It should be the Senator's heads that roll. There is a bunch of them that need to have their head gear flushed out by some proper Army thinking. General Caldwell should be promoted!Originally Posted by Entropy
It should be the Senator's heads that roll. There is a bunch of them that need to have their head gear flushed out by some proper Army thinking. General Caldwell should be promoted!
Slap,
While the Congress certainly has many warts I don't see how your sentiment is compatible with the necessity of military subordination to elected officials in our democracy.
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
Because they (US Military) were sent to fight a war without the proper resources to win it. That is a political failure not a military one. Why should the Military pay the price? I am very biased by the way,I don't see much difference between politicians and crooks these days.
What was done is "ops normal"; a VIP (of any stripe) is coming, you find out their position on relevant issues, special requirements, their favorite beverage, etc. You'll see this done by competent staffs anywhere, for any visitor who can influence the destiny of an organization. Failure to do so is negligence, possibly incompetence. I've watched the same sort of thing done for O-6s, so a Congressman is a no-brainer.
The point of a "dog and pony show" is to gain support, both tangible and intangible, for a unit, from people who may not understand the unit's role and requirements.
To have a MISO (Military Information Support Operations; the new name for Psyops [unless doctrine has been rewritten... again]) unit doing this job, even an otherwise underemployed MISO unit, shows a lack of forethought. You have to procede from assumption that it will hit the front page of the NY Times, and ask yourself, as a leader, "How will this look?"
One of the things the Army needs to learn from the Air Force is to explain this to junior officers. Honorable young Army LTs are routinely horrified at the basic realities of the budget process and appear to feel that basic courtesy and protocol is "brown-nosing", deceitful, and pretty much beneath them. When they make major, there can be significant trauma from exposure to the basics of getting funding for the LTs fundamental needs. An LT doesn't need to learn the entire five year budget process, but should understand that funding doesn't 'just happen' (no matter how hard and honestly you work), and that the process for getting funding doesn't always meet with their standards of conduct.
Cogent comments. However...
While I agree that is often done -- too often IMO -- I also have served under a number of good Commanders who flatly refused to do that (including one who relieved a Major for doing that kind of prep work on his own volition). If one has one's act together, that kind of manipulation isn't needed. We complain about the 'politics' then we play the game? Makes no sense.Yes...To have a MISO (Military Information Support Operations; the new name for Psyops [unless doctrine has been rewritten... again]) unit doing this job, even an otherwise underemployed MISO unit, shows a lack of forethought. You have to procede from assumption that it will hit the front page of the NY Times, and ask yourself, as a leader, "How will this look?"Think about what you wrote
One of the things the Army needs to learn from the Air Force is to explain this to junior officers ...and that the process for getting funding doesn't always meet with their standards of conduct.
Maybe it would be better, easier and more honest, meeting reasonably decent standards of conduct, to change McNamara's deeply flawed PPBS which arguably is the cause of most the sort of trauma discussed in this thread -- and which certainly is the cause of disillusionment in many a Major (and which Congressional staffers exploit to their advantage...)...
Agree with Entropy. This is criminal stupidity and an ego run amok.
Nothing at all funny about it.
I'd be willing to bet it's pretty accurate and this item:rings true to me because I've heard too many Colonels and a random General or two say the same thing or close to it. The 15-6 also rings true because I've seen that kind of stupidity pulled before. We all have."It’s not illegal if I say it isn’t!" Holmes recalls Breazile shouting.
Hell hath no fury like a General scorned.
Caldwell did some flaky stuff while CG of the 82d and got away with it. He IMO did not need to be promoted and certainly does not need to be further promoted even without this incident if true.
Bayonet Brant:I dunno about wringing hands -- I'm not doing that, I'm sharpening my Headsman's Axe -- but I know it would've been wrong and should not happen.If some S3 flunky had been tasked for that instead of the psyop team, would we still be wringing our hands over this?As I told all my sons when they went in the Army, "Once you get promoted above Corporal, you not only can't do much that's wrong, you can't even give the appearance of doing things that are wrong."If the psyop team got the tasker because there wasn't enough psyop work to do to keep them busy, and the general thought they were capable of handling it, does that make it an inherent psyop mission?
Generals know that -- but their overfed egos make them think that rules do not apply to them and they try devious ways to stack the deck. They can do that in a peacetime environment (as today...) but it won't work in a war -- thus it's a bad habit to get into...I think you just made my point...Hell, it happened w/ us in '95 in California during the Apache Longbow trials. We were briefed on the incoming VIPs that were there to see what we were doing, including whether or not they were hostile to the program and its funding.
The Bird could / shoulda made it on its own, trying to stack the deck -- IPB that is not -- could have put a marginal bird in service. It did not, in this case but there've been enough failures in deck stacking buying dumb stuff that we should be wary of it.
Slapout9:I agree. However, while a certain amount of political savvy is properly required of GOs, attempting to stack a deck is crooked IMO. Far worse, intimidating ones subordinates that do not agree with one is flat illegal and it should be. It is also bone stupid...I don't see much difference between politicians and crooks these days.
However, on this point:I kinda disagree, not to defend the Pols who do have problems in that regard but lets not let the military slide on their even bigger failures. Failures to plan, to buy the right gear (that other nations started buying as soon as the Wall went down...) or to spend enough money on good as opposed to barely acceptable training. Yeah, the Pols have problems but the military is too often its own worst enemy...Because they (US Military) were sent to fight a war without the proper resources to win it.
Agree with Ken completely.
To me there’s a huge difference between individuals speaking their minds in the context of their current position (ei. LTG Caldwell giving his opinion on what he thinks is necessary for Afghanistan) and tasking subordinates to create an influence campaign in order to support his opinion. That is no different than a Commanding Officer ordering his/her troops to call their representatives to advocate either for/against DADT, just to give one example. A Commander should not be ordering subordinates to engage in political activity, which is exactly what this is (or at least what it appears to be - I'm not trusting Hastings to provide a fully accurate picture). It’s contrary to long-standing tradition and such orders, if given, are clearly unlawful.
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
Paper bags, anyone?
Before we hyperventilate over this, let's consider the source. This is the same guy that wrote the hatchet job on McChrystal, so the possibility that the facts as related in the article are skewed a bit or slightly out of context is probably high. Also, it's hard to see if any actual laws were broken, at least not to the extent that it would hold up in court. And a general would have to be an idiot to go into a meeting with congress members without getting some background or being prepared to talk about their interests.
On the other hand, definitely a bad choice to employ your PSYOP guys for the task, but I'll bet the CoS was more responsible for that. And Caldwell has written op-eds for major newspapers, which to me is a more egregious example of militarism than trying to (horrors) influence politicians.
But this is what happens when you get involved in dirty little wars - generals tend to get their skirts smudged.
IO is not exclusively PSYOP
Also - there are enough errors in the article to call into question Mr. Hastings' research methods and fact checking diligence.
I prefer plastic, thank you...
However, I'm not hyperventilating (50 years of Pall Malls make that inadvisable in any event...) -- I've seen, even participated in, too many cases similar to the alleged deal to even raise an eyebrow, much less a sweat.Oh, I don't think any laws were broken or even regulations disregarded (an action of which I'm usually in favor in most cases...). However, IF (note large letters) the allegations are close to correct, we simply had a General Officer either doing something you acknowledge as stupid or allowing / encouraging his subordinates to do so. I'm not prepared to jail him if that is true but I do reserve the right to question his fitness for command. Doubly so since I had occasion to do that with respect to him some years ago. That was a suspicion and this, if proven true, is simply confirmation...Also, it's hard to see if any actual laws were broken, at least not to the extent that it would hold up in court.I do not disagree totally with that, though I've seen several good ones who were willing to forego such background -- including the one I mentioned who relieved for cause with a relief OER an Officer for gathering such info.And a general would have to be an idiot to go into a meeting with congress members without getting some background or being prepared to talk about their interests.
If however, he endeavored to find ways to manipulate them or the situation, that, IMO was ethically wrong. GO, leadership, example and all that...I agree and also note that if Caldwell didn't select him, he's tolerating him...On the other hand, definitely a bad choice to employ your PSYOP guys for the task, but I'll bet the CoS was more responsible for that.Also agree with that, adding the caveat that a while I believe it is permissable, even desirable, to outthink politicians, attempting to influence them -- while a game played by many in the service -- is ultimately self defeating. That's a bit of a semantic play but I take your 'influence' usage to accept a bit of pandering to them or using their known weak points to achieve an advantage. That may be smart gamesmanship but I've seen it roll back to bite the overly slick all too often...And Caldwell has written op-eds for major newspapers, which to me is a more egregious example of militarism than trying to (horrors) influence politicians.True dat...But this is what happens when you get involved in dirty little wars - generals tend to get their skirts smudged.
Dave Doyle:True. However, the basic premise is that an unwise effort may have been attempted and that equally unwise efforts to quash disagreement are possibly being employed. Did I miss anything?Also - there are enough errors in the article to call into question Mr. Hastings' research methods and fact checking diligence.
FWIW, I've been around long enough to know that the truth probably lies somewhere in between. I've also been around long enough to have had a number of Generals tell me to do certain things that were shady. A few of them I did generally because they were harmless, on most I demurred -- and only one guy out of about a couple of dozen tried, briefly, to get stupid over a demurral. Most Generals will try stuff on for size but they're usually too smart to push dicey stuff when the diceiness is mentioned. This one may -- just may -- not be all that smart. We'll see....
May very well be true.. but from the article:
It's not illegal under Smith-Mundt, not because a COL or General says so... but rather, because it ISN'T illegal under the Smith-Mundt act!Holmes believed that using his team to target American civilians violated the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which was passed by Congress to prevent the State Department from using Soviet-style propaganda techniques on U.S. citizens. But when Holmes brought his concerns to Col. Gregory Breazile, the spokesperson for the Afghan training mission run by Caldwell, the discussion ended in a screaming match. "It’s not illegal if I say it isn’t!"
A PSYOP'er (MISO....er?) would know that.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks