"Obama should fire generals who spoke out on Afghan surge"

[JackLuis]

Our friend Dennis K, was interviewed by Russia Today and said that Congress has to responsibility to declare war and to provide funding for the war, but the Generals should "STFU" and do as they are told.

It is too bad that he wasn't elected President, I guess he's just not cool enough.


Sgt. W, what do you think of this? You are the only serving member posting.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Given the number of totally stupid decisions made by the civilian directorate in the previous administration and the unnecessary casualties the military suffered because of them, any general who does not speak out is in dereliction of duty. Once the CIC makes a decision, they will obey it but while that decision is in process, their input should be taken very seriously. Kucinich is another civilian . . .

 

[JackLuis]

Thanks VM. I realize the topic can be difficult to discuss without rancor. He is right however. The way for a General to express his opinion is to follow the chain of Command.

Of course, we know how well opinions go over in Pentagon Staff meetings, particularly when you have to tell guys like Rumsfeld that they are full of shit. That's, I'm guessing here, why the Chiefs of Staff were so quiet during the Bush years.

If you watched the interview, he took a Constitutional view of the subject. Much as a court would have.

I think he is just reacting to Obama's apparent confusion at actually having to be a leader of the "Free World", a dated and really untrue title. It was all roses as Obama fought bravely for an America for All American's, now that he has to make a decision on who's ox to gore, he seems hesitant and compliant with the East Coast Establishment. Not to mention the Military who have an interest in keeping the War's going to keep the promotion lists moving.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Thanks VM. I realize the topic can be difficult to discuss without rancor. He is right however. The way for a General to express his opinion is to follow the chain of Command.

Of course, we know how well opinions go over in Pentagon Staff meetings, particularly when you have to tell guys like Rumsfeld that they are full of shit. That's, I'm guessing here, why the Chiefs of Staff were so quiet during the Bush years.

If you watched the interview, he took a Constitutional view of the subject. Much as a court would have.

I think he is just reacting to Obama's apparent confusion at actually having to be a leader of the "Free World", a dated and really untrue title. It was all roses as Obama fought bravely for an America for All American's, now that he has to make a decision on who's ox to gore, he seems hesitant and compliant with the East Coast Establishment. Not to mention the Military who have an interest in keeping the War's going to keep the promotion lists moving.

My position is perhaps a bit radical, but I firmly believe that no one should be allowed to run for national office, where questions of military expenditure and deployment are made, unless they themselves have actually served.

The idea that generals want to keep wars going for their own promotional purposes is in direct conflict with the general's professional and personal need to take care for their troops. But unless you've actually dealt with generals, you might not understand that. I have. They are not the stereotypical bullet-headed neo-prussians they are so casually depicted as.

Obama needs all the professional input from the Joint Chiefs he can get because he has no experience, himself. That is a handicap, a serious one. The last time we had a president who knew how to use the military was George Herbert Bush. He understood that the President's job is to know when to say "go" and when to say "stop" and to stay out of the way in between. This is one of the reasons for the clear differences between Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom. GH told the Chiefs what he wanted done. The Chiefs told him what they needed to do the job. They got it and we had the shortest war in the 20th century. Dubya/Cheney told the Chiefs what they wanted done, Shimseki told them what he needed to do the job. So Rumsfeld-the-mach-snot fired him and relied on his faith in "Shock and Awe". The results are obvious.

Kucinich is bitching about Congressional loss of authority but Congress abdicated on that clear back in the 60's. It's a little late to shut the door on that horse stall now but they have no one to blame but themselves. Besides, implicit in the idea of declared war is that war takes place between nations. We aren't engaged against a nation but against an ideology. How does an ancient legal framework fit with a modern world? The boy is thinking inside a box that no longer exists.

Of course, there is always the idea that Congress, which controls the purse strings, could refuse to fund the deployment. but they haven't the cojones to do that any more now than they did during Vietnam when every dove in the Congress kept voting more money for the DOD all the while deploring the war. Hypocrisy runs rampant to this day.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Officers can resign.

 

[Guest]

Our friend Dennis K, was interviewed by Russia Today and said that Congress has to responsibility to declare war and to provide funding for the war, but the Generals should "STFU" and do as they are told.

It is too bad that he wasn't elected President, I guess he's just not cool enough.


Sgt. W, what do you think of this? You are the only serving member posting.

Sure...ask me while I sleep.... lol

all right, here goes.

I agree with his comment regarding generals.

