tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3293152265787061341.post1501095852331038976..comments2024-03-03T05:11:57.603-05:00Comments on Wings Over Iraq: America expects a swing for the fences, gets a sacrifice flyStarbuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02013102906896853767noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3293152265787061341.post-90737099605702057042009-12-03T06:51:16.253-05:002009-12-03T06:51:16.253-05:00Haha, funny thing is, we probably agree on how eff...Haha, funny thing is, we probably agree on how effective the speech was, we just don't agree on the sports analogy :)Starbuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02013102906896853767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3293152265787061341.post-34273058945425923062009-12-02T16:13:16.974-05:002009-12-02T16:13:16.974-05:00Sacrifice fly? come on. It was at least a double. ...Sacrifice fly? come on. It was at least a double. As you say (and I agree), the speech goes up the middle and so pleases no one. He pulled a classic LBJ circa 1966 and, while one could hope for more, it's a political thing. Which in the end is why we fight wars, for political objectives. We ought to remember that (we the larger milblog community). <br /><br />Face it, he was speaking to the unwashed public and the bright, starry-eyed deer in the audience. They don't want to know about metrics or strategies. It's just "in or out," and how long. He answered that - sorta. Details to come in the OPORD. <br /><br />I don't like his rationale, but it made sense and it was articulate. That's much more than any CheneyBush speech at a military base, where all they said was "9/11!! Terrorists!! Go get 'em!!"J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01031567700911395326noreply@blogger.com