Army Officer Accuses Generals of 'Intellectual and Moral Failures'

[Cavguy]

The same sorts of discussions took place during Korea and Viet Nam -- as well as afterward. At all ranks. Not new with the Brits either -- or with Canadians. During Korea, we had 42 RM Cdo attached for a while and were adjacent to the Black Watch and visited 2 RCR. Soldiers gripe. Even about their own Army to others, given a little alcoholic easing of natural tension and reticence. :wry:

......

The departure by resignation of massive numbers of Officers at the earliest possible date during a war is also not new. Wives get upset, Captains and some Majors leave -- also happened during Korea and Viet Nam.

There's no news -- or anything to be concerned about there...

Here is where we part ways - I think there is a great deal to be concerned about, but the sky will not fall.

Just because it happened before doesn't make it right. I don't think anyone wants a repeat of the 70's army or what I read about the Eisenhower Army post-Korea. It took both forces over ten years to recover culturally from those wars.

We have serious, developed problems in our officer culture and leadership that is turning off many excellent junior officers from staying in the army. The problem is real and is self perpetuating as most of those promoted believe the system worked and those who left are whiners or losers.

Read this (http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c426.htm) and this (http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c426.htm) - written seven years ago. The comments, with the exception of the "peacekeeping" issues, are all still valid and applicable today. 9/11 resulted in many officers desiring to stay in and serve - and didn't get the army to address the serious culture problems stemming from the 90s drawdown. I think the criticism of the generals by Yingling and others is a direct result of a generation of leaders built in the "zero defect, perfect QTB" 90's Army.

The Army, and the Republic, will survive regardless. But just because it will go on doesn't mean that the status quo is acceptable or desirable.

[Ken White]

Here is where we part ways - I think there is a great deal to be concerned about, but the sky will not fall.

Just because it happened before doesn't make it right. I don't think anyone wants a repeat of the 70's army or what I read about the Eisenhower Army post-Korea. It took both forces over ten years to recover culturally from those wars.

Culturally is the good news -- you wouldn't believe what happened to training during those periods...

You had to be there to really savor the problems. I was for both periods and it wasn't cool.

A large part of the problem centers around the Army's World War II mentality and the care and feeding of Generals. Then and now...


We have serious, developed problems in our officer culture and leadership that is turning off many excellent junior officers from staying in the army. The problem is real and is self perpetuating as most of those promoted believe the system worked and those who left are whiners or losers.

Read this (http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c426.htm) and this (http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c426.htm) - written seven years ago. The comments, with the exception of the "peacekeeping" issues, are all still valid and applicable today. 9/11 resulted in many officers desiring to stay in and serve - and didn't get the army to address the serious culture problems stemming from the 90s drawdown. I think the criticism of the generals by Yingling and others is a direct result of a generation of leaders built in the "zero defect, perfect QTB" 90's Army.

Vandergriff has some good ideas. I don't agree with him on all counts but that's okay. There are others with good ideas and I totally agree that the care and feeding of all ranks in the Army is long due for a major overhaul. A crunch is going to develop as we slowly disengage large numbers from Iraq and find that our abysmal personnel system, up or out promotions and DOPMA have created big problems -- and that the large number of potential SSGs in the combat arms due to the high reenlistment rates is more than an ankle biter...

I think it goes a little deeper. A lot is predicated on a mobilization base and the perceived need to have too many officers for the structure to be prepared to rapidly expand if required. That's a valid concern and we've always tried to do it on the sly because Congress will not tolerate it openly.

More is predicated on the way we fund and staff Federal organisms. The personnel bureaucracy was large, understandably, at the end of WW II -- and it has zealously and successfully fought to remain oversized since. all those people need work and if there is none, they'll create some...

Battalion Commanders in Viet Nam post 1967 learned they had instant NCOs and LTs who would do anything you asked but they didn't know much and thus a cult of micromanagement developed. Those LTCs were your 90s Generals -- they "trained" their successors, the current crop, the same way.

