that have served in the military.

In the past, I would have agreed with the concept. However, not because of military experience but, because at one time, I believe our military leaders served a higher calling than politicians, lawyers, or bureaucrats. I believe that our military leaders were more dedicated to public service and, many did in fact stand on higher ground, ethically, and in principle. Today, I believe we have military leadership that is just as driven by politics and bureaucracy as the rest of the government (this is a generalization intended to mean most, not all).

I truly believe we don't need military leaders, liberal leaders, or conservative leadership. What we need are leaders who will more likely to compromise their ideology and, less likely to compromise themselves ethically. All of the talent, force of will, and ambition are worthless if a person is lacking ethically. In fact, that type of individual is probably more of a force for destruction than progress.

I agree and it is why I would use caution regarding the David Petraeus interview. BTW, I hope I am wrong.

[quietfan 233]

His opinion I respect because he has been there and is highly decorated. These are the type people that should be running our country. Military leaders.

Being a military leader is only one narrow aspect of being the type of overall leader required of a president. autigeremt is right...they aren't all cut out for that kind of power. Dwight Eisenhowers don't grow on trees.

Let me rephrase, since you guys didn't understand what I meant. People that are in the office of Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces, in my opinion, should be those that have served in the military.

Right...because who would want the likes of John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Woodrow Wilson, or Franklin Roosevelt as President?

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. The Founding Fathers, of course, were of a different opinion since they did not make military service a requirement for the office when they wrote the Constitution. However, while I wouldn't make it a requirement, I do acknowledge that military service could be an asset. And while I get your point--even accept it as a reasonable argument--an argument could also be made for forbidding military leaders in the Oval Office because of the threat of a military coup or dictatorship.

There are pros and cons to both sides of the debate.

Two of my favorite presidents were the Roosevelt cousins--one was a war hero and one never served. Two others I like were Woodrow Wilson and Dwight Eisenhower, again one with no military service and one with a distinguished military career.

Gen. George Washington was, of course, one of our greatest presidents. Gen. Ulysses Grant's administration, on the other hand, was considered pretty much a disaster. Some consider Gen. Andrew Jackson one of the great presidents, others consider his "Kitchen Cabinet" administration one of the most corrupt. John Kennedy was a WWII hero, but many conservatives despise him. George H. W. Bush was a WWII hero, but many liberals despise him. Thomas Jefferson's, Abraham Lincoln's, and Ronald Reagan's brief military experiences were pretty much a non-factor in their political careers & presidencies. Jimmy Carter served in the Navy, but many think his term in office was a disaster. Bill Clinton had no military service--and while some hate him, others argue that his tenure in the office was one of the best. Abraham Lincoln served, FDR didn't: A case could be argued that both were impeachable for violating the Constitution during their presidencies (both invoked wartime powers of questionable constitutionality), yet they are two of only four presidents to have earned memorials on the National Mall.

In 2008, Republicans ran a war hero (John McCain) for the office and lost, in 2012 they ran someone with no military background (Mitt Romney) and lost. In 1980, Democrats ran a veteran (Jimmy Carter) and lost, in 1984 they ran someone who had never served (Walter Mondale) and lost.

Given these examples, it's hard to argue that military service is necessarily a predictor of Presidential/Commander-in-Chief competence.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

His opinion I respect because he has been there and is highly decorated. These are the type people that should be running our country. Military leaders.

Being a military leader is only one narrow aspect of being the type of overall leader required of a president. autigeremt is right...they aren't all cut out for that kind of power. Dwight Eisenhowers don't grow on trees.

Let me rephrase, since you guys didn't understand what I meant. People that are in the office of Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces, in my opinion, should be those that have served in the military.

In the past, I would have agreed with the concept. However, not because of military experience but, because at one time, I believe our military leaders served a higher calling than politicians, lawyers, or bureaucrats. I believe that our military leaders were more dedicated to public service and, many did in fact stand on higher ground, ethically, and in principle. Today, I believe we have military leadership that is just as driven by politics and bureaucracy as the rest of the government (this is a generalization intended to mean most, not all).

I truly believe we don't need military leaders, liberal leaders, or conservative leadership. What we need are leaders who will more likely to compromise their ideology and, less likely to compromise themselves ethically. All of the talent, force of will, and ambition are worthless if a person is lacking ethically. In fact, that type of individual is probably more of a force for destruction than progress.

I agree and it is why I would use caution regarding the David Petraeus interview. BTW, I hope I am wrong.

Wouldn't it be interesting to have a private conversation with Gen. Petraeus, Adm. Fallon, and Sec. Gates.

[Weegle777 78]

His opinion I respect because he has been there and is highly decorated. These are the type people that should be running our country. Military leaders.

Being a military leader is only one narrow aspect of being the type of overall leader required of a president. autigeremt is right...they aren't all cut out for that kind of power. Dwight Eisenhowers don't grow on trees.

Let me rephrase, since you guys didn't understand what I meant. People that are in the office of Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces, in my opinion, should be those that have served in the military.

In the past, I would have agreed with the concept. However, not because of military experience but, because at one time, I believe our military leaders served a higher calling than politicians, lawyers, or bureaucrats. I believe that our military leaders were more dedicated to public service and, many did in fact stand on higher ground, ethically, and in principle. Today, I believe we have military leadership that is just as driven by politics and bureaucracy as the rest of the government (this is a generalization intended to mean most, not all).

