Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 54 of 54

Thread: My reaction to Gen. Petraeus's dissertation...

  1. #41
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default Need formal intro or look elsewhere to post political opinions

    From time to time folks come onto the SWJ without introducing themselves which leaves their comments without a foundation of exactly where they are coming from.

    Being 'anti-war" says you are in the wrong place to start with to write on SWJ. Warfare is a means and arm of foreign policy, always has been, always will be. The world of reality tells you and all of us so. Fact.

    For example 9/11, coupled with my 31 years in the active and reserve forces, and some years in NYC international banking, and writings in overseas newspapers and academic journals (foreign and domestic) were spelled out in my self intro when I first came onto SWJ. I served in Pakistan, as an example, from 1963-1965, as a young USAF officer at the old US Embassy in Karachi, as the Liaison Officer for the then US Air Base at Badabar, just outside Peshawar, and traveled years ago in Afghanitan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Libyia, too, etc, etc.

    Mr. Boyle, as Mr. Owen wrote in the open you, too, like us all, need to do a courteousy background introduction. But if you just want to slap on some opinions without the courteousy of an introductory hello first, perhaps you do need to find another venue instead of SWJ, whose clear and polite norms are the same for all of us, me included.

    In terms of pure political science, international organizations and standards stand first upon any nation's, including the US, political objectives, goals, and needs related to the total global scene, not vice versa.

    Foreign or even internal attacks on law and order and civilizied society such as 9/11 require no justification for self defense and pursuit of the attackers beyond what the world has from 9/11 to this day seen to be the case.

    If you want to help mankind, find the means to stop the Islamist driven maniacs who are murdering fellow Muslims and all others worldwide today "in the name" of a religion whose defintion is "peace" but whose misguided practice by some Islamists is "sheer violence, murder and havoc."

    The norms of world society do not allow for such and maybe you and any fellow thinkers of your view(s) need to get over there and show them how to observe, obey, and follow the international treaties and norms of world law and order you wish to have in place where the fighting is now.

    By the way, be careful not to step on the bodies of young boys and girls used as suicide bombers, of school teachers murdered in the girls schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan...which schools back in the 1960s operated safely in a law and order society over there. And be sure not to polute the environment when your body is blown to bits by terrorist planted and detonated IUDs along the public roads, where many innocent civilian body parts are found all too often. This really messes up public cleanliness and santitation.

    St. Edmunds Episcopal School in Peshawar educated Khan Abdul Ghaffer Khan the Muslim leader of the original 20th century Pakhtuns, if you will, "freedom movement" without any attempt to proselite him into being a Christian. He remained a Muslim of the peaceful sort as was Mr. Ghandi in India. You remember Mr. Ghandi, who was murdered by a religious terrortist?

    George L. Singleton, Colonel, USAF, Retired
    Last edited by George L. Singleton; 08-02-2009 at 10:36 AM.

  2. #42
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Mr. Singleton, your message, and many other messages on this board are absolutely poliitcal. In fact, the only reason I visited this board was that it popped up in Google as a discussion of Petraeus' dissertation. Having read the entire 343 page dissertation and finding it absolutely political, from end to end, discussing whether to fight, how to fight, and who to fight. This board has a bad case of group-think. I would have to be a masochist to try to carry on a discussion here. The discussion is about SUBJECT. Your position is tantamout to making all discussion ad-hominem first, with the subject matter secondary.
    Last edited by Jedburgh; 08-05-2009 at 05:44 PM.

  3. #43
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default Swj...

    Quote Originally Posted by ToddBoyle View Post
    In fact, the only reason I visited this board was that it popped up in Google as a discussion of Petraeus' dissertation. Having read the entire 343 page dissertation and finding it absolutely political, from end to end, discussing whether to fight, how to fight, and who to fight. This board has a bad case of group-think. I would have to be a masochist to try to carry on a discussion here.
    Todd,

    SWJ could be likened to a modern-day digital Salon where the qualities of ideas and opinions matter. I for one enjoy considering and discussing opinions other than my own in a, for lack of a better phrase-gentlemanly manner, and hope that you are able to do so as well.

    Having served with the General I find that your characterization of him does not square with my observations. Like some here I have also read a Noam Chomsky work or two, and I recognize that it would not further the spirit of intelligent discussion by resorting to name calling of those I disagree with.