Add to that, as one of my favorite LTGs once told me, he was mediocre and "all Generals are mediocre -- if you're really good, your contemporaries will kill you on the way up because you're too much competition."

Lot of impactors on the problem, many more than we could address in a day...


The Army, and the Republic, will survive regardless. But just because it will go on doesn't mean that the status quo is acceptable or desirable.

What are we going to do to address the problem of senior leadership that insists on business as usual and a personnel bureaucracy that exists to aggrandize itself?

My comment that there is nothing to be concerned about is based on part of your last; "The Army and the Republic will survive regardless."

The remainder of that paragraph "But just because it will go on doesn't mean that the status quo is acceptable or desirable." is totally and very sadly true but IMO this is one of those problems that falls into the "It is best to leap a chasm in a single jump" as opposed to taking small bites of the elephant. I do not see anyone capable of making that leap up top...

Sadly.

[Fred III]

I am sorry, but I am a newcomer to this thread, so I have not read everything posted. It is an extremely interesting debate, but I am not so sure there is a solution. The problem you seek to redress is self-perpetuating and self-fulfilling, and unlike other problems we have tackled-- and solved-- in the country, i.e., segregation, this is thornier from the solution point of view, primarily because I think this is truly institutionalized.

In Vietnam we had some smoke-bringers, men who really were generals, but I think, by and far, most were more concerned with the air-conditioning in their trailers and the color-content of their briefing charts than the tactics of how to win that war. I often wonder why we have "stars" briefing the news media; I always thought some reserve captain might do a better job. The political mouthpieces could always explain away some junior officer's faux pas easier than if it were uttered by a general. We tend to believe "generals."

To me, the corporate mentality of today's army bears the brunt of the responsibility here. Corporations love cover-ups and I'm not sure I see the efficacy of an advanced degree from Harvard in the military power-structure. I never knew some of these schools were such bastions of military studies. Or is this just a ploy to prepare senior officers for the after-life of corporate pelf? Don't get me wrong, I am a monumentally huge supporter of all things educational, it's just that I would like to see it pointed more in the direction we need to march than to the narrow perspective of someone's self-aggrandizement.

As I said, we had some fine generals in, and coming out of, Vietnam, but with only 1 or 2 exceptions, I heard very little more of them and those exceptions survived probably because of the army's post-Vietnam catharsis, when everyone was scrambling. They got Hackworth; they got Vann (... that'll teach the rabble!), and they'll get Yingling, McMasters, and Nagl, as well. (I think there is also a one- or two-star who may be on that hit-list, but his name escapes me.) So to me, there is very little, if any difference between what you are going through now and what I-- or I should say, we-- went through in the sixties and seventies. There is no solution and the myth is perpetuated by the issuance of a new medal. Some of these guys wear more medals for doing less, that the uniform looks like a Soviet commissar's. "And I got this for not missing a day of..." Some guy pops off a shot in Africa and we all switch the patch to the right sleeve and issue another ribbon. Then the New York Times gets ahold of it, and wow! the war hero returns. In the meantime, our boys die, and the self-fulfilling prophecy goes on. Do they pin the campaign ribbon on the parents' flag? Does someone tell them the purple heart comes before the Botswana Service Award when they hang the trophy box on the wall?

For a general to criticize a public policy, it is like self-immolation. If he does it before Congress-- as may be required-- or privately, in the Pentagon's inner sanctum, he is relegated to early retirement (Taguba), or worse, the DOD sneer (Shinseki). But if he kowtows to the party line and says all is right with the mufti warlords (Franks, Meyers), he reaps the Medal of Freedom, or some such bauble. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Do we call it morals? Do we call it ethics? No... we call it reprisal, we call it survival, and maybe we can come back and fight another day... . And here I am defending the "flag" office (O-7 to O-10-ville), that public corporation running the army. Can C&GS or the War College issue an advanced degree that the universities of this country won't sniggle at? I don't know; I've been out of the loop for too long.

And I guess the problem I have is that some how, some way, even after 67 years of being stunned by this nonsense, I still care. I walked away from 10 years in the service, but left without my heart. I feel sorry for all of you-- that ain't pity, gentlemen; it's respect and admiration and the hopes you can get it right where my friends and I failed.

