bone makers and social workers
Jcustis, my time was in Nam, not Iraq. JKM: "..pretty much given the OK to fire in many non-standard cases" "..just hit what you aim at". That's a large gray administrative discretionary gap there if you ask me and it's what I thought it pretty much was over there - social workers directing the grunts. ROE are at the fire team, squad, platoon level, not with D.C. suits who step on bona fide career men and make them toe the political line. I'm not questioning or doubting the balls and adrenalin and committment of the grunts and career officers but it seems it's time to pull the plug and bring you all home. I don't see where that hot-shot Pretareus (sp) is going to make much difference either being the CO of it all. He is tethered to D.C. and you can't tell me any different.You're supposed to fight but not hate, kill but be nice and politically correct about it. I bet there are rules against taking souvenirs off dead jihadis too, aren't there? It isn't working with jihadis this war and we all know it. Either fight to win or come home, you bear no shame.
Haditha Dismissal of Charge (merged thread)
Haditha Dismissal of Charge - LCpl Justin Sharratt, USMC. Signed by LtGen James Mattis, USMC.
No, not un-biased. Not parochial, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarajevo071
This is not un-biased forum and opinions like yours, and true and honest criticism (even when supported with news or official reports) have no merit when US military is on line... Sooner you get that longer you will stay. But, judging by some reactions on your first post, you are in cross lines already.
Good luck.
Un-biased -- unfortunately not, though we try. I know Sarajevo071 has the scars from bearing with us. Thanks.
We are a bit better at accepting opinions and true and honest criticism when they are supported with news, references, or at least a little thoughtful individual analysis. We aren't much good at critical drive-bys with no substance, even less so when they're a first post.
There's no reason why we shouldn't be equally intolerant of pro-US drive-bys of the same ilk. I guess that's the bias coming through. We do tend to ignore those rather than pounce on them, but they are no more valued or desired. Oh well. Like I said, we're not perfect.
Feel free to dissent wildly, in thoughtful and substantive posts. We need to accept that. And if/when you do, I hope you will find me, SWJED, and all the moderators fully on your side. We must get there.
Heh. Aside from the fact that no forum
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarajevo071
This is not un-biased forum and opinions like yours, and true and honest criticism (even when supported with news or official reports) have no merit when US military is on line... Sooner you get that longer you will stay. But, judging by some reactions on your first post, you are in cross lines already.
Good luck.
is unbiased, none, my observation in a month or so here is that you can criticize the military to your hearts content as long as you don't do it in a way that is designed to annoy people and as long as you're reasonable and factual.
Only when the 'in your face' and confrontational style is used do some object. They also object when statements are made with no references or backup to support the comment. As they should. People who want to make political comments can go to political blogs, there are hundreds of them out there, most filled with foolishness.
I'd also suggest the Powell doctine was really the
Weinberger doctrine (LINK), modified. Both were expressly designed to deter use of the Armed forces in anything short of a war of national survival and to avoid any commitment to peacekeeping, nation building or counterinsurgency work.
The Weinberger doctrine, when announced made a little sense. it was argaubly a laudable goal if a bit unrealistic. However its effect was to insure that the Army ignored seriously doing anything to, by, for or with counterinsurgency -- when it was fairly obvious at the time that would be a future problem.
After 1991, it wasn't fairly obvious, it was right in our face and we still tried to hide behind the flawed doctrine. It was flawed because it didn't recognize the reality on the ground, catered to the purchase of large expensive hardware instead of investing in costly individual training and lulled too many into ignoring future problems.
It also effectively precluded, if followed, virtually any use of military force due to the ever decreasing size of the Armed forces. In the event, it was not followed by any President after it was announced; all of them violated its precepts with military action.
I must not have been clear, my apology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rank amateur
We're upgrading our fighters even though we already have the best aircraft. It increases the odds that no one will ever challenge us for air supremacy.
Agree and I'm all for it; we need both the F22 and the F35 (all variants) for the reason you state. As I pointed out to someone here a few days ago; US troops on the ground haven't been attacked from the air and there's a reason for that.
Quote:
The stronger we are at COIN, the less likely our enemies will be to draw us into an asymmetrical conflict...
Couldn't agree more; that's why I constantly gripe about the fact that the senior leadership of the Army (including Powell among others) ignored it for 30 years even though a number of us were screaming that was not a good idea. Being able to say "I told you so" isn't really very satisfying.
Quote:
... So I'd argue that the doctrine was solid, just poorly implemented.
I don't think the doctrines say what you think they say and I know that the implementation of them was specifically designed to say the "Army fights the Nation's BIG wars..." and to totally avoid nation building and counterinsurgency. Google is ready when you are, You should be able to find several quotes from Powell and others saying just that.
Quote:
To use an analogy. Desiring to avoid nuclear war: good. Trying to achieve it by getting rid of nuclear weapons: bad implementation.
I'm sorry but your analogy isn't tracking with me, what, precisely, do you mean?
I thought by pointing out that every President from Reagan forward essentially ignored that doctrine and sent penny packets of troops, ships and aircraft to do either inane things as well as some important things that needed doing would make the point that the doctrines, aside from the size of forces that I also mentioned, were not politically supportable. Militarily they're eminently sensible and very valid -- but as the North Vietnamese Colonel told Harry Summers, "That may be true but it is also irrelevant."
The doctrines sound good but the realities of force structure size and capabilities, a world removed from the phoniness and artificiality of the 40 year Cold War and the hard cold light of international and domestic politics made them moot the day they were released. Great idea, shame it was unworkable.
They were an effort to constrain the US from military efforts bar a major threat. Any student of American history could've told Weinberger and Powell their ideas were good but not likely to be heeded -- and they were not, from 1984 onwards and by four Presidents from two Parties. I think there's a message in that.
Heh. I think the basic problem was that the
US wanted Europe to fix its own problems, Sarajevo.
They didn't seem inclined to do that. If you've noticed, we were late to the party in World Wars I and II as well -- waiting for Europe to solve their own problems.
Seems to be a pattern there...
As to the world wide Empire, not really that we want to do it all that much; we'd a lot rather worry about Lindsay Lohan and Larry Craig's bathroom habits but all these other folks just seem to cause problems that no one is willing to fix.
Nasty job as they say but somebody has to do it.
Be happy, another 50 years or so and we''ll be downgraded -- then you can complain about the Chinese or the Indians. :D