- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 9/14/14 at 3:42 pm to Vegas Bengal
I'm aware of that, but, Scowcroft is not a high ranking military adviser.
My focus is on the high ranking general and flag officers whose job it is to plan and advise with regard to military grand strategy and operations.
My focus is on the high ranking general and flag officers whose job it is to plan and advise with regard to military grand strategy and operations.
Posted on 9/14/14 at 4:57 pm to Champagne
quote:
I'm aware of that, but, Scowcroft is not a high ranking military adviser.
My focus is on the high ranking general and flag officers whose job it is to plan and advise with regard to military grand strategy and operations.
Now that is a tricky question, and a damn good one. By great misfortune we didn't have an active high ranking military adviser willing to come out publicly against the war. What was present was a great number of retired military leaders, including two former Joint Chiefs of Staff, who came out strongly against invading Iraq along with other highly placed former members of the defense establishment. This, usually, is how the military relies on getting it's viewpoint across, by retired members who aren't risking their careers.
Did we really need a George Marshall to come in and lay to waste such a notion? Yes. However. One, we did not have him. Two, the military chain of command has changed (off the records but still there) since WWII so that the Secretary of Defense has more power then he used too.
The problem, the real, let us not kid ourselves, problem... is that we, the American people, wanted to go to war with Iraq. We were pissed off over 9/11. We wanted someone, anyone, to pay the price for the damage we took on that day.
And there was Saddam Hussein. Other then the North Korean leaders who can think of a more typecast bad guy for an enemy nation? He even lived up to the billing because he was a thoroughly horrible human being.
We elected a weak leadership. We wanted blood and by golly they were thrilled to give it to us. Cheney and Rumsfeld may have been the ones to actually screw the pooch, but we are the ones that put them behind the dog and gave them a wink and a nod. I don't think there is anything the military leadership could have done to stop that.
Posted on 9/14/14 at 5:01 pm to Arksulli
quote:
The problem, the real, let us not kid ourselves, problem... is that we, the American people, wanted to go to war with Iraq. We were pissed off over 9/11. We wanted someone, anyone, to pay the price for the damage we took on that day.
And there was Saddam Hussein. Other then the North Korean leaders who can think of a more typecast bad guy for an enemy nation? He even lived up to the billing because he was a thoroughly horrible human being.
We elected a weak leadership. We wanted blood and by golly they were thrilled to give it to us. Cheney and Rumsfeld may have been the ones to actually screw the pooch, but we are the ones that put them behind the dog and gave them a wink and a nod. I don't think there is anything the military leadership could have done to stop that.
Exactly as I remembered it happening too! Thanks for the post.
So many people still believe in "boogeymen" like Cheney and Bush and Obama. Such a childlike view of the world.
Posted on 9/14/14 at 5:06 pm to Arksulli
quote:
We elected a weak leadership.
The leadership we elected was so weak that their weak will was able to overcome the strong-minded general officers who advised and warned against the invasion?
I don't know. If so, and the civilian leadership was weak, then, maybe the military leadership needed to get stronger.
We don't know what the active duty high ranking general officers advised or warned about the risk of End State running out to more than eight years. I certainly don't know.
The conventional wisdom is to blame the civilian leadership. My thinking is "outside of the box". I'm wondering whether the military advice could be improved by improving our military ability to conduct grand military strategy.
If the civilian leadership doesn't receive great and emphatic advice, how can we expect POTUS to make great decisions?
This post was edited on 9/14/14 at 5:24 pm
Posted on 9/14/14 at 5:09 pm to Arksulli
quote:
we, the American people, wanted to go to war with Iraq.
I won't say that you are wrong, but, this is not my recollection at all. At this time, it was somewhat early in my military career, and I don't remember anyone around my area feeling that way.
Maybe in your non-military town or city there was a "war fever to invade Iraq" but I experienced nothing remotely close to that.
Anyway, My focus is on the high ranking general and flag officers whose job it is to plan and advise with regard to military grand strategy and operations. I'm thinking that we could improve the way that we do things at this level. I'm not sure that we've got the optimal organizational structure and military education right now.
This post was edited on 9/14/14 at 5:30 pm
Posted on 9/14/14 at 5:33 pm to Champagne
I am, in fact, from a military family and I put in my tour of duty along with every other male member of my family with the exception of my now deceased oldest nephew who had a bad heart.
Now, I'm not saying this to be all defensive and swing my military penis around. I was an 11-bravo and everyone knows we just marched from place to place!
In all honesty I do come from this from the perspective of growing up in the military, having served in the military, and finally coming to grips, no matter how much it pained me, with the limitations of the military. The views of someone else in the military may very well be different from mine and you know what? They aren't wrong because of it.
I think we are at a loggerheads here on this. For the record I think, like a lot of the rest of America, there was a strong undercurrent in the American military to hit back at someone. At the same time the professionals in the military took a second look at Iraq and realized that invading an occupying a country that big was going to be a real bear.
I know when they sent in the Guard from my state of Arkansas a lot of the kids they sent weren't thrilled to go there. I was out at that time but I spent some time in the Illinois and Arkansas National Guard and I know damn well that people I knew personally went to Iraq.
What I am trying to say is that... I honestly think we went to war with Iraq because we wanted vengeance for what had been done against us and we had piss poor civilian leadership during the war. I may be wrong. It is my personal viewpoint and again, I am not degrading or mocking the view of anyone else who served.
