Having fought in this war I have to give him a F. I’m a soldier, not a cop. His actual war strategy was good but his post war plan was absurd. Hopefully during my next tour in June I will be able to see some changes..
One thing about this war is it's a different war. Not one we are set up to fight. The thugs we're fighting are different from other militaries. I personally don't think it will matter who is leading the fight, we can not kill them all and they will not lay down or give up.
This whole administration has been faced with things no other has been faced with before. If someone else or democrats had been in control, they would most likely be the facing the problems right now. Bottom line, 911 was the downfall for whoever would have been in the white house. We had to do something. Maybe IRAQ wasn't the place though. We should have focused on other parts of the world. Mainly, Saudi Arabia. That's where most of the terrorist are coming from. But they supply the world with oil, so they have us by the balls.
Solid D. The only way he gets a "B" is if you think the War on Terror is the War on Iraq. DHS fights the war on terror as does the shadow intelligence. The War on Iraq was a skewed byproduct. The initial attack (Shock and Awe) was outstanding. That prevents him from getting an F even though he didn't execute the button pushing. But too many generals, colonels (some retired) et al have spoken out against him in a way that I've never seen before (> 20). To be fair to Rummy, he's the fall guy for certain errors in the neoconservative's global strategy.
>>My thinking was the latter was more likely - what's your take?
The latter. As noted above, too many actual military leaders have spoken out against decisions he's made. Cya.