האם זו כותרת רצינית, קרי ידוע בתור מתנגד (מאז היותו חייל בויאטנם) למעורבות אמריקאית.

מדברי דמפסי לפי הכתבה, האם על סמך המידע שפורסם עד היום, על תקיפת הנ"מ הסורי במלחמת לבנון, זה ריאלי 700 גיחות או שהוא מפריז בכוונה כדי לא לבצע את ההתקפה (שלא לדבר על זה שלנו לא היו ואין מפציצים שיכולים לשאת כמות גדולה של חימוש וכמובן גם לא חמקנים)?

כשמישהוא ממש לא רוצה לעשות משהו, הוא כבר יביא הרבה סיבות למה אי אפשר או לא כדאי לעשות את זה.

סקר מעניין שבוצע בציבור האמריקני שקרי היה כנראה צריך לקרוא לפני שנכנס לעימות - מהי השפעת התמיכה של הפיקוד הצבאי הבכיר בפעולה צבאית ב 4 תרחישים שונים - אירן, סוריה, טרור והתערבות הומניטרית סטייל סומליה/האיטי - כמובן בהבדלים של דמוקרטים מול רפובליקנים...

Listening to the Generals How Military Advice Affects Public Support for the Use of Force
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents...t%20updated.pdf

אנקדוטות מעניינות

The more that military officers insert themselves publicly into these kinds of discussions, the more that people – especially those who disagree with the positions they take – will suspect ulterior motives. Such behavior, real or perceived, by political leaders and senior military officers could, over time, severely undermine the nonpartisan tradition of the military and damage public trust in the military as an institution

Senior military officers overwhelmingly identify as Republicans and conservatives and
evidence suggests that the American public still views the military primarily as conservative and Republican. For example, four times as many Americans said that most members of the military are Republicans than said that most members are Democrats (39 percent to 9 percent). Moreover, when evaluating presidential policies, people look for cues based on whether they already support the president or have reason to doubt his judgment. Thus, when President George W. Bush held office, individual Republicans may have been
inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, whereas individual Democrats may have sought second opinions from other experts. The opposite may be occurring now that Obama is in office.

Military Opposition Counts a Lot; Military Support Counts Less
Military opposition exerts a large, statistically significant negative effect on support for interventions abroad (see Table 1). Compared with no military endorsement, military opposition reduces support by between 6 and 8 percentage points in each of the four scenarios. In the Terrorism scenario, for example, 46 percent of those in the control
group supported a bombing campaign, whereas only 38 percent of those in the opposition group did – an effect of 8 percentage points. Given the large sample sizes, even small shifts in opinion are statistically meaningful.

Overall, cues from senior military leaders exert the largest impact on Republican respondents. Across all four scenarios, Republicans are more likely than either Democrats or independents to support military action. As expected, Republicans support the “realpolitik” Iran and Terrorism scenarios at especially high rates; clear majorities
of Republicans support these scenarios whether or not they are told of military support. However, Republican support for the use of force in the Terrorism scenario drops below the majority threshold when Republicans are told that military leaders oppose the operation.