    In the interests of furthering polite discourse I will volunteer that I am an Iraq-war veteran and a civil engineer in the civilian world. I have not yet read GEN Petraeus' dissertation but will make a point of starting it today and perhaps we can discuss it further at a later date.

    Steve
    Last edited by Surferbeetle; 08-02-2009 at 09:43 PM. Reason: Links..,
    Sapere Aude

  4. #44
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ToddBoyle View Post
    This board has a bad case of group-think. I would have to be a masochist to try to carry on a discussion here.
    I would not judge the board on the basis of an experience on one thread. Conveying something in written word is a bit more difficult than in person, so it is easy to misinterpret people - especially if you are new to the board and do not know anything about any of the participants. That is one reason for the request that individuals give some sort of introduction. It aids in the flow of the discussion.

    If you look at the majority of responses to your posts, you will see that most of us are genuinely curious about your position and/or responded fairly tactfully to your specific points. A few posts were not as tactful. I'm not sure why you chose to focus on those. Some of us even asked questions based upon your points. You chose to focus on the responses that you found no substance in. That is unfortunate, but hardly an indictment of the board. This board is what you make of it.

    In regard to group think. Wow. Run a search for "Gentile Nagl" or "COIN conventional" as a couple examples. If this board suffers from group think, then Dick Cheney and Nancy Pelosi are best friends.

  5. #45
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default

    I am noting that warfare historically is and has always been an arm of foreign policy of all nations, great or small.

    "Political" at least in my case in referring to you focuses on your statement that you are an antiwar activitist. You could use that statement you made, by expanding upon it, to introduce yourself, if you want to try to come into reasoned discussions here.

    The sum of many published egg heads on this site, several of whom are earned PhDs, is a vast font of knowledge and not to be taken lightly, in my view.

    Here is a summary overview of the guy you alledge to have done a quick read of to categorically condemn him and his researched, knowledgable by academic and first hand experiences:
    General David Howell Petraeus, USA (born November 7, 1952) is the 10th and current Commander, U.S. Central Command. Petraeus previously served as Commanding General, Multi-National Force - Iraq (MNF-I) from January 26, 2007 to September 16, 2008. As Commander of MNF-I, Petraeus oversaw all coalition forces in Iraq. Petraeus was the General George C. Marshall Award winner as the top graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College—class of 1983. He subsequently earned a M.P.A. degree (1985) and a Ph.D. degree (1987) in International Relations from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. He later served as Assistant Professor of International Relations at the U.S. Military Academy and also completed a fellowship at Georgetown University. He has a BS from the U.S. Military Academy—class of 1974—from which he graduated as a distinguished cadet (top 5% of his class).

    Petraeus has garnered numerous accolades in recent years. In 2009, he received the Union League Club of Philadelphia's Abraham Lincoln Award, the National Father's Day Committee's Father of the Year Award, National Committee on American Foreign Policy's George F. Kennan Award, the National Defense Industrial Association's Eisenhower Award, the Office of Strategic Service's William Donovan Award, the No Greater Sacrifice Freedom Award, the Atlantic Council of the United States'Military Leadership Award, and the Congressional Medal of Honor Society's Distinguished Citizen Award. In 2008, a poll conducted by Foreign Policy and Prospect magazines selected Petraeus as one of the world's top 100 public intellectuals. Also, the Business Executives for National Security awarded Petraeus their 2008 Eisenhower Award. Also in 2008, the Static Line Association named Petraeus as its 2008 Man of the Year, and Der Spiegel named him "America's most respected soldier." As 2008 came to a close, GQ Magazine (December 2008) named Petraeus as the "Leader of the Year: Right Man, Right Time", Newsweek named him the 16th most powerful person in the world in its December 20, 2008 edition, and Prospect magazine named him the "Public Intellectual of the Year". In 2007, Time named Petraeus one of the 100 most influential leaders and revolutionaries of the year as well as one of its four runners up for Time Person of the Year. He was also named the second most influential American conservative by The Daily Telegraph as well as The Daily Telegraph's 2007 Man of the Year. In 2005, Petraeus was selected as one of America's top leaders by US News and World Report.
    Last edited by Jedburgh; 08-05-2009 at 05:46 PM.

