If extremists in the middle east want to murder people and cause problems they can do it in the comfort of there very OWN third world craphole.
Sending Americans to them in the form of troops to kill makes it easier for them, not harder. A goat farmer who wants to harm the USA can't swim across the ocean with an IED, but he sure can harm a few US troops with an IED.
And before you harp on me not being in the military, my father was in Vietnam, hes told me plenty about it, does he care the south fell in the end after they pulled out? No, because he fought his hardest while he was there and that's what matters.
Falluja has fallen because of the self destructive nature of those who dwell there, not because we didn't have the USMC there.
Did anyone expect any good to come out of the middle eastern wars? I mean, our policy was pretty much to blow crap up, give some guys guns and call it "Mission accomplished". A reformation of a seriously divided culture that does not make.
My heart goes to the fallen Marines who died in that battle. They made the ultimate sacrifice and it was for naught.
Edit: This is starting to sound like our generation's Vietnam.
whembly wrote: At some point, the Iraqis need to step up.
It's a shame that this is happening now and maybe indicative to a flaw withdrawl policy, but in the end, the Iraqis need to own it at some point.
Exactly, the USA cannot be the worlds police man when it comes to conflicts like this that we deep seeded in not only politics but RELIGION as well. We have better ways to spend money than burning it by occupying countries that do not want us there and show it through terrorist acts and corrupt policeman/army officals
TheCustomLime wrote: Did anyone expect any good to come out of the middle eastern wars? I mean, our policy was pretty much to blow crap up, give some guys guns and call it "Mission accomplished". A reformation of a seriously divided culture that does not make.
That was very far from our policy. Our infrastructure-related projects in Iraq and Afghanistan alone account for billions of dollars in spending.
Ouze wrote: We have fought a a few fights that were ultimately futile, but it's heartbreaking how fast this one turned out. So many sacrifices squandered.
Were the marines who died to a man defending wake island squander there lives? Did the USA squander the lives of the men stuck trapped in the philipines during the Jap invasion?
Sometimes soldiers die and the fight they fought comes out as a loss, but if we win the war in the end thats what matters.
If we get past our hatred and our desire to throw MORE lives away in the middle east than the marines who died there didn't die for nothing.
TheCustomLime wrote: Did anyone expect any good to come out of the middle eastern wars? I mean, our policy was pretty much to blow crap up, give some guys guns and call it "Mission accomplished". A reformation of a seriously divided culture that does not make.
That was very far from our policy. Our infrastructure-related projects in Iraq and Afghanistan alone account for billions of dollars in spending.
Yeah, but giving people stuff only goes so far as to reform a volatile situation like the Middle East. That worked for Germany because the Germans were tired of the war. The extremists in the Middle East, though, are more than willing to keep on fighting no matter what.
Alexzandvar wrote: Were the marines who died to a man defending wake island squander there lives? Did the USA squander the lives of the men stuck trapped in the philipines during the Jap invasion?
Sometimes soldiers die and the fight they fought comes out as a loss, but if we win the war in the end thats what matters.
If we get past our hatred and our desire to throw MORE lives away in the middle east than the marines who died there didn't die for nothing.
TheCustomLime wrote: Did anyone expect any good to come out of the middle eastern wars? I mean, our policy was pretty much to blow crap up, give some guys guns and call it "Mission accomplished". A reformation of a seriously divided culture that does not make.
That was very far from our policy. Our infrastructure-related projects in Iraq and Afghanistan alone account for billions of dollars in spending.
Our invasion crippled Iraq's infrastructure, so we gain no points for fixing what we broke.
If that HAD been a reason to go into Iraq in the first place we shouldn't have occupyed it. Just leave it a burnt out ruin as in example.
A way of saying "Mess with us and your next" something tribals can understand.
TheCustomLime wrote: Yeah, but giving people stuff only goes so far as to reform a volatile situation like the Middle East. That worked for Germany because the Germans were tired of the war. The extremists in the Middle East, though, are more than willing to keep on fighting no matter what.
That's true, which is why we also did more than give people stuff.
But you're right in the respect that insurgent patience outlasted ours. If anything, the big lesson to take away from Iraq and Afghanistan is that similar campaigns are going to be very, very long endeavors, and that punching out without the indigenous government being absolutely rock solid is basically just building a sand castle below the high tide line.
Alexzandvar wrote: Were the marines who died to a man defending wake island squander there lives? Did the USA squander the lives of the men stuck trapped in the philipines during the Jap invasion?
Sometimes soldiers die and the fight they fought comes out as a loss, but if we win the war in the end thats what matters.
If we get past our hatred and our desire to throw MORE lives away in the middle east than the marines who died there didn't die for nothing.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
My point is that in war some deaths do seem pointless/squandered, but if we win in the end than its okay.
Or, thats what I was going at. I get ranty about this subject, Iv lost two family members to Iraq/afganistan.
BTW - If you have never been in the military and you just want to do an anti war rant, please start another thread. Thank you.
Don't post unless you agree with me okaythanksbyenow...
What part of history really made us think that this would be the time that things would be different in that part of the world?
Actually it was just a warning that I would take you to school if you felt the need to do this.
So...
Forgetting history is exactly what brought us to the low point. Whether you were for the Iraq war or agianst it, the fact was that the previous administration started it, and successor administrations have a responsibility to manage it with competence. Pulling the troops out was a political decision, the president said as much, and the Joint Chiefs argued against it... even the less Hawkish members of Senate on the Armed Services Committee argued against it. Knowing that the Iraqi security forces were not yet ready to secure their own country we left anyway... Not only did this squander the sacrifices of the war but it shows the world what we do to our allies, and how we "support them." Right now the Iraqis and the tribes that supported us in counterinsurgency are being slaughtered by ISIS the Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham. The responsibility lies 100% on the US Government.
History has shown time and again what a successful conquest/nation building program looks like. The Romans took three generations, they would conquer in the first generation, intermarry and occupy in the second generation, and everyone was speaking latin and eating roman food by the third generation (bloody Romans!) Believe it or not we did the same thing with Japan and Germany. We conquered during the first generation, nation built for a second generation, and in this third generation Japan and Germany are our greates allies.
In Iraq and Afghanistan we should have been preparred to hang out for sixty years providing logistics and training, after the children saw us their whole lives and realized Americans are not a threat (to them anyway) the whole nature of the Middle East would have changed. History proves this time and again.
So having seen Iraq go to hell, I really don't want to see that happen to Afghanistan, and it doesn't have to. But it will, due to a lack of forsight and that's really goddam tragic.
Next war, do you know what I might tell people? I'll tell them that we shouldn't get involved because the strength of the military and all the best intentions in the world will never overcome the weakness and incompetence of our elected leaders, so everything will be in vain.
Alexzandvar, I am sorry for your loss. It is this kind of thing exactly that is making me so angry about the situation. I have lost many friends over the years and the idea that is "was all for naught" might just keep me up at night for the rest of my life.
History has shown time and again what a successful conquest/nation building program looks like. The Romans took three generations, they would conquer in the first generation, intermarry and occupy in the second generation, and everyone was speaking latin and eating roman food by the third generation (bloody Romans!)
***They also crucified people, razed cities, sold entire populations into slavery and never actually held most of the territory peacefully. The closest comparable would be how the Soviets acted in Afghanistan and Chenya. It hasn’t worked either.
You could go old school Roman and “Depopulate” Iraq, then bring in new settlers, but we kind of don’t do that sort of thing in a democracy.
Believe it or not we did the same thing with Japan and Germany. We conquered during the first generation, nation built for a second generation, and in this third generation Japan and Germany are our greates allies.
***Really, what support have they provided us for, well anything besides taking our jobs?
In Iraq and Afghanistan we should have been preparred to hang out for sixty years providing logistics and training, after the children saw us their whole lives and realized Americans are not a threat (to them anyway) the whole nature of the Middle East would have changed. History proves this time and again.
***Tell me again what happened to the Temple in Jerusalem? Oh yea it was destroyed when the Romans destroyed the city as retribution for another revolt.
If you really want to go there what you’re saying is we should have nuked them.
If you really want to go there what you’re saying is we should have nuked them.
Hard to argue that one Chief! We have already done it to another country TWICE. Frankly I don't have a problem with that. If you can't commit to a war, don't get involved in the first place.
And if you can't handle non-military or anti-war people posting in your precious thread, then don't post it on a non-military forum that is open to anti-war people...
If you really want to go there what you’re saying is we should have nuked them.
Hard to argue that one Chief! We have already done it to another country TWICE. Frankly I don't have a problem with that. If you can't commit to a war, don't get involved in the first place.
True that. Suddenly we are in agreement in principle. I couldn't see doing so in Iraq though. They hadn't actually done anything besides break the truce agreement, which was fixed when Saddam was deposed.
I dont think it would work in Iraq. The people that we want dead are more than happy to sacrifice their fellow man if it means advancing their cause. Dropping it on their camps wouldnt so much except irradiate parts of Iraq. The situation in Iraq is much more complex than Japan in WW2.
Alexzandvar wrote: Were the marines who died to a man defending wake island squander there lives? Did the USA squander the lives of the men stuck trapped in the philipines during the Jap invasion?
Sometimes soldiers die and the fight they fought comes out as a loss, but if we win the war in the end thats what matters.
If we get past our hatred and our desire to throw MORE lives away in the middle east than the marines who died there didn't die for nothing.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
My point is that in war some deaths do seem pointless/squandered, but if we win in the end than its okay.
Or, thats what I was going at. I get ranty about this subject, Iv lost two family members to Iraq/afganistan.
I'm sorry for your losses.
But I would strongly urge you to consider that there can still be heroes in stories that don't have happy endings. Personally I think that if we as a society could grow to understand this, we wouldn't have this nasty little tendency to get stuck in regional conflicts without a clear, realistically achievable endgame.
I was not in the military. I was just some stupid civilian that watched it go down from afar on CNN.
Even just watching I saw the cost was high in terms of life, effort, and money. By that time, I had already decided that the war in Iraq had been a terrible distraction from the true mission in Afghanistan and the GWoT. It saddened me greatly to see and hear what was happening. Now, I am sadden even more that that effort was even more wasteful and purposeless than I imagined.
That being said, I have a feeling a lot of those guys didn't fight so hard, get injured, and even killed for a stupid town in a middle-eastern desert. I have a feeling they did it for the guys in the fireteam with them, for the rest of the platoon, and for the other guys and gals caught up in the same pointless war. It was there chance to "do something" about the bad situation they had been put in.
I'm not one to fetishize the troops, but I can see why someone who was there fighting in Fallujah would be upset about its current state. It would call into question a lot of things that were important to them.
Easy E wrote: I was not in the military. I was just some stupid civilian that watched it go down from afar on CNN.
Even just watching I saw the cost was high in terms of life, effort, and money. By that time, I had already decided that the war in Iraq had been a terrible distraction from the true mission in Afghanistan and the GWoT. It saddened me greatly to see and hear what was happening. Now, I am sadden even more that that effort was even more wasteful and purposeless than I imagined.
That being said, I have a feeling a lot of those guys didn't fight so hard, get injured, and even killed for a stupid town in a middle-eastern desert. I have a feeling they did it for the guys in the fireteam with them, for the rest of the platoon, and for the other guys and gals caught up in the same pointless war. It was there chance to "do something" about the bad situation they had been put in.
I'm not one to fetishize the troops, but I can see why someone who was there fighting in Fallujah would be upset about its current state. It would call into question a lot of things that were important to them.
/ This. Thank you. It forces you to question a lot of things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Oh my, did I ever get schooled. If only I was a pro-war military member...
The Roman empire fell, so that's a great role model for us to have.
The whole world bows to your intelligence. The city of Rome fell a dozen times, usually to Romans. The empire collapsed economically just like we are about to.
But thanks for pointing that out. I was just about to pay the local tax collector. Silly me.
Hey I got an idea. Lets point out the FACT that whether you were for the invasion of Iraq or not... the current administration bears direct responsibility for what is happening there RIGHT NOW. Just one little idea I would like fething acknowledged. Thanks.
I would say no they don't. Afghanistan yes, but Iraq, I'll give Obama an out on (I know I just felt the earth shake too).
As long as he doesn't getangled back in there again I'll be supportive. His track record on Egypt, libya, Iran, Israel, and almost Syria is a different story of course.
I would be the last one to argue that we should go back to Iraq, especially now. However I do think we left at a very bad time. We still have a shot in Afghanistan, and since I still have friends in Afghanistan (Afghans and Soldiers) I really don't want to see a repeat. If we leave Afghanistan right now it would be a hopeless story.
necrondog99 wrote: I would be the last one to argue that we should go back to Iraq, especially now. However I do think we left at a very bad time. We still have a shot in Afghanistan, and since I still have friends in Afghanistan (Afghans and Soldiers) I really don't want to see a repeat. If we leave Afghanistan right now it would be a hopeless story.
- J
I think it's pretty clear we're leaving. There's not much "if" about it.
As someone who participated in conquering Iraq for the Emperor the deterioration of the situation over there is truly depressing. The majority of the people over there were great.
I played soccer with kids while I was on patrol. My squad shared a bottle of gin with some locals in Sadr City (they made a point that they tasted it first to show it wasn't poison). I learned enough Arabic talking to people over there to tell them that I wa only a Lance Corporal so I couldn't give them clearance to cross battle lines. Everyone I spoke to was happy that Saddam was gone.
I also saw men throw rocks at young women for speaking to Americans. And, well, it was a war. Fill in those blanks.
My main lesson from my time spent in Iraq was that the world is a far less black and white place than I ever thought, and that even the best intentions can have disastrous consequences.
Anyone who has followed the progress of the Afghan and Iraq wars will be aware that the CotW never had a firm grip on the situation in either country.
It has always been clear that we could not stay there forever and that once we left things would be in the hands of the native population, who are riven by tribal, religious, and economic divisions.
Automatically Appended Next Post: From the article:
An officer wrote:“What the Iraqi forces lost in the last month, four years after transition, is not a reflection of Marine efforts. If it is a reflection of anything, it is the nature of the Iraqi social fabric and long-suppressed civil discord.”
These Middle East countries have been fighting for longer than we have been a country. Some of them have been fighting for all of recorded history. Not all of it has been outright war, but things have been happening all the same. We show up and wonder why they do not celebrate and praise us? Nah ... hate to say it but, they do not want a democracy there. I do not think that they would understand what to do with those kinds of freedoms.
There is always some kind of oppression going on there. Shiites killing Bath Muslims, women being completely dominated (IMO) in a totally unfair manner. They hate each other ... but they hate us more.
Ouze wrote: We have fought a a few fights that were ultimately futile, but it's heartbreaking how fast this one turned out. So many sacrifices squandered.
Were the marines who died to a man defending wake island squander there lives? Did the USA squander the lives of the men stuck trapped in the philipines during the Jap invasion?
Sometimes soldiers die and the fight they fought comes out as a loss, but if we win the war in the end thats what matters.
If we get past our hatred and our desire to throw MORE lives away in the middle east than the marines who died there didn't die for nothing.
Yeah, but in WW2 there was a clear objective - Defeat the Axis. Everyman knew what he was fighting for.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, it went from defeating the Taliban/Al Q to nation building, democracy, women's rights, Middle East Stability etc etc
Nobody knew what the feth was going on half the time.
I've always believed that the military are at their best when they have a clear, defined objective - capture that hill or defeat this country etc etc. But they had nothing to work with.
Civilization as we know it today was created because the Romans ruthlessly pushed it down people's throats and killed anyone who didn't comply. The other example is China, which also ruthlessly oppressed anyone who wouldn't comply. It's a rough way to civilize people but recent history shows that it pretty much requires something like this.
Please show me a modern example of a people going from a barbaric culture to a civilized one without a third party crushing them and forcing it upon them.
d-usa wrote: Oh my, did I ever get schooled. If only I was a pro-war military member...
The Roman empire fell, so that's a great role model for us to have.
Seeing as how every barbarian successor state wanted to be Rome and the Dream of Rome shaped Europe and even Turkey and North Africa for the next 2,000 years and 1/3 of the world speaks a Latin based language, Yeah, I'd say they were a pretty good role model for us. It's not like Washington DC is covered in Roman Symbols.
(history rant over.)
I spent 2 years in Iraq and the whole thing was not just pointless but also counter productive. Saddam, while horrible, was a secular leader who kept a more fanatical Iran in check. Women could wear jeans in the streets and get jobs. Now they're having to wear burkas or get canned and Iran is now a huge influence in the country and no longer has its arch enemy to keep them in line.