A General is expected (and required) to be able to make decisions for thousands of service men and women.

I, however, am expected and required to make decisions for 15-20.

Now (follow me on this), if I am morally responsible for their actions and inactions, as well as their welfare, morale and conduct, the General is too (just on a larger scale).

Not necessarily for their conduct (he has NCO's for that) but definitely overall responsible for their welfare, morale and lives. His decisions send people to their deaths. And, to be fair, if he doesn't speak out when he sees something is wrong, then what kind of leader is he?

I feel that he is required to present a point of view, especially at that level. But just as I make my objections behind closed doors, so should the General. When you openly question the decisions of someone above you, you undermine their authority and degrade their leadership ability. President Obama is not the most popular president anyway (especially with this troop surge), and undermining his authority is the last thing that the Army needs right now. We have plenty of other problems as is.

Oh, and on the troop surge, I feel it important to note that they're not all "infantry" soldiers. We're not talking about 30,000 new troops crawling through the mountains. Many of them will be support (cooks, mechanics, legal specialists, etc...), and most of them will probably be engineers. We have migrated to a Nation building mission over there, and we are rebuilding homes and schools just as much as we are fighting the Taliban and Al Qaida.

Just my two cents.

 

[Guest]

Given the number of totally stupid decisions made by the civilian directorate in the previous administration and the unnecessary casualties the military suffered because of them, any general who does not speak out is in dereliction of duty. Once the CIC makes a decision, they will obey it but while that decision is in process, their input should be taken very seriously. Kucinich is another civilian . . .

I agree with you. But I also know that dissension should be kept behind closed doors. My problem with all of this is not what the General said, but that he used a public forum to do so when the comments should have been in person.

The General has a responsibility to take the Commander's intent and roll with it. At least on the surface. His complaints (valid as they are) should have been made to the president and/or the JCS and not to the media.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Just my two cents.

Nah, that's worth a buck-anna-half at least. Well put!

 

[Guest]

And on the same note, I think that "Our friend Dennis K" should be voicing his objections behind closed doors as well. That's half of what is wrong with this country, people believe that they are entitled to having their opinions heard by everyone, regardless of who they are and what they do.

[/rant]

 

[3113]

Of course, there is always the idea that Congress, which controls the purse strings, could refuse to fund the deployment. but they haven't the cojones to do that any more now than they did during Vietnam when every dove in the Congress kept voting more money for the DOD all the while deploring the war. Hypocrisy runs rampant to this day.

Agreed. If congress really wants to direct the war they can take away the money. But as you say, it's a lot easier to make noise in public than it is to actually vote to take away the money--especially when your fellow congressman is from a state that gets that money to build fighter planes and such.

It's not the Generals who profit from war, it's the corporations and the senators they've bought who profit.

 

[Guest]

*snip*
It's not the Generals who profit from war, it's the corporations and the senators they've bought who profit.

I will agree with you there to a point. My family and I profit from war. It keeps me employed. My parents profit from war (well my dad did, he's gone now). My mom is Dept of Defense and my Dad worked on the Minuteman Missile.

America was founded on war and blood and a fear of things different than ourselves. War is always going to be big business until we learn that murder shouldn't be an industry.

Sorry, a little jaded about my chosen profession.

~Paul

 

[DesertPirate]

I will agree with you there to a point. My family and I profit from war. It keeps me employed. My parents profit from war (well my dad did, he's gone now). My mom is Dept of Defense and my Dad worked on the Minuteman Missile.

America was founded on war and blood and a fear of things different than ourselves. War is always going to be big business until we learn that murder shouldn't be an industry.

Sorry, a little jaded about my chosen profession.

~Paul

You are allowed.
*says the cold war Sub sailor*

 

[Guest]

You are allowed.
*says the cold war Sub sailor*

Thanks Desert.

 

[DesertPirate]

Thanks Desert.

Last year at this time I had a Marine nephew in Iraq. Also a Cousin who is an Army LtCol is in and out a lot. Something about being an electronic spook.

 

[TE999]

The last president who took charge of a war was LB "No one drops a bomb until I say so" J and that turned out well. Hitler took command of his Wehrmacht and that really scored big.

Civilians from the POTUS on down should issue an order and get the hell out of the way. Not many of them went to West Point, the Naval Academy or the Air Force Academy and have more than a laypersons grasp of tactics. Being elected does not entail gaining IQ points or knowledge either. Our fighting men and women deserve more than being micromanaged by big mouthed career politicians and government bureaucrats.

