Some folks are goofy. I thought a suggestion that a war should be fought with the best military plans and strategies in place in order to achieve the goals at a minimal cost in American lives would be non-controversial.

There are a significant number of folks who disagree.

On a national level, there are people who think a political atmosphere which inhibits his advisors from giving the Commander-in-Chief accurate information might lead to serious problems with military operations, leading to needless deaths, maybe mission failure.

NBC: Doubts on Iraq plan kept quiet

A historical example of that is Hitler, a commander-in-chief who sometimes killed the messenger who delivered bad news. Partly as the result of the military being afraid to present him with the real situation rather than what he wanted to hear, Hitler unnecessarily lost hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of German soldiers. These were well trained, well equipped people with parents, wives, children who could have remained useful had their commander-in-chief had the information he needed rather than being told what he wanted to hear. That can be a fatal flaw in leadership. Might want to learn from history. Some folks object to that.

Well, maybe the military is getting through. Given the realities, American lives may be saved and the mission may be effective.

And on this board there seem to be those who will be disappointed.

Iraq invasion put on hold

(Boy, I’ll regret being this snotty. It’s just hard to believe people would want to start a war without the best info the military could provide.)

Arf