Now, I'm not saying this to be all defensive and swing my military penis around. I was an 11-bravo and everyone knows we just marched from place to place!
In all honesty I do come from this from the perspective of growing up in the military, having served in the military, and finally coming to grips, no matter how much it pained me, with the limitations of the military. The views of someone else in the military may very well be different from mine and you know what? They aren't wrong because of it.
I think we are at a loggerheads here on this. For the record I think, like a lot of the rest of America, there was a strong undercurrent in the American military to hit back at someone. At the same time the professionals in the military took a second look at Iraq and realized that invading an occupying a country that big was going to be a real bear.
I know when they sent in the Guard from my state of Arkansas a lot of the kids they sent weren't thrilled to go there. I was out at that time but I spent some time in the Illinois and Arkansas National Guard and I know damn well that people I knew personally went to Iraq.
What I am trying to say is that... I honestly think we went to war with Iraq because we wanted vengeance for what had been done against us and we had piss poor civilian leadership during the war. I may be wrong. It is my personal viewpoint and again, I am not degrading or mocking the view of anyone else who served.
Posted on 9/14/14 at 6:22 pm to Arksulli
This is all well and good but we did hit someone.
We leveled anything having to do with the Taliban and Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
Are you trying to sell the notion that it simply wasn't enough blood to satisfy the lust by the American people.
Because I ain't buying that. I live in a very conservative Arizona and there wasn't a lot of blood lust to go to war with Iraq.
Our weak leadership lost focus on what the mission was and that has cost us...heavily.
We leveled anything having to do with the Taliban and Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
Are you trying to sell the notion that it simply wasn't enough blood to satisfy the lust by the American people.
Because I ain't buying that. I live in a very conservative Arizona and there wasn't a lot of blood lust to go to war with Iraq.
Our weak leadership lost focus on what the mission was and that has cost us...heavily.
Posted on 9/14/14 at 8:04 pm to Arksulli
quote:
I think we are at a loggerheads here on this.
I'm with asu rob on this. My recollection is clear. In my location, which was not the same as yours, I detected absolutely no desire to hit back at anybody or anything but Al Qaida and the Taliban in the wake of 9/11.
In any event, however correct you may be, I'm thinking about whether our highest ranking military advisers did their best possible work, not whether you or I or the American people did their best work.
I don't think that you and I are discussing the exact same topic.
My focus is this: I'm thinking about whether our SYSTEM for creating military advisers to POTUS needs modification. I'm not looking at individual generals/flag officers in our current system. I'm looking at the system itself with a view towards whether it needs to be improved.
The system will generate the great military advisers.
We need the system to be great because POTUS needs to make great decisions and POTUS can't do this without great military advice.
This post was edited on 9/15/14 at 3:27 pm
Posted on 9/14/14 at 10:08 pm to Champagne
I would not say blood lust, but we were mad as a country and I think people didn't put the breaks on until after we were actually in Iraq. Or, to be more precise, I don't think the majority of people really sat down and thought about what the hell were we going to do with Iraq and Afghanistan now that we had proved Powell's statement of "You break it, you buy it."
As to whether they did their best possible work before the invasion took place, that is a tough one to address. We don't really know how many stated their opinion while they were in active service that invading Iraq was opening a can of worms. I think the military leadership used its usual under the table go betweens to express concern but even though a survey, I believe by the NYT, said 1 out of 3 senior officers was opposed to the war, there wasn't a public statement by senior officials on the matter. Perhaps if there had been it might have impacted the debate about going into Iraq in the first place.
As far as the waging of the occupations in both Iraq and Afghanistan I think the military leadership on the ground did they best they could with what they had in the theater of operations. There is speculation that some generals were quietly reassigned or retired for lobbying for an increase in troop strength in both countries. I think, like most wars, the military senior officers get a mixed grade in how they handled the actual combat and occupation.
As to whether they did their best possible work before the invasion took place, that is a tough one to address. We don't really know how many stated their opinion while they were in active service that invading Iraq was opening a can of worms. I think the military leadership used its usual under the table go betweens to express concern but even though a survey, I believe by the NYT, said 1 out of 3 senior officers was opposed to the war, there wasn't a public statement by senior officials on the matter. Perhaps if there had been it might have impacted the debate about going into Iraq in the first place.
As far as the waging of the occupations in both Iraq and Afghanistan I think the military leadership on the ground did they best they could with what they had in the theater of operations. There is speculation that some generals were quietly reassigned or retired for lobbying for an increase in troop strength in both countries. I think, like most wars, the military senior officers get a mixed grade in how they handled the actual combat and occupation.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 7:35 am to Arksulli
Saddam didn't have WMD'S...that was not a baby milk factory and bunkers full of comfort and joy that ISIS took a few weeks back. People say the weapons are not viable today, were they viable back when we invaded Iraq the first time? The second? Would any of you enter these bunkers full of inert and useless weapons?
Where did Assad get the stuff he is using? There are those that say it came from Iraq.
The big mistake was made right after the invasion and fall of Baghdad. We never should have disbanded the Iraqi Army. We could have set up a junta or something similar, gotten the infrastructure up and running again declared victory and gotten out of there.
Where did Assad get the stuff he is using? There are those that say it came from Iraq.
The big mistake was made right after the invasion and fall of Baghdad. We never should have disbanded the Iraqi Army. We could have set up a junta or something similar, gotten the infrastructure up and running again declared victory and gotten out of there.
This post was edited on 9/15/14 at 7:36 am
Page 6 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News