redblueamerica.com

I was just asking about the wisdom of changing commanders in Iraq when the war is still going. Now there's further evidence that personnel shifts hurt the effort. Apparently, it hinders the ability of lower-ranking officers to hire Iraqis and put money toward reconstruction efforts.

But the military bureaucracy can itself be a threat to the funds. A recent turnover of generals in Baghdad has led to a routine review of guidelines, regulations and spending. But what the incoming generals might view as cutting the fat off programs, lower-ranking officers see as a threat to the very goodwill and positive rapport they've worked months to established between themselves and community leaders.

Now, I understand some of the turnover comes about because the Army is afraid of losing officers who have spent too much time away from their families, deployed on combat missions. And I don't blame those officers one bit, nor do I blame the Army for trying to accomodate them and save itself from a hollowing-out of its officer corps.

But if this war is as important to American security as we're told, then our current approach isn't doing us any favors. It may be extending the war and losing more American lives. If we have to be in Iraq, can't we at least take it seriously? And if not, maybe the fact that Army officers are voting with their feet is a hint to the rest of us.