"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:17:58 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

With all du respect, you won't find many generals who will say "we
can't win" no matter how hopeless the mission is and they have no
authority to question the objective of the mission.

Seems to me that they would give honest opinions if asked.

Giving honest opinions is not conducive to a long career in the
military.


So, when a President asks for an honest assessment of a military situation,
the general should lie? I believe that a general has already had a "long
career" in the military, and he or she should be valued for his/her honest
opinion.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 20:51:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Giving honest opinions is not conducive to a long career in the
military.


So, when a President asks for an honest assessment of a military situation,
the general should lie? I believe that a general has already had a "long
career" in the military, and he or she should be valued for his/her honest
opinion.

Giving an assessment is not the same thing as offering an opinion.

An assessment is a highly structured process based on underlying
factual data and probability analysis.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 20:51:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Giving honest opinions is not conducive to a long career in the
military.


So, when a President asks for an honest assessment of a military
situation,
the general should lie? I believe that a general has already had a "long
career" in the military, and he or she should be valued for his/her honest
opinion.

Giving an assessment is not the same thing as offering an opinion.

So, when a general goes before Congress and is asked a direct military
question and gives his honest answer, he should be forced out? That's what
Bush did.

An assessment is a highly structured process based on underlying
factual data and probability analysis.


Nice word parse, but the fact is that the military opinion is what we're
talking about.