If one is in a supervisory position and the supervised complain of ineptitude of one's abilities and decision makng soundness, does that affect one's rightness for the job? The Army War College seems to think President Bush, as Commander-in-Chief, is not doing his job properly. Here's an article that discusses it.
ARTICLE BEGINS
Study Published by Army Criticizes War on Terror's Scope

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 12, 2004; Page A12

A scathing new report published by the Army War College broadly criticizes the
Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism, accusing it of taking a
detour into an "unnecessary" war in Iraq and pursuing an "unrealistic" quest
against terrorism that may lead to U.S. wars with states that pose no serious
threat.

The report, by Jeffrey Record, a visiting professor at the Air War College at
Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, warns that as a result of those mistakes, the
Army is "near the breaking point."

It recommends, among other things, scaling back the scope of the "global war on
terrorism" and instead focusing on the narrower threat posed by the al Qaeda
terrorist network.

"[T]he global war on terrorism as currently defined and waged is dangerously
indiscriminate and ambitious, and accordingly . . . its parameters should be
readjusted," Record writes. Currently, he adds, the anti-terrorism campaign "is
strategically unfocused, promises more than it can deliver, and threatens to
dissipate U.S. military resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute
security."

Record, a veteran defense specialist and author of six books on military
strategy and related issues, was an aide to then-Sen. Sam Nunn when the Georgia
Democrat was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In discussing his political background, Record also noted that in 1999 while on
the staff of the Air War College, he published work critical of the Clinton
administration.

His essay, published by the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute,
carries the standard disclaimer that its views are those of the author and do
not necessarily represent those of the Army, the Pentagon or the U.S.
government.

But retired Army Col. Douglas C. Lovelace Jr., director of the Strategic Studies
Institute, whose Web site carries Record's 56-page monograph, hardly distanced
himself from it. "I think that the substance that Jeff brings out in the article
really, really needs to be considered," he said.

Publication of the essay was approved by the Army War College's commandant, Maj.
Gen. David H. Huntoon Jr., Lovelace said. He said he and Huntoon expected the
study to be controversial, but added, "He considers it to be under the umbrella
of academic freedom."

Larry DiRita, the top Pentagon spokesman, said he had not read the Record study.
He added: "If the conclusion is that we need to be scaling back in the global
war on terrorism, it's not likely to be on my reading list anytime soon."

Many of Record's arguments, such as the contention that Saddam Hussein's Iraq
was deterred and did not present a threat, have been made by critics of the
administration. Iraq, he concludes, "was a war-of-choice distraction from the
war of necessity against al Qaeda." But it is unusual to have such views
published by the War College, the Army's premier academic institution.

In addition, the essay goes further than many critics in examining the Bush
administration's handling of the war on terrorism.

Record's core criticism is that the administration is biting off more than it
can chew. He likens the scale of U.S. ambitions in the war on terrorism to Adolf
Hitler's overreach in World War II. "A cardinal rule of strategy is to keep your
enemies to a manageable number," he writes. "The Germans were defeated in two
world wars . . . because their strategic ends outran their available means."

He also scoffs at the administration's policy, laid out by Bush in a November
speech, of seeking to transform and democratize the Middle East. "The potential
policy payoff of a democratic and prosperous Middle East, if there is one,
almost certainly lies in the very distant future," he writes. "The basis on
which this democratic domino theory rests has never been explicated."

He also casts doubt on whether the U.S. government will maintain its commitment
to the war. "The political, fiscal, and military sustainability of the GWOT
[global war on terrorism] remains to be seen," he states.

The essay concludes with several recommendations. Some are fairly
noncontroversial, such as increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps, a
position that appears to be gathering support in Congress. But he also says the
United States should scale back its ambitions in Iraq, and be prepared to settle
for a "friendly autocracy" there rather than a genuine democracy.


END ARTICLE EXERPT click link for copy verify