My hat's off to the Big Three (Yingling, McMasters, and Nagl), just like it was off to gutsy Hackworth and brilliant John Paul Vann. But until the institution-- the "corporation"-- recognizes its inherent problem, cabals to deal with it, you'll be having this conversation in your rocking chairs on your palm computers.

Sorry for butting in.

Best wishes,
Fred.

[goesh]

This discourse nudges the ranks to clean up and shape up but no good ever comes from civilians meddling too much in military affairs

[Fred III]

This discourse nudges the ranks to clean up and shape up but no good ever comes from civilians meddling too much in military affairs

Boy, oh boy! is that ever the truth. The key, however, is your phrase, "too much."

Best wishes,
Fred.

[Ken White]

...
. . .
And I guess the problem I have is that some how, some way, even after 67 years of being stunned by this nonsense, I still care. I walked away from 10 years in the service, but left without my heart. I feel sorry for all of you-- that ain't pity, gentlemen; it's respect and admiration and the hopes you can get it right where my friends and I failed.

... But until the institution-- the "corporation"-- recognizes its inherent problem, cabals to deal with it, you'll be having this conversation in your rocking chairs on your palm computers.
...

Best wishes,
Fred.

I can agree with all that, including the parts I eliminated to save space -- well, maybe a reservation on Hackworth who was in the same Brigade and for whom I once ran a mission while OpCon to his Battalion; I am not an admirer -- I strongly agree with your last paragraph quoted above.

Goesh says:


This discourse nudges the ranks to clean up and shape up but no good ever comes from civilians meddling too much in military affairs

Very true. Most of the commenters on this thread are military and fortunately, being a Navy junior and with 45 years of millinery and silly-villian service and now comfortably retarded; all except for about two years between the Corps and the Army of my 76+ years living on guvmint checks, as my kids say, I can't even spell silly-villian... :D

Seriously, you're right. More importantly, so is Fred -- the institution is going to have to un-bureaucrat-ize themselves; Congress won't (will in fact actively if inadvertently try to increase the bureaucracy *) and most civilians wouldn't know where to start. :wry:

* Congress for the most part doesn't care about the Armed Forces but most of them do NOT want a truly effective and really competent force; they're afraid of such a monster. Penalty of living in a Democracy -- but we get a lot of payback and I'm not sure we want too significant a change...

[Steve Blair]

And of course that goes back to the eternal debate: how much is too much?

And I frankly don't trust the institution to un-bureaucratize itself...there's no real incentive from their perspective to do so. And remember, the big drive for that sort of thing started under Eisenhower and accelerated with the business management theory of leadership (a good deal of which came from him and Marshall). I wouldn't say that Congress is afraid of an effective military...most of them wouldn't know what that was. What does scare most of them (and the rats - both civilian and former military - that inhabit the personnel and procurement systems) is an efficient and smaller military. Too many gravy trains go away with that.

[Tom Odom]

And of course that goes back to the eternal debate: how much is too much?

And I frankly don't trust the institution to un-bureaucratize itself...there's no real incentive from their perspective to do so. And remember, the big drive for that sort of thing started under Eisenhower and accelerated with the business management theory of leadership (a good deal of which came from him and Marshall). I wouldn't say that Congress is afraid of an effective military...most of them wouldn't know what that was. What does scare most of them (and the rats - both civilian and former military - that inhabit the personnel and procurement systems) is an efficient and smaller military. Too many gravy trains go away with that.

I don't think any organization can do that without outside pressure, regardless of what it does. Military organizations thrive on tradition, history, doctrine, and TTPs--all of which breeds inertia. That intertia is compounded by success; the more successful--at least as it sees itself--the less likely an organization is to change. We trumpet our military prowess even as we talk change; we change little but it sure does cost an awful lot. Defeat or embarrassment tends to make us shake off the cob webs. Elihu Root's reforms after the Spanish-American War come to mind as an example.

Steve, I do believe that a significant portion of Congress is afraid of an effective military because they do not know what makes one effective. Then another group simply does not see an effective military as a necessity beyond using it as a campaign fund raising tool. The procurement rats of which you speak fall in that camp.

Best

Tom

[Steve Blair]

Steve, I do believe that a significant portion of Congress is afraid of an effective military because they do not know what makes one effective. Then another group simply does not see an effective military as a necessity beyond using it as a campaign fund raising tool. The procurement rats of which you speak fall in that camp.

Best

Tom

Very true on both counts, Tom, although I'd possibly contend that parts of Congress are afraid of an effective military because they're told it's a "bad thing," often by those same rats. I don't honestly know how many of them have their own opinion on the issue or simply echo what they're told by their own "experts." It's also interesting to consider that some of our "leadership by management" issues stem in part from Root's reforms.

Still, as you point out there is a need for outside pressure to enact reform in most cases.

[Fred III]

* Congress for the most part doesn't care about the Armed Forces but most of them do NOT want a truly effective and really competent force; they're afraid of such a monster. Penalty of living in a Democracy...

The problem with this comment is that it is correct. The bigger problem with it is every time I realize it, my eyes tear up.

You suffered through that long harrangue of mine, so bear with me for a quick story. Some time in the early eighties NYC decided it was time to stop throwing tomatoes at Vietnam vets, so the mayor threw a big bash. Some parade. I'd like to remember it as being more than a tack-on to a World Series victory, but I don't recall. By this time I was wearing a Wall Street suit, and the thanks be damned. I never could reconcile with the past. I arrived in Grand Central Station-- on my way to downtown-- on the day of the parade, and the place was crawling with vets. You could tell; they were the grungy ones in OD. I passed by a bunch of them... and stopped. I stood there for a moment and thought, I should go back to one group of about a dozen guys and say something to them. So ol' Freddy-boy here, turns and swings his Armani-clad butt into the jungle-fatigue group and introduces himself, the only officer in the throng. It was like old home week and I spent 15 or 20 minutes with them, none of whom I knew, none of whom I ever served with. But we had that bond... They asked me if I was going to march and I replied, No, this was for them. The country had thrown one-too-many tomatoes at me, some flung by my own brothers, my own family. This parade was for these men; they earned it, they deserved it, it was their final acceptance. This closed the door for them. What's the latest PC term? Closure. I don't have closure. I don't want it. I will never accept it, because if I do, I will accept the deaths of every one of those men in Vietnam and in Iraq, I will accept every cockamamie war we decide to fight for whatever stupid reason we can concoct. They marched; I walked away.

Show me the nukes, boys, then I'll fight. Show me! Don't tell me, show me. Otherwise, buzz off, we have no business policing the world's dirty laundry. If we need the oil, we'll pay. If I told you in 1999 gas would cost you $3 a gallon, you would have had a kitten. Yet here we are and there isn't a single thread on this site (that I know of) that is complaining about the price of oil. We always pay! We always will, and we'll survive. Do you want to give up your son's life so you can drop the price to $1.50? Not me.

I think many of the brainier generals know this and that's why you have some of the opposition you have. Someone on this site said he didn't respect retired generals who came out against the war in Iraq, but you know something, what else can they do? Serve out your time, get out, and raise hell. The flip side, the good thing, the thing that still gives me hope, is the 75% at 30 years. You ain't goin' any higher, fellows. And that extra star won't get you on the NYC subway. That's the guy I want to hear yelling. That's the guy who gives me hope. When the nonsense is over and we've buried our last mistake, that's the guy I want to hear from.

Best wishes,
Fred.

[Norfolk]

Very true on both counts, Tom, although I'd possibly contend that parts of Congress are afraid of an effective military because they're told it's a "bad thing," often by those same rats. I don't honestly know how many of them have their own opinion on the issue or simply echo what they're told by their own "experts." It's also interesting to consider that some of our "leadership by management" issues stem in part from Root's reforms.

Still, as you point out there is a need for outside pressure to enact reform in most cases.

