"Cowards cut and run; Marines never do"

This statement, made on the House floor by Jean Schmidt of Ohio, seems to reflect a lot of what is really the problem with the Bush administration -- a refusal to accept that, at some point, alternatives to a given course of action have to be considered.

By all accounts, the Bush administration (and just the Bush) surrounds itself with political yes-men, rather than those who give genuine analysis and advice. Although this method of governance affords a tremendous amount of confidence to be exerted, it doesn't examine the extremes -- what happens if everything goes wrong. That was the problem with Harriet Miers. She was a nominee forwarded while the administration was under attack, and without the support of congress that Bush has (reasonably) taken for granted for five years. When it's within his administration, its not such a bad thing -- he only risks his own image. However, when, as with the war, he takes a "no dissenting views" attitude, he risks lives and the well-being of a nation.

"Cowards cut and run; Marines never do" is a terrific slogan if your goal is to convince troops to obey commands and not to desert. But it can't be an attitude with which to direct a war. Retreat is never a goal, but it always has to be an option. Isn't that a basic tenet of warfare? If men keep dying, and no progress is made, what is the tactical advantage in sending more and more men (and women) to die? Consideration of alternatives has to be part of an intelligent action of any sort.