thanks; stupid me; no wonder steve was asking.Originally Posted by selil
perhaps i shouldn't try to be so clever next time.
gian
thanks; stupid me; no wonder steve was asking.
perhaps i shouldn't try to be so clever next time.
gian
Actually, I thought it was brilliantly existential to posit the idea of a little cartoon fish challenging the Architect
Ah; too bad i didnt think of it in that way but the other yet didn't spend the time to proofread the post. Perhaps i should go easier when grading finals.
thanks
gian
Yes, but this doesn't leave us to the contingent affirmation of the situation.Actually, I thought it was brilliantly existential to posit the idea of a little cartoon fish challenging the Architect
Somehow I don't think stupid and Gian P Gentile belong in the same sentence. Now Sci Fi Freak and Selil... those are entrenched.
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
thanks for the vote of confidence and thanks secret squirrel for watching my six.
gian
ps: i wonder if SWJ editors might help in correcting the title of the thread to "Neo" from "Nemo"
SWJ is like marriage: we must learn to live with the reminders of our errors.
In an attempt to clarify
I agree and would like to make sure there is not a misunderstanding.
I read Macgregors first book in 2006 and started reading Breaking the Phalanx shortly thereafter. Unfortunately the cop I was reading was borrowed from my boss and at some point my children managed to get hold of it. Needless to say it wasn't pretty. I bought another copy for him since the one he had was autographed and have been waiting for a return lecture in order to try and get it autographed.
Anyway I digress, I haven't finished reading it but I have mostly agreed with a lot of what he says. I simply find that we in the military must be careful in how we present analysis to those within the public because as they do not have our experience base from which to contextualize what they read we leave them to accept what they read along with any spin provided by the publishers sans our own common sense knowledge of factors which play into the long term situation.
In this I feel some of the wisdom is lost in the translation or lack thereof
As I believe I have stated before ,
I simply try to present what I think I know while expecting to be taught where I am wrong.
I think you guys are using the wrong movie to analyze American strategy making. To me, Beavis and Butthead provides greater insight.
F Troop
Most realistic Army TV show...
well they were Cav...
Where are Ryan and Neal?
You were the one who brought up a cartoon fish.Steve Metz: I think you guys are using the wrong movie to analyze American strategy making.
Actually I think Beevis probably has a good grasp of strategy. It's Butthead who keeps giving him bumm advice...
This article is a very great puzzlement to me.
COL. MacGregor seems to decry the "Anbar Awakening" but what was the alternative to the men on the spot at the time? They adroitly took advantage of a political rift, a big one, in the Sunni community and induced the tribes to overtly join with the coalition forces to mostly destroy AQI; an AQI that was, contrary to a statement in the article, almost wholly composed of Iraqi, not foreign fighters.
From what I've read there is much more too this than cash payments to sheiks. In Ramadi at least, AQI was very much disliked but the tribes weren't strong enough to overthrow them. An alliance with the coalition enabled them to get rid of AQI. If cash were the only incentive to stop attacking the coalition, how come this didn't happen in 2 or 3 years ago?
There is a section in the article about Turkey and the Kurds. It seems to me this is almost a separate issue. It exists regardless. But he suggests that the Awakening may make it worse. Why? The closest thing to an answer I can find in the article is if Turkey invades Kurdistan it "could well embolden the Sunni Arab insurgents to renew the war against the U.S. military." Why? Some of them accrued an advantage by stopping that fight, why throw it away by renewing it?
There are several "What if this happens? What then?" arguments in the article that don't tell us why "this" is likely to happen.
I think too much is made of common religious affiliation. He states Turkey "is the natural leader of the Sunni Muslim world." Why? Turks aren't Arabs. They ruled over large parts of Arabia for a long time and the Arabs didn't like it. And why should the Gulf states look to a country without a big navy for protection?
He states also that "Islam is inextricably intertwined with Turkish identity, culture and history." Yes it is. So is secularism, especially in the Turkish military. To mention the one without mentioning the other seems like cherry picking.
Near as I can figure, his main argument is we should get out of Iraq quick or things will probably go bad. But from everything else I read, the stronger argument seems to be if we get out of Iraq quick, things absolutely will go bad.
But again, my primary objection to the article is the carping about the "Awakening". The men on the spot played the hand they were dealt brilliantly to achieve a good result, at least up to now. If COL. MacGregor is going to caution us about this, he should at least suggest what should have been done instead.
Absolutely spot on; I should have named this thread Doug Macgregor "does America." In honor of course of the classic B/B movie.
If there is anyone who has his pulse on America it is Mike Judge.
gian
I suspect that Loyd and Garry from "Dumb and Dumber" may give B & B a good run for their money.
However, in my heart of hearts, I'm sure that our strategic planners are really following the lead of Peewee Herman. The search for terrorists smacks of the search for the stolen bicycle in Peewee's Big Adventure. And, almost every White House press conference is a variant of the "Big Shoe Dance."
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks