Have you convinced him of anything?Originally Posted by RTK
Have you convinced him of anything?
We occasionally engage in mutual understanding...
Example is better than precept.
No matter what others think, I am fair and open to hear and accept truth and honest opinions... Same moment someone goes blank and start with propaganda, insults or plain justifications, I retaliate same way.We occasionally engage in mutual understanding...
I don't have nothing to prove to anyone nor to apologize for. Others spilled first blood and attacked me back in days. I paid big price being open minded, tree-loving, no-religious and no-biased naive kid. I am no kid anymore.
So, if you are open toward me, honest and respectful, be sure I am there to talk and exchange same attitude. Simple. Now... Are you ready for kick-off!??
That's why I'm a Powell doctrine advocate. Why spend 10 years coming to a mutual understanding when a couple of days of B52s will help people see how much we have in common?We occasionally engage in mutual understanding...
(The few who will never be reasonable, i.e. Hitler and Bin Laden, need to be eliminated, but - while I don't want to speak for anyone else - I don't think Sarajevo would have a major problem with that.)
That doesn't solve all the world's problems, but it does provide effective, cost efficient defense.
So, how is that working for you by now? Solved anything? Got more friends and allies then enemies, then before?!
You are amusing.
I'm not sure if that quite sums up the Powell Doctrine the way it was sold.
Sounds more like the Gen. 'Buck' Turgidson Doctrine.
Example is better than precept.
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.
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.
The stronger we are at COIN, the less likely our enemies will be to draw us into an asymmetrical conflict. So I'd argue that the doctrine was solid, just poorly implemented.
To use an analogy. Desiring to avoid nuclear war: good. Trying to achieve it by getting rid of nuclear weapons: bad implementation.
I must not have been clear, my apology.
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.
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.The stronger we are at COIN, the less likely our enemies will be to draw us into an asymmetrical conflict...
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.... So I'd argue that the doctrine was solid, just poorly implemented.
I'm sorry but your analogy isn't tracking with me, what, precisely, do you mean?To use an analogy. Desiring to avoid nuclear war: good. Trying to achieve it by getting rid of nuclear weapons: bad implementation.
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.
I was suggesting that if a "mutual understanding" is the best you can achieve with Sarajavo071
than a "mutual understanding" might be the best you can achieve from the local populace. I consider the "Sunni awakening" a "mutual understanding." The Powell doctrine, as implemented in 1991, lead very quickly to a "mutual understanding" of who should run Kuwait.
Excellent reference. I'm impressed: very impressed if you remembered Buck's last name without using Google.
Re: Haditha Dismissal of Charge
As I am new here I apologise if this is covered somewhere else and I just haven’t found it yet (if so please link).
I found this forum from a link to Kilcullen’s SWJ article ‘Anatomy of a tribal revolt’ on Col. Pat Lang’s Sic Semper Tyrannis blog - which I have been reading for some time. He also posted a copy of a rather damning letter by Sam Provance of Army Intelligence ‘Why the Pentagon Doesn’t Want Me to Testify About Abu Ghraib’ the full text of which can be found here http://www.alternet.org/story/61241/ . The gist is he had tried to give evidence to the investigation but his superiors just did not want to know what he had to say. I have read the posts in this thread and the longer thread referenced by Jedburgh in post #10. In which most seem to argue ‘let the process take its course and wait for the verdict’ – an admirable sentiment with which I fully agree.
As I am not military I have know way of knowing how credible his testimony is. So my question for those who have operated in this theatre is a) does this ring true? b) If it does how isolated do you think it is? And c) How should this colour our view of these proceedings in general and the letter dismissing charges in post #1 in particular?
Last edited by JJackson; 09-07-2007 at 10:56 PM.
By the way, R.A.
You may or may not be aware that Powell tried to use the doctrine to avoid going to Kuwait at all.
LINK"...He contrasted Pershing’s subservience with the overreaching behavior of General Colin Powell, who was “encouraged by the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986” to trespass on the civilian prerogative of policy-making in a variety of disturbing ways. Powell too vociferously opposed going to war in the Gulf, insisted on withdrawing from the war before Saddam’s Republican Guard had been destroyed, and inappropriately dominated the peace-making process at the end of the Gulf War."
Here's more detail; LINK. There's a lot more out there.
I'm sure you're aware that the only reason it looks as though the doctrine was applied is that VII Corps was in Germany, about to be inactivated and could be -- was -- shipped to the Gulf to go to war on their way home. That Corps and the number of Divisions it had were later inactivated. Had Saddam's attempted takeover of Kuwait occurred two years later than it did, the "overwhelming force" we applied in Desert Storm would just not have been available. Can't apply what you don't have. However, I suspect that most President's would not have allowed that lack of overwhelming force to deter them from acting...
Not to mention, as Weigley pointed out, that Powell -- and Cheney -- used the 'doctrine' as a crutch to convince Scowcroft and Bush to end the war prematurely because going to Baghdad would be messy. True, and the Coalition would have not gone with us (but they would have cheered on us on behind the scenes while publicly expressing dismay) but the reason he didn't want to go was to protect the Army from another insurgency; the reason Bush didn't want to go was partly that, partly fear of public discontent both domestically and interantionally due to the havoc the 24th ID and the USAF were wreaking on withdrawing Iraqis.
It would've been a whole lot easier then with 500K troops than it was 12 years later. We quit Gulf War I too soon. If we quit Gulf War II too soon then we can count on Gulf War III.
Last edited by Ken White; 09-08-2007 at 01:21 AM. Reason: Add quote codes to quote
Thanks
Thank you all for taking the time to reply. My original impression was defiantly that the role of the US forces job was to shape the global environment in a way that was best for the US’s economic and political interests and to the detriment of any nation or group that went contrary to those goals. This seemed to fit well with the size and global power projection evidenced by overseas bases and carrier groups. My confusion arose from statements like Ken Whites on the Powell and Weinburger Doctrine
If this was what was being taught as the role of the military it seemed difficult to square with either the size & disposition of those forces or the way they seemed to be being employed by their political masters.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 listing kindly posted by RTK seems to imply a much wider role than the doctrine.
And what is that you would like to convince me?!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks