Army Officer Accuses Generals of 'Intellectual and Moral Failures'

[Norfolk]

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

Very true on both counts, Tom, although I'd possibly contend that parts of Congress are afraid of an effective military because they're told it's a "bad thing," often by those same rats. I don't honestly know how many of them have their own opinion on the issue or simply echo what they're told by their own "experts." It's also interesting to consider that some of our "leadership by management" issues stem in part from Root's reforms.

Still, as you point out there is a need for outside pressure to enact reform in most cases.

The problem there is, as only a handful of members of Congress have any military experience whatsoever, they have little in the way of means even to form an opinion of their own. Their own staffers, not to mention the lobbyists, are the closest thing the overwhelming majority of them have to "professionsl" advice on military matters (unless a few of them read CRS reports...)

It's sad when a lobbysist or even some 20-something staffer may have more say in influencing many a Congressman's or Senator's "opinion" on military matters than the military themselves.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by Fred III

The problem with this comment is that it is correct. The bigger problem with it is every time I realize it, my eyes tear up.
. . .

I agree it was their parade and I wouldn't have marched either. I wasn't there wishing I was elsewhere or thinking I had more important or better things to do, I was there because it was what I did for a living. No parade required or desired

Show me the nukes, boys, then I'll fight. Show me! Don't tell me, show me. Otherwise, buzz off, we have no business policing the world's dirty laundry. If we need the oil, we'll pay. If I told you in 1999 gas would cost you $3 a gallon, you would have had a kitten.

Nah, I had that kitten in 1955 when it went to a Quarter a gallon. Years later when it went to half a buck, I didn't even blink.

... Yet here we are and there isn't a single thread on this site (that I know of) that is complaining about the price of oil. We always pay! We always will, and we'll survive...

That may be because this isn't a political blog.

... Do you want to give up your son's life so you can drop the price to $1.50? Not me.

We may not have any business doing it but, rightly or wrongly, we have had to play world cop since Franklin knocked our erstwhile allies out of the colony business in 1944-45. All three of my sons served, one is still in, coming up on 18 years and he's no more concerned over his tours and CIB than I was over mine; goes with the job. He's said he doesn't get PTSD, he gives it. Works for me...

... That's the guy who gives me hope. When the nonsense is over and we've buried our last mistake, that's the guy I want to hear from.

Best wishes,
Fred.

I doubt we're anywhere close to burying our last mistake and I doubt that will occur in yours, my or our kids kids lifetime.

[wm]

Originally Posted by Norfolk

The problem there is, as only a handful of members of Congress have any military experience whatsoever, they have little in the way of means even to form an opinion of their own. Their own staffers, not to mention the lobbyists, are the closest thing the overwhelming majority of them have to "professionsl" advice on military matters (unless a few of them read CRS reports...)

It's sad when a lobbysist or even some 20-something staffer may have more say in influencing many a Congressman's or Senator's "opinion" on military matters than the military themselves.

What's even sadder is when the 20-something Expert staffers brief the Congressmen with material gathered from reading CRS reports which were written by other folks who quite often have little or no hands on experience themselves.

[Fred III]

Originally Posted by Ken White

We may not have any business doing it but, rightly or wrongly, we have had to play world cop since Franklin knocked our erstwhile allies out of the colony business in 1944-45... .

I doubt we're anywhere close to burying our last mistake and I doubt that will occur in yours, my or our kids kids lifetime.

I don't disagree with anything you have written here. I am not even averse to the so-called "world cop" role, when it is in the proper perspective and when it is necessary. Our participation in WWII was necessary, for more than Pearl Harbor. Korea was justified, as well. The Vietnam critics conveniently forget about a little treaty we had called SEATO, the NATO look-alike on the other side of the globe. Now I admit, SEATO consisted of the U.S., the interests of the U.S., and ... [fill-in-the-blank], but still... it was a treaty (sort of like the ABM treaty, right?). Even the Persian Gulf War was easily justifiable; just don't cram it down my throat by telling me we're doing it for Kuwait. This country doesn't do anything for anybody unless there's something in it for US (I wonder if that's why we call it the U.S.)-- as epitomized by the Bush family. And I don't have a problem with that. But, if we're to assume the mantle of the world's "policeman," why aren't we in Darfur, why aren't we kicking Mugabe out of Rhodesia (there, I've said it!) [actually, I said "it" because I can't spell Zimbabwe], and any other little tasks? I am not terribly comfortable with that role as defined by some people. I would like to see it better defined and I would like to see some allies. And I don't mean 1 guy from Yoo-Hoo Land (times 10!!), sitting in a tent, 100 miles from civilization in Iraq. That ain't participation; that's a Congressional hand-out for later.

