by Steve Painter
Daily Lobo columnist
On Jan. 10, President Bush announced his new strategy for the war in Iraq. His plan calls for more troops in the area. Unfortunately, the use of more troops will have little effect on the war. Only more bodies will be added to the death toll. Instead of adding more troops, Bush should find more competent leaders for the forces already
in Iraq.
Bush knows little about war. It has been well-documented that he did not fight in the Vietnam War and has no experience in armed conflict. In fact, the majority of people in Congress have no experience in war. Instead, they are professional politicians who know how to get elected. So why are these people running the war
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
in Iraq?
Politicians are not expected to win wars. The generals are expected to win them.
A well-known and competent general has been leading U.S. forces in every major war this country has been involved in. Even the Vietnam War produced a notable general in William Westmoreland.
The history of America is made by generals. Several have become presidents after their military days were over. George Washington was the first and greatest example of this. Today, nothing says America more than George Washington. Andrew Jackson fought in the War of 1812 and ended up in the White House and on the $20 bill. Later, another future president, Zachary Taylor, would lead U.S. troops against Mexico in the Mexican-American war.
The Civil War - a war in which leadership largely determined the outcome - produced numerous well-known generals.
World War II was also won in large part because of the leadership of generals. In Europe, there was Gen. George S. Patton. In the Pacific, there was Gen. Douglas MacArthur. MacArthur would also lead American troops during the Korean War. Presiding over the European campaign was future president Dwight D.
Eisenhower.
Flash forward to now. Ever since the Vietnam War, no American general has captivated the American public. The 2003 attack of Iraq was led by Gen. Tommy Franks, who stepped down later that year. Can anybody name who took his place?
The Iraq war is being led by a bunch of no-names, none of whom are sufficiently strong leaders. The job of a general in war is to lead the troops to victory. Nobody in Iraq has the guts to step up.
The U.S. needs a skilled general in the field to end the war in Iraq. We can pour as many troops into Iraq as the Bush administration wants, but without strong leadership, the troops have no chance. If the U.S. is supposed to have the best technology and army in the world, then why can't we squash insurgent resistance, and why are we failing miserably in training Iraq's new army?