The problem there is, as only a handful of members of Congress have any military experience whatsoever, they have little in the way of means even to form an opinion of their own. Their own staffers, not to mention the lobbyists, are the closest thing the overwhelming majority of them have to "professionsl" advice on military matters (unless a few of them read CRS reports...)

It's sad when a lobbysist or even some 20-something staffer may have more say in influencing many a Congressman's or Senator's "opinion" on military matters than the military themselves.

[Ken White]

The problem with this comment is that it is correct. The bigger problem with it is every time I realize it, my eyes tear up.
. . .

I agree it was their parade and I wouldn't have marched either. I wasn't there wishing I was elsewhere or thinking I had more important or better things to do, I was there because it was what I did for a living. No parade required or desired


Show me the nukes, boys, then I'll fight. Show me! Don't tell me, show me. Otherwise, buzz off, we have no business policing the world's dirty laundry. If we need the oil, we'll pay. If I told you in 1999 gas would cost you $3 a gallon, you would have had a kitten.

Nah, I had that kitten in 1955 when it went to a Quarter a gallon. Years later when it went to half a buck, I didn't even blink.


... Yet here we are and there isn't a single thread on this site (that I know of) that is complaining about the price of oil. We always pay! We always will, and we'll survive...

That may be because this isn't a political blog.


... Do you want to give up your son's life so you can drop the price to $1.50? Not me.

We may not have any business doing it but, rightly or wrongly, we have had to play world cop since Franklin knocked our erstwhile allies out of the colony business in 1944-45. All three of my sons served, one is still in, coming up on 18 years and he's no more concerned over his tours and CIB than I was over mine; goes with the job. He's said he doesn't get PTSD, he gives it. Works for me...


... That's the guy who gives me hope. When the nonsense is over and we've buried our last mistake, that's the guy I want to hear from.

Best wishes,
Fred.

I doubt we're anywhere close to burying our last mistake and I doubt that will occur in yours, my or our kids kids lifetime.

[wm]

The problem there is, as only a handful of members of Congress have any military experience whatsoever, they have little in the way of means even to form an opinion of their own. Their own staffers, not to mention the lobbyists, are the closest thing the overwhelming majority of them have to "professionsl" advice on military matters (unless a few of them read CRS reports...)

It's sad when a lobbysist or even some 20-something staffer may have more say in influencing many a Congressman's or Senator's "opinion" on military matters than the military themselves.

What's even sadder is when the 20-something Expert staffers brief the Congressmen with material gathered from reading CRS reports which were written by other folks who quite often have little or no hands on experience themselves.

[Fred III]

We may not have any business doing it but, rightly or wrongly, we have had to play world cop since Franklin knocked our erstwhile allies out of the colony business in 1944-45... .

I doubt we're anywhere close to burying our last mistake and I doubt that will occur in yours, my or our kids kids lifetime.

I don't disagree with anything you have written here. I am not even averse to the so-called "world cop" role, when it is in the proper perspective and when it is necessary. Our participation in WWII was necessary, for more than Pearl Harbor. Korea was justified, as well. The Vietnam critics conveniently forget about a little treaty we had called SEATO, the NATO look-alike on the other side of the globe. Now I admit, SEATO consisted of the U.S., the interests of the U.S., and ... [fill-in-the-blank], but still... it was a treaty (sort of like the ABM treaty, right?). Even the Persian Gulf War was easily justifiable; just don't cram it down my throat by telling me we're doing it for Kuwait. This country doesn't do anything for anybody unless there's something in it for US (I wonder if that's why we call it the U.S.)-- as epitomized by the Bush family. And I don't have a problem with that. But, if we're to assume the mantle of the world's "policeman," why aren't we in Darfur, why aren't we kicking Mugabe out of Rhodesia (there, I've said it!) [actually, I said "it" because I can't spell Zimbabwe], and any other little tasks? I am not terribly comfortable with that role as defined by some people. I would like to see it better defined and I would like to see some allies. And I don't mean 1 guy from Yoo-Hoo Land (times 10!!), sitting in a tent, 100 miles from civilization in Iraq. That ain't participation; that's a Congressional hand-out for later.

