Critiquing the war on terror

Both Winds of Change and Cori Dauber address a WaPo article that takes a look at the success or lack thereof of the administration's performance in the GWOT. These are long articles, necessarily, but if you really want to understand what's going on, they're both well worth the read, both for what they fault the administration for and for what they fault WaPo for ignoring, leaving out, distorting or misrepresenting.

The issue is much more complex than what politicians make it out to be, and there is no certainty to what the "right way" to fight terror is. At least Bush has made his choices and stuck with them. Only time will tell if there could have been a better way to go about it.

I personally think it's reprehensible for the departments that report to the President to "air their dirty laundry" to the press. After all, perfectly reasonable people can disagree greatly about matters of policy. When you work for the President (which all executive department employees do) your responsibility is to provide him with the best possible information and then follow his lead, whether you agree or disagree with his decisions. To characterize the President's choices as "wrong" simply because his final decision differed from the one you would have made is the heighth of arrogance, not to mention insubordination.

Military people understand this. "The polite request of your commanding officer is tantamount to a direct command." When you serve the President, if you choose to undermine him, you should be summarily fired.