Iraq was contrived... but now we're getting political and you said this isn't a political site. So... all we have to do now is to figure a way out. I have one... hm-m-m-m... Let me check my Vietnam playbook... .

Best wishes,
Fred.

[Tacitus]

Originally Posted by wm

What's even sadder is when the 20-something Expert staffers brief the Congressmen with material gathered from reading CRS reports which were written by other folks who quite often have little or no hands on experience themselves.

I am just curious how anyone expects more people in our society and government to have a better understanding of the military if we don't have some kind of universal military service requirement. In plain English, a draft.

I regularly read and hear military folks lamenting how detached the nation is from the Iraq war, how none of the Congress or Executive branch have any real comprehension of the military. But the military seems to be resolutely against doing away with a relatively small, volunteer military force. This seems to be a contradiction. You just can't have it both ways, it seems to me.

I'm not arguing for the draft in this post, I'm just saying that I think this kind of separation from the larger society and population carries along with it such things as a Congress having to rely on a lobbyist or staffer to generate any opinion on military matters.

[wm]

Originally Posted by Tacitus

I am just curious how anyone expects more people in our society and government to have a better understanding of the military if we don't have some kind of universal military service requirement. In plain English, a draft.

I regularly read and hear military folks lamenting how detached the nation is from the Iraq war, how none of the Congress or Executive branch have any real comprehension of the military. But the military seems to be resolutely against doing away with a relatively small, volunteer military force. This seems to be a contradiction. You just can't have it both ways, it seems to me.

I'm not arguing for the draft in this post, I'm just saying that I think this kind of separation from the larger society and population carries along with it such things as a Congress having to rely on a lobbyist or staffer to generate any opinion on military matters.

I'm not sure that these guys actually need to have served in order to be a littel closer to the issues on which they are either legislating or advising the legislators. I'm not calling for verstehen a la Dilthey or Weber here. I just want a better state of erkenntnis. (I'm sure MarcT or Rex will correct me if I have gotten the distinction wrong. ) I suspect they can gain that insight without going the basic, AIT, etc. route. More to the point is one's willingness to be open-minded and well-informed, I suspect.

[Fred III]

Originally Posted by Tacitus

I am just curious how anyone expects more people in our society and government to have a better understanding of the military if we don't have some kind of universal military service requirement. In plain English, a draft.

But the military seems to be resolutely against doing away with a relatively small, volunteer military force. This seems to be a contradiction. You just can't have it both ways, it seems to me.

I am an advocate of the draft, but if you want a hot-button topic, that's the one to choose. Can you imagine this panty-waist Congress and the furor a draft proposal would stir? You'd have every swingin' Richard among them screaming bloody blue murder and running for cover. As for the "military," don't make me laugh. The military was flat-out, dead-set against the all-volunteer force... dead-set against it! And don't let anybody tell you different; they have short memories. And I don't believe this "qualitative" drop-off with a conscription army. You remember the old saw, right, we won every battle in Vietnam. Well, if that's so (and it is), then why did we lose the war? We lost the war because the same guys who convinced us the "professional," volunteer army was the way to go, were the ones deciding the strategy, tactics, and troop deployments (read, manpower!) for Vietnam.

I don't believe the WWII German army was all volunteer, and we paid hell beating those turkeys, even the fourth-tier troops manning the Atlantic Wall, and the tired, worn-out veterans chasing our butts all over hedgerow country.

Na-a-h, I like conscription. If set up properly, it would make the politicos a lot more reticent in sending our men to Nirvanah.

Two years into conscription and the "military" would think it's the best thing that ever happened. Right now you have these petty jealousies about "the best." I'm a pro, I'm the best. You can still be the pro, you can still be "the best"... now let's see just how good you are by making someone who doesn't really want to be there, just as good.

God!, I love a challenge!

Best wishes,
Fred.