 

[DesertPirate]

The last president who took charge of a war was LB "No one drops a bomb until I say so" J and that turned out well. Hitler took command of his Wehrmacht and that really scored big.

Civilians from the POTUS on down should issue an order and get the hell out of the way. Not many of them went to West Point, the Naval Academy or the Air Force Academy and have more than a laypersons grasp of tactics. Being elected does not entail gaining IQ points or knowledge either. Our fighting men and women deserve more than being micromanaged by big mouthed career politicians and government bureaucrats.

Thanks Tom, I think that covered the subject just right.

 

[TE999]

Thanks Tom, I think that covered the subject just right.

Thanks, DP. That's a hot button on my panel.

 

[Guest]

The last president who took charge of a war was LB "No one drops a bomb until I say so' J and that turned out well. Hitler took command of his Wehrmacht and that really scored big.

Civilians from the POTUS on down should issue an order and get the hell out of the way. Not many of them went to West Point, the Naval Academy or the Air Force Academy and have more than a laypersons grasp of tactics. Being elected does not entail gaining IQ points or knowledge either. Our fighting men and women deserve more than being micromanaged by big mouthed career politicians and government bureaucrats.

I'll quibble with you on the point that the POTUS is a civilian. By assuming command as the "Commander in Chief", and taking oaths of office, he loses his status as a civilian. But he's not military either. Kind oof the same way that Washington D.C. isn't a state. it spans too many other borders. Same with the presidency. His office spans too many borders between military and civilian to make that distinction.

I do, however, as a soldier feel that you should have served in the military (at least the Coast Guard) to take command. Having subjected yourself to the possibility of dying for your country (even if you served during peacetime) makes you able to understand the possibility of sending people to their deaths for an ideal. In theory at least. I would hope that the experience would stop them from being just numbers.

It's interesting being a Democratic Atheist Soldier. Now, the question is am I liberal or conservative?

 

[TE999]

I'll quibble with you on the point that the POTUS is a civilian. By assuming command as the "Commander in Chief", and taking oaths of office, he loses his status as a civilian. But he's not military either. Kind oof the same way that Washington D.C. isn't a state. it spans too many other borders. Same with the presidency. His office spans too many borders between military and civilian to make that distinction.

I do, however, as a soldier feel that you should have served in the military (at least the Coast Guard) to take command. Having subjected yourself to the possibility of dying for your country (even if you served during peacetime) makes you able to understand the possibility of sending people to their deaths for an ideal. In theory at least. I would hope that the experience would stop them from being just numbers.

It's interesting being a Democratic Atheist Soldier. Now, the question is am I liberal or conservative?

Granted the POTUS is CIC by the duties of the office, but my point is he/she isn't trained to lead the military. The officers and NCO's are.

I agree with you about having served your country in some military capacity bringing a greater understanding of the duties and obligations entailed in being the CIC.

I had you pegged as a Libertarian, Sarge.

 

[Guest]

Granted the POTUS is CIC by the duties of the office, but my point is he/she isn't trained to lead the military. The officers and NCO's are.

Thats an enormous amount of trust though and is the underlying thread of thought that led to my comment about having to serve first.

I agree with you about having served your country in some military capacity bringing a greater understanding of the duties and obligations entailed in being the CIC.

I had you pegged as a Libertarian, Sarge.

I don't know enough about the parties to really care. Conversely, I don't care enough about the parties to really know.

The bottom line is that I have found Republicans that I agree with almost wholeheartedly on individual issues, but despised as people. And Ii have found Democrats that I feel the same way about.

I agreed with most of the mission statement on the Democratic Party's homepage, and ran with it. It's not a source of pride, and if either party (or both) disappeared or reformed, I wouldn't shed a tear.

As far as being a Libertarian, a green party or an Independent (whatever the hell that is), I am too uninformed on them to know. I can't even figure out if I am liberal or conservative. I'm all over the map on too many issues to be pigeonholed that neatly.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

In other words, you have the effrontery to think for yourself. How unacceptably anti-pundit! For shame! Aren't we all supposed to be members of one predictably giant group-think or another? Kucinich is. Cheney is. How dare any of us differ?


Now do we understand why both political parties are losing members and affiliation? Hmmm?

 

[Guest]

In other words, you have the effrontery to think for yourself. How unacceptably anti-pundit! For shame! Aren't we all supposed to be members of one predictably giant group-think or another? Kucinich is. Cheney is. How dare any of us differ?


