Originally Posted by Van
--Possible position in Democratic administration
--Salvage his reputation to do the corporate board/talking head thing
--Possible position in Democratic administration
--Salvage his reputation to do the corporate board/talking head thing
Couldn't We Get One of These Someday?
Wouldn't that be refreshing? "I f*ed up royally, here's why." Now where is Steve's image of hell freezing over?
Honestly, doesn't he realize he could save a whole lot of dignity just by doing that? Does he think people actually will buy into his version of what happened? Or do we think he (or Feith) himself actually believes this apologetic swill?
I'm glad Steve's reading it and not me, because these things generally make my blood pressure resemble that of somebody four times my age. . .I was having palpitations while reading Fiasco. . .
Regards,
Matt
"Give a good leader very little and he will succeed. Give a mediocrity a great deal and he will fail." - General George C. Marshall
Ah, the Wesley Clark/Merrill McPeak approach to dubious military achievement. One of the Amazon reviewers compared Sanchez to Clark, and I agreed with the comparison, especially in light of the content of "Waging Modern War" by Clark.--Possible position in Democratic administration
That book gave an interesting spin to. It only made me less forgiving of Clark's choice to place the interest of the EU ahead of U.S. interests.listening to someone directly... adds value to any opinions you have of them
I don't know. It's not easy being in a no win situation. In the ad business clients sometimes insist that you do something stupid that you know isn't going to work. Telling them they're stupid doesn't work out too well. Usually, we muddle through trying to do the best we can and when it doesn't work the client fires us for doing what they asked.
Petraeus will probably be writing a book some day about why COIN didn't produce victory either.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but for sake of discussion how do you feel about NATO forces that put European interests above American interests in Afghanistan?
Last edited by Rank amateur; 05-16-2008 at 12:32 PM.
At least Fiasco was a generally factual account of the balls up planning process.
This is a man losing the last of his credibility trying to save his reputation. I'd say it's sad on a personal level but when you don't/can't man up and admit your faults, I'd say the ego dominates everything else. And that's always a big problem.
Warning: Never look at the Urban Dictionary. NEVER.
"Speak English! said the Eaglet. "I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and what's more, I don't believe you do either!"
The Eaglet from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland
Maybe but I doubt it. I would think he could very well write something on the greatness of the American soldier and how to bring out the very best in those you work with (Finger's Crossed)
Wouldn't that be a little different. I mean how many countries are a part of NATO. Now how many countries are a part of the US.
Nuff Said
Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours
Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur
Now about this title...
For those who are wading their way through this tome, what's up with the title, "Wiser in Battle"?
I can imagine a title like "Wiser From Battle," in which our dedicated scribe chronicles how he gained his wisdom or personal philosophy from battle.
But is there any evidence that Sanchez was wiser than anyone else in battle?
Last edited by Tacitus; 05-16-2008 at 06:57 PM. Reason: a tornado warning
No signature required, my handshake is good enough.
Maybe it was an unattained goal...For those who are wading their way through this tome, what's up with the title, "Wiser in Battle"?
Article 5 of the NATO treaty states that if any member is attacked, all the NATO members will individually and collectively counter-attack. Failure by any NATO member (except France, 'cause they're special and have an exemption) to counter-attack the AQ base in Afghanistan after 9-11 was a violation of the treaty. Serbia, on the other hand, was dealling with an internal issue (granted, they were doing it badly), and if the EU felt a need to invade, they could have left NATO out of it, as the NATO treaty was for a purely defensive alliance. But enough of the perfidious Clark."do you feel about NATO forces that put European interests above American interests in Afghanistan?"
Regarding Sanchez: Ski nailed it;This illustrates one of the many dichotomies of modern militaries. Like high political office, high military rank attracts those who might not be tempermentally suited to fulfil the duties. Also, aspirants to high rank/position are required to expend at more time and energy pursuing the position than pursuing the education to fulfil the duties well. And in the military, there is a great deal of confusion about training, education, and the relevance of academic credentials to military competence. In Sanchez' defence, if Bremer had been as compentent a civilian diplomat and political leader as Sanchez was an officer, things would have gone better for everyone.This is a man losing the last of his credibility trying to save his reputation. I'd say it's sad on a personal level but when you don't/can't man up and admit your faults, I'd say the ego dominates everything else. And that's always a big problem.
(Did I really just defend Sanchez? Time for a theraputic dose of bourbon.)
Last edited by Van; 05-16-2008 at 10:54 PM. Reason: Questioning my sanity, such as it is.
Very good point.
I am planning to read this book, I read almost all books published by Generals NATO & Warsaw Pact Generals.
Seperately I somewhat agree with the General on the planning issue, seems like it wasn't done. I just thought Secy. Rumsfeld shouldn't have waved off the State Dept, as he did according to Woodward.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks