Response to Marc Malone @ 36: While I agree on a lot of what you said, I would differ on a few key points. I think Rumsfeld and Bush’s problem was not that they ignored the professional military men but rather that they listened too much to them and deferred too much to them. I had friends on the planning staff for the invasion and all of the top brass basically ignore the postwar / Phase IV type stuff. Their focus was on having the fastest infantry advance in history. Little thought was given to the aftermath and that is where the problems occured. Casey, Sanchez and others should have been canned early on as they all failed to deal with the developing situation. Yet, Rumsfeld and Bush deferred to these men and the situation got out of control. What we needed was a Lincoln, Truman, or Churchill who had no problem firing people.
Most of the modern military men I have encountered who have PhDs usually have them in Business Administration, Communications, or some such nonsense. Very rarely will you find someone like David Petraeus who has one in military history.
I have trouble crediting McCain with any of the success created by the eventual surge. McCain ran around screaming about more men and attacking Rumsfeld to gain political points. The question had more to do with how to use the men rather than just having men. Petraeus is the one who brought victory in the surge. McCain would have just given the enemy more targets. Manpower is important but strategy is essential.