Iraq was contrived... but now we're getting political and you said this isn't a political site. So... all we have to do now is to figure a way out. I have one... hm-m-m-m... Let me check my Vietnam playbook... .

Best wishes,
Fred.

[Tacitus]

What's even sadder is when the 20-something Expert staffers brief the Congressmen with material gathered from reading CRS reports which were written by other folks who quite often have little or no hands on experience themselves.

I am just curious how anyone expects more people in our society and government to have a better understanding of the military if we don't have some kind of universal military service requirement. In plain English, a draft.

I regularly read and hear military folks lamenting how detached the nation is from the Iraq war, how none of the Congress or Executive branch have any real comprehension of the military. But the military seems to be resolutely against doing away with a relatively small, volunteer military force. This seems to be a contradiction. You just can't have it both ways, it seems to me.

I'm not arguing for the draft in this post, I'm just saying that I think this kind of separation from the larger society and population carries along with it such things as a Congress having to rely on a lobbyist or staffer to generate any opinion on military matters.

[wm]

I am just curious how anyone expects more people in our society and government to have a better understanding of the military if we don't have some kind of universal military service requirement. In plain English, a draft.

I regularly read and hear military folks lamenting how detached the nation is from the Iraq war, how none of the Congress or Executive branch have any real comprehension of the military. But the military seems to be resolutely against doing away with a relatively small, volunteer military force. This seems to be a contradiction. You just can't have it both ways, it seems to me.

I'm not arguing for the draft in this post, I'm just saying that I think this kind of separation from the larger society and population carries along with it such things as a Congress having to rely on a lobbyist or staffer to generate any opinion on military matters.

I'm not sure that these guys actually need to have served in order to be a littel closer to the issues on which they are either legislating or advising the legislators. I'm not calling for verstehen a la Dilthey or Weber here. I just want a better state of erkenntnis. (I'm sure MarcT or Rex will correct me if I have gotten the distinction wrong. :) ) I suspect they can gain that insight without going the basic, AIT, etc. route. More to the point is one's willingness to be open-minded and well-informed, I suspect.

[Fred III]

I am just curious how anyone expects more people in our society and government to have a better understanding of the military if we don't have some kind of universal military service requirement. In plain English, a draft.

But the military seems to be resolutely against doing away with a relatively small, volunteer military force. This seems to be a contradiction. You just can't have it both ways, it seems to me.


I am an advocate of the draft, but if you want a hot-button topic, that's the one to choose. Can you imagine this panty-waist Congress and the furor a draft proposal would stir? You'd have every swingin' Richard among them screaming bloody blue murder and running for cover. As for the "military," don't make me laugh. The military was flat-out, dead-set against the all-volunteer force... dead-set against it! And don't let anybody tell you different; they have short memories. And I don't believe this "qualitative" drop-off with a conscription army. You remember the old saw, right, we won every battle in Vietnam. Well, if that's so (and it is), then why did we lose the war? We lost the war because the same guys who convinced us the "professional," volunteer army was the way to go, were the ones deciding the strategy, tactics, and troop deployments (read, manpower!) for Vietnam.

I don't believe the WWII German army was all volunteer, and we paid hell beating those turkeys, even the fourth-tier troops manning the Atlantic Wall, and the tired, worn-out veterans chasing our butts all over hedgerow country.

Na-a-h, I like conscription. If set up properly, it would make the politicos a lot more reticent in sending our men to Nirvanah.

Two years into conscription and the "military" would think it's the best thing that ever happened. Right now you have these petty jealousies about "the best." I'm a pro, I'm the best. You can still be the pro, you can still be "the best"... now let's see just how good you are by making someone who doesn't really want to be there, just as good.

God!, I love a challenge!

Best wishes,
Fred.

[nichols]

Hitler was a Corporal:eek:

I really don't have any heart ache with a lack of military service from our elected officials. The people advising the officials are a completely different matter IMHO. Ultimately the citizens of this country have the last say at the ballot box.