The Iraq war is what happens when an invading nation fails to understand their enemy on even a basic level. We went in with a "Good guy/bad guy" mentality and didn't have a clue what the real situation shaped by culture, politics and religion was. So, what happened was, we blundered in, blew everything up, fired the ENTIRE freaking Iraqi army, kill a bunch of civilians and then wonder why we have an insurgency on our hands. Of course Iraq is descending into chaos. It wasn't going to go any other way unless we stayed there permenantly to re-shape their entire culture and that takes a loooong time and I don't see how it would come close to being profitable for us.
Breotan wrote: Civilization as we know it today was created because the Romans ruthlessly pushed it down people's throats and killed anyone who didn't comply. The other example is China, which also ruthlessly oppressed anyone who wouldn't comply. It's a rough way to civilize people but recent history shows that it pretty much requires something like this.
Please show me a modern example of a people going from a barbaric culture to a civilized one without a third party crushing them and forcing it upon them.
I'm sure the Greeks would have something to say about the Romans 'creating' civilization. And I'll pre-empt your comeback by saying I'm sure the Phoenicians and the Minoans and the Etruscans would have something to say about the Greeks creating civilization!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
marv335 wrote: Quite frankly, it's world shatteringly naive to think it wouldn't have fallen after the pull out.
My only surprise is that it took that long to happen.
Breotan wrote: Civilization as we know it today was created because the Romans ruthlessly pushed it down people's throats and killed anyone who didn't comply. The other example is China, which also ruthlessly oppressed anyone who wouldn't comply. It's a rough way to civilize people but recent history shows that it pretty much requires something like this.
Please show me a modern example of a people going from a barbaric culture to a civilized one without a third party crushing them and forcing it upon them.
Yes, because the Roman empire totally didn't get sacked by a bunch of barbarians at the end and Europe certainly didn't go back to a chaotic crapfest for the next few hundred years.
Breotan wrote: Civilization as we know it today was created because the Romans ruthlessly pushed it down people's throats and killed anyone who didn't comply. The other example is China, which also ruthlessly oppressed anyone who wouldn't comply. It's a rough way to civilize people but recent history shows that it pretty much requires something like this.
Please show me a modern example of a people going from a barbaric culture to a civilized one without a third party crushing them and forcing it upon them.
Yes, because the Roman empire totally didn't get sacked by a bunch of barbarians at the end and Europe certainly didn't go back to a chaotic crapfest for the next few hundred years.
Oh wait.
Umm....not quite how that happened. The Barbarians that sacked Rome were Christians, their leaders spoke Latin and they adopted Roman culture. Check out Theodoric the Goth's rule in Ravenna. He was called "Theodoric the Great" because they thought he was returning the glory of Rome to Italy. He built massive churches, baths, palaces and kept Italy safe and peaceful during his long reign. The 'barbarians' in Gaul also established very Romanized kingdoms. The "Dark Ages" really weren't that dark. Also check out the Eastern Roman Empire. They continued on and flourished for the next 1,000 years.
The darkness of the "Dark Ages" has been greatly exaggerated.
Yes, the political institution known as Rome fell, well only the western half did. But its laws, judicial system, culture, language and religion spread throughout all of Europe and Asia. Not bad.
Breotan wrote: Civilization as we know it today was created because the Romans ruthlessly pushed it down people's throats and killed anyone who didn't comply. The other example is China, which also ruthlessly oppressed anyone who wouldn't comply. It's a rough way to civilize people but recent history shows that it pretty much requires something like this.
Please show me a modern example of a people going from a barbaric culture to a civilized one without a third party crushing them and forcing it upon them.
Yes, because the Roman empire totally didn't get sacked by a bunch of barbarians at the end and Europe certainly didn't go back to a chaotic crapfest for the next few hundred years.
Oh wait.
Your point? Even after the fall of Rome following nations still tried to emulate it's glories. Which is exactly what he said. Despite their fall, their civilization was viewed as the pinnacle, and something to be envied.
Please show me a modern example of a people going from a barbaric culture to a civilized one without a third party crushing them and forcing it upon them.
The Brits in New Zealand?
The problem here though, is that in my two tours, the areas where I was (spent a ton of time in/around Sadr City the second go round) has shown me that the extremists really aren't all that extreme, and that most people felt the same way, but only a few were bold enough to act on those feelings.
The tribal chiefs literally run the place like the Godfather, and so half the time, when we gave a baker a "microgrant" to get him on his feet, he'd turn around and pay 90% of that (dont really know.. but it definitely had the appearance that it was a sizable chunk of what we gave) to his Sheik, who could/would usually turn around and pay the local bomb-maker, unless that Sheik was actually fairly friendly to us (and that was usually because we gave him a ton of money, or fixed utilities/public works that he owned). I mean, if you want to talk about politicians being owned by corporations or rich donors, etc. these guys make ours look like absolute saints.
Sure, it sucks that we've already "lost" everything we fought for, but the way I see it, we never really won, and I'd much rather give the same fate to Afghanistan than have any more Americans/allies die for "nothing" It's fairly clear that Islam is not the peaceful religion that certain people claim it is, so it's better for us to sit back, and let them wipe themselves out than to try and play referee.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, it went from defeating the Taliban/Al Q to nation building, democracy, women's rights, Middle East Stability etc etc
Nobody knew what the feth was going on half the time.
I've always believed that the military are at their best when they have a clear, defined objective - capture that hill or defeat this country etc etc. But they had nothing to work with.
Good points. What we should expect from the Pres and our congress critters is to lay out clear national level strategic objectives for what ever conflict they are getting us into. Bonus points if they can relate those objectives to our national interest. Then they should decide if they are willing to allocate the resources needed to achieve those objectives, and lay out the cost of not meeting those objectives.
If the objectives change, or cannot be met, they need to decide the trigger point to stop allocating resources and get out of the conflict, or the leaders need to sell the new objectives to the American people along with the costs to achieve them and the costs of not achieving them. Again, bonus points f they can relate them to our national interests.
On the military side, our strategic leaders need to show they clearly understand the national objectives and create and run campaigns and operations designed to achieve those objectives. They need to turn those national objectives into properly resourced and executable actions. They need to be able to communicate to the civilian elected leadership how they intend to achieve the objectives.
Seeing bad guys retake ground you fought for is never good, but the reality is it became the Iraqi government's responsibility to figure out how to keep their country running as we were leaving and after we left. They knew what was up.
It was only a matter of time. I really don't think anyone was too stunned when they found out, but it's still upsetting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
marv335 wrote: No-one has ever won in Afgahnistan.
Ever.
It's not called "the graveyard of empires" for nothing.
Alexander the Great, The Moguls, The British, The Soviets, the list goes on.
Win what though? Are we trying to actually win anything in Afghanistan? We're not, we're trying to help them by ousting extremist groups and promoting democracy in a country that essentially lives in the 15th century. This is a realistic goal, even if it doesn't seem to working out exactly how we want it to.
Some people have been theorizing the split up of Iraq into separate starts, a Sunni, Shiite and possibly independent Kurdish state. Although an independent Kurdish state might see some problems from countries like Turkey,Iran and Syria. I think the map of the middle east is going to look radically different in another 10 or 20 years
Aren't a lot of these countries relics of European Imperialism, arbitrarily drawn up on the map with little regard to historical boundaries of previous nation states, ethnic distribution and tribal loyalties?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Aren't a lot of these countries relics of European Imperialism, arbitrarily drawn up on the map with little regard to historical boundaries of previous nation states, ethnic distribution and tribal loyalties?
Yep, most were founded between 1918 and 1947-8 (the latter number coming from Israel), as after WW1, with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and the Brits swooping in for the kill, they just sorta divided gak up all willy nilly... Thanks, Obama!
We should have just occupied them for another 50-60 years. It worked with Germans, they haven't tried to take over Europe again and are all pretty good at speaking English. Sure, things would have been rough for a while, but a generation in their kids would be using apple devices, sipping starbucks lattes, wearing skinny jeans and listening to whatever boy bands are to be popular at the time.
Soladrin wrote:Ah yes, nukes would fix it, it's not like the fallout would effect us.. right.
I have no qualms turning the crapholes in the Middle East and North Africa into a glass parking lot.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:This foreshadows what will happen in Afghanistan.
Someone mentioned it before Afghanistan is the "graveyard of Empires?"
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Aren't a lot of these countries relics of European Imperialism, arbitrarily drawn up on the map with little regard to historical boundaries of previous nation states, ethnic distribution and tribal loyalties?
Yep, most were founded between 1918 and 1947-8 (the latter number coming from Israel), as after WW1, with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and the Brits swooping in for the kill, they just sorta divided gak up all willy nilly... Thanks, Obama!
European imperialism, hubris and dysfunctionalism. Also socialism but that is an entirely different matter.
Politicians send our troops to die on foreign lands when it suits them then turn their backs on the troops when it suits them. All that blood and treasure gone, for nothing! Politics benefits no one except for the politicians. The body count turns into poll numbers and statistics turn into things to be forgotten about such as one politician said "what difference does it make?" They do not care about the lives of our troops. This is why if I had things my way I'll have these fat cat politicians yanked away from their lofty jobs and leave them stranded in some third world craphole with only a gun and a helmet then they'll play survivor the real game.
It's Vietnam all over again. My advice is if you want to win a war you keep the damn politicians out of it and let the Generals do the fighting. Then again when politicians try to play war from a lofty office chair like so many armchair generals and when the actual generals become sycophantic bureaucrats and politicians then we're becoming as inept and incompetent as Europe.
Heavy Metal wrote: My advice is if you want to win a war you keep the damn politicians out of it and let the Generals do the fighting. Then again when politicians try to play war from a lofty office chair like so many armchair generals and when the actual generals become sycophantic bureaucrats and politicians then we're becoming as inept and incompetent as Europe.
In this country, we have civilian control of the military, which is proper because war is inherently political. It feels like you're arguing for some kind of military-run, unelected dictatorship or at least military autonomy. That idea would probably horrify the founding fathers, who are fromm an era where there was no permanent standing army.
Heavy Metal wrote: My advice is if you want to win a war you keep the damn politicians out of it and let the Generals do the fighting. Then again when politicians try to play war from a lofty office chair like so many armchair generals and when the actual generals become sycophantic bureaucrats and politicians then we're becoming as inept and incompetent as Europe.
In this country, we have civilian control of the military, which is proper because war is inherently political. It feels like you're arguing for some kind of military-run, unelected dictatorship or at least military autonomy. That idea would probably horrify the founding fathers, who are fromm an era where there was no permanent standing army.
Frankly, if you think anyone being promoted from Colonel to higher is anything but political you are dreaming.
From the military perspective, it sucks to be controlled by civilians, but that's the way it has to be or we'd be just another military dictatorship with the military doing coups like they were going out of style.
Please show me a modern example of a people going from a barbaric culture to a civilized one without a third party crushing them and forcing it upon them.
The Brits in New Zealand?
The problem here though, is that in my two tours, the areas where I was (spent a ton of time in/around Sadr City the second go round) has shown me that the extremists really aren't all that extreme, and that most people felt the same way, but only a few were bold enough to act on those feelings.
The tribal chiefs literally run the place like the Godfather, and so half the time, when we gave a baker a "microgrant" to get him on his feet, he'd turn around and pay 90% of that (dont really know.. but it definitely had the appearance that it was a sizable chunk of what we gave) to his Sheik, who could/would usually turn around and pay the local bomb-maker, unless that Sheik was actually fairly friendly to us (and that was usually because we gave him a ton of money, or fixed utilities/public works that he owned). I mean, if you want to talk about politicians being owned by corporations or rich donors, etc. these guys make ours look like absolute saints.
Sure, it sucks that we've already "lost" everything we fought for, but the way I see it, we never really won, and I'd much rather give the same fate to Afghanistan than have any more Americans/allies die for "nothing" It's fairly clear that Islam is not the peaceful religion that certain people claim it is, so it's better for us to sit back, and let them wipe themselves out than to try and play referee.
generalgrog wrote: So what do you "experts" think Iraq will look like in 20 years?....40 years?
With Saddam gone, will it become part of Iran as a new ME super state?
GG
Heh. I think the majority Sunni population of Iraq will have something to say about being absorbed into the majority Shia Iran.
Actually, it's the Shi'ite minority in Iraq. And if the borders don't change at all, the Sunni's, IMO, will likely try the Darfur route to become the ONLY religious/political/ethnic group represented in Iraq... Of course, the problem with that is, the Yezidi an other Kurdish groups are damn near impossible to kill off.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Aren't a lot of these countries relics of European Imperialism, arbitrarily drawn up on the map with little regard to historical boundaries of previous nation states, ethnic distribution and tribal loyalties?
Yes, they are. Or rather, they are relics of Ottoman Imperialism filtered through the post-WW1 League Of Nations system. The whole middle east used to be part of the Ottoman Empire. Some of it gradually split away due to local causes. The Ottoman Empire was another casualty of WW1, creating a power vacuum which was filled largely by the victorious powers of France and Britain.
Heavy Metal wrote: My advice is if you want to win a war you keep the damn politicians out of it and let the Generals do the fighting. Then again when politicians try to play war from a lofty office chair like so many armchair generals and when the actual generals become sycophantic bureaucrats and politicians then we're becoming as inept and incompetent as Europe.
In this country, we have civilian control of the military, which is proper because war is inherently political. It feels like you're arguing for some kind of military-run, unelected dictatorship or at least military autonomy. That idea would probably horrify the founding fathers, who are fromm an era where there was no permanent standing army.
Ah, now we're getting into an interesting subject,
I think Robert A. Heinlein, the author who wrote some of my favorite scifi novels, 'Starship Troopers' had the idea if you want to serve in office you have to do a tour of duty in the military. That way these type of representatives would be veterans and will know first hand the horrors of war and wouldn't throw away the lives of active duty soldiers needlessly like a politician who never served let alone handle a firearm in their life. I know that will have some of you freaking out "ermagerd dictatorship!" but in my defense the first democracies were made up of citizen soldiers and 9 times out of 10 those soldiers who aged out of the military served public office. The Greek City states and the Roman Republic are good historical references I would think. And I'll admit my history is a bit rusty in that area.
I realize though in reality that idea from Heinlein will not happen, not in our bleeding heart society we've turned into. This ain't our father's America anymore where we didn't flinch at great adversity or have an idiotic president making boasts only to retract from it. We've become too soft for our own good. We've become like Europe: gutless, lazy and incompetent and having to depend on other nations to keep our habits afloat.
As for a standing army in this day and age we cannot afford to do what we did in the past is to muster a large army in time of need and disband it during peace time. Not when we have powerful adversaries like China and Russia doing their saber rattling and having rogue nations like North Korea and Iran going nuclear. There is historical proof this habit of disbanding and mustering armies costs more lives than necessary all because there were those few fearing a standing army. As a devout Jeffersonian I still believe centralized banks and big governments are more dangerous than standing armies. That is a fact, Jack!
However my politics in some areas are a bit polarized. I like a standing army here at home to protect our borders but I do not believe it is our right and our place for that matter to be the world's policemen. Why do we need over 100 military bases across the world? I strongly disaprove the arrogance of our government's intrusive foreign policies. Yes I'm talking to you NSA.
A couple of points-
People on the forum were surprised or disparaging when the US was touted as the country others felt was the greatest threat to world security. Despite that, many americans on this forum feel comfortable talking casually about nuking other countries, or my favorite term, "glassing" them. This is fairly frightening, the idea that you have the power, and the will or desire, to simply wipe an entire people off the map. I can understand fear of americans, when I see things like that being said. Might be worth considering what you're saying a little more carefully on what is an international forum.
Second, I dislike the use of the term "barbarian" as it is here. It's really dehumanising. Also the idea that we should "impose" civilization on the barbarians. Perhaps it's because I'm Irish, and we got plenty of that from the British over the years, but I am skeptical of that sort of thinking- I think it's pretty simplistic and leads to some nasty conclusions.
Da Boss wrote: A couple of points-
People on the forum were surprised or disparaging when the US was touted as the country others felt was the greatest threat to world security. Despite that, many americans on this forum feel comfortable talking casually about nuking other countries, or my favorite term, "glassing" them. This is fairly frightening, the idea that you have the power, and the will or desire, to simply wipe an entire people off the map. I can understand fear of americans, when I see things like that being said. Might be worth considering what you're saying a little more carefully on what is an international forum.
Second, I dislike the use of the term "barbarian" as it is here. It's really dehumanising. Also the idea that we should "impose" civilization on the barbarians. Perhaps it's because I'm Irish, and we got plenty of that from the British over the years, but I am skeptical of that sort of thinking- I think it's pretty simplistic and leads to some nasty conclusions.
As an American who served two combat tours in Iraq, I agree with this statement whole heartedly. "Civilizing" people who don't want to be "civilized" has never really turned out very well for either side.
Also, the talk of using nukes to wipe out the entire civilian population is flat out evil and that's not a word I use lightly. Want to know what I saw in Iraq? Most people were just people. Not monsters. They just wanted to live out their lives and make a better life for their children than they had. They didn't care about politics or jihad or anything like that. They were more concerned with feeding their families and maybe having a little fun occasionally. To advocate wiping out an entire population because some fanatics have taken charge is worse than what the fanatics advocate.
MWHistorian wrote: As an American who served two combat tours in Iraq, I agree with this statement whole heartedly. "Civilizing" people who don't want to be "civilized" has never really turned out very well for either side.
I could've sworn this thread already covered Rome and why that statement is far from accurate.
MWHistorian wrote: As an American who served two combat tours in Iraq, I agree with this statement whole heartedly. "Civilizing" people who don't want to be "civilized" has never really turned out very well for either side.
I could've sworn this thread already covered Rome and why that statement is far from accurate.
When Rome tried to "Civilize" Barbarians that didn't want to be civilized they got either insurgencies on their hands or outright kicked out. The Britons for the most part welcomed them in (with a few exceptions like Boudica and looked how that turned out.) and even then it wasn't really profitable for the Romans and eventually left. Most of the people Rome conquered and made into Romans were other civilized societies such as the Carthegenians and Egyptians. Also, I still fail to see how nuking the Mid-East (not taking into effect the fall out politically and literally) could be anything but evil.
I've said it before and it is unfortunate, but some countries will only work with a dictatorship. It's no difference to a domestic that the police have to deal with. Husband & wife are close to killing each other, the police turn up and get involved, the couple unite against the police. It's a simple comparison but true.
Lets put Mr Cynic to one side and say that are motives were pure when we went into Iraq, there was nothing we could of done that would of fixed it. The big bad was gone, so they now unite against us because we are foreign infidel dogs. The Middle Eastern culture will never truly have democracy in the way we have, it just won't work. Religion is too ingrained into their culture and the Mullahs will never give up power. They either rule, are placated or suppressed, they don't just sit there providing spiritual support and guidance.
As to the nonsense that Muslims don't kill Muslims, we know that is complete rubbish. If you're the wrong type of Muslim, in the wrong area you are a valid target. It's pure and simply down to having power.
MWHistorian wrote: When Rome tried to "Civilize" Barbarians that didn't want to be civilized they got either insurgencies on their hands or outright kicked out. The Britons for the most part welcomed them in (with a few exceptions like Boudica and looked how that turned out.) and even then it wasn't really profitable for the Romans and eventually left. Most of the people Rome conquered and made into Romans were other civilized societies such as the Carthegenians and Egyptians.
Yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree with that, citing France, Spain, most of southern Europe, etc.
Also, I still fail to see how nuking the Mid-East (not taking into effect the fall out politically and literally) could be anything but evil.
MWHistorian wrote: When Rome tried to "Civilize" Barbarians that didn't want to be civilized they got either insurgencies on their hands or outright kicked out. The Britons for the most part welcomed them in (with a few exceptions like Boudica and looked how that turned out.) and even then it wasn't really profitable for the Romans and eventually left. Most of the people Rome conquered and made into Romans were other civilized societies such as the Carthegenians and Egyptians.
Yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree with that, citing France, Spain, most of southern Europe, etc.
Also, I still fail to see how nuking the Mid-East (not taking into effect the fall out politically and literally) could be anything but evil.
I don't recall advocating doing so.
You got me there, Caesar did have to crack a few skulls in his Gallic campaigns. But even then there were plenty of tribes willing to ally with Rome in exchange for power.
However my politics in some areas are a bit polarized. I like a standing army here at home to protect our borders but I do not believe it is our right and our place for that matter to be the world's policemen. Why do we need over 100 military bases across the world?
Having been stationed in Germany, I definitely see why places like Ramstein AFB and Lanstuhl are there. Their strategic value is too great to "abandon", even if we were to sign a treaty that said the Germans must keep and maintain those two places. I cannot speak to the necessity of bases in Japan, South Korea, Australia, etc. But many of the bases we have on foreign soil are there as part of some past treaty, or as they pose such strategic value that we just cannot feasibly get rid of them.
Da Boss wrote: A couple of points-
People on the forum were surprised or disparaging when the US was touted as the country others felt was the greatest threat to world security. Despite that, many americans on this forum feel comfortable talking casually about nuking other countries, or my favorite term, "glassing" them. This is fairly frightening, the idea that you have the power, and the will or desire, to simply wipe an entire people off the map. I can understand fear of americans, when I see things like that being said. Might be worth considering what you're saying a little more carefully on what is an international forum.
Keep in mind that only the President has the authority to use *nukes* in any conflict (except for maybe some MAD doctrine?).
But, I do agree that there are some of us are waaaay to cavalier about using instraments of destruction (nukes, mass bombing, drones, etc...). Chaulk this up as ignorance as the vast majority of the people don't truly understand what it means when going to war.
Second, I dislike the use of the term "barbarian" as it is here. It's really dehumanising. Also the idea that we should "impose" civilization on the barbarians. Perhaps it's because I'm Irish, and we got plenty of that from the British over the years, but I am skeptical of that sort of thinking- I think it's pretty simplistic and leads to some nasty conclusions.
It's just a bad form of stereotyping...
It's just that the evil acts perpetuated by these folks are barbaric, as it assaults our sense of civilization. In fact, throw all evil-doers into that "barbaric" bucket, regardless of race, religion, creed, etc...
Now... I hope you don't mind the word neanderthal... that's ME!
Da Boss wrote:A couple of points-
People on the forum were surprised or disparaging when the US was touted as the country others felt was the greatest threat to world security. Despite that, many americans on this forum feel comfortable talking casually about nuking other countries, or my favorite term, "glassing" them. This is fairly frightening, the idea that you have the power, and the will or desire, to simply wipe an entire people off the map. I can understand fear of americans, when I see things like that being said. Might be worth considering what you're saying a little more carefully on what is an international forum.
Second, I dislike the use of the term "barbarian" as it is here. It's really dehumanising. Also the idea that we should "impose" civilization on the barbarians. Perhaps it's because I'm Irish, and we got plenty of that from the British over the years, but I am skeptical of that sort of thinking- I think it's pretty simplistic and leads to some nasty conclusions.
I'm sure people other than just Americans talk about nuking other countries, who doesn't? You know the Russians are itching to hurl a nuke or two, hell they got more nukes than anyone. I hate to say it but even in our modern world that is supposedly more civilized you still have the "barbarians" wanting to cause trouble. I will use that term because I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade, so I apologize if I damage your delicate sensibilities of the matter.
Not saying it is any of our places, especially my country, to be “nation building” or “civilize” other countries but when a nation harbors people who want to kill us, mainly any of us from the west or whoever they label infidel (which is almost everyone) because we don’t bow our heads to Mecca five times a day then I think more than nation building is in need. I’ll leave it at that before I incur the wrath of moderators.
An international forum or not I'll consider the reality conflict exists everywhere and in many forms. If it isn't Russia bullying its regional neighbors like Georgia it is Iran wanting to wipe Israel off the map or the North Koreans shelling their Southern neighbors because Kim Jun Un is having a bad day. Then again my country has the NSA snooping into other people's business so I have no delusions that only my country is always right. I think throughout history whether it was yesterday or over 100 years ago our countries has done something to step on someone else’s toes just as you said about the British were privy to impose their will upon the Irish and the Scots, my ancestors. The main thing is where do we draw the line? I think when you kill thousands of innocent people because someone promised you 72 virgins and that you hate a nation’s lifestyle then you crossed the line beyond restraint and I think you should pay the price with fire and fury. That’s just me and if that makes me out to be a heartless and cruel person then so be it.
MWHistorian wrote:
As an American who served two combat tours in Iraq, I agree with this statement whole heartedly. "Civilizing" people who don't want to be "civilized" has never really turned out very well for either side.
Also, the talk of using nukes to wipe out the entire civilian population is flat out evil and that's not a word I use lightly. Want to know what I saw in Iraq? Most people were just people. Not monsters. They just wanted to live out their lives and make a better life for their children than they had. They didn't care about politics or jihad or anything like that. They were more concerned with feeding their families and maybe having a little fun occasionally. To advocate wiping out an entire population because some fanatics have taken charge is worse than what the fanatics advocate.
I know someone like you who have served in the line of duty don’t take lightly the notion of going to war unprovoked and wiping out entire civilian populations via nukes but I look at history to determine when and where to draw the lines as nations. This is where you and I may come to logger heads.
“Civilized” in its use is a bit archaic to me since it’s the same as nation building. Personally I don’t see the point of going to Iraq and Afghanistan to get bogged down in nation building just to wipe out the vermin that started this war. What was to be a simple job was to go in kill the bad guys and get the heck out has turned into a political mess reminiscent of the Vietnam War. Revisionist history is for the birds, politicians are idiots and you veterans don’t get the gratitude for what you do.
In WW II the doctrine of total war was used where both sides bombed civilian populations (except us, we were largely unscathed) and military complexes indiscriminately. It was necessary and at the same time unnecessary but war is horrible that way and brings the worse out of human nature. General Robert E. Lee said it right “it is well war is so terrible otherwise we should grow too fond of it.” You have personal accounts of what all transpired there yet it is difficult for most of us here at home to distinguish the fanatics from the regular folk since there is a lack of rejection of the radicals by these so-called moderates. Call me skeptical but I have reason not to give Iraqis or anyone else in that part of the world the benefit of the doubt. Not saying everyone in Iraq are monsters but they don’t make an effort to help themselves to convince otherwise.
I really think if the radicals get their way no thanks to these sycophantic politicians they would love nothing more to turn any of the major US cities into glass parking lots if they get the chance and they won't stop there, they've been itching to roll over Europe for a long time. As horrible as it sounds I think when it boils down to the choice between us and them to endure I choose us. I say we wipe them off the face of the earth. If that makes me a bad person then so be it. I'm not coming down to their level, it's survival and a means to preserve our way of life.
However my politics in some areas are a bit polarized. I like a standing army here at home to protect our borders but I do not believe it is our right and our place for that matter to be the world's policemen. Why do we need over 100 military bases across the world?
Having been stationed in Germany, I definitely see why places like Ramstein AFB and Lanstuhl are there. Their strategic value is too great to "abandon", even if we were to sign a treaty that said the Germans must keep and maintain those two places. I cannot speak to the necessity of bases in Japan, South Korea, Australia, etc. But many of the bases we have on foreign soil are there as part of some past treaty, or as they pose such strategic value that we just cannot feasibly get rid of them.
I do not doubt these bases have their importance and maybe they can be exceptions but don’t you think some of these treaties are bit dated? I understand the need to have bases in Germany because with Putin and his old guard bringing back the ol’ Soviet days it is a deterrence to keep the angry bear at bay. South Korea I’m a bit iffy because the latest SK administration isn’t exactly friendly even with NK having its tantrums. Japan amended their constitution so we’re no longer needed there and they’ve been wanted to kick us out for a long time plus let them deal with future Chinese aggression at their own expense. Taiwan is the only place I think we need a presence as a deterrence against Chinese expansionism. Speaking of old treaties I’m sure the UK will come to their old colony’s aid if they’re in trouble so I don’t see a need of a base there plus I take it the Aussies don’t really want us there anyway like so many others...
I think we can no longer afford to have bases everywhere like before. I can understand the importance of places like Germany but the other hundred or so bases we have across the globe? It seems to be an unnecessary expense to maintain an empire like the empires of the past has done and look how that turned out. Correct me if I am wrong but would it be cheaper to dispatch carrier fleets at trouble spots rather than maintaining all these bases? Going by Sun Tzu “he defends everything, defends nothing.” Fluid defense would be more cost effective, but I could be wrong.
The "Well they don't really want us there" tends to come from the people in the area just being miffed about troopers going and doing stupid stuff, getting in trouble, ect. The usual reasons.
I'll tell you right know those countries governments want, Its added protection, a boosts to their economy, and deters any potential invader/aggressors.
And if you think we have bases in germany NOW to keep "Russia" in check your being silly, we have bases in germany because the germans want us there and they serve as a good middle point to deploy from.
The cold war is over, stop hyping Russia and China up as the big enemy. China will destory itself with its reckless industry.
Heavy Metal, I think when someone wants to kill you it's worth looking at their motivations and trying to figure out why. I'm not sure you've done that to a great extent, based on your posts.
I also think dividing the world up into "good guys" and "bad guys" is a really simplistic and wrong headed approach.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, it went from defeating the Taliban/Al Q to nation building, democracy, women's rights, Middle East Stability etc etc
Nobody knew what the feth was going on half the time.
I've always believed that the military are at their best when they have a clear, defined objective - capture that hill or defeat this country etc etc. But they had nothing to work with.
Good points. What we should expect from the Pres and our congress critters is to lay out clear national level strategic objectives for what ever conflict they are getting us into. Bonus points if they can relate those objectives to our national interest. Then they should decide if they are willing to allocate the resources needed to achieve those objectives, and lay out the cost of not meeting those objectives.
If the objectives change, or cannot be met, they need to decide the trigger point to stop allocating resources and get out of the conflict, or the leaders need to sell the new objectives to the American people along with the costs to achieve them and the costs of not achieving them. Again, bonus points f they can relate them to our national interests.
On the military side, our strategic leaders need to show they clearly understand the national objectives and create and run campaigns and operations designed to achieve those objectives. They need to turn those national objectives into properly resourced and executable actions. They need to be able to communicate to the civilian elected leadership how they intend to achieve the objectives.
Seeing bad guys retake ground you fought for is never good, but the reality is it became the Iraqi government's responsibility to figure out how to keep their country running as we were leaving and after we left. They knew what was up.
Exactly. At the beginning of the invasion everybody knew what to do - defeat the Iraqi army, capture Baghdad, and grab Saddam.
The problems started later. Soldiers who were trained to blow up buildings and infrastructure were suddenly expected to be able to fix them. Was never going to happen.
And of course, that great great mystery: why the hell did Bremmer fire 300,000 Iraqi army/police personnel? Why? Why?
I'm pretty sure the US could have rushed emergency funds to pay them for 6 months. If they wanted a clean start, they could have kept the old guys in whilst they gradually phased them out with newer recruits.
Others may disagree, but I'm convinced that led to the deaths of at least 1000 US service personnel.
Breotan wrote: Civilization as we know it today was created because the Romans ruthlessly pushed it down people's throats and killed anyone who didn't comply. The other example is China, which also ruthlessly oppressed anyone who wouldn't comply. It's a rough way to civilize people but recent history shows that it pretty much requires something like this.
Please show me a modern example of a people going from a barbaric culture to a civilized one without a third party crushing them and forcing it upon them.
Depending on your definition of "barbaric" and "civilized", all of Eastern Europe post-1989?
Heavy Metal wrote: I think Robert A. Heinlein, the author who wrote some of my favorite scifi novels, 'Starship Troopers' had the idea if you want to serve in office you have to do a tour of duty in the military. That way these type of representatives would be veterans and will know first hand the horrors of war and wouldn't throw away the lives of active duty soldiers needlessly like a politician who never served let alone handle a firearm in their life.
John McCain was a war veteran, and never saw a foreign conflict he didn't want to entangle us in, from Libya to Syria to Iran. Some of our most mediocre presidents were military men, and one of our greatest - the man who won the largest military conflict our country ever fought - never served. JFK's wartime experiences led him to escalate the war in Vietnam and to bring us to the bring of nuclear annihilation with the Soviet Union (when he found the time for this between affairs, one wonders).
There is little evidence to support the idea that military service is a good indicator of a skilled president.
It wasn't a loyalty issue, it was a anti-Baathist issue. It was misguided part of an attempt to remove Baathists from any position of power/responsibility/influence and destroy Baathist organizations and institutions.
CptJake wrote: It wasn't a loyalty issue, it was a anti-Baathist issue. It was misguided part of an attempt to remove Baathists from any position of power/responsibility/influence and destroy Baathist organizations and institutions.
I noticed the snide remarks of rejoicing the "fascists coming out of the woodwork" not only illustrates the head-in-the-fundament level of intelligence it also shows how black and white politics have become in some of these forums.
Alexzandvar wrote:The "Well they don't really want us there" tends to come from the people in the area just being miffed about troopers going and doing stupid stuff, getting in trouble, ect. The usual reasons.
I'll tell you right know those countries governments want, Its added protection, a boosts to their economy, and deters any potential invader/aggressors.
And if you think we have bases in germany NOW to keep "Russia" in check your being silly, we have bases in germany because the germans want us there and they serve as a good middle point to deploy from.
The cold war is over, stop hyping Russia and China up as the big enemy. China will destory itself with its reckless industry.
Now that is a big pile of it. There has been growing anti-American sentiment across the world for the past decade. Maybe this is true the added protection is a boost to domestic stability overseas however things have changed and those who used to share our interests are looking towards other nations for leadership since we seem to be lacking in it now days. Not their fault though, we keep re-electing incompetence a-holes as our representatives. I often wonder if the world in general think the average American is really as stupid as the stereotypes.
The cold war is over, yes you are correct. However, the Soviet Union may have collapsed but the old grudges against the west is still prevalent and denying that goes beyond naivety and ignorance. As long as old guard KGB power mongers like Putin are tugging the strings your liberal mindset “Cold war is over, Russia and China are not geopolitical foes” is the same stupid mentality that got us into a lot of binds in the past, use your head!
Ask about all that military hardware the Russians are sending to regimes in complete violation of nonproliferation agreements. Old habits die hard.
Da Boss wrote:Heavy Metal, I think when someone wants to kill you it's worth looking at their motivations and trying to figure out why. I'm not sure you've done that to a great extent, based on your posts.
I also think dividing the world up into "good guys" and "bad guys" is a really simplistic and wrong headed approach.
I’m not sure what you’re playing at with that first bit of your post… The motivations may lead you to just cause but no conclusions unless you’re privy to draw ones like you’ve just done. Sometimes it pays to be a bit judgmental. This whole thing of not judging because you’re afraid to hurt one’s feelings is foolish and costly. People and their delicate sensibilities…
I’m not dividing the world into good guy and bad guys you’re putting words into my post. There are nations that wish to hurt us economically, politically and militarily if they knew they could get away with it and I know an old geopolitical adversary when I see one. Then there are nations who still favor us but I have no delusions the world by and large are not pulled into the east versus west idea. If you think I look at the world as black and white then you’re wrong.
Ouze wrote:John McCain was a war veteran, and never saw a foreign conflict he didn't want to entangle us in, from Libya to Syria to Iran. Some of our most mediocre presidents were military men, and one of our greatest - the man who won the largest military conflict our country ever fought - never served. JFK's wartime experiences led him to escalate the war in Vietnam and to bring us to the brink of nuclear annihilation with the Soviet Union (when he found the time for this between affairs, one wonders).
There is little evidence to support the idea that military service is a good indicator of a skilled president.
We are at an agreement here. I already know the impracticalities of this approach but you would still think a military man would bear more rationale than some disconnected career politician elitist from Harvard. Although you do have those career military bureaucrats from West Point that don’t make shining examples of the uniform. Yeah, I know I'm stepping on toes here but I'm good at that.
I think Robert A. Heinlein, the author who wrote some of my favorite scifi novels, 'Starship Troopers' had the idea if you want to serve in office you have to do a tour of duty in the military. That way these type of representatives would be veterans and will know first hand the horrors of war and wouldn't throw away the lives of active duty soldiers needlessly like a politician who never served let alone handle a firearm in their life. I know that will have some of you freaking out "ermagerd dictatorship!" but in my defense the first democracies were made up of citizen soldiers and 9 times out of 10 those soldiers who aged out of the military served public office. The Greek City states and the Roman Republic are good historical references I would think. And I'll admit my history is a bit rusty in that area.
You do realize that in Starship Troopers, the term "veteran" meant anyone that had completed Federal Service with Heinlein himself saying that "95% of veterans were not military personnel."
I realize though in reality that idea from Heinlein will not happen, not in our bleeding heart society we've turned into. This ain't our father's America anymore where we didn't flinch at great adversity or have an idiotic president making boasts only to retract from it. We've become too soft for our own good. We've become like Europe: gutless, lazy and incompetent and having to depend on other nations to keep our habits afloat.
There is just so much wrong with this statement.
As for a standing army in this day and age we cannot afford to do what we did in the past is to muster a large army in time of need and disband it during peace time. Not when we have powerful adversaries like China and Russia doing their saber rattling and having rogue nations like North Korea and Iran going nuclear. There is historical proof this habit of disbanding and mustering armies costs more lives than necessary all because there were those few fearing a standing army. As a devout Jeffersonian I still believe centralized banks and big governments are more dangerous than standing armies. That is a fact, Jack!
No, that isn't a fact. It is your opinion. It also has nothing to do with the topic, so whatever. Since your brought it up though, Jefferson was inherently distrustful of standing armies and lobbied to have language forbidding it written in the Constitution. He favored a militia-based national defense (how well did that work out?) and as President, he slashed the number of soldiers in the army and closed numerous forts, doing all he could to effectively dismantle America's standing army by the end of his presidency.
However my politics in some areas are a bit polarized. I like a standing army here at home to protect our borders but I do not believe it is our right and our place for that matter to be the world's policemen. Why do we need over 100 military bases across the world? I strongly disaprove the arrogance of our government's intrusive foreign policies. Yes I'm talking to you NSA.
Exactly who are we protecting our borders from?
I'm sure people other than just Americans talk about nuking other countries, who doesn't? You know the Russians are itching to hurl a nuke or two, hell they got more nukes than anyone. I hate to say it but even in our modern world that is supposedly more civilized you still have the "barbarians" wanting to cause trouble. I will use that term because I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade, so I apologize if I damage your delicate sensibilities of the matter.
Well since there are only nine countries that have nuclear weapons, I would imagine that there aren't that many people out there that actively discuss using nuclear weapons as a viable option in engaging foreign policy.
Not saying it is any of our places, especially my country, to be “nation building” or “civilize” other countries but when a nation harbors people who want to kill us, mainly any of us from the west or whoever they label infidel (which is almost everyone) because we don’t bow our heads to Mecca five times a day then I think more than nation building is in need. I’ll leave it at that before I incur the wrath of moderators.
They don't want to kill us because we aren't Muslim. I would recommend getting your information about how the Middle East feels about the West from somewhere other than the right-wing blosphere.
An international forum or not I'll consider the reality conflict exists everywhere and in many forms. If it isn't Russia bullying its regional neighbors like Georgia it is Iran wanting to wipe Israel off the map or the North Koreans shelling their Southern neighbors because Kim Jun Un is having a bad day. Then again my country has the NSA snooping into other people's business so I have no delusions that only my country is always right. I think throughout history whether it was yesterday or over 100 years ago our countries has done something to step on someone else’s toes just as you said about the British were privy to impose their will upon the Irish and the Scots, my ancestors. The main thing is where do we draw the line? I think when you kill thousands of innocent people because someone promised you 72 virgins and that you hate a nation’s lifestyle then you crossed the line beyond restraint and I think you should pay the price with fire and fury. That’s just me and if that makes me out to be a heartless and cruel person then so be it.
Again, they don't dislike the West because of our lifestyle.
“Civilized” in its use is a bit archaic to me since it’s the same as nation building. Personally I don’t see the point of going to Iraq and Afghanistan to get bogged down in nation building just to wipe out the vermin that started this war. What was to be a simple job was to go in kill the bad guys and get the heck out has turned into a political mess reminiscent of the Vietnam War. Revisionist history is for the birds, politicians are idiots and you veterans don’t get the gratitude for what you do.
I'm pretty sure we started both of those wars. Details, details, details...
In WW II the doctrine of total war was used where both sides bombed civilian populations (except us, we were largely unscathed) and military complexes indiscriminately. It was necessary and at the same time unnecessary but war is horrible that way and brings the worse out of human nature. General Robert E. Lee said it right “it is well war is so terrible otherwise we should grow too fond of it.” You have personal accounts of what all transpired there yet it is difficult for most of us here at home to distinguish the fanatics from the regular folk since there is a lack of rejection of the radicals by these so-called moderates.
So are you arguing in favor of using a doctrine of total war in the Middle East?
Call me skeptical but I have reason not to give Iraqis or anyone else in that part of the world the benefit of the doubt. Not saying everyone in Iraq are monsters but they don’t make an effort to help themselves to convince otherwise.
...so everyone in Iraq is a monster?
I do not doubt these bases have their importance and maybe they can be exceptions but don’t you think some of these treaties are bit dated? I understand the need to have bases in Germany because with Putin and his old guard bringing back the ol’ Soviet days it is a deterrence to keep the angry bear at bay.
We don't have bases in Germany as a first line of defense for when columns of Soviet armor come crashing through the Iron Curtain to sweep over all of Europe. That not going to happen. Ever.
South Korea I’m a bit iffy because the latest SK administration isn’t exactly friendly even with NK having its tantrums. Japan amended their constitution so we’re no longer needed there and they’ve been wanted to kick us out for a long time plus let them deal with future Chinese aggression at their own expense. Taiwan is the only place I think we need a presence as a deterrence against Chinese expansionism. Speaking of old treaties I’m sure the UK will come to their old colony’s aid if they’re in trouble so I don’t see a need of a base there plus I take it the Aussies don’t really want us there anyway like so many others...
Both countries have and will continue to cooperate with each other so quit hyping them up like they are the new "big bad" of the 21st century.
There has been growing anti-American sentiment across the world for the past decade.
News flash: we share a lot of the blame for that.
Maybe this is true the added protection is a boost to domestic stability overseas however things have changed and those who used to share our interests are looking towards other nations for leadership since we seem to be lacking in it now days. Not their fault though, we keep re-electing incompetence a-holes as our representatives. I often wonder if the world in general think the average American is really as stupid as the stereotypes.
No, just no. Also, please cite examples.
The cold war is over, yes you are correct. However, the Soviet Union may have collapsed but the old grudges against the west is still prevalent and denying that goes beyond naivety and ignorance. As long as old guard KGB power mongers like Putin are tugging the strings your liberal mindset “Cold war is over, Russia and China are not geopolitical foes” is the same stupid mentality that got us into a lot of binds in the past, use your head!
Again, no.
Ask about all that military hardware the Russians are sending to regimes in complete violation of nonproliferation agreements. Old habits die hard.
We sell/give away weapons too.
I’m not dividing the world into good guy and bad guys you’re putting words into my post. There are nations that wish to hurt us economically, politically and militarily if they knew they could get away with it and I know an old geopolitical adversary when I see one. Then there are nations who still favor us but I have no delusions the world by and large are not pulled into the east versus west idea. If you think I look at the world as black and white then you’re wrong.
Everything you have said is proof that you see the world in black and white.
I do not doubt these bases have their importance and maybe they can be exceptions but don’t you think some of these treaties are bit dated? I understand the need to have bases in Germany because with Putin and his old guard bringing back the ol’ Soviet days it is a deterrence to keep the angry bear at bay.
We don't have bases in Germany as a first line of defense for when columns of Soviet armor come crashing through the Iron Curtain to sweep over all of Europe. That not going to happen. Ever.
At one point in time, the bases in Germany WERE the first line of defense and intelligence against the Soviets. However, as that threat never came to pass, and the Union has dismantled, those bases have either shifted their focus/purpose, or they have been closed.
I do not doubt these bases have their importance and maybe they can be exceptions but don’t you think some of these treaties are bit dated? I understand the need to have bases in Germany because with Putin and his old guard bringing back the ol’ Soviet days it is a deterrence to keep the angry bear at bay.
We don't have bases in Germany as a first line of defense for when columns of Soviet armor come crashing through the Iron Curtain to sweep over all of Europe. That not going to happen. Ever.
At one point in time, the bases in Germany WERE the first line of defense and intelligence against the Soviets. However, as that threat never came to pass, and the Union has dismantled, those bases have either shifted their focus/purpose, or they have been closed.
I know that what they were for, I'm pointing out that Heavy Metal's claim that we still have bases there as a deterant against Russian expansion is, indeed, wrong.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I know that what they were for, I'm pointing out that Heavy Metal's claim that we still have bases there as a deterant against Russian expansion is, indeed, wrong.
Well, the bases there are a deterrent against Russian expansion.
The continuation of idea we are still in a cold war despite the fact not only the soviet union has collapsed, china has also opened up.
Yes Putin is ex-kgb, but he works in Russia's best interests, just like China's leader work in there best interests, and our leaders work in America's best interests
Stop trying to dig up some old grudge in order to justify paranoia. And if you think Europe hates us you need to wake up. American culture is everywere in Europe, people there like us and treat us well.
Alexzandvar wrote: And if you think Europe hates us you need to wake up. American culture is everywere in Europe, people there like us and treat us well.
Yes, our "culture" is everywhere, however if you believe that everyone there likes us, you're just as deluded as the people who are waiting for Russia to invade Poland.
Alexzandvar wrote: The continuation of idea we are still in a cold war despite the fact not only the soviet union has collapsed, china has also opened up.
Yes Putin is ex-kgb, but he works in Russia's best interests, just like China's leader work in there best interests, and our leaders work in America's best interests
Stop trying to dig up some old grudge in order to justify paranoia. And if you think Europe hates us you need to wake up. American culture is everywere in Europe, people there like us and treat us well.
Yes, and all three countries best interests sometimes work counter to each other. Having our military bases there are often times in our best interests to counter their bests interests that run counter to ours.
Alexzandvar wrote: The continuation of idea we are still in a cold war despite the fact not only the soviet union has collapsed, china has also opened up.
Yes Putin is ex-kgb, but he works in Russia's best interests, just like China's leader work in there best interests, and our leaders work in America's best interests
Stop trying to dig up some old grudge in order to justify paranoia. And if you think Europe hates us you need to wake up. American culture is everywere in Europe, people there like us and treat us well.
Yes, and all three countries best interests sometimes work counter to each other. Having our military bases there are often times in our best interests to counter their bests interests that run counter to ours.
I never said we shouldn't have those bases, but the main point of them RIGHT NOW isn't to stop a Russian or Chinese invasion.
And I'm also not saying everyone loves us, but generally Europeans have a okay view of America.
Ill throw you that the Jap's don't like our base on Okinawa
Alexzandvar wrote: The continuation of idea we are still in a cold war despite the fact not only the soviet union has collapsed, china has also opened up.
Yes Putin is ex-kgb, but he works in Russia's best interests, just like China's leader work in there best interests, and our leaders work in America's best interests
Stop trying to dig up some old grudge in order to justify paranoia. And if you think Europe hates us you need to wake up. American culture is everywere in Europe, people there like us and treat us well.
Yes, and all three countries best interests sometimes work counter to each other. Having our military bases there are often times in our best interests to counter their bests interests that run counter to ours.
I never said we shouldn't have those bases, but the main point of them RIGHT NOW isn't to stop a Russian or Chinese invasion.
And I'm also not saying everyone loves us, but generally Europeans have a okay view of America.
Ill throw you that the Jap's don't like our base on Okinawa
But they love them on Honshu, or are at least ambivalent to them.
Ill throw you that the Jap's don't like our base on Okinawa
I rarely meet mainland Japanese who care about our bases. It's the *Okinawan* locals who hate us and want us to leave. Not surprising since our bases eat up 20% of their land mass. But Okinawans are the longest-lived population on the planet, so most of the folks complaining are of the grumpy old "YOU DAMN KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!!!!" variety. I rarely meet 20-somethings with an axe to grind.
Personally I think the Marine Corps and Navy should be based almost entirely out of Sasebo. It's a long-serving naval base in Kyushu. The island itself is significantly larger than Okinawa and would give us plenty of training space while being sparsely-populated enough to have less of an impact than we have on the heavily-urbanized southern half of Oki. But Sasebo is not as effective of a "tripwire" as Oki. This island is closer to Taipei and Shanghai than it is Tokyo, and it plays a major role in containing China (not saying we *SHOULD* be containing China in their own backyard, but hey that's the policy). I would keep Kadena (great way to provide a CAP over Taiwan) but drastically reduce it's size. The place is practically an American kingdom unto itself, with huge sprawling housing developments for all the damn wives and kids. Support facilities for dependents are such a huge drain on the military's budget IMO....
Alexzandvar wrote: And if you think Europe hates us you need to wake up. American culture is everywere in Europe, people there like us and treat us well.
Yes, our "culture" is everywhere, however if you believe that everyone there likes us, you're just as deluded as the people who are waiting for Russia to invade Poland.
It needs to be recognised that influences of US culture are everywhere, but everyone retains their own culture. Also, influences of foreign cultures are in the USA.
Yes, Europeans don't hate the USA. Neither in general do Iranians or Egyptians. However it is also true that even in Europe, the "PR image"of the USA is a lot lower now that it was before 9/11. There are all kinds of reasons for that.
Ill throw you that the Jap's don't like our base on Okinawa
I rarely meet mainland Japanese who care about our bases. It's the *Okinawan* locals who hate us and want us to leave. Not surprising since our bases eat up 20% of their land mass. But Okinawans are the longest-lived population on the planet, so most of the folks complaining are of the grumpy old "YOU DAMN KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!!!!" variety. I rarely meet 20-somethings with an axe to grind.
Personally I think the Marine Corps and Navy should be based almost entirely out of Sasebo. It's a long-serving naval base in Kyushu. The island itself is significantly larger than Okinawa and would give us plenty of training space while being sparsely-populated enough to have less of an impact than we have on the heavily-urbanized southern half of Oki. But Sasebo is not as effective of a "tripwire" as Oki. This island is closer to Taipei and Shanghai than it is Tokyo, and it plays a major role in containing China (not saying we *SHOULD* be containing China in their own backyard, but hey that's the policy). I would keep Kadena (great way to provide a CAP over Taiwan) but drastically reduce it's size. The place is practically an American kingdom unto itself, with huge sprawling housing developments for all the damn wives and kids. Support facilities for dependents are such a huge drain on the military's budget IMO....
The Japanese Navy still uses Sasebo, but our presence there was deemed non-essential. We try our best to keep bases off the mainland, because that's essentially how a bad opinion of us spreads in the first place. JB Fuji, Iwakuni and the other miscellaneous locations we have on mainland total about 2000 or so servicemembers, with Fuji being totally rotational. None of the 3rd Mardiv is necessary, if you want to get into any specifics, and everything here could be moved to 29 Palms or some other place with no real detriment to force projection. Kadena, however, is very necessary, and I don't see that base ever being moved.
The Okinawans don't hate us. That is a fabrication. I don't know how you would get that impression if you've ever visited here. The ones up north are affected very little on a day to day basis by us. If anything, the labor jobs we offer them actually give them a reason to like us being here. Camp Schwab gets its grass cut every week by a small army of native women that would probably be otherwise working out on the farms for small change. Down south, they care a little more, but the only ones who are vocal enough to protest and shout are the ones with too much time on their hands. People's livelihoods here depend on our continued presence. That bit about the MV-22s being too loud and waking people up at night is bullocks as well. The Osprey is dead quiet until you're twenty five feet away from it.
Mainlanders don't care at all. It doesn't affect them. It's like the UK having troops on puerto rico. Would anyone really care in texas about that? When you put boots on the ground in sasebo, or Iwakuni, then it affects them. Then they start having an opinion.
The Constitution requires a NATIONAL defense when the country is threatened.
Most recent times (After WWII) the military is committed somewhere it is because someone rich and powerful just has to gush out "Someone must do something" and the reason is anything from making them money to looking good to their friends.
That needs to stop.
If the nation is not willing to put a nuke there and turn a city to glass then the US military should not be sent but because we have a volunteer army and none of the rich or powerful have any blood in it we have things like a 13 year war with obscenities called rules of engagement. The never was and never will be winnable if the people of the place we are fighting are bystanders who do not really care. This is Iraq and Afghanistan.
One is at war, total war, or one is not. We have been playing politics in these two countries and the capital spent has been soldiers lives and the politicians on both sides do not care.
Anyone that thinks there are rules in combat has never been in real combat. The purpose is to murder the other guy on an organized grand scale and make him hurt so bad he quits.
That will never happen in a "war" with rules of engagement.
22 years at the sharp end and I retired when people started talking about rules in combat.
I feel real sorry for our troops and nothing but contempt for our Generals and politicians.
If it's not worth a nuke , it's not worth an Americans life.
The Okinawans don't hate us. That is a fabrication. I don't know how you would get that impression if you've ever visited here.
I've been here on Oki for 2 1/2 years, most of it stationed at Futenma. Some of my friends have been here (8, 11, and two guys @ 20+) years. Try getting into all but a handful of nightclubs in Okinawa City or Naha with a US ID card. Not happening. As soon as you approach "Sorry, Japanese only." Now that I'm a civilian and able to bust out a "gaijin card" they do an about-face and let you in almost like you're a valued customer. When I tell girls from Sapporo, Tokyo, or Osaka about this they are usually shocked and horrified. Hell just driving around in a Y-plate car garners extra harassment from the police, and if you get in an accident with a local vehicle the joke is "Y-plate stands for 'Your Fault' ". How about when that 17yo American kid was murdered two years ago by a local and hardly anyone heard a peep about it. Not to mention other discrimination like a guy (I think ex military) who got kicked out of his apartment when the agency found out his Japanese wife wasn't living there anymore. Granted stuff like housing and insurance discrimination happens to gaijin all across the mainland too, but it's definitely worse down here. The economy of the north part of the island probably benefits more from the US military presence (comparatively) than down here, where the land value and tourist industry is hampered by Camp Kinser and Camp Foster eating up prime real estate along Route (or whatever it is in Japanese) 58. Supposedly the US military only accounts for 5% of Oki's economy but I find that hard to believe given things like BAH (the difference between the rent they charge someone with BAH and normal Japanese rent is damn-near extortionate). At the end of the day it's a love-hate relationship. Business owners near the bases love our disposable income, some people see working on-base as good jobs, but they hate all the other stuff that comes with being overrun with 30-50,000 Americans in a population of only ~1.3 million.
More to the subject (national strategy and basing), we wouldn't be able to pull 3MarDiv back to 29 Palms and still have any sort of reasonable response time for intervention in the Pacific. Guam is too small and even Hawaii is a stretch. Hence my suggestion of Sasebo as a compromise. But America has painted itself into a corner with fiscal irresponsibility and the Petrodollar. If we pull back globally we lose our leverage over everyone. No leverage = nations stop supporting the Petrodollar (because really it's not in their long term interests anyway). The Petrodollar goes and our entire house of cards and over-inflated quality of life collapses with it. The Federal government seems intent on centralizing domestic power, ramping up law enforcement authority, and keeping up appearances as it tries to maintain the status quo and keep people from realizing the airship we're on is going down in flames. But I digress...
Most recent times (After WWII) the military is committed somewhere it is because someone rich and powerful just has to gush out "Someone must do something" and the reason is anything from making them money to looking good to their friends.
Hell, it was a problem *before* WWII. Smedley Butler wrote "War is a Racket" in 1935. Two Medals of Honor and a Major General at a time when that was the highest rank possible. Every Marine knows his name ("Who were the two Marines to win 2 Medals of Honor?" "Dan Daly and Smedley Butler!!") but you'll never see him on the Commandant's Reading List. Same goes for the 22nd Commandant, General David Shoup, who was harshly critical of the military-industrial complex after he retired. I don't think I'd ever heard his name until I stumbled upon his wiki article about a month ago. These guys "don't fit the narrative".
EDIT: So I Googled "Commandant's List Smedley Butler" and found this article, about the same two generals I just mentioned. It was written in...................1989!!!
The booklist also represents what might be called the denial of self-knowledge. Although the writings of some Marines are on the list, notably the excruciatingly banal memoir of former commandant John Lejeune and James Webb's vivid novel of Vietnam infantry combat, "Fields of Fire," these are the safe, conventional works, extolling the virtues of duty and the grit and glory of the corps.
They named a base for Lejeune. The Marines also named a camp on Okinawa for the so-called Quaker general, Smedley Butler, but his bluntly titled book, "War Is a Racket," didn't make the final cut. Smedley, it seems, had the temerity to suggest that in the midst of the Depression our jobless, hungry World War I veterans deserved their bonus payments before the well-fattened defense contractors got paid their production bonuses.
Smedley, with two Medals of Honor on his chest, died a bitter man, recanting his participation in various colonial wars in Central America in the 1920s on behalf of United Fruit Co.
No, we can't have our Marines in Panama today reading Smedley Butler.
Another Medal of Honor winner, former commandant Gen. David Shoup, wasn't a finalist on Gray's list, either. For writing an essay titled "The New American Militarism" in the April 1969 issue of the Atlantic magazine, which was later expanded to book length, Shoup became a virtual pariah. That was at the height of the Vietnam war, remember, and here was Shoup, a man of unimpeachable combat credentials, saying, "it has somehow become unpatriotic to question our military strategy . . . or the motives of military leaders. . . . Militarism in America is in full bloom and promises a future of vigorous self-pollination."
No, we can't have our colonels getting any whiffs of Shoup's accusations, despite their undimmed relevance today.
Anyone that thinks there are rules in combat has never been in real combat. The purpose is to murder the other guy on an organized grand scale and make him hurt so bad he quits.
I'll probably get gak for this given the amount of vets on this forum but the soldier world view is just as messed up if not more so than the civilian view and i'm very familiar with the subculture you see around military bases. The soldier worldview holds everything that risks the lives of the soldiers and immediate military victory as evil. It completely ignores issues such as diplomacy, the homefront, and the fact that the military is sent their to accomplishes specific goals. If total war was waged Iraq would have been a wasteland and the survivors would be refugees in neighboring countries steering up rebellion and siding with our enemies. If you look at any conflict where total war is waged usually immediate victory is won, but a century later the descendants of the vanquished return with a vengeance.
Oh and in my opinion their are plenty of civilians who suffer from the soldier worldview that they often inherit from family and environment and plenty of soldiers that have enough individual personality to see the nuance of the greater political situation. Starship trooper is a dystopian novel on the scale of 1984, I find it amazing and perhaps a sign of the times that its turned into a pop culture icon and being hailed as something we could aspire to, it would be like if we aspired to be any of the factions in 40k. Regrettably I think this is indeed the future, that why I have the George Orwell quote about the future of humanity being the boot stomping endlessly on the human face, enjoy your dystopia I only hope neither myself nor any one I care about will live to enjoy to enjoy it. Have a happy Holocaust.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
does he care the south fell in the end after they pulled out? No, because he fought his hardest while he was there and that's what matters.
A great example of soldier logic, no such thing as moral victories, their are military victories and political ones, the US won the Vietnam war on a military basis and lost politically.
I think Robert A. Heinlein, the author who wrote some of my favorite scifi novels, 'Starship Troopers' had the idea if you want to serve in office you have to do a tour of duty in the military. That way these type of representatives would be veterans and will know first hand the horrors of war and wouldn't throw away the lives of active duty soldiers needlessly like a politician who never served let alone handle a firearm in their life. I know that will have some of you freaking out "ermagerd dictatorship!" but in my defense the first democracies were made up of citizen soldiers and 9 times out of 10 those soldiers who aged out of the military served public office. The Greek City states and the Roman Republic are good historical references I would think. And I'll admit my history is a bit rusty in that area.
I realize though in reality that idea from Heinlein will not happen, not in our bleeding heart society we've turned into. This ain't our father's America anymore where we didn't flinch at great adversity or have an idiotic president making boasts only to retract from it. We've become too soft for our own good. We've become like Europe: gutless, lazy and incompetent and having to depend on other nations to keep our habits afloat.
And with this we depart from logic, through the doors of delusion, and into the VIP room of hallucination.
I think Robert A. Heinlein, the author who wrote some of my favorite scifi novels, 'Starship Troopers' had the idea if you want to serve in office you have to do a tour of duty in the military. That way these type of representatives would be veterans and will know first hand the horrors of war and wouldn't throw away the lives of active duty soldiers needlessly like a politician who never served let alone handle a firearm in their life. I know that will have some of you freaking out "ermagerd dictatorship!" but in my defense the first democracies were made up of citizen soldiers and 9 times out of 10 those soldiers who aged out of the military served public office. The Greek City states and the Roman Republic are good historical references I would think. And I'll admit my history is a bit rusty in that area.
I realize though in reality that idea from Heinlein will not happen, not in our bleeding heart society we've turned into. This ain't our father's America anymore where we didn't flinch at great adversity or have an idiotic president making boasts only to retract from it. We've become too soft for our own good. We've become like Europe: gutless, lazy and incompetent and having to depend on other nations to keep our habits afloat.
And with this we depart from logic, through the doors of delusion, and into the VIP room of hallucination.
But your way doesn't make the fatherland great again.
This threads getting deleted, so far we have politics, genocide, and references to Nazism. All we need is some awkward sexual remarks and death threats.
Well.... I will point out that the single act that might have a screaming hope of bringing peace to the middle east would also be a crime against humanity. Threaten to turn Mecca and Jerusalem into a sea of radioactive glass if they don't put their guns down and get along.
None would complete the haj or pray at the dome of the rock without dying of radiation poisoning for the next ten thousand years if they did not find way to make peace with their neighbors.
It's violent, and inhuman, but it would being many of them to the peace table as long as they thought you were serious and could do it.
This threads getting deleted, so far we have politics, genocide, and references to Nazism. All we need is some awkward sexual remarks and death threats.
I love you, and by that, I mean I want to kill you.
This threads getting deleted, so far we have politics, genocide, and references to Nazism. All we need is some awkward sexual remarks and death threats.
I love you, and by that, I mean I want to kill you.
With rough love and inappropriately placed foreign objects?
I'll probably get gak for this given the amount of vets on this forum but the soldier world view is just as messed up if not more so than the civilian view and i'm very familiar with the subculture you see around military bases. The soldier worldview holds everything that risks the lives of the soldiers and immediate military victory as evil. It completely ignores issues such as diplomacy, the homefront, and the fact that the military is sent their to accomplishes specific goals. If total war was waged Iraq would have been a wasteland and the survivors would be refugees in neighboring countries steering up rebellion and siding with our enemies. If you look at any conflict where total war is waged usually immediate victory is won, but a century later the descendants of the vanquished return with a vengeance.
Honestly, the reason the average grunt doesnt give a bucket of rat gak about "diplomacy" is because he's not there to be diplomatic.... If the military is sent into a location, then there is a specific job to do, and he's there to do it. And you're right... if the political aims, and missions in Iraq were to wage Total War, then Iraq would be a giant dust bowl right now, however that wasn't the mission that we were sent to do. Initially we were sent to remove a tyrant and his minions... Which, depending on your views, should have been 1 and done, head home, etc. BUT we ended up sticking around, attempting to do things we'd never really done, never really been set up to do, which is reestablish a new government, rebuild infrastructure, build schools and improve the education system, etc.
And I really don't know/get where the hell you're getting this gak from.... If you've really been around the "subculture" that exists around military bases, then you'll know how soldiers drive on a daily basis, which should alone destroy this notion that "everything that risks the lives of solders is evil". Combine that with many soldiers' love of "Adult Beverages" and other activities, and you should be getting a very different view of the people who serve the country. and their view on risks.
And I really don't know/get where the hell you're getting this gak from.... If you've really been around the "subculture" that exists around military bases, then you'll know how soldiers drive on a daily basis, which should alone destroy this notion that "everything that risks the lives of solders is evil". Combine that with many soldiers' love of "Adult Beverages" and other activities, and you should be getting a very different view of the people who serve the country. and their view on risks.
I don't think he's claiming soldiers aren't human beings, but even on this forum, we've had obvious signs of regarding a military person to a caliber higher than a civilian counterpart in a very Heinlein-esque fashion.
Monster Rain wrote:As someone who participated in conquering Iraq for the Emperor the deterioration of the situation over there is truly depressing. The majority of the people over there were great.
I played soccer with kids while I was on patrol. My squad shared a bottle of gin with some locals in Sadr City (they made a point that they tasted it first to show it wasn't poison). I learned enough Arabic talking to people over there to tell them that I was only a Lance Corporal so I couldn't give them clearance to cross battle lines. Everyone I spoke to was happy that Saddam was gone.
I also saw men throw rocks at young women for speaking to Americans. And, well, it was a war. Fill in those blanks.
My main lesson from my time spent in Iraq was that the world is a far less black and white place than I ever thought, and that even the best intentions can have disastrous consequences.
Very good and truthful post. I'm greatly impressed with the number of young Marines that have come out of the service with a greatly enlightened worldview.
Bromsy wrote:We should have just occupied them for another 50-60 years. It worked with Germans, they haven't tried to take over Europe again and are all pretty good at speaking English. Sure, things would have been rough for a while, but a generation in their kids would be using apple devices, sipping starbucks lattes, wearing skinny jeans and listening to whatever boy bands are to be popular at the time.
You could go old school Roman and “Depopulate” Iraq, then bring in new settlers, but we kind of don’t do that sort of thing in a democracy.
Um, Frazz.... how to put this...
Spoiler:
Depopulation and new settlers from the "home country" seems to be the only way to actually, permanently convert a region. It's not something Americans typically accept as being morally acceptable anymore.
Did anyone really expect Iraq to be remotely stable after American "intervention"? The War on Terror was flawed from the start. It is debatable as to whether or not the objectives were achieved or even if quality of life in Iraq has been improved.
And I really don't know/get where the hell you're getting this gak from.... If you've really been around the "subculture" that exists around military bases, then you'll know how soldiers drive on a daily basis, which should alone destroy this notion that "everything that risks the lives of solders is evil". Combine that with many soldiers' love of "Adult Beverages" and other activities, and you should be getting a very different view of the people who serve the country. and their view on risks.
My God you are completely getting wrong what I said. Also I don't fault people for having a flawed sub culture, I come from a different flawed subculture, hell I even said civilian culture was flawed.
I don't think he's claiming soldiers aren't human beings, but even on this forum, we've had obvious signs of regarding a military person to a caliber higher than a civilian counterpart in a very Heinlein-esque fashion.
Well first thank you for the support and I'm frankly tired of the superiority complex I sometimes get from some of these guys. Here's an example I had a conversation with a Veteran of the Iraq War, we were talking about leaked footage that's all over YouTube showing some of the less than pleasant sights of the war. His comment was "people think war is like call of duty", my comment was I've never played call of duty. I have heard the "CALL OF DUTY" insult directed at "civs" MANY TIMES. Hell I remember on Yahoo news their was a trial of a marine sergeant and you had Marines threatening to track down, break the jaws, or even kill people who were posting negative comments about them. One of more ridiculous comments was "none of you noncombats have a right to comment here GET OFF." When someone commented that Americas a democracy and he has a right to comment and have an opinion of where his money goes to this brilliant marine answered that "so get a better job so you can pay your taxes". He also posted about a page of military lingo that I didn't bother to read. Oh and just to add the bar scene around bases is another problem.
And I really don't know/get where the hell you're getting this gak from.... If you've really been around the "subculture" that exists around military bases, then you'll know how soldiers drive on a daily basis, which should alone destroy this notion that "everything that risks the lives of solders is evil". Combine that with many soldiers' love of "Adult Beverages" and other activities, and you should be getting a very different view of the people who serve the country. and their view on risks.
My God you are completely getting wrong what I said. Also I don't fault people for having a flawed sub culture, I come from a different flawed subculture, hell I even said civilian culture was flawed.
I don't think he's claiming soldiers aren't human beings, but even on this forum, we've had obvious signs of regarding a military person to a caliber higher than a civilian counterpart in a very Heinlein-esque fashion.
Well first thank you for the support and I'm frankly tired of the superiority complex I sometimes get from some of these guys. Here's an example I had a conversation with a Veteran of the Iraq War, we were talking about leaked footage that's all over YouTube showing some of the less than pleasant sights of the war. His comment was "people think war is like call of duty", my comment was I've never played call of duty. I have heard the "CALL OF DUTY" insult directed at "civs" MANY TIMES. Hell I remember on Yahoo news their was a trial of a marine sergeant and you had Marines threatening to track down, break the jaws, or even kill people who were posting negative comments about them. One of more ridiculous comments was "none of you noncombats have a right to comment here GET OFF." When someone commented that Americas a democracy and he has a right to comment and have an opinion of where his money goes to this brilliant marine answered that "so get a better job so you can pay your taxes". He also posted about a page of military lingo that I didn't bother to read. Oh and just to add the bar scene around bases is another problem.
God how much longer will this thread last?
As to the Marine posts you saw... well, they're not exactly the brightest light bulb in the store, are they? While I will never personally use the "Call of Duty" insult, I have personally seen idiots actually make that comparison... As in, in all seriousness say, "ohh, I'm good at Call of Duty, so I'd make a great soldier" or some such thing. I'm not trying to imply that your comment put you in that category, but I felt that there was some miscommunication, or something to where we didn't see each other's point of view properly. Then again, I'm no grunt, realize what exactly I fought for, and feel that if you have a differing opinion, and speak it in a respectful manner, then I'm more apt to listen to it, and consider it's merits (goes for basically all conversations).
Let's not turn this into a battle of military vs civies you two. Back off and articulate better. Someone goat rope the intro about soldiers mentality. No thrown gauntlet on ground so no need to pick it up.
Ironclad Warlord wrote: Well first thank you for the support and I'm frankly tired of the superiority complex I sometimes get from some of these guys. Here's an example I had a conversation with a Veteran of the Iraq War, we were talking about leaked footage that's all over YouTube showing some of the less than pleasant sights of the war.
Careful with that gak. An awful lot of the "leaked footage" is taken wildly out of context and presented to (and by) people who don't know how to interpret it. "Collateral Murder" from Wikileaks, for example.
His comment was "people think war is like call of duty", my comment was I've never played call of duty. I have heard the "CALL OF DUTY" insult directed at "civs" MANY TIMES. Hell I remember on Yahoo news their was a trial of a marine sergeant and you had Marines threatening to track down, break the jaws, or even kill people who were posting negative comments about them. One of more ridiculous comments was "none of you noncombats have a right to comment here GET OFF." When someone commented that Americas a democracy and he has a right to comment and have an opinion of where his money goes to this brilliant marine answered that "so get a better job so you can pay your taxes".
Sounds legit. I bet they were all the Commandant, or at the very least FORECON Ranger SEALs.
And for what it's worth, I've had people on this very forum tell me that they could totally land on a carrier at night, because it couldn't possibly be that hard. When someone with absolutely zero experience tries to tell someone with years of it something that the latter person knows to be false, sometimes it's simply more cathartic to tell them to go feth themselves than write out a couple paragraphs that will get ignored in favor of retaining a myopic, ill-informed view.
He also posted about a page of military lingo that I didn't bother to read. Oh and just to add the bar scene around bases is another problem.
The bar scene around bases is a problem. There are never enough good bars.
God how much longer will this thread last?
Until people stop posting in it, or it gets locked.
There are never enough good drinking and stripper bars.
Fixed it for you. Also in the military if you have a "Alcohol Related Incident" of any type......your Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo Echo Delta...(<--pass for creativity to bypass language filter?)
we should have just let the soviets take the middle east ... The rebels would have probably won with out our help anyway , or at least by now theyd be free and not as US hatin as they've become.
Automatically Appended Next Post: the attempt to combat communism has lead to many needless wars and spawn of enemies
Putin taking over the Middle East.....
1. No more Iran...
2. Putin milking the cash cow of oil
3. US is down sizing our military so why build up again to deal with the Soviets.
*Budget cut
*Sequester
*Very few units combat effective
*Do we really want another stupid "Red Line" comment to be made by Obama
4. Europe closer to the area
5. I actually think Israel get along quite well with Putin.
6. I can see the fee for the Suez Canal going much higher.
7. NATO will not interfere unless Turkey is attacked.
8. ME country requesting UN for help
9. UN asking the US to lead....not a ice cube chance in Hell...
10. Not our issue since the US really isn't all that dependent on oil.
11. Putin get smart and lease the land US military bases on newly acquired property.
12. If France wants to be in charge of the shindig?
13. US stays out and not adding extra to 17 billion and counting
Jihadin wrote: Putin taking over the Middle East.....
1. No more Iran...
2. Putin milking the cash cow of oil
3. US is down sizing our military so why build up again to deal with the Soviets.
*Budget cut
*Sequester
*Very few units combat effective
*Do we really want another stupid "Red Line" comment to be made by Obama
4. Europe closer to the area
5. I actually think Israel get along quite well with Putin.
6. I can see the fee for the Suez Canal going much higher.
7. NATO will not interfere unless Turkey is attacked.
8. ME country requesting UN for help
9. UN asking the US to lead....not a ice cube chance in Hell...
10. Not our issue since the US really isn't all that dependent on oil.
11. Putin get smart and lease the land US military bases on newly acquired property.
12. If France wants to be in charge of the shindig?
13. US stays out and not adding extra to 17 billion and counting
Wishful thinking...
If Russia's sphere of influence was extended over the Middle East, pacifying Islam and removing Islamic extremism as a threat to US Security...The US would never downsize and cut spending on its military and relax. The War Hawks running Washington would simply portray Russia as the next enemy to world peace and lobby to maintain the status quo if not increase spending even further.
War is big business. Its not going to stop just because the current enemy has been neutralised.
Middle East more likely.
South China Sea
Taiwan
Japan hence the return of the Emperor
Israel taking out Iran
Russia reclaiming lost property.
Drug Cartels (find this more likely)
Careful with that gak. An awful lot of the "leaked footage" is taken wildly out of context and presented to (and by) people who don't know how to interpret it. "Collateral Murder" from Wikileaks, for example.
Collateral Murder was presented out of context by folks who knew how to interpret it and how to present it to make their statement and elicit a desired response.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: BUT we ended up sticking around, attempting to do things we'd never really done, never really been set up to do, which is reestablish a new government, rebuild infrastructure, build schools and improve the education system, etc.
This part is not entirely true...The US military actually has something of a track record for helping rebuild the countries that it just finished kicking nine shades of hell out of. For various and sundry reasons. The difference is this time it was not planned out in advance.
I do see focus shifting to Asia in the next ten. There's a LOT of potential there for a hot war between various parties atm. Sadly, I suspect that there will be significant casualties if it does. The terrain tends to nullify a lot of the advantages the US military traditionally enjoys. If you hated insurgents in the desert, wait till you see what they're like in the forest.
BaronIveagh wrote: The terrain tends to nullify a lot of the advantages the US military traditionally enjoys. If you hated insurgents in the desert, wait till you see what they're like in the forest.
We sort of already have.... from about 1965-1977 or so.
BaronIveagh wrote: The terrain tends to nullify a lot of the advantages the US military traditionally enjoys. If you hated insurgents in the desert, wait till you see what they're like in the forest.
We sort of already have.... from about 1965-1977 or so.
Yeah, that was in the past. Tell me, do you have the US Army from 1972? Or do you have the US army of 2014? They are very different beasts with different training, different equipment, and a different mindset.
Yeah, that was in the past. Tell me, do you have the US Army from 1972? Or do you have the US army of 2014? They are very different beasts with different training, different equipment, and a different mindset.
God help the poor bastards that go.
Actually, I got off active duty in 2000 (but have worked for the Army ever since) and the places I mentioned are a lot more recent than 1972. Some are ongoing today.
Yeah, that was in the past. Tell me, do you have the US Army from 1972? Or do you have the US army of 2014? They are very different beasts with different training, different equipment, and a different mindset.
God help the poor bastards that go.
Actually, I got off active duty in 2000 (but have worked for the Army ever since) and the places I mentioned are a lot more recent than 1972. Some are ongoing today.
Not to mention, all of our past "expeditions" have formed the training that we get today... The lessons learned in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, etc. have all played a role in shaping the equipment, mindset and training that is received today.
Actually, I got off active duty in 2000 (but have worked for the Army ever since) and the places I mentioned are a lot more recent than 1972. Some are ongoing today.
Sorry, when you said the Philippines, I assumed you meant the Philippine Insurrection. Who's lessons about fighting in close combat in the jungle have been repeatedly forgotten. And I'm quite familiar with the several wars that America is honest not involved in, in Peru and Colombia. "Pardon, senora, donde estan los guerrilleros?"
Though in Colombia you want to ask for them by name, because on Tuesday it might be FARC, and on Wednesday it's the Shining Path coming over the boarder, with a sprinkling of random mortar fire and car bombs from the cartels, who may in fact be trying to whack each other, or the government, or some other party, or it's the Cocaine Import Association (Congress of Industrious donkey-caves, Center for Inept Analysis, Cover Industry of America, etc etc etc) playing whatever game they are this week.
Not to mention, all of our past "expeditions" have formed the training that we get today... The lessons learned in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, etc. have all played a role in shaping the equipment, mindset and training that is received today.
If that's true, why in the name of God are they still using the M16? I hate to point this out, but, no, what shapes the equipment, training, and so on, is the lessons that brass chose to learn, and then forgot all the other stuff. Thus, the US forgot the lessons of trench warfare they learned around Petersburg, and made all the same mistakes again in WW1. In Vietnam, they forgot all the lessons about modern insurgency tactics that they themselves helped perfect against Germany. Lessons that were forgotten again just in time to deal with asymmetrical warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan... after having taught those very tactics to the Afghans to help them fight the Russians.
I hate to say it I've read some of the 'history books' they hand out in the Navy. While, factually correct, many of them glossed over unpleasant truths and inconvenient facts, and this was all the history some of these fine young men got, at least a few of whom rose to decision making levels of command. Further, with the 'fail to the top' mentality in much of the US Military, even if you're fundamentally correct, means the worst officers to have in charge are the ones that are.
That's all pretty true... If you look at US involvement in just about any conflict, for the first 6 months to a year of our being there, the US military will take massive casualties... the guys who survive this initial period will take all the incoming "cherries" or "noobs" under their wing, and teach them up on the CURRENT war.... Sometimes, the problem arises when you get a WW1 vet trying to train new recruits getting ready to go into WW2. His experiences just aren't really all that relevant to the situation. The same goes for WW2 into Korea, and Korea into Vietnam, etc.
And I completely, whole heartedly agree with you on the M16 family of weapons... The politics of getting new equipment does, occasionally and in a damaging way, gets out of hand.
BaronIveagh wrote: I hate to say it I've read some of the 'history books' they hand out in the Navy.
Such as?
While, factually correct, many of them glossed over unpleasant truths and inconvenient facts, and this was all the history some of these fine young men got, at least a few of whom rose to decision making levels of command. Further, with the 'fail to the top' mentality in much of the US Military, even if you're fundamentally correct, means the worst officers to have in charge are the ones that are.
As far as the who subject of the m16 family goes : I never got shot at by anything better than I was returning fire with.
But for the original topic:
I left the Marine Corps just before my unit deployed to Fallujah in 2006. Two men who would have been in my platoon were killed. I regret my decision every year when that day comes around and I think I always will.
I know that we sign up and it is a Marine's job to go into harms way. But when in the moment, I will be completely honest and say I wouldn't trade one of my men for any number of them. Myself sure. But not one of my Marines.
Fireguy. I understand where your at. Its no survivor guilt caliber or anything of that nature. Its your battle buddies went to war and you didn't. You did not get "closure" because you were not there when they were opted out. Do what I did. Get two six packs and you in one field chair and your buddy in the other in memory. Like the young female who might have been wife/fiance/GF and spent the day at his grave site.
Baron take my advice....step back, regroup, and try a new shot group.
The Okinawans don't hate us. That is a fabrication. I don't know how you would get that impression if you've ever visited here.
I've been here on Oki for 2 1/2 years, most of it stationed at Futenma. Some of my friends have been here (8, 11, and two guys @ 20+) years. Try getting into all but a handful of nightclubs in Okinawa City or Naha with a US ID card. Not happening. As soon as you approach "Sorry, Japanese only." Now that I'm a civilian and able to bust out a "gaijin card" they do an about-face and let you in almost like you're a valued customer. When I tell girls from Sapporo, Tokyo, or Osaka about this they are usually shocked and horrified. Hell just driving around in a Y-plate car garners extra harassment from the police, and if you get in an accident with a local vehicle the joke is "Y-plate stands for 'Your Fault' ". How about when that 17yo American kid was murdered two years ago by a local and hardly anyone heard a peep about it. Not to mention other discrimination like a guy (I think ex military) who got kicked out of his apartment when the agency found out his Japanese wife wasn't living there anymore. Granted stuff like housing and insurance discrimination happens to gaijin all across the mainland too, but it's definitely worse down here. The economy of the north part of the island probably benefits more from the US military presence (comparatively) than down here, where the land value and tourist industry is hampered by Camp Kinser and Camp Foster eating up prime real estate along Route (or whatever it is in Japanese) 58. Supposedly the US military only accounts for 5% of Oki's economy but I find that hard to believe given things like BAH (the difference between the rent they charge someone with BAH and normal Japanese rent is damn-near extortionate). At the end of the day it's a love-hate relationship. Business owners near the bases love our disposable income, some people see working on-base as good jobs, but they hate all the other stuff that comes with being overrun with 30-50,000 Americans in a population of only ~1.3 million.
I'm going to concede here that my experience is a lot more limited than yours, so I'm basing my opinions off the relatively sheltered experience I have being junior enlisted. You make some good points that I can't really disagree with at all. I still think that the farther north you go, the less people tend to care about the fact that you're a foreigner. People down south see the 7-Tons and up-armored humvees in the streets, and the gates on the streets. It's a constant reminder. It makes them bitter, and inherently rude to us, I guess.
After WWII, the area that is now Futenma was nothing. It was just a plot of empty land. After the base was built, the Japanese built around it and built infrastructure to support the massive amount of servicemembers that were there for Vietnam. The fact that they complain about the noise and hustle of the base is pretty hilarious, since the only reason there is housing and business there is because of the base. Futenma is apparently a ghost town. I've never even been, because there's absolutely no reason to, but every Motor T operator I've met has said the base is virtually lifeless.
Jihadin wrote: Putin taking over the Middle East.....
1. No more Iran...
2. Putin milking the cash cow of oil
3. US is down sizing our military so why build up again to deal with the Soviets.
*Budget cut
*Sequester
*Very few units combat effective
*Do we really want another stupid "Red Line" comment to be made by Obama
4. Europe closer to the area
5. I actually think Israel get along quite well with Putin.
6. I can see the fee for the Suez Canal going much higher.
7. NATO will not interfere unless Turkey is attacked.
8. ME country requesting UN for help
9. UN asking the US to lead....not a ice cube chance in Hell...
10. Not our issue since the US really isn't all that dependent on oil.
11. Putin get smart and lease the land US military bases on newly acquired property.
12. If France wants to be in charge of the shindig?
13. US stays out and not adding extra to 17 billion and counting
I Was referring to the cold war area when Russia was soviet I believe Brezhnev was in charge then.
I honestly don't remember the name of it. I read it when my brother in law got a copy when he enlisted, and the account of Taffy 3 was..... incomplete to say the least, and while it trumpeted the fact they heroically gave their lives, it left out that many died because of exposure due to being left adrift for several days due to poorly thought out orders and miscommunications. My grandfather hated Halsey to his dying day because the seaplane tender he served on had orders to not rescue them, and he felt that the Navy had abandoned those men to die for no reason, since they were standing by, prepared for search and rescue, rather near at hand.
Baron take my advice....step back, regroup, and try a new shot group.
Ok, let me try it this way:
The best officers have a tendency to leave the service rather than stay in. Now, an argument can be made that they have better opportunities in the civilian market, where success is rewarded, but overall this is bad for the military. In the Army, and this is speaking in general, and I am aware that exceptions exist, success might get you medals and the respect of the men who serve under you, but it doesn't mean you get promoted. Further, the higher you go in rank, the more spectacularly you have to screw up before something is done about it. The system inside the Army is, while not entirely blind to merit, tends to reward conformity and mediocrity with promotion, and leads to a 'risk averse' mentality. I'm told that this is true in other branches as well. While being cautious can be a good trait in an officer, so is knowing when to seize the initiative. Franks is a good example of this. A rather startling report came out from the Army War Collage reviewing AARs from Afghanistan that was.... very critical of his approach. “The lack of a war plan or theater campaign plan has hindered operations and led to a tactical focus that ignores long-term objectives.”
And Sanchez was even worse. Despite a performance review that was... frankly horrific, he was not relived of command. His ignoring the units that were enjoying success to the degree that he had to be ordered by his CO to go to various areas where the effort was succeeding and see what they were doing differently speaks volumes. Good officers listen to the men under their command, Sanchez seemed take offense to it. This and his failure to create an overall plan lead to a situation where individual commanders were in effect running their own little wars around Iraq, with predictable results.
And the list goes on.
Factor in that defense contractors frequently headhunt before men leave the military, and you have a situation ripe for mismanagement and flat out bribery to push things like supply contracts to people based on the promised rewards rather than providing the best materials for the military. If you doubt this, take a look at the emerging 'Fat Leonard' scandal in San Diego. So far, three officers are awaiting trial and three more, including an admiral, are on leave pending investigation for bribery and corruption.
The men on the ground are quite adaptable, and I agree with Ensis about the men teaching the fresh fish how to best avoid getting killed. Surviving a war isn't winning one though. Before I can say I would feel comfortable about the US winning wars in Asia, I think that a long, hard look needs to be taken at the system that does not favor merit over conformity.
The best officers tend to leave the military not because they have better opportunities in the civilian market, but often because they are fed up with the bs that comes with being a military officer and its associated bureaucracy. If you want to get a sense of what I mean, just look up a USAF 'Dear Boss' letter.
In any case, what does this have to do with Fallujah?
In any case, what does this have to do with Fallujah?
Directly, a little, but indirectly a lot. A lot of the mismanagement of Iraq I was talking about in the specific examples has led to the current situation.
The best officers have a tendency to leave the service rather than stay in.
Such as?
Now, an argument can be made that they have better opportunities in the civilian market, where success is rewarded, but overall this is bad for the military. In the Army, and this is speaking in general, and I am aware that exceptions exist, success might get you medals and the respect of the men who serve under you, but it doesn't mean you get promoted. Further, the higher you go in rank, the more spectacularly you have to screw up before something is done about it. The system inside the Army is, while not entirely blind to merit, tends to reward conformity and mediocrity with promotion, and leads to a 'risk averse' mentality. I'm told that this is true in other branches as well. While being cautious can be a good trait in an officer, so is knowing when to seize the initiative. Franks is a good example of this. A rather startling report came out from the Army War Collage reviewing AARs from Afghanistan that was.... very critical of his approach. “The lack of a war plan or theater campaign plan has hindered operations and led to a tactical focus that ignores long-term objectives.”
This is amazing insight. Hardly any facts, a lot of omission, and the wrong conclusion drawn. Absolutely amazing.
And the list goes on.
Such as?
Factor in that defense contractors frequently headhunt before men leave the military, and you have a situation ripe for mismanagement and flat out bribery to push things like supply contracts to people based on the promised rewards rather than providing the best materials for the military. If you doubt this, take a look at the emerging 'Fat Leonard' scandal in San Diego. So far, three officers are awaiting trial and three more, including an admiral, are on leave pending investigation for bribery and corruption.
Which is why your claims that this is business as usual - as someone neither in the military nor in the defense industry - ring hollow. Because those guys are going to jail.
The men on the ground are quite adaptable, and I agree with Ensis about the men teaching the fresh fish how to best avoid getting killed. Surviving a war isn't winning one though. Before I can say I would feel comfortable about the US winning wars in Asia, I think that a long, hard look needs to be taken at the system that does not favor merit over conformity.
Oh, shut the feth up, seriously. You have no idea what you're talking about.
The Okinawans don't hate us. That is a fabrication. I don't know how you would get that impression if you've ever visited here.
I've been here on Oki for 2 1/2 years, most of it stationed at Futenma. Some of my friends have been here (8, 11, and two guys @ 20+) years. Try getting into all but a handful of nightclubs in Okinawa City or Naha with a US ID card. Not happening. As soon as you approach "Sorry, Japanese only." Now that I'm a civilian and able to bust out a "gaijin card" they do an about-face and let you in almost like you're a valued customer. When I tell girls from Sapporo, Tokyo, or Osaka about this they are usually shocked and horrified. Hell just driving around in a Y-plate car garners extra harassment from the police, and if you get in an accident with a local vehicle the joke is "Y-plate stands for 'Your Fault' ". How about when that 17yo American kid was murdered two years ago by a local and hardly anyone heard a peep about it. Not to mention other discrimination like a guy (I think ex military) who got kicked out of his apartment when the agency found out his Japanese wife wasn't living there anymore. Granted stuff like housing and insurance discrimination happens to gaijin all across the mainland too, but it's definitely worse down here. The economy of the north part of the island probably benefits more from the US military presence (comparatively) than down here, where the land value and tourist industry is hampered by Camp Kinser and Camp Foster eating up prime real estate along Route (or whatever it is in Japanese) 58. Supposedly the US military only accounts for 5% of Oki's economy but I find that hard to believe given things like BAH (the difference between the rent they charge someone with BAH and normal Japanese rent is damn-near extortionate). At the end of the day it's a love-hate relationship. Business owners near the bases love our disposable income, some people see working on-base as good jobs, but they hate all the other stuff that comes with being overrun with 30-50,000 Americans in a population of only ~1.3 million.
I'm going to concede here that my experience is a lot more limited than yours, so I'm basing my opinions off the relatively sheltered experience I have being junior enlisted. You make some good points that I can't really disagree with at all. I still think that the farther north you go, the less people tend to care about the fact that you're a foreigner. People down south see the 7-Tons and up-armored humvees in the streets, and the gates on the streets. It's a constant reminder. It makes them bitter, and inherently rude to us, I guess.
After WWII, the area that is now Futenma was nothing. It was just a plot of empty land. After the base was built, the Japanese built around it and built infrastructure to support the massive amount of servicemembers that were there for Vietnam. The fact that they complain about the noise and hustle of the base is pretty hilarious, since the only reason there is housing and business there is because of the base. Futenma is apparently a ghost town. I've never even been, because there's absolutely no reason to, but every Motor T operator I've met has said the base is virtually lifeless.
The US Forces (Marines in particular) have really done a lot to damage our relationship with Japan, especially in Okinawa. There were two instances in the last time I was stationed in Japan where the USFJ commander had to put all USFJ personnel (sans Misawa, cause we were awesome) on base lock downs, to give the Japanese a break from our idiocy. The Okinawans would like us out of there, they've made it clear many times.
This is a 2011 report from Harvard. Of those polled, 80% responded that the most competent officers they knew of left the military before retirement age.
Former SecDef Robert Gates also admitted it was a serious issue:
"A few years ago a brigade commander in Baghdad – Colonel, now Brigadier General, J.B. Burton – wrote a memo reflecting on the feedback he was getting from some of his officers about the factors that influenced them to stay in or leave. They talked about finding respite from the deployment treadmill, getting an opportunity to start or re-acquaint themselves with their families, to develop themselves intellectually through graduate education or other non-conventional assignments. One of the chief complaints was that the personnel system was, “Numb to individual performance and [had] begun to see every officer as equal." (Addressing the West Point class of 2011)
This is amazing insight. Hardly any facts, a lot of omission, and the wrong conclusion drawn. Absolutely amazing.
You're really milking the fact I'm not allowed to post any more text walls, aren't you? I'm sticking to limited, glaring examples of incompetence at the top that were simply ignored and left unaddressed. I could instead start listing officers who left the military after having blown billions of tax dollars on failed projects that payed out to corporations that they then went to work for as consultants when they got out.
Which is why your claims that this is business as usual - as someone neither in the military nor in the defense industry - ring hollow. Because those guys are going to jail.
Yeah, after years and years of getting away with it, and it was utterly bald faced bribery. And in all likelihood they're looking at a reduction in grade and early retirement, for the bribery, as it's unlikely that any of them will fail to plea bargain or cut deals to testify against Francis. Passing classified information, however, will likely bring the more serious sentences. However, we're looking at maybe 5 years. Unnamed sources for the Navy Times state that it was likely that the corruption was far greater and far more widespread than is currently disclosed, as this had gone on throughout Asia for 20 years. After all, if we're throwing three star Admirals under the bus...
In 2004 GAO determined that defense contractors employed 2,435 former ranking officers as consultants, many of whom had previously overseen projects that were either awarded to the companies they eventually went to work for, or had otherwise directly financially benefited. They are specifically taken on as contractors or consultants rather than employees so that they can bypass government ethics regulations. Former General Gregory Martin, according to an interview with USA Today, formerly the commanding General of the USAF's Material Command is now working as a consultant for Lockheed Martin and freely admits to contact with his former command as a Mentor while also tailoring Lockheed's pitch, thanks to his access to classified briefings.
Oh, shut the feth up, seriously. You have no idea what you're talking about.
I had a whole LIST of nasty rebukes to this, Seaward. Some of them were quite vile, and, frankly, true, based on your posts. But frankly, you're not worth dealing with pissing off the mods again.
Your thesis of, "Bad officers fail their way into promotions to the top, which is why we don't have any good officers at the top," is morphing into, "Bad officers go work in the defense sector."
Pick a thesis. Stick with it. I fully understand that an IT tech support guy who reads Huffington Post a lot and has never been commissioned is far and away the best authority we have on career advancement as an officer in all branches of the military, but you need to keep it consistent.
Oh, and you do need to address the inconsistency; there are far more good flag officers than bad, they simply don't have newspaper stories or books written about them. How can this be, in your mythical system?
also, arguably, the reason why there are so many bad officers at the top (more than anything) is that becoming a flag officer is more a function of politics and nepotism than actual performance or competency.
Seaward wrote: Your thesis of, "Bad officers fail their way into promotions to the top, which is why we don't have any good officers at the top," is morphing into, "Bad officers go work in the defense sector."
There's no morphing to it. It's just the final cap on a career of bad things. Hell, Former Gen Ricardo Sanchez was a consultant for my own damn field while Mentoring. You can try and straw man it, claim I'm saying two different things, but it's just another face of the same thing.
Pick a thesis. Stick with it. I fully understand that an IT tech support guy who reads Huffington Post a lot and has never been commissioned is far and away the best authority we have on career advancement as an officer in all branches of the military, but you need to keep it consistent.
Well, one, I don't read HuffPo. Nor am I the one claiming inconstancy where there is none. But I suppose, considering how you benefit every day from the way things are, a certain defensiveness about it is understandable. While, yes, I am an IT Consultant (and a damn good one) and it's a nice quiet job without having to speak Spanish and wonder what that explosion was, bluntly, I have some respect (a lot it, actually) for some of the vet posters here, but I really do have nothing but contempt for you, personally. To be honest, I see you as an arrogant fly-boy who swapped a flight suit for an empty suit, but continues to look down on others, making you a very poor sort of officer indeed.
I'll point out that I don't really have a dog in this fight, so I can sit back and say 'Here's the problem'. It's very simple. You want to retain good people, reward them for doing good work. Correct failure, and don't promote people above their level of competence. You've been in both worlds, Seaward, you know what I'm saying is true. Hell, I have an uncle I wouldn't trust to run a bagel shop, but the USAF thought he was Colonel material. Do I think that EVERY officer that stays in is like him, no. Do I think that he could be promoted that high was a sign that something is fethed up, oh yes.
Chaos, you're probably not wrong, but what allows that to happen is a system of promotions that is blind to merit. It's much easier to play the system in favor of Person A over Person B, if you don't have to factor in, say, Person B having a history of distinction where Person A does not.
Oh, and you do need to address the inconsistency; there are far more good flag officers than bad, they simply don't have newspaper stories or books written about them. How can this be, in your mythical system?
Seaward,a lot of the bad one's don't make the news either. The Airforce had 500 officers in one of the commands currently under investigation. 100 of them (or so) were crooked and 400 were not, with the majority of the crooked ones at the top. But are the guys that are not gonna stay? Or are they gone the first chance they get?
While, certainly, no, the guys that stay and become flag officers are not universally crooked or incompetent, there are enough that are that it becomes an issue.
BaronIveagh wrote: There's no morphing to it. It's just the final cap on a career of bad things. Hell, Former Gen Ricardo Sanchez was a consultant for my own damn field while Mentoring. You can try and straw man it, claim I'm saying two different things, but it's just another face of the same thing.
It'd be the same thing if it were only "bad" officers getting out and getting lucrative offers from the defense industry. But that's not the case. Because the defense industry wants to hire people who actually know defense.
Well, one, I don't read HuffPo. Nor am I the one claiming inconstancy where there is none. But I suppose, considering how you benefit every day from the way things are, a certain defensiveness about it is understandable. While, yes, I am an IT Consultant (and a damn good one) and it's a nice quiet job without having to speak Spanish and wonder what that explosion was, bluntly, I have some respect (a lot it, actually) for some of the vet posters here, but I really do have nothing but contempt for you, personally. To be honest, I see you as an arrogant fly-boy who swapped a flight suit for an empty suit, but continues to look down on others, making you a very poor sort of officer indeed.
I bolded the hilarious irony. I also find it amusing that you translate my dismissal of your point of view as remotely valid as contempt for everybody. Not the case, but if it helps, keep on thinking it, I suppose. Whatever softens the blow.
Anyway, my money's still on it being all about envy.
I'll point out that I don't really have a dog in this fight, so I can sit back and say 'Here's the problem'. It's very simple. You want to retain good people, reward them for doing good work. Correct failure, and don't promote people above their level of competence. You've been in both worlds, Seaward, you know what I'm saying is true.
Actually, that personal experience is what allows me to know you're talking complete nonsense.
Hell, I have an uncle I wouldn't trust to run a bagel shop, but the USAF thought he was Colonel material. Do I think that EVERY officer that stays in is like him, no. Do I think that he could be promoted that high was a sign that something is fethed up, oh yes.
Weirdly, I trust the Air Force's judgment a lot more than yours.
Chaos, you're probably not wrong, but what allows that to happen is a system of promotions that is blind to merit. It's much easier to play the system in favor of Person A over Person B, if you don't have to factor in, say, Person B having a history of distinction where Person A does not.
Seaward,a lot of the bad one's don't make the news either. The Airforce had 500 officers in one of the commands currently under investigation. 100 of them (or so) were crooked and 400 were not, with the majority of the crooked ones at the top. But are the guys that are not gonna stay? Or are they gone the first chance they get?
While, certainly, no, the guys that stay and become flag officers are not universally crooked or incompetent, there are enough that are that it becomes an issue.
According to you, and again, I'm obliged to point out that your judgement and experience are suspect at absolute best.
BaronIveagh wrote: There's no morphing to it. It's just the final cap on a career of bad things. Hell, Former Gen Ricardo Sanchez was a consultant for my own damn field while Mentoring. You can try and straw man it, claim I'm saying two different things, but it's just another face of the same thing.
It'd be the same thing if it were only "bad" officers getting out and getting lucrative offers from the defense industry. But that's not the case. Because the defense industry wants to hire people who actually know defense.
Well, one, I don't read HuffPo. Nor am I the one claiming inconstancy where there is none. But I suppose, considering how you benefit every day from the way things are, a certain defensiveness about it is understandable. While, yes, I am an IT Consultant (and a damn good one) and it's a nice quiet job without having to speak Spanish and wonder what that explosion was, bluntly, I have some respect (a lot it, actually) for some of the vet posters here, but I really do have nothing but contempt for you, personally. To be honest, I see you as an arrogant fly-boy who swapped a flight suit for an empty suit, but continues to look down on others, making you a very poor sort of officer indeed.
I bolded the hilarious irony. I also find it amusing that you translate my dismissal of your point of view as remotely valid as contempt for everybody. Not the case, but if it helps, keep on thinking it, I suppose. Whatever softens the blow.
Anyway, my money's still on it being all about envy.
I'll point out that I don't really have a dog in this fight, so I can sit back and say 'Here's the problem'. It's very simple. You want to retain good people, reward them for doing good work. Correct failure, and don't promote people above their level of competence. You've been in both worlds, Seaward, you know what I'm saying is true.
Actually, that personal experience is what allows me to know you're talking complete nonsense.
Hell, I have an uncle I wouldn't trust to run a bagel shop, but the USAF thought he was Colonel material. Do I think that EVERY officer that stays in is like him, no. Do I think that he could be promoted that high was a sign that something is fethed up, oh yes.
Weirdly, I trust the Air Force's judgment a lot more than yours.
Chaos, you're probably not wrong, but what allows that to happen is a system of promotions that is blind to merit. It's much easier to play the system in favor of Person A over Person B, if you don't have to factor in, say, Person B having a history of distinction where Person A does not.
Seaward,a lot of the bad one's don't make the news either. The Airforce had 500 officers in one of the commands currently under investigation. 100 of them (or so) were crooked and 400 were not, with the majority of the crooked ones at the top. But are the guys that are not gonna stay? Or are they gone the first chance they get?
While, certainly, no, the guys that stay and become flag officers are not universally crooked or incompetent, there are enough that are that it becomes an issue.
According to you, and again, I'm obliged to point out that your judgement and experience are suspect at absolute best.
You, as a member of our armed forces, are skeptical of an assessment from our resident Tacticool Operator who posses no military rank?
Actually, that personal experience is what allows me to know you're talking complete nonsense.
And yet, current events and the Pentagon and the Army War Collage and Harvard all seem to support what I am saying. So, every last one of those is talking out their ass? Or just Seaward? I tend to think when the SecDef is saying that soemthing is a problem in a speech the graduating class of West point, perhaps he knows more about it than either one of us do.
Weirdly, I trust the Air Force's judgment a lot more than yours.
Let me put it this way: he screwed up one day and almost caused WW3. (Or at least, so he says. I'm not sure I buy it, but he retired early. This may be a 'There I was' story, but having seen him screw up other projects, I have no problem believing he sent a nuke on the wrong plane one day)
According to you, and again, I'm obliged to point out that your judgement and experience are suspect at absolute best.
Prove me wrong then. Or is this gonna be another of your 'I don't have to prove you wrong, it's obvious because you disagree with me and I'm always right!" speeches again, Mr "Does not know a damn thing about 16 inch guns"?
You, as a member of our armed forces, are skeptical of an assessment from our resident Tacticool Operator who posses no military rank?
Being skeptical is fine, but he should at least site something besides "Word of Seaward'. Because so far he's claimed he knows more about it than not only generals in the field, but the SecDef and studies by Harvard. So, who likely knows more about the issue of bad officers and the military bleeding talent: the Secretary of Defense, or Seaward? I know which way I'm betting.
honestly don't remember the name of it. I read it when my brother in law got a copy when he enlisted, and the account of Taffy 3 was..... incomplete to say the least, and while it trumpeted the fact they heroically gave their lives, it left out that many died because of exposure due to being left adrift for several days due to poorly thought out orders and miscommunications. My grandfather hated Halsey to his dying day because the seaplane tender he served on had orders to not rescue them, and he felt that the Navy had abandoned those men to die for no reason, since they were standing by, prepared for search and rescue, rather near at hand.
Baron off the top of my head I believe your refering to the cruiser Indianapolis(sp) Seaward correct me on ship names please because I'm going off the hip. The cruiser that delievered "Big Boy" or "Little Boy" whose mission, route, and knowledge was limited to very few. After delievery it got nailed by a IJS submarine. Best verbal description....
The best officers have a tendency to leave the service rather than stay in. Now, an argument can be made that they have better opportunities in the civilian market, where success is rewarded, but overall this is bad for the military. In the Army, and this is speaking in general, and I am aware that exceptions exist, success might get you medals and the respect of the men who serve under you, but it doesn't mean you get promoted. Further, the higher you go in rank, the more spectacularly you have to screw up before something is done about it. The system inside the Army is, while not entirely blind to merit, tends to reward conformity and mediocrity with promotion, and leads to a 'risk averse' mentality. I'm told that this is true in other branches as well. While being cautious can be a good trait in an officer, so is knowing when to seize the initiative. Franks is a good example of this. A rather startling report came out from the Army War Collage reviewing AARs from Afghanistan that was.... very critical of his approach. “The lack of a war plan or theater campaign plan has hindered operations and led to a tactical focus that ignores long-term objectives.”
Your using Franks as an example but not why you are using him as an example. Pat Tillman came to mind but that wasn't it so I researched it a bit further. I let you Baron to clarify it
Everyone knows going to a peace time military and draw down is going to cut good officers out due to lack of positions for them. Removing a combat Brigade from each division...how many positions got eliminated...
And Sanchez was even worse. Despite a performance review that was... frankly horrific, he was not relived of command. His ignoring the units that were enjoying success to the degree that he had to be ordered by his CO to go to various areas where the effort was succeeding and see what they were doing differently speaks volumes. Good officers listen to the men under their command, Sanchez seemed take offense to it. This and his failure to create an overall plan lead to a situation where individual commanders were in effect running their own little wars around Iraq, with predictable results.
He was relieved because of Abu Gharib (SP) Replaced by General Casey...founder of 160th and a Aviator at that..first Aviator General Officer to lead the a infatry division...101st
Factor in that defense contractors frequently headhunt before men leave the military, and you have a situation ripe for mismanagement and flat out bribery to push things like supply contracts to people based on the promised rewards rather than providing the best materials for the military. If you doubt this, take a look at the emerging 'Fat Leonard' scandal in San Diego. So far, three officers are awaiting trial and three more, including an admiral, are on leave pending investigation for bribery and corruption.
I was contract oversight last rodeo I did...they do indeed headhunt. AMC though run herd on all contractor and contracts for the US Army. Your mixing Navy with Army. I haven't really been keeping track of this but staying on the fringe....isn't an Admiral related to someone on the contract?
The men on the ground are quite adaptable, and I agree with Ensis about the men teaching the fresh fish how to best avoid getting killed. Surviving a war isn't winning one though. Before I can say I would feel comfortable about the US winning wars in Asia, I think that a long, hard look needs to be taken at the system that does not favor merit over conformity.
Training.
DJ. I want to add a bit more into the Okinawa feeling hatred. Flash point involved two rapes. The SOFA agreement gave the men back over to military custody and UCMJ. Oki's wanted to use their justice system and sited the eight military Americans in prison outside Camp Stanley South Korea.
BaronIveagh wrote: Or as a kickback for having steered a few billion dollars their way.
Yeah. That's worth the jail time, alright.
Apropos nothing, we need a rolling eyes emote.
No, I translate your contempt for every poster that does not agree with you as contempt for everybody.
It's limited to a select few.
And yet, current events and the Pentagon and the Army War Collage and Harvard all seem to support what I am saying. So, every last one of those is talking out their ass? Or just Seaward? I tend to think when the SecDef is saying that soemthing is a problem in a speech the graduating class of West point, perhaps he knows more about it than either one of us do.
Current events support what you're saying? Really? Do you even know what you're saying anymore? A lot of guys are getting canned for bad conduct, and that's your proof that the system rewards bad conduct?
Let me put it this way: he screwed up one day and almost caused WW3. (Or at least, so he says. I'm not sure I buy it, but he retired early. This may be a 'There I was' story, but having seen him screw up other projects, I have no problem believing he sent a nuke on the wrong plane one day)
You're officially in "making gak up" territory now. You might as well buy a house; with the amount of time you spend there, it'll be cheaper than renting.
Being skeptical is fine, but he should at least site something besides "Word of Seaward'. Because so far he's claimed he knows more about it than not only generals in the field, but the SecDef and studies by Harvard. So, who likely knows more about the issue of bad officers and the military bleeding talent: the Secretary of Defense, or Seaward? I know which way I'm betting.
You're mixing quite a few things up, as is so often the case. Claiming that Hagel giving a speech regarding the cheating scandal (that once again is ruining careers as we speak) proves your entire point about the system rewarding failure? That's just nonsense. You're grasping at straws to support a weak thesis. Cherry-picking a few select officers and using their example (incorrectly, at that) to make a rule about the entire system is just downright asinine, especially given your complete lack of experience or knowledge involving it. I'm not seeing why I should treat all this any more seriously than you claiming you know more about naval aviation than someone who's actually done it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Baron off the top of my head I believe your refering to the cruiser Indianapolis(sp) Seaward correct me on ship names please because I'm going off the hip. The cruiser that delievered "Big Boy" or "Little Boy" whose mission, route, and knowledge was limited to very few. After delievery it got nailed by a IJS submarine. Best verbal description....
He's talking about Leyte Gulf, where Halsey made some bad calls. Of course, Kurita made some bad calls, too, so I guess using his logic we can conclude that the Japanese military also had a system designed to reward the bad and punish the good.
I'm starting to agree with you that engaging with military-related stuff is just not worth it, by the way.
I shouldn't have gotten into it. Baron you need to do a bit of research into the subject besides hip shooting it. You cannot be vague and go from there.
Speaking of WWII related stuff...
anyone know a way to install and play "SSI: War in Russia" a 1993 DOS game....onto Vista....that's a game you won't complete in a two months at least
@Jihadin: I think you have the wrong GEN Casey in mind. The Casey that took over in Iraq was an infantry branch guy. He was my BDE CDR in 1st Cav back in the 90s, and commanded 1st AD as his division command.
Sanchez (who was an armor branch guy) was not relieved (he remained in command of V Corps), though he should have been, and not solely for the Abu Ghraib crap, but more because of his inability to run the Iraq campaign. Frankly he was in way over his head and was not up to the job. I worked with Sanchez in Panama when he was still a COL.
Baron off the top of my head I believe your refering to the cruiser Indianapolis(sp) Seaward correct me on ship names please because I'm going off the hip. The cruiser that delievered "Big Boy" or "Little Boy" whose mission, route, and knowledge was limited to very few. After delievery it got nailed by a IJS submarine.
No. I'm talking about Taffy 3 and the loss of two baby flattops and several destroyers off Samar. The men were left in the water for days while the fleet stood by. Indianapolis was much worse, but also did not take place while the fleet was near at hand, and knew what had happened. Captain Evans of the Johnston was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honer, for having carried out a suicidal attack against overwhelming odds to try and cover the carriers escape (A hit from Yamato on the destroyer was described as 'a puppy hit by a truck'). 1200 men from USS Gambier Bay (CVE-73), USS Hoel (DD-533), USS Johnston (DD-557) and USS Samuel B. Roberts (DE-413) were recovered days later when rescue operations began. (The St Lo sank separately from this group, having been finished off by an attack by a land based Kamikaze). The total lost while in the water is unknown, estimates are around 100-300 men, including Evans.
Halsey had withdrawn the battleships that were supposed to be protecting Taffy 3 to pursue a decoy force, and due to poor communication, failed to inform Kinkaid, Group 77's commander, that he had done so, effectively leaving the carriers of Taffy 3 exposed when the Japanese battleship force came steaming through, led by Yamato. The Gambier Bay to this day holds the distinction of being the only US carrier ever lost to direct fire from battleships. Kinkaid then proceeded to botch the rescue efforts through miscommunication, leaving the men spending several days in the water. According to some accounts, some of them survived only because the Japanese sailors were so impressed by the heroic attack by the destroyers against overwhelming odds, they had thrown supplies overboard to some of the men in the water as they passed.
Your using Franks as an example but not why you are using him as an example. Pat Tillman came to mind but that wasn't it so I researched it a bit further. I let you Baron to clarify it
Reading it, I agree with you, I could have been clearer. I picked Franks and Sanchez to go after because I had written rebukes of how they were handling things from within the military at the time. They tended to bury themselves in the minutia of running the war rather than provide coherent vision and leadership, or even a coherent theater plan. Franks could take an objective, but he was out of his depth trying to run a war, and tried to palm theater strategy off on his subordinates (the fifty pound brains, he refers to them as in his book). This effectively left his subordinates to make it up as they went, with all the issues that entails.
Everyone knows going to a peace time military and draw down is going to cut good officers out due to lack of positions for them. Removing a combat Brigade from each division...how many positions got eliminated...
That's true, but this has been an ongoing problem, not one that started with the draw down.
I was contract oversight last rodeo I did...they do indeed headhunt. AMC though run herd on all contractor and contracts for the US Army. Your mixing Navy with Army. I haven't really been keeping track of this but staying on the fringe....isn't an Admiral related to someone on the contract?
Vice Adm. Ted Branch and Rear Adm. Bruce Loveless are implicated, though the Navy is not saying (that I know of) what the connection is, only that it took place before their promotion. I'll grant that the Corps is the one that I do not have a good example of corruption from contractors (it may be I just don't know of it, or it may be the corps is doing it right compared to everyone else). But I do have examples from the Navy and USAF where mentors are being used by contractors to try and get an edge. This ranges from the acceptable (what do you think of our product, would it be acceptable in combat?) to the questionable (Hey, you know, Dynecorp has something that might work for you in this capacity). They're not subject to the same oversight as the actual contractor, as they're not employees of that contractor.
Seaward wrote: A lot of guys are getting canned for bad conduct, and that's your proof that the system rewards bad conduct?
I underlined the part of that you might want to think about.
Seaward wrote: You're mixing quite a few things up, as is so often the case. Claiming that Hagel giving a speech regarding the cheating scandal (that once again is ruining careers as we speak) proves your entire point about the system rewarding failure?
Actually it was Robert Gates about the failure of the Military to retain it's best officers. Which I've said several times. "Which brings me to the third and greatest challenge facing your Army, and frankly, my main worry. How can the Army can break-up the institutional concrete, its bureaucratic rigidity in its assignments and promotion processes, in order to retain, challenge, and inspire its best, brightest, and most-battled tested young officers to lead the service in the future? After the major Afghan troop deployments end in 2014, how do we keep you and those 5 or 10 years older than you in our Army?"
Regarding the several scandals in the military atm, Rear Adm Kirby, spokesman for SECDEF, stated that current SECDEF Hagel believes that corruption has become 'systematic' and that new emphasis needs to be placed on ethics within the services.
Wait so your example of something being taught wrong was something from WWII? A lot of history about that war is taught wrong, both in the military and outside of it. It really isn't that big of a deal, especially considering (although this is based off my limited understanding in the area of naval warfare) the changes that have come upon naval warfare in the, what, 60 odd years since WWII? You actually had me interested to hear your side until then Baron, but if your main example is based on a bit of history about WWII that you disagreed with in a history book provided to US Navy personnel, then it loses a lot of punch.
motyak wrote