O'Dawdler - Failing to decide is also to decide

James Lewis
Phew! Boy, are we lucky! Our President has assured our troops in Afghanistan that he cares about their safety. Whaddaguy! That's sure different from that evil Bush.

No actually, it's not. It's much worse. Decisiveness matters. In war as in politics, timing is everything. Attack too late, and you're forced on the defensive. In Afghanistan, if the enemy knows where to find you, your troops will get blown up by roadside bombs, or they get assaulted in indefensible positions stuck with impossible rules of engagement. That's how you lose US soldiers.

Or they might get into helicopter crashes, because war zones are dangerous even with no enemy shooting.

There is a tide in the affairs of men... Miss that tide, and more people die. That's what generals are for, Mr. President. They know about choosing the best moment. It's not your pay grade. Just leave it to the generals, and don't second-guess them.

If Eisenhower had waited a week after D-Day, would the Normandy landing have been more successful? Only for those, like Messrs. Obama and Al Gore, who pretend to know the weather ahead of time, and who can "stop the riiiising of the oceans!" with the wave of their wizard wand.

If George S. Patton had dawdled when he saw the danger of the German offensive in the Ardennes even before it started, would that have saved lives? Au contraire, mon cher generale, or more likely mon armchair generale.  Had Patton decided to wait the Allies would have lost thousands of soldiers more than they did. They might have lost the war in the West right there and then. That's the whole point of "gettin' thar fustest with the mostest." In the long term, intelligent aggressiveness saves lives and wins wars.

In the case of the Civil War, it was Generals like Grant and Sherman who ended up liberating the African-American slaves. No William T. Sherman March through Georgia, no Emancipation Proclamation. And no President Obama to complain about American racism in the year 2008.

So not deciding is also deciding. That's the kicker when it comes to reality.

Or in economists' jargon, you lose on the opportunity costs.

Lose an opportunity in war and you lose lives.

I'm sorry, Mr. O. That's how it is.

That's the job you said you were qualified for, and that's what General Zinni just said:
"I think that we owe (the troops) a decision. For the life of me, I can't figure out why we're still waiting for one."

And no, keeping the Lefties happy while you're compromising on ObeeCare is not a militarily responsible reason to keep the troops vulnerable.

This is one time that BS won't cut it, Mr. O.

Do it. No decision is a bad decision.

If you want the right answer, call Dick Cheney.
Phew! Boy, are we lucky! Our President has assured our troops in Afghanistan that he cares about their safety. Whaddaguy! That's sure different from that evil Bush.

No actually, it's not. It's much worse. Decisiveness matters. In war as in politics, timing is everything. Attack too late, and you're forced on the defensive. In Afghanistan, if the enemy knows where to find you, your troops will get blown up by roadside bombs, or they get assaulted in indefensible positions stuck with impossible rules of engagement. That's how you lose US soldiers.

Or they might get into helicopter crashes, because war zones are dangerous even with no enemy shooting.

There is a tide in the affairs of men... Miss that tide, and more people die. That's what generals are for, Mr. President. They know about choosing the best moment. It's not your pay grade. Just leave it to the generals, and don't second-guess them.

If Eisenhower had waited a week after D-Day, would the Normandy landing have been more successful? Only for those, like Messrs. Obama and Al Gore, who pretend to know the weather ahead of time, and who can "stop the riiiising of the oceans!" with the wave of their wizard wand.

If George S. Patton had dawdled when he saw the danger of the German offensive in the Ardennes even before it started, would that have saved lives? Au contraire, mon cher generale, or more likely mon armchair generale.  Had Patton decided to wait the Allies would have lost thousands of soldiers more than they did. They might have lost the war in the West right there and then. That's the whole point of "gettin' thar fustest with the mostest." In the long term, intelligent aggressiveness saves lives and wins wars.

In the case of the Civil War, it was Generals like Grant and Sherman who ended up liberating the African-American slaves. No William T. Sherman March through Georgia, no Emancipation Proclamation. And no President Obama to complain about American racism in the year 2008.

So not deciding is also deciding. That's the kicker when it comes to reality.

Or in economists' jargon, you lose on the opportunity costs.

Lose an opportunity in war and you lose lives.

I'm sorry, Mr. O. That's how it is.

That's the job you said you were qualified for, and that's what General Zinni just said:
"I think that we owe (the troops) a decision. For the life of me, I can't figure out why we're still waiting for one."

And no, keeping the Lefties happy while you're compromising on ObeeCare is not a militarily responsible reason to keep the troops vulnerable.

This is one time that BS won't cut it, Mr. O.

Do it. No decision is a bad decision.

If you want the right answer, call Dick Cheney.