I think if we do a serious breakdown of cause and effect for the conflicts that we have participated in since the beginning of this republic we would probably find out that most of them can be linked to resource/profit goals. Whether it be no taxes, open markets, coal, forward bases, and now oil. I don't think this is a bad thing BTW, ultimately if we determine that this is unacceptable then we as a nation would have to change who and what we are.

Can we or should we do something drastic like:

End our requirement for fuel?
Bring back the draft?

To both questions I think no. I think civilization is evolving, ending the fuel requirement prematurely would stop civilizations progress to the next step of evolving. Bringing back a draft to this country would be as alien as FDR's programs in the 30s. Simply put, we are past that stage of development.

There appears to be a lot of people working from home via the internet. There is still a perceived need to have someone converting oxygen at a desk which needs to be addresses. Something along the lines that technically, libraries, schools and so on are not needed due to the world wide web. Yet, we still feel the need to have a book in our hands or attend a classroom. My gut check tells me that this is where our next step taking us.

[marct]

Hi WM,


I'm not sure that these guys actually need to have served in order to be a littel closer to the issues on which they are either legislating or advising the legislators. I'm not calling for verstehen a la Dilthey or Weber here. I just want a better state of erkenntnis. (I'm sure MarcT or Rex will correct me if I have gotten the distinction wrong. :) )

erkennen - distinctions right, spellings wrong ;)


I suspect they can gain that insight without going the basic, AIT, etc. route. More to the point is one's willingness to be open-minded and well-informed, I suspect.

I would agree with that. Then again, how likely are we to see those [desirable] characteristics required of politicians????


Na-a-h, I like conscription. If set up properly, it would make the politicos a lot more reticent in sending our men to Nirvanah.

Two years into conscription and the "military" would think it's the best thing that ever happened. Right now you have these petty jealousies about "the best." I'm a pro, I'm the best. You can still be the pro, you can still be "the best"... now let's see just how good you are by making someone who doesn't really want to be there, just as good.

God!, I love a challenge!

Hi Fred - it would definitely be a challenge! The only times we (Canada) ever had it, it was an unmitigated disaster and not something I would like to see repeated. I have a pretty strong feeling, although I couldn't prove it, that an attempt to bring it back in the US would also be an unmitigated disaster both politically and militarily.

I think that you definitely could introduce some form of "national service" (loosely construed) that contained components of military training and discipline but also led to non-military service. Of course, to do it properly, it couldn't be a lottery - it would have to be universal.

Marc

[Fred III]

Can we or should we do something drastic like:

End our requirement for fuel?
Bring back the draft?

To both questions I think no.


I cannot argue against either of your points... except...

If you want to wage a war, you better staff it properly or stay away. If you remember, the original plan for Iraq was the 3rd Inf. Div., hey-diddle-diddle-straight-up-the-middle, and the Ivy Division down from Turkey. Well, our good friends and allies, the Turks-- Erdovan and Gul-- decided you can't have the infidels attacking a "brother" from our country. So, in his infinite wisdom, The Donald and Cie, deep-sixed the 4th. Who needs it! We're the U.S.! Well, guess what... ? What were the repercussions of that move? First of all, it immediately made things more difficult and more dangerous for the 3rd, the Marines, and the British. I mean, that's obvious. Second, it probably eliminated an immediate presence to calm the situation after the fighting ended. Third... and everything else is speculation... the additional troops could very easily have affected the way Garner ran things and maybe he wouldn't have run afoul of Metternich in the Pentagon. [I'm reaching here, so...]

And I don't know... I don't think anyone does. All I know is that from U. S. Grant on, this country has been about the big-battalions. We didn't beat the Germans by slight-of-hand. We clobbered 'em. Even in Vietnam, we didn't pussy-foot around.

As for the oil, you're absolutely correct, no doubt about it. That's why God made $$$$$$$$$$$$. And make no bones about it, gentlemen. This is a former Wall Streeter talking now. It's always about the money! I don't see any Iranian ayatollah living in a tent. Praise the Lord!

Best wishes,
Fred.