Some Initial Riper/IRN War Game Resources
Quote:
Originally Posted by
slapout9
Randy,another modern example would be USMC General Van Riper and his refusal to keep playing a rigged War Game after he had already beaten the US forces. This was supposedly a War game of a possible invasion of Iran if I remember correctly (check this i could be wrong on the country).Others on this site may remember more details. General Van Riper is a really smart guy so this may be worth doing more research on to see some of the fine details of high level decision making when facts get in the way of a pre-determined decision.
And here's some places worth starting with....
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,95496,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/wa...on/12navy.html
http://nationalsecurity.oversight.ho...ry.asp?ID=1618
http://nationalsecurity.oversight.ho...1114181303.pdf
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1103-04.htm
As for the main topic of the thread, I agree with those who've said if you can't win it, you shouldn't be leading it. Now, when that's happened in the past, I note some (most notably after they retired) have said, "well, I didn't agree with the plan/resources/strategy/approach, but I didn't quit because I wanted to be sure the best possible effort was made, even a less-than-perfect situation." Was this true, or were pensions/reputations worried about more? I can't read minds/hearts, so I'll leave that to the individual consciences of those making such statements.
You can resign in protest and they'll just keep dipping down until they
find someone who will do ti. Generally better to say 'Yes' and then do it your way. If you get it done, they can say little, if you don't they'll can you any way...
Some things have to get a flat 'No, Sir. I cannot do that' but they're relatively rare in my observation and generally, if what you say makes sense, you' ll win the argument.
All of which gets away from the poor Theater Commander who pretty much has to say he can do this thing... :wry:
Does this add to the debate?
I don't normally read Ralph Peter's column in the NYPost, but it caught my eye and in reading it found it applied to this discussion: http://www.nypost.com/seven/09032009...day-newsletter
Quote:
According to multiple (angry) sources, McChrystal -- our top soldier on the ground -- intended to ask for 28,000 more US troops. A presidential hatchet man directed the general not to make the request: Troop increases would be "addressed separately."
Worried about his poll numbers, our president's making a bad situation worse. He's given McChrystal the impossible mission of turning Afghan Flintstones into Jetsons, while starving him of means.
This violates a fundamental principle of the American way of war: Once the president assigns the mission, the commander must receive due consideration when he asks for the necessary resources.
Obama's message to McChrystal was "Just don't ask."
I don't believe the general's correct, but he has a right to be heard. Any decision about troop levels should be made based upon the facts on the ground, not politics. By playing along with White House censorship, McChrystal's allowing himself to be used as a political tool. That's not a proper role for any general.
All manner of issues raised here, for a non-American I do wonder why a White House "hatchet man" could direct the general's report being written in such a manner. I could follow if DoD or JCS gave such a direction.
davidbfpo
Main reason I didn't have a problem with the idea
of seperate requests is that it might help keep the generals assessment from being percieved to dictate policy rather than inform it.
Now what the powers that be do in relation to real requirements is on them.
I'm sure the needs have been rather extensively expressed. Gen McChrystal seems like the type that would ensure that message is chrystal clear.
And can't see Gen Petreaus accepting anything less
Guess we'll see