  6. #46
    Council Member IntelTrooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    RC-S, Afghanistan
    Posts
    302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ToddBoyle View Post
    The discussion is about SUBJECT. Your position is tantamout to making all discussion ad-hominem first, with the subject matter secondary.
    You're coming into a relatively small, largely experience-driven community. You don't necessarily need to divulge your name, but where complete anonymity may be valued elsewhere (4chan.org), it isn't here. I, for one, don't see why experienced professionals (as many of our posters are) should be compelled to spend their time responding to random amateurs off the Internet. So it's a respect thing. If you want to respect the norms of this community, provide a brief introduction. If you don't, don't be surprised if you are treated accordingly.
    Last edited by IntelTrooper; 08-02-2009 at 10:35 PM. Reason: Poor wording.
    "The status quo is not sustainable. All of DoD needs to be placed in a large bag and thoroughly shaken. Bureaucracy and micromanagement kill."
    -- Ken White


    "With a plan this complex, nothing can go wrong." -- Schmedlap

    "We are unlikely to usefully replicate the insights those unencumbered by a military staff college education might actually have." -- William F. Owen

  7. #47
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default I'd suggest that ....

    we end the "introduction" digression.

    Mr Boyle's "bio" can be accessed very easily by using Google Advanced Search - "Todd Boyle" + any one of "antiwar", "military industrial complex" or "military recruiting" - from which, you can watch his videos and see what he looks like, etc. Mr Boyle does not claim or enjoy anonymous status.

    Mr Boyle's posts (and questions raised) did cause me last nite to DL the Petraeus Thesis (1989; so a bit dated, and on a timeline with a number of later 1980s books on "lessons learned" from Vietnam). That tome is 19mb+ and on a dialup modem took a while. It also does not allow cut and paste.

    I managed to get up to 1973 before quitting at 0500 this morning. So far, I find that I am (still today) a member of the "Never Again School" and have been such since the Korean War. Consistently.

    What the thesis has proved so far (to me) is that the military has not stuck its nose into what I call "political questions" - which has been the subject matter of a number of threads here (that is, the non-partisan political nature of the modern US military - wasn't always that way, see Linn and others).

    I have no idea where this thread is going - and less on where it "should" go. As Ted once told me, (paraphase) let the thread develop by members' input. So, we'll see.

    Regards to all

    Mike

  8. #48
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default So far...

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    ...we end the "introduction" digression.

    I managed to get up to 1973 before quitting at 0500 this morning. So far, I find that I am (still today) a member of the "Never Again School" and have been such since the Korean War. Consistently.

    What the thesis has proved so far (to me) is that the military has not stuck its nose into what I call "political questions" - which has been the subject matter of a number of threads here (that is, the non-partisan political nature of the modern US military - wasn't always that way, see Linn and others).
    Mike,

    What can I say, people are interesting...

    ...organizational decision making has been heavily covered...I am currently on page 61 of the dissertation...Laos 1961...at this point I can say that it's well written and I appreciate the extensive and interesting footnotes....

    Regards,

    Steve
    Sapere Aude

  9. #49
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default Miscellaneous history of Burma 1964

    While stationed at the US Embassy in Pakistan, in the pre-MATS/MAC, et al world, when we only had Air Logistics Service, I controlled all US Air traffic in behalf of the upcountry base at Peshawar into and out of West Pakistan.

    Thus I occasionally, only a Lieutenant (non-rated) you understand, manifested myself to inspect and check out the routes.

    Thus I was able to take an ALS flight into and back from Rangoon, then Burma, the last such flight before they closed Burma to the rest of the world. Bought some nice narrow width 100% silk ties, was gawked at by a bunch of local military folks (guards etc.) and did not RON there...Burmese military wanted us in and out same day.

    Not worth much but an odd bit of old history vs. today's still closed to the outside world "Burma" in it's renamed format.

  10. #50
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4

    Default Just War theory is full of fail

    I may only fifteen but has this theory that romans came up with even follwed by them ? This reminds me of the hilarious stance of some that war should be proportional (recent gaza conflict).

