He May Be Commander in Chief, But George Bush Is No General

by James Glaser
June 8, 2004

Thousands of American troops, who have been thinking about their discharge date along with their families, can forget about it for now. It doesn't matter what kind of plans were made, what school accepted them, nor what their wives and children wanted. George Bush was not prepared for his War on Terrorism.

George blew off advice given by honorable American Generals, who said our Army was too small for two wars. Today those troops that had dreamed of getting out, are forced to reread that enlistment contract and learn that the President can keep them in the service as long as he wants to. That means a lifetime, for those who have already died in Iraq after getting their "Stop Loss Order."

We are starting to remove combat trained troops from South Korea to fill the void in Iraq. The troops left in Korea, know that they are less safe because of the loss of those troops.

Washington lawyers, it is now reported, have told President Bush that a Ban on Torture didn't apply to him or his war. Of course it isn't President Bush who has to do the actual torturing, no, that is left up to the troops, who will suffer the memory of that deed for the rest of their lives.

A President does not have to be a veteran to become Commander in Chief, but he should recognize his lack of knowledge and be able to take advice from those Generals who have experience. George Bush wanted to have a great military victory so badly that he decided to do it his own way. Yes, on purely military terms George can claim some sort of victory in Both Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, as each day goes by with the reports of more American troops getting killed and maimed, that victory becomes more tainted. No one knows when our nation will decide that the price we are paying in blood is too high. I think we reached that point over a year ago. But then I think Bush's wars are wrong, and the man that started them is evil.


BACK to the Politics Columns.