Bob Woodward's book, The War Within, tells us, in part, on the war for withdrawal vs. surge going on between key military personnel and Bush, as far back as 2006.
General George Casey was said to thought this of Bush's Iraq war mentality "Kill the bastards! Kill the bastards! And you'll succeed."'
Can the same be said of McNasty?
Dubya v the generals
"We have to win," Bush insisted, repeating his public and private mantra. [US Army General George W.] Casey [jr.] had heard the President's line dozens of times. "I'm with you," he replied. "I understand that. But to win, we have to draw down. We have to bring our force levels down to ones that are sustainable both for them and for us."
Casey felt that the Iraqis, a proud people and resistant to the Western occupation, needed to take over. The large, visible US force was ultimately a sign of disrespect. Worse, the prolonged occupation was making the Iraqis dependent. Each time additional US troops arrived, they soon seemed indispensable.
The Iraqis needed to take back their country and their self-respect, so central to Arab culture. They needed to fight their own war and run their own government; they were doing neither.
Casey studied Bush's face, now wrinkled and showing its 59 years, the right eye slightly more closed than the left under greying, fulleyebrows.
The general had pushed for a drawdown for two years. And while the President had always approved the strategy, he no longer seemed to buy Casey's argument. "I know I've got work to do to convince you of that," the general said, "but I firmly believe that."
Bush looked sceptical. "I need to do a better job explaining to you" why winning means getting out, Casey said.
"You do," Bush replied.
Casey had long concluded that one big problem with the war was the President himself. He later told a colleague in private that he had the impression that Bush reflected the "radical wing of the Republican Party that kept saying, 'Kill the bastards! Kill the bastards! And you'll succeed."' Since the beginning, the President had viewed the war in conventional terms, repeatedly asking how many of the various enemies had been captured or killed.
notes from the book:
When President Bush told Gen. Casey in a trip to Baghdad in June 2006 that "we have to win," Casey replied, "But to win, we have to draw down." It remained his dogged mantra as Baghdad collapsed all around him.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Peter Pace, commissioned a group of colonels to review war strategy for the chiefs. One of their presentations ended starkly, "We are not winning, so we are losing." Woodward writes, "Chairman Pace had an unusual sullen look on his face, almost crestfallen, as if to say, 'How could I not have realized this."'
The article goes on to tell of the internal dissension between these military officials and Bush.
Now, if these military officials had deep concerns about Bush's "win at all cost" attitude, what would their opinion of McCain be? And if they've had their fill of presidents/VP's with no national security experience, what the heck are they going to think of Palin?
I read another article that indicated with Cheney gone, there wouldn't be a VP trying to direct the military and the intelligence agencies. Now, either Palin stays away, or she becomes this go between for PNACers and this ticked-off bunch.