OEF has it been worth the human cost?

[Ken White]

I believe the original decision to commit was correct. The performance of the CIA and SF was more than satisfactory. However, the decision to commit the GPF was ill advised and the later decisions to stay and to attempt to rebuild Afghanistan were very bad errors with entirely predictable consequences.

We do not do these things well and have not since World War II -- the world changed and we did not; our Euro-centric focus has not served us at all well. Nor are we now capable of being mean enough; neither can we maintain focus due to our governmental processes. We should avoid such efforts in the future. Just go in, break things, leave quickly and let the locals and the UN fix it with our support -- from a distance...

We do short, sharp and anywhere, anytime pretty well -- we do not have the patience for long hauls. Not to mention that going in somewhere we are not wanted (or, often, needed...) and setting up fire bases or FOBs with large sandbag or Hesco RPG magnets from which we foray briefly (and ineptly, more often than not...) and throw money about with little focused thought is just dumb -- and wasteful. Going is often necessary , staying -- or, more correctly, overstaying -- is almost never even desirable, much less necessary. It was not in Viet Nam, it was not in Iraq and it is not in Afghanistan. As my son said on his fourth or fifth trip to the 'Stan -- I lost count -- "I don't know what this is but it isn't war..."

American Pride is correct, there are few things humans do that are more stupid than war but they are sometimes necessary and are certainly going to occur. As the Marines used to say "Nobody wants a war -- but somebody better know how to fight one." We seem to have forgotten both to 'not want one' and then when we blunder into one, the 'how.'

[JMA]

As the Marines used to say "Nobody wants a war -- but somebody better know how to fight one." We seem to have forgotten both to 'not want one' and then when we blunder into one, the 'how.'

This is the crux of the matter... or as George Orwell said:

"We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us."

Now if the politicians want to misuse the military and the generals don't have the balls to stand up to them when we get Vietnams and Afghanistans... and not the human cost is not justified.

The thing about Stalin was that he knew how to deal with incompetent generals.

[Fuchs]

The thing about Stalin was that he knew how to deal with incompetent generals.

No, if he fired an incompetent general, then because he fired (killed, jailed) so many that some incompetents had to be among them.
Plus: The incompetents rose in the ranks under Stalin's regime, often because of Stalin's regime.

IIRC Marshall was a much better example for how to get rid of incompetents (Colonel and above).

[JMA]

No, if he fired an incompetent general, then because he fired (killed, jailed) so many that some incompetents had to be among them.
Plus: The incompetents rose in the ranks under Stalin's regime, often because of Stalin's regime.

IIRC Marshall was a much better example for how to get rid of incompetents (Colonel and above).

Good for Marshall then (assumming you are talking of George Marshall)

Anyway it is not only colonels and above who need to be fired. The requirement goes right down the rank structure to include NCOs. The problem seems to be that the policy to reassign non-performers results in the problems being passed around the military rather than out the back door. Not a smart policy.

[Fuchs]

High level leadership should not bother with firing junior leaders. Many of them still need to learn, and the hopeless cases should be handled by mid-level leadership.

An inept and hopeless lieutenant should be reported by his captain and be removed by the Bn commander unless the Bde Cdr vetoes the decision after deliberating with his S-1.

I would not want to have any higher ranked leaders involved (even if it's about a failure that went into national media) because higher ranked leaders usually don't have repeated contact with the junior leader and could only judge based on a file or one-time observation.

I'd extend this at the very least to Coy leaders (captains).


Not sure how this is being handled in most armies, but I have little hope for a sensible regulation. Most personnel systems treat a soldier afaik as an asset that should not be written off if avoidable - until the end of the term.

[JMA]

High level leadership should not bother with firing junior leaders. Many of them still need to learn, and the hopeless cases should be handled by mid-level leadership.

An inept and hopeless lieutenant should be reported by his captain and be removed by the Bn commander unless the Bde Cdr vetoes the decision after deliberating with his S-1.

I would not want to have any higher ranked leaders involved (even if it's about a failure that went into national media) because higher ranked leaders usually don't have repeated contact with the junior leader and could only judge based on a file or one-time observation.

I'd extend this at the very least to Coy leaders (captains).

Not sure how this is being handled in most armies, but I have little hope for a sensible regulation. Most personnel systems treat a soldier afaik as an asset that should not be written off if avoidable - until the end of the term.

Yes of course.

All I am attempting to say is that it is not only a number generals who (after being held responsible for the lamentable conduct of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan) being fired but also a number of all ranks right down the line who deserve not to be reassigned but fired. Fired by whoever their two-up commander is. Can't pass all the buck onto the generals.