Our Constitution confers civilian control over our military by making the President Commander In Chief. Do you think this is a good idea?
The original Commander-in-Chief was a former General. And what do we get today? A draft dodger, a former National Guard Reservist, and another who just had other things to do?
We can see from the Roman Empire, the British Empire, and the American "Empire" that civilizations grow and prosper greatly when they have civilian oversight over their powerful militaries. Not only does it protect itself from military coups and such, but it provides management of a valuable nation building asset. Unfortunately, today our military has to endure the opinions of civilians who can't even identify the rank structures of those they send off to perform murder for them.
Before the war in Iraq, the living CENTCOM plan called for more troops. It answered the questions of occupation. But this plan threw too many complications into a situation that had to look simple. You see, Americans and their civilian leaders don't like their issues complex. They want them simple and without complication. Rumsfeld refused the militaries plan and opted for the civilian plan, which called for the bare minimum of troops and an absolute refusal to obey "Occupation: 101." Of course, this only guaranteed the unobstructive slaughter of the local population by the children of the desert. And as the years rolled by, the call for more troops by our Generals continued to be ignored or appeased by sending more of the bare minimum (which was usually just an overlapping of units). Rumsfeld and the Republicans that supported him over the troops can pat themselves on the back today, but they will refuse to acknowledge the fact that they didn't do a damn thing. It was the military that made due and came through despite their seemingly designs to guarantee failure.
And today? Once again we see the Generals asking for more troops only this time it is the Democrats who "know better" than those in uniform. Afghanistan will always be Afghanistan. And there are two options for it...
1) The government is horribly corrupt because of what this population has to offer. But if we are going to remain there and continue believing in the fantasy that we can nation build in every situation, then our Generals have spoken. They need more troops. Even if it means strengthening corruption (a Cold War prescription for regions our politicians seem to embrace lovingly).
2) Or we pull out, let Afghanistan walk the path it is detemrined to walk anyway, and punish our enemies by air and via special forces from our sea bases. As long as the enemy bleeds profusely then we win.
There is no "victory" here in the sense that our enemies will unconditionally surrender. Our media and our own people simply will not allow the military to do what it needs to in order to provide this. They haven't since WWII. But the circumstances of today's world has redefined what "victory" is. We only need to pull our heads out of our assess and recognize it.
In the mean time our Commander-in-Chief is deciding on whether or not to listen to the collective idiocy of politicial parties or his military in regards to military affairs. And why not? Who hasn't had a surgery forthcoming and pushed their doctor aside to get the opinions and guidance of their mall hair dresser? Certainly the men and women of Washington, who would never lower themselves to serve their country in uniform, have powerfulo insight into cultures they have never seen up close. Certainly, these suited bufoons have studied long hours over a few days and know exactly what it takes to defeat an enemy.
It's not our military that weakens our nation in regards to real enemy threats and national image. Today's Commander-in-Chief has one duty when it comes to "leading" the military. He is to point and go away. Any further contribution should come with the spoken words, "you got it."