Now do we understand why both political parties are losing members and affiliation? Hmmm?

But what is the defining issue that makes one liberal or conservative. Is a liberal democrat any different than a conservative republican? Or vice versa? Liberal Republican and conservative Democrat? Is it about abortion? The economy? Health care? What if I am liberal on one and conservative on another?

This shit makes my head hurt. I'm going to go back to arguing Jesus.

 

[JackLuis]

Just got back from seeing "Avtar", where the Corporation and Military were the villains.

Thanks for the opinion Sgt W. Hope you have quiet holidays there in Korea.

TE99, thanks for the LBJ reference. LBJ was in uniform back in the BIG ONE, but I don't think he was overseas much.

Obama has not been in the Military, his generation got a good slot in the time line, and it shows. He doesn't appear to do the calculus needed to figure out that Afghanistan is a fourth world shit hole that will take 500,000 men, a hundred years and more money than exists to make into a moderate modern democracy.

Culture counts and Obama, apparently has no idea what outcome he is trying to achieve, so I doubt that we will achieve anything more than getting our guys killed so he can look like he is a President.

If he were a leader of men/women he'd choose to honor his oath to protect this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Right now it's the domestic enemies that worry me. You know, Congress, the Banks, his cabinet.

About the Generals and their motivations, I have for years thought that the Army in Viet Nam wanted to war to go on because they needed the expansion to add slots to the TO&E so more of them could make rank, At the time rank was hard to come by, until the war started.

Robin Moore, wrote a book "The Hunt for Bin Laden, Task Force Dagger". SF teams dropped into Afghanistan to chase Bin Laden only to find that after they had deep sixed the Taliban that the "Higher UPs" decided that we needed Big Units in the fight. you know where real straight leg ring knockers could get their tickets punched.

Yeah, VM I hear you. Generals think about their men. Just after they think about how they are going to get promoted and after how they think about how to get a choice assignment after their tour, but maybe I am too harsh. When I was in Viet Nam, I saw just how concerned our Government was about the People of Viet Nam. I doubt things have changed much.

What would happen if we withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan? What would happen if we depended upon our Law Enforcement to chase down and deal with Al-Quida? Is the FBI so feeble that they could not keep us safe? It is obvious that the Homeland Security fiasco is so wound up in their own political infighting that it is a wonder that anything gets accomplished.

And while I'm ranting!
What about the 15 Million American who are hungry. The 30 Million who don't get health care because they can't afford a doctor, or the millions unemployed. The money that Obama is going to pour down the Afghan Rat hole would make a big dent in the cost of health care. The money we waste in Iraq would put a lot of people to work and they would pay taxes which would pay down the debt LBJ-GWB left us.

Well that feels better. When our Political leaders start talking sense instead of talking points, we'll all be better off. I'm just not holding my breath.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Is the FBI so feeble that they could not keep us safe?

Yes.

It is obvious that the Homeland Security fiasco is so wound up in their own political infighting that it is a wonder that anything gets accomplished.

Exactly.

By the way, the FBI isn't permitted, by law, from operating overseas just as the CIA is forbidden to operate in the Zone Interior. Now you understand why killing the jihadi's at a distance appeals to so many?

 

[Guest]

What would happen if we withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan? What would happen if we depended upon our Law Enforcement to chase down and deal with Al-Quida? Is the FBI so feeble that they could not keep us safe? It is obvious that the Homeland Security fiasco is so wound up in their own political infighting that it is a wonder that anything gets accomplished.

And while I'm ranting!
What about the 15 Million American who are hungry. The 30 Million who don't get health care because they can't afford a doctor, or the millions unemployed. The money that Obama is going to pour down the Afghan Rat hole would make a big dent in the cost of health care. The money we waste in Iraq would put a lot of people to work and they would pay taxes which would pay down the debt LBJ-GWB left us.

Well that feels better. When our Political leaders start talking sense instead of talking points, we'll all be better off. I'm just not holding my breath.

Given these points, do you think that the next presidential candidate will run on an isolationism policy? I would, if I were campaigning. I think that a "fix our own house first" platform would do wonders if the right message got across.

Kind of like "feed our tired and hungry and homeless before sending foreign aid"

of course, that could backfire pretty easily as well, compromising our image of generosity. Thoughts?

(As long as Palin's not on board, I'm at least 50% happier)