'Unit's' military expert has fighting words for Bush

[Rocko9]

The decision making of this administration can be summed up with any number of verses from Proverbs.:
Pr. 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Pr. 14:3 In the mouth of the foolish is a rod of pride: but the lips of the wise shall preserve them.

Pr. 8:13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

Pr 13:10 Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom.

Our nation will pay and is paying a heavy price because of the pride of one President.

Psalms 73:6 Therefore pride compasseth them about as a chain; violence covereth them as a garment.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Hmmm, one could use the same verses about his opposition.

 

[Rocko9]

Yes that is true Bro. Curtis and it would apply to both also.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Good point NiteShift. I know a LOT of officers that have returned and I don't know a single one who was against government policy in the war. They all knew that this was going to be a tough battle, and pulling out would be the hardest part; but, they were prepared and are actually frustrated because people who listen to the news-media don't understand that the military wishes to wrap it up correctly and they are getting tired of the people whining about the time it takes to do the job right.

Excellent comments Phillip!

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Rocko9:
The decision making of this administration can be summed up with any number of verses from Proverbs.:
Pr. 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Pr. 14:3 In the mouth of the foolish is a rod of pride: but the lips of the wise shall preserve them.

Pr. 8:13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

Pr 13:10 Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom.

Our nation will pay and is paying a heavy price because of the pride of one Dictator.

Psalms 73:6 Therefore pride compasseth them about as a chain; violence covereth them as a garment.

Good description of the situation with Saddam.

 

[Rocko9]

the military wishes to wrap it up correctly and they are getting tired of the people whining about the time it takes to do the job right. [/qb]

And this is where most folks will argue that Rumsfield is blowing it. That the war is not being handled correctly nor was it being handled correctly from the beginning and now our cuntry is paying the price for bad decision making.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by Rocko9:
... most folks ...

Some folks - not at all most folks!

 

[Dragoon68]

Just to be more specific about my earlier posting on this:

When asked about the recent criticism of a few retired officers during a recent Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld said "When you're involved in something that's controversial, as certainly this war is, one ought to expect ..." it and "It's historic, it's always been the case, and I see nothing really very new or surprising about it."

General Peter Pace, current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was standing next to Secretary Rumsfeld. He told the reporters, "As far as Pete Pace is concerned, this country is exceptionally well-served by the man standing on my left. ... Nobody works harder than he does to take care of the privates first class and lance corporals and lieutenants and the captains. He does his homework. He works weekends, he works nights. People can question my judgment or his judgment, but they should never question the dedication, the patriotism and the work ethic of Secretary Rumsfeld."

This, of course, didn't make the headlines like some of the other comments have.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Dragoon68:
For some, only the negative comments are relevant.

No, just surprizing coming from former generals. They don't have a reputation for public disagreement.

They just can't accept that someone might actually respect their superior and be willing to say so publically.

No, that would be the norm, wouldn't it? That's why these generals speaking out is seen as abnormal, ie. remarkable.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the principal military adviser to the President.

And, as such, it would be extremely unlikely for him to publicly disrespect the President...especially while still in office.

"...Nobody works harder than he does to take care of the privates first class and lance corporals and lieutenants and the captains. He does his homework. He works weekends, he works nights. People can question my judgment or his judgment, but they should never question the dedication, the patriotism and the work ethic of Secretary Rumsfeld."

He works hard, but his judgement is questionable? Now there's a ringing endorsement!

 

[Rocko9]

Originally posted by Daisy:

Originally posted by Dragoon68:
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the principal military adviser to the President.

And, as such, it would be extremely unlikely for him to publicly disrespect the President...especially while still in office.
_______________________________________________
Good point Daisy

. It is rather doubtful that Gen. Peter Pace would be holding on to his current position if he showed any signs of dissent.

 

[Dragoon68]

So, then, is erroneous conclusion that active duty generals in a postion to know have no credibility but retired generals some perhaps not in a position to know do?

