Petraeus

It was not too long ago that the name Petraeous was slimmed by the liberals as "betray-us." Because he was the top general for Bush in the war on Iraq he was destroyed in every way they could. The world does indeed spin around, and now he has taken the aura of a saint because Obama has named him to replace McChrystal in the Afghanistan War. McChrystal was personally chosen by Obama because he did not want to be tainted with Bush's general. Obama believes the only good war is the war on Afghanistan. However, because McChrystal had views different than Obama's he had to go, and go he did. Obama claims that he and McChrystal had no disagreements on the "Rules Of Engagement." We shall see once McChrystal writes his book. Petraeous was successful in Iraq when the liberals were ready to give it all up. They expect him to succeed now in the Afghanistan War. However, the Iraq War was not fought with the same "Rules Of Engagement." that are now in effect. I contend that no army can win with those rules, they are a prescription for failure. More Americans will be killed and more soldiers will lose the heart for fighting. Reenlistment's will decrease dramatically and soldiers will do more bitching than they usually do. One other thing complicates this whole business: If you were an Afghan belligerent would you risk your life during the next year when the adversary will be leaving in a year?