I agree with you comments but certainly not the last line.
Many European Servicmen have shed blood and died in Afghanistan,
Brits, Danes, Poles, Romanians to name just a few.

Furthermore, Afghan is the primary source of all Heroin entering the west that is having a massively detrimental effect on our societeies.
The return to governance in Afghan will enormously mitigate this situation.
And besides we didnt invade Afghan, we are there at the behest of the democratially elected government.

Terry Gain:

Perhaps no General can deliver Obama’s confused world message: Liberating Iraq bad. Liberating Afghanistan good.

Liberating a country which stood up to the terrorists (Iraq) bad.

Liberating one which hasn’t (Afghanistan) good. (Check out the comparative sizes of their reconstituted security forces post liberation.)

Liberating an oil rich country run by a terrorist supporting and harboring, genocidal, ceasefire and U.N Resolution breaking, Stalinist dictator bad.

Liberating an ungovernable country with little strategic value (Afghanistan) good.

But wait, the Euros support the mission in Afghanistan. Sure they do. With their words.

Only if one was mathematically ignorant. Ever hear of statistical analysis?

Here is an overview;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics

Here are some of the formulas need to calculate the sample size to get a reasonable ( + or – 5%) answer.

http://home.ubalt.edu/ntsbarsh/stat-data/Topics.htm

Since you prolly have excel;
http://home.ubalt.edu/ntsbarsh/excel/excel.htm

Then we have to define ‘incompetent’. I suspect my standards are somewhat higher then yours. I’m looking for more then courage, attention to detail, hard work and the ability to follow the rules. The average American officer has all those qualities in abundance, since the pre-sort removes any potential office that doesn’t. The German Geneal staff system identified 4 types of officers. The US Army system is designed to eliminated the lazy officer. That leaves us with no smart and lazy officer, which are the best commanders and too many stupid and hardworking officers, which are the real fookups.
Are you familiar with the term; “De l’audace, encore de l’audace, et toujours de l’audace”?

One of the more basic military principals, yet one that is antipathetic to the American military, or at least the higher levels of command.
During the ’67 Israeli-Egyptian campaign, Sharon interleaved his MBT’s with fleeing Egyptian armor. A Egyptian tank followed by an IDF tank followed by an egyprtan tank, an IDF tank, etc. Can you imagine an American general giving that order? Sharon did it because getting to the pass was more important then blowing a few more tanks.
The exception was when the 2nd armored (CCB) did it during the palatine campaign in ’45 (IIRC Hinds commanding) and almost got away with it. The Germans did it several times against the US and the brits. I think against the soviets also, although that isn’t as well documented.
No, American politicians want general officers they feel comfortable with, not those that are willing to defy the odds with a calculated risk. Not sure it matters in one regard, since ’44 the American general officer has had such an edge in men and material that they didn’t have to be brilliant to get the job done.
Of course, America has paid the strategic price for that lack of competence. Look at the campaigns we are fighting now. The off again, on again war Islam has been waging against everybody else since 621 AD is in an active phase right now because Schwartzkopf dropped the ball in ’91.
A great commander would have recpgnized that the battle was won and it was time for the pursit phase. With rumors of the ‘highway of death’ making their way thru the remenants of the Iraqi army, there was nothing to prevent the US Army from going anywhere in Iraq it wanted to go and doing anything in Iraq it wanted to do. A competent military leader would have done what Patton, Manstien, Rommel or Sharon would have done and drained enough fuel from some of his vegicles to fill up others and sent them on. 1 Abrams and 3 Bradly’s under an umberlla of Jabo’s driving down the road to Basar would have put an end to Saddam and been met with the cheering masses so obviously missing in ’03.
You NEVER relax the pursuit. Ask General Crook about that. When the enemy is on the run you run them down. The Bear didn’t and we are still paying the price today.
Granted, the Bear would have violated orders, but sometimes that is the job of a general officer. When he gets it right, the politicians take the credit and the general becomes a major historic figure. We he gets it wrong, he gets hung out to dry. That is as it should be. The Bear didn’t have the moral courage to do what thousands of years of military history shows to be the correct course. So now we are fighting the battles that he could have won in ’91 with a little bit of sweat. Patton said a pint of sweat saves a gallon of blood. Or something like that.

“De l’audace, encore de l’audace, et toujours de l’audace”

It would follow that to state that “90% of the officer corps is incompetent” would require that you personally know at least 90% of the officer corps. Additionally, it would require that you are competent and qualified to judge.

Not knowing your background and abilities, I would still question that you are even close to being correct. I personally speak from the position of being a retired sailor who has worked for and with officers from all services, from O-1′s to the CJCOS. While I have known some losers, they generally didn’t go very far and were weeded out quite soon.

If “90%” was just a throwaway figure that you thought would catch attention – fine, you were correct and we can now discount your hyperbole.

But if you still claim this figure to be correct, please support it with facts and include your military background to validate your assertions.

“90% of the officer cops (sic) (corps) is incompetent” – please provide facts for that. My experience is that the officer and enlisted corp are some of the most educated and experienced citizenry we have. Do you mean incompetent in battle? Again, please provide facts for that – and as compared to who else and/or what time frame.

Other comment:

All officers must pass muster by congress – an officer who has been selected for promotion can be ‘taken off’ the promotion list by the US Congress for political reasons…not just flag officers. I’ve had colleagues have that happen.

Yes, being a general officer also means being politically savvy. Yes, the comment made about having the ability to survive the crucible of combat is right on – some can, some can’t. Yes, there is such a thing as a command temperament – again, some are more capable than others. However, not everyone gets to be a commander and the military needs many more followers than leaders.

A year ago, a retired American general made it clear we would be facing huge difficulties in Afghanistan. But politics as usual, with its personal agendas over what’s good for America (think Pelosi, Murtha, Reid, Feinstein, Schumer, and the man masquerading as a Republican from Pennsylvania) trumps any of the common sense the retired general offered our country’s leadership — civilian and military.

Congressman and Senators (from both parties) engaging in public fights that rival those of feudal “lords,” the lust for power, and the craven disregard for average Americans is disgusting and will eventually lead to our downfall. At this point, Obama is on the path to making Jimmy Carter looking like a presidential “genius,” and our politicians are making the feudal lords look downright magnanimous.

And people are wondering why there is a shortage of ammunition? Give me a break! Is this administration THAT stupid?

There’s your change.