Disrespect and disagreement are two different things. Disrespect of superiors is not tolerated but disagreement and discussion about it is generally welcomed in effective organizations of which our military is an outstanding example.

 

[Dragoon68]

Operational planning - even at the small unit level - can get very intense. Troops let their sargeants know what they're thinking. Platoon leaders lead there company commanders know what's on their minds as well. It's very unlikely that seasoned general officers would not express their opinions openly and firmly in higher level discussions about startegy and tactics. They'd be inclined to argue their points based on their training, experience, and responsibility. They'd also be inclined to accept the final decisions and then do their best to implement them. After the fact, they'd also conduct lessons learned reviews to critique what was done for the purpose of learning how to do it better next time. All this is positive and constructive.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

In some cases it is because of "Sour Grapes"...

In some cases it was a "Not Invented Here" problem...

In some cases it was a "Bait Not Taken Hook Line and Sinker"...

Once you get to be a General for some there is a lot of prestige at stake and they can't handle it if their advice is not taken intoto...

When you have several Combat veterans around the conference table there's got to be give and take...

And, if pride is available, there's always a loser...

Besides, yes, they got published...

And, they stated they don't like Rumsfield...

But, did they actually say anything substantial...

And, did they publish any *real* alternatives...

It's not enough to say we should have had more men on the ground without explaining where we would have gotten them.

Remember Rumsfield is only as good as those counselling him...

And, his judgements aren't based on purely military issues.

He is tasked not only with running DOD...

But, also DOD's ramifications to State, Treaties, and a host of other issues.

Luke 14:31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?

Sometimes the consultations miss something. And, hindsight is always 20/20...

And, not mentioned is the issue of what are acceptable losses...

I saw on the Military Channel the other day that we had expected maybe 10-20 times as many casualites in the invasion for GW-1...

But, even then the losses were "acceptable" considering the goals...

The planners never calculated that the Iraqi's would surrender enmasse. They had expected them to fight to the last man...

Given that secnario happened in GW-1...

The "new" data was added into the planning. So, it said we didn't need as many men...

That coupled with the intent to Appear as Liberators instead of Occupiers...

I'd like to have seen **ANY** of you detractors or the Dissident Generals do a better job...

It's *always* easier to Quarterback from the easy chair with a glass of ice tea in one hand and a tuna sandwhich in the other...

Mike Sr.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:
In some cases it is because of "Sour Grapes"...

In some cases it was a "Not Invented Here" problem...

In some cases it was a "Bait Not Taken Hook Line and Sinker"...

Once you get to be a General for some there is a lot of prestige at stake and they can't handle it if their advice is not taken intoto...

When you have several Combat veterans around the conference table there's got to be give and take...

And, if pride is available, there's always a loser...

Besides, yes, they got published...

And, they stated they don't like Rumsfield...

But, did they actually say anything substantial...

And, did they publish any *real* alternatives...

It's not enough to say we should have had more men on the ground without explaining where we would have gotten them.

Remember Rumsfield is only as good as those counselling him...

And, his judgements aren't based on purely military issues.

He is tasked not only with running DOD...

But, also DOD's ramifications to State, Treaties, and a host of other issues.

Luke 14:31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?

Sometimes the consultations miss something. And, hindsight is always 20/20...

And, not mentioned is the issue of what are acceptable losses...

I saw on the Military Channel the other day that we had expected maybe 10-20 times as many casualites in the invasion for GW-1...

But, even then the losses were "acceptable" considering the goals...

The planners never calculated that the Iraqi's would surrender enmasse. They had expected them to fight to the last man...

Given that secnario happened in GW-1...

The "new" data was added into the planning. So, it said we didn't need as many men...

That coupled with the intent to Appear as Liberators instead of Occupiers...

I'd like to have seen **ANY** of you detractors or the Dissident Generals do a better job...

It's *always* easier to Quarterback from the easy chair with a glass of ice tea in one hand and a tuna sandwhich in the other...

Mike Sr.

Amen brother!

How quickly we forget all those unknowns after the fact. Suddenly we know exactly what should have been done.

 

[Dragoon68]

MG William Caldwell, present commander of the 82d Airborne Division, succeeding MG Charles Swannack, said he thinks the U.S. is making progress that is often overshadowed by violent attacks and bombings of a small violent minority. I agree with that 100%!

When asked about President Bush's recent statement that American forces will remain in Iraq for years, MG Caldwell said "If I'm going to spend a year in Iraq, I would hope to make a difference." He and his troops will make a difference! MG Swannack, said two years ago, the pace of deployment had worn out the division's troops, calling the division "a little bit tired.'' That's understandable - it's hard and dangerous work!

Under MG Caldwell's command, the troops were required to take three weeks rest and recuperation after a tour overseas, and he said many are able to see the positive side of their work after serving more than one deployment.

We need to stop beating ourselves up and take note of the positive accomplish we made and continue to make in Iraq and elsewhere. The men and women serving in our military right now deserve to have their work recognized for what it is. They're accomplishing what our nation sent them to do. It's a positive thing folks!

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Dragoon68:
MG William Caldwell, present commander of the 82d Airborne Division, succeeding MG Charles Swannack, said he thinks the U.S. is making progress that is often overshadowed by violent attacks and bombings of a small violent minority. I agree with that 100%!

When asked about President Bush's recent statement that American forces will remain in Iraq for years, MG Caldwell said "If I'm going to spend a year in Iraq, I would hope to make a difference." He and his troops will make a difference! MG Swannack, said two years ago, the pace of deployment had worn out the division's troops, calling the division "a little bit tired.'' That's understandable - it's hard and dangerous work!

Under MG Caldwell's command, the troops were required to take three weeks rest and recuperation after a tour overseas, and he said many are able to see the positive side of their work after serving more than one deployment.

We need to stop beating ourselves up and take note of the positive accomplish we made and continue to make in Iraq and elsewhere. The men and women serving in our military right now deserve to have their work recognized for what it is. They're accomplishing what our nation sent them to do. It's a positive thing folks!

Well, you may not believe it, but I sincerely hope so.

Atlantic Monthly April 2006 has a very encouraging analysis of this (counter-insurgency & winning the peace). I think you might enjoy reading it - I know I'd like to hear your opinion of it. If I can find a link, I'll post it plus a few paragraphs.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Dragoon68:
So, then, is erroneous conclusion that active duty generals in a postion to know have no credibility but retired generals some perhaps not in a position to know do?

Yes, that is an erroneous conclusion. Active duty generals in a position to know are not in a position to tell publically, if it reflects badly on current policy - that is the working assumption.

Disrespect and disagreement are two different things. Disrespect of superiors is not tolerated but disagreement and discussion about it is generally welcomed in effective organizations of which our military is an outstanding example.

Many people wonder if the same is true of the current civilian command.

 

[Rocko9]

From the Lincoln Journal Star

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2006/04/17/local/doc44442561a463f148134467.txt

Sen. Chuck Hagel said Monday he shares the lack of confidence in Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld separately voiced by six retired generals.

“The concern I’ve had is, at a very dangerous time, (the) secretary of defense does not command the respect and confidence of our men and women in uniform,” Hagel said.

“There is a real question about his capacity to lead at this critical time,” he said.

“I have had many conversations with military leaders about their concern about what’s happening at the Pentagon and with our force structure.”
____________________________________________
There are a lot of retired and ex-military folks that have lost confidence in this administration to conduct this so called war on terrorism. And to be fair to Gen. Pace he did comment once after Donald Rumsfield made the assertion at a press conference that troops that witnessed prisoner abuse had no obligation to physically stop the abuse, only to report it. To which Gen. Pace reponded "Sir, they have an obligation to try and stop it."
I find it highly irresponsible of Rumsfield to make such statements such as this. Rumsfield is a deterrent to making any kind of progress to stabilizing the Iraq region. Our president needs to show leadership by getting rid of Rumsfield.

 

[Phillip]

Closing topic. You may start another thread if you wish to continue.