[nichols]

Hitler was a Corporal

I really don't have any heart ache with a lack of military service from our elected officials. The people advising the officials are a completely different matter IMHO. Ultimately the citizens of this country have the last say at the ballot box.

I think if we do a serious breakdown of cause and effect for the conflicts that we have participated in since the beginning of this republic we would probably find out that most of them can be linked to resource/profit goals. Whether it be no taxes, open markets, coal, forward bases, and now oil. I don't think this is a bad thing BTW, ultimately if we determine that this is unacceptable then we as a nation would have to change who and what we are.

Can we or should we do something drastic like:

End our requirement for fuel?
Bring back the draft?

To both questions I think no. I think civilization is evolving, ending the fuel requirement prematurely would stop civilizations progress to the next step of evolving. Bringing back a draft to this country would be as alien as FDR's programs in the 30s. Simply put, we are past that stage of development.

There appears to be a lot of people working from home via the internet. There is still a perceived need to have someone converting oxygen at a desk which needs to be addresses. Something along the lines that technically, libraries, schools and so on are not needed due to the world wide web. Yet, we still feel the need to have a book in our hands or attend a classroom. My gut check tells me that this is where our next step taking us.

[marct]

Hi WM,

Originally Posted by wm

I'm not sure that these guys actually need to have served in order to be a littel closer to the issues on which they are either legislating or advising the legislators. I'm not calling for verstehen a la Dilthey or Weber here. I just want a better state of erkenntnis. (I'm sure MarcT or Rex will correct me if I have gotten the distinction wrong. )

erkennen - distinctions right, spellings wrong

Originally Posted by wm

I suspect they can gain that insight without going the basic, AIT, etc. route. More to the point is one's willingness to be open-minded and well-informed, I suspect.

I would agree with that. Then again, how likely are we to see those [desirable] characteristics required of politicians????

Originally Posted by Fred III

Na-a-h, I like conscription. If set up properly, it would make the politicos a lot more reticent in sending our men to Nirvanah.

Two years into conscription and the "military" would think it's the best thing that ever happened. Right now you have these petty jealousies about "the best." I'm a pro, I'm the best. You can still be the pro, you can still be "the best"... now let's see just how good you are by making someone who doesn't really want to be there, just as good.

God!, I love a challenge!

Hi Fred - it would definitely be a challenge! The only times we (Canada) ever had it, it was an unmitigated disaster and not something I would like to see repeated. I have a pretty strong feeling, although I couldn't prove it, that an attempt to bring it back in the US would also be an unmitigated disaster both politically and militarily.

I think that you definitely could introduce some form of "national service" (loosely construed) that contained components of military training and discipline but also led to non-military service. Of course, to do it properly, it couldn't be a lottery - it would have to be universal.

Marc

[Fred III]

Originally Posted by nichols

Can we or should we do something drastic like:

End our requirement for fuel?
Bring back the draft?

To both questions I think no.

I cannot argue against either of your points... except...

If you want to wage a war, you better staff it properly or stay away. If you remember, the original plan for Iraq was the 3rd Inf. Div., hey-diddle-diddle-straight-up-the-middle, and the Ivy Division down from Turkey. Well, our good friends and allies, the Turks-- Erdovan and Gul-- decided you can't have the infidels attacking a "brother" from our country. So, in his infinite wisdom, The Donald and Cie, deep-sixed the 4th. Who needs it! We're the U.S.! Well, guess what... ? What were the repercussions of that move? First of all, it immediately made things more difficult and more dangerous for the 3rd, the Marines, and the British. I mean, that's obvious. Second, it probably eliminated an immediate presence to calm the situation after the fighting ended. Third... and everything else is speculation... the additional troops could very easily have affected the way Garner ran things and maybe he wouldn't have run afoul of Metternich in the Pentagon. [I'm reaching here, so...]

And I don't know... I don't think anyone does. All I know is that from U. S. Grant on, this country has been about the big-battalions. We didn't beat the Germans by slight-of-hand. We clobbered 'em. Even in Vietnam, we didn't pussy-foot around.

As for the oil, you're absolutely correct, no doubt about it. That's why God made $$$$$$$$$$$$. And make no bones about it, gentlemen. This is a former Wall Streeter talking now. It's always about the money! I don't see any Iranian ayatollah living in a tent. Praise the Lord!

Best wishes,
Fred.