alexey Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 ............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Don't you think you should poll the troops on this? IE if you're not a member of the military you shouldn't respond? As in any thing Obama will be better is some things and Bush would be better in others. In this case. Bush motivated the troops better (so far at least). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 I dont know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Dubba Ya Bush. Who doesn't remember Bush in Iraq during Thanksgiving??? It caught everyone offguard. For a moderate Republican, he did inspire the troops and the families especially off camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 I voted Bush, simply from what my friends in the military and I have discussed. Kinda wish Obama would have visited the troops over Thanksgiving, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HA1LV1CT0RY Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Did you see them at the West Point speach? They were falling asleep. And the only time they ever clapped was when Obama mentioned the soldiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeysc23 Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 I got to say about the same given what little data we have on Obama currently. I think Bush scored some major points with the troops but Obama is a very good speaker and over the course of his 4 years could hopefully do some great things to inspire the troops. Hopefully Obama will pay as much tribute to the troops as W did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Obama has to start using the word WE in his speeches and also stop sounding like he is blaming the troops and previous administration about past military actions when fighting the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boobiemiles Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 I think anyone is motivated not to get killed no matter who is Commander in Chief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 I would think Bush would be better. Time will tell. I know a number of servicemen who were publicly very supportive of President Bush and privately in a lot of pain over what they perceived as incompetence and mismanagement. I talked to quite a few who said what they saw going on in Iraq was a giant CF (this was mainly back in 2003-5). I think if things go well, they will become more and more receptive and enthusiastic, but if they fall apart they will find more reasons to dislike and tune out Obama. Kind of like the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoshuaj Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 based on my experience, Id have to say that the troops are pretty well self motivated or find motivation from their field commanders, not the Commander in Chief, regardless of how people would like to try to find a way to politicize and/or qunatify such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Ready to concede the point alexey? Bur does bring up a good point,W made many choices that were not popular with the military...yet even so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 You guys are lucky - Godwin's law definitely comes into play on this one. :evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 The overwhelming majority of military men and women, particularly career military officers, lean to the right side of the political spectrum. So, at least on a superficial level, I would guess that Dubya would be more effective than Obama at motivating our troops. That doesn't mean he is a better commander-in-chief. Dubya managed to screw things up royally in Iraq by employing the wrong strategies and trying to fight the war on the cheap. Abandoning the Weinberger/Powell doctrine in favor of the Rumsfeld doctrine worked out splendidly. That mismanagement cost us time, money, and lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Obama is detached from just about everything going on around him... Bush was attentive to the troops... Especially visiting military hospitals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 That doesn't mean he is a better commander-in-chief. Dubya managed to screw things up royally in Iraq by employing the wrong strategies and trying to fight the war on the cheap. Abandoning the Weinberger/Powell doctrine in favor of the Rumsfeld doctrine worked out splendidly. That mismanagement cost us time, money, and lives. Superficial level:hysterical: Well it's O's game now, you gonna blast him now for not employing the Weinberger/Powell doctrine? Hopefully O will grow in the role he assumed in the years ahead,I don't hold much hope for many of his supporters doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 That doesn't mean he is a better commander-in-chief. Dubya managed to screw things up royally in Iraq by employing the wrong strategies and trying to fight the war on the cheap. Abandoning the Weinberger/Powell doctrine in favor of the Rumsfeld doctrine worked out splendidly. That mismanagement cost us time, money, and lives. Nice MMQBing... We took Baghdad in less than 3 days, captured Sadaam, and set up an Iraqi Government using that strategy. I wouldn't call it a complete waste. We lost less than 5k lives in doing all of that in over 4 years. Putting that in perspective (military history perspective), it's the most impressive feat ever. There were mistakes, but it isn't the picture you paint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 The overwhelming majority of military men and women, particularly career military officers, lean to the right side of the political spectrum. So, at least on a superficial level, I would guess that Dubya would be more effective than Obama at motivating our troops. Yes, no different than fox news, wash times vs. Cnn / Wash Post. Also, "W" spent more time talking in the positive vs. the sins of the past. That doesn't mean he is a better commander-in-chief. Dubya managed to screw things up royally in Iraq by employing the wrong strategies and trying to fight the war on the cheap. Wrong! it was the one of the most devastating war in the last 50 years when it came to efficiency and outright speed. It was the peace that cost us so much doing police duties. The Middle East was actually embarrassed for Iraq. Abandoning the Weinberger/Powell doctrine in favor of the Rumsfeld doctrine worked out splendidly. That mismanagement cost us time, money, and lives. I agree with this during the ramp up of the new Iraqi admin... And this is why i said we should either do 70k in Afghan or pull them out. Obama then repeated the mistakes from the past. Rumsfeld redux? IF President Obama came out and said: Were sending in 100,000 troops, we will clean up the mess and we will turn it back over to Nato within 90 days of the Operations beginning.. We will then work with Nato to transition it correctly this time. That would have gotten a better cheer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I would guess the military is to Bush as the press is to Obama. The fourth estate might not like everything Obama has done but their relieved the other guy isn't in power. Conversely, the military might not like everything Bush did but they wish this guy wasn't in power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramdizzle Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 As far as support its definitly Bush. Motivation is probably the same, however its easier to be motivated when your president is 110% behind you. Therefore it goes to Bush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted December 4, 2009 Author Share Posted December 4, 2009 Ready to concede the point alexey? Yes. Well, there is also a possibility that they don't know that they are actually better motivated by Obama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 :laugh: I have the same problem with the advice I give. Durn people just don't know what's best for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 The enemy provides plenty of motivation. Politics is not the soldier's concern. The overwhelming majority of men i served with and have met and known outside of service fight for The United States, regardless of the leader. I have known soldiers who have been critical of presidents etc, but every one of them also would say in the same breath that they would go unflinchingly where they were ordered and fight as needed. In fact most of them were constantly eager to do so. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.