I truly believe we don't need military leaders, liberal leaders, or conservative leadership. What we need are leaders who will more likely to compromise their ideology and, less likely to compromise themselves ethically. All of the talent, force of will, and ambition are worthless if a person is lacking ethically. In fact, that type of individual is probably more of a force for destruction than progress.

Very nice post. Well said.

[Weegle777 78]

His opinion I respect because he has been there and is highly decorated. These are the type people that should be running our country. Military leaders.

Being a military leader is only one narrow aspect of being the type of overall leader required of a president. autigeremt is right...they aren't all cut out for that kind of power. Dwight Eisenhowers don't grow on trees.

Let me rephrase, since you guys didn't understand what I meant. People that are in the office of Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces, in my opinion, should be those that have served in the military.

Right...because who would want the likes of John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Woodrow Wilson, or Franklin Roosevelt as President?

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. The Founding Fathers, of course, were of a different opinion since they did not make military service a requirement for the office when they wrote the Constitution. However, while I wouldn't make it a requirement, I do acknowledge that military service could be an asset. And while I get your point--even accept it as a reasonable argument--an argument could also be made for forbidding military leaders in the Oval Office because of the threat of a military coup or dictatorship.

There are pros and cons to both sides of the debate.

Two of my favorite presidents were the Roosevelt cousins--one was a war hero and one never served. Two others I like were Woodrow Wilson and Dwight Eisenhower, again one with no military service and one with a distinguished military career.

Gen. George Washington was, of course, one of our greatest presidents. Gen. Ulysses Grant's administration, on the other hand, was considered pretty much a disaster. Some consider Gen. Andrew Jackson one of the great presidents, others consider his "Kitchen Cabinet" administration one of the most corrupt. John Kennedy was a WWII hero, but many conservatives despise him. George H. W. Bush was a WWII hero, but many liberals despise him. Thomas Jefferson's, Abraham Lincoln's, and Ronald Reagan's brief military experiences were pretty much a non-factor in their political careers & presidencies. Jimmy Carter served in the Navy, but many think his term in office was a disaster. Bill Clinton had no military service--and while some hate him, others argue that his tenure in the office was one of the best. Abraham Lincoln served, FDR didn't: A case could be argued that both were impeachable for violating the Constitution during their presidencies (both invoked wartime powers of questionable constitutionality), yet they are two of only four presidents to have earned memorials on the National Mall.

In 2008, Republicans ran a war hero (John McCain) for the office and lost, in 2012 they ran someone with no military background (Mitt Romney) and lost. In 1980, Democrats ran a veteran (Jimmy Carter) and lost, in 1984 they ran someone who had never served (Walter Mondale) and lost.

Given these examples, it's hard to argue that military service is necessarily a predictor of Presidential/Commander-in-Chief competence.

Another good post.

[AURaptor 1,137]

This reminds me of when Saddam ( after Gulf War 1.0 ) hoodwinked us ( Colin Powell ) into allowing Iraq to use helicopters for " humanitarians reasons ", though we still had a no fly zone for fixed wing aircraft.

So the Iraqis used helicopter gunships to put down the insurgents that tried to rise up and take him out.

FF to today, where we're having to say that we WON'T be their Air Force.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Who is going to hold their breath waiting for Iraq to form a non-sectarian govt? These people have been at this religious war for 1400 years.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

Who is going to hold their breath waiting for Iraq to form a non-sectarian govt? These people have been at this religious war for 1400 years.

Yaboy Georgie said they were ready for democracy!

[homersapien 11,812]

His opinion I respect because he has been there and is highly decorated. These are the type people that should be running our country. Military leaders.

Being a military leader is only one narrow aspect of being the type of overall leader required of a president. autigeremt is right...they aren't all cut out for that kind of power. Dwight Eisenhowers don't grow on trees.

Let me rephrase, since you guys didn't understand what I meant. People that are in the office of Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces, in my opinion, should be those that have served in the military.

In the past, I would have agreed with the concept. However, not because of military experience but, because at one time, I believe our military leaders served a higher calling than politicians, lawyers, or bureaucrats. I believe that our military leaders were more dedicated to public service and, many did in fact stand on higher ground, ethically, and in principle. Today, I believe we have military leadership that is just as driven by politics and bureaucracy as the rest of the government (this is a generalization intended to mean most, not all).

I truly believe we don't need military leaders, liberal leaders, or conservative leadership. What we need are leaders who will more likely to compromise their ideology and, less likely to compromise themselves ethically. All of the talent, force of will, and ambition are worthless if a person is lacking ethically. In fact, that type of individual is probably more of a force for destruction than progress.

Good take. I'm all for a man or woman with military roots being in a leadership role but only if he/she knows the difference between civilian leadership and military command and control. It's great background to have a service attachment but we've all seen enough of the military industrial complex over the last half century.

That's exactly the point I was making. To "demand" the POTUS have a military background increases the possibility of a having a pro military/industrial complex president, Eisenhower not withstanding.

[cooltigger21 0]

At this stage of things there are no good options available. I respect Petraeus and I respect his opinion. Walking away is not going to make the peoblem go away. We had the situation in hand and then Obama decided to just pull up stakes and leave them on their own. Maybe going there was not the right move. Once there however, you don't leave until you have a stable government capable of handling things. Letting Iran in on things is putting the fox in to guard the henhouse.