  11. #51
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ToddBoyle View Post
    Now that I have responded to your points, I would like your response to my points in return. Petraeus' dissertation says, the U.S. military consensus after vietnam doesn't "recommend" military engagement unless a) the public supports the war, b) the objectives are clear and can be acheived, and c) the military is provided the resources and the latitude to do their job. I said the U.S. military should go further and recommend against d) wars that are unlawful under treaties and e) wars that are unjust under some framework that would need to be developed.
    Here's a response to your point (from a civilian with no military background):

    A military organization has neither the responsibility nor the capacity to determine what is "legal" or "just". That is purely the responsibility of the civilian government. The military is designed to be subordinate to civilian government and to carry out the tasks it is assigned by civilian government. Individuals within the military will certainly have their own opinions, but they are sworn to obey the civilian government, not to decide their own policies.

    Do you, of all people, really want to see the military given the power to reach its own independent determinations of what is "just" or "legal"? That hardly seems consistent with separation of powers or subordination to civilian authority, and it seems to me that it could open a major can of worms.

    Certainly it is reasonable for the military to advise civilian government on matters within its expertise: for example, if available resources are inadequate to perform an assigned task. Determinations of legality and justice are assigned to other branches of the government.

    I personally find it difficult to see how individuals can describe themselves as "anti-war". Does this mean "opposed to all war, all the time"? Or opposed to a specific war? It might be useful to clarify. Personally, for example, I was opposed to the Iraq war: I thought it would distract from the primary goal of confronting AQ, and that the post-Saddam environment would be unmanageable (to make a long story short). Once we were committed to the war, I became "pro-war", in the sense that I believed that since were in, for better or worse, it was our responsibility to remain in until we had done everything possible to assure that the country did not collapse into civil war.

    A position devoid of nuance on a topic as broad as "war" seems likely to be a position arrived at with little consideration.

    As far as the general environment of this website goes... I come here from a background very different from most of the other inhabitants, and while this place (like most places) has its own conventions, I find that if you respect the conventions and engage with an open mind, there's a general policy of politeness and respect in disagreement, along with a good deal more honesty and intelligence than I see on many sites that rather pompously advertise their intellectualism. Approach with an open mind and a bit of respect, and you might well find the same.

  12. #52
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Slight correction to Dayuhan ....

    Individuals within the military will certainly have their own opinions, but they are sworn to obey the civilian government, not to decide their own policies.
    they, like I, are sworn to obey the Constitution. That, of course, vests power over the military in the civilian branches. So, your ensuing comment ends up being correct, though not by the correct analysis initially.

    Where the distinction becomes important is in the case of manifestly unlawful orders. E.g., an order that the military act in such a way as to trample the Bill of Rights. The US oaths, whether by military or civilian officers, all are sworn to the Constitution as the highest civil authority. That must be contrasted to, say, the German officer's oath of WWII - a personal oath to the head of government, in that case - Hitler.

    As to Just War, I can without difficulty come up with three somewhat different formulations. One is the current formulation of the Roman Catechism, which is on the Vatican website. Another is the traditional Just War formulations of Augustine and Aquinas (which also differ to some extent), which you can find by Googling. A third is the Southern Baptist formulation, which you can find on John Ankerberg's website.

    My point being that I do not want military officers turning themselves into theologians professonally, whether in the Just War area or in other areas as well.

    PS - Dayuhan: About Iraq, I favored the policy going in; but opposed the policy to stay (after say, Dec 2003). The "powers that be" differed (as probably most on this board). The question then is whether you stay on the boat or leave it. I chose to stay with the boat - and hope for the best (or, in Ken's terms, at least an acceptable outcome).

  13. #53
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default Thanks for the correction....

    You're right, I was sloppy there, but I think the point is clear. I just thought it odd that someone of Todd's apparent ideological conviction was questioning the concept of civilian supremacy...

    On Iraq, well, we all had an opinion. Looking at where it stands today, I'd have to say it's better that what I expected, going in.

  14. #54
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Agreed on the Iraq point ...

    although Iraq has not yet played out. The SOFA seemed an acceptable solution to me - and the 7 years or so extra, may lead to a much better outcome than if we had pulled the plug back in Dec 2003 as I wanted. I am always happy to be proved wrong by a better outcome.

    I can't address Mr Boyle's ideology because I don't know what it is. The various legal and moral arguments (expressed by him in the form of questions) are pretty standard "war resister" arguments that are concerned with an immediate focus on potential war resisters in the military (who are not likely to be its senior officers ) - not with the long-term position of the military re: civilian control.

Similar Threads

  1. GEN Petraeus and Political Salesmanship
    By MattC86 in forum Politics In the Rear
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-17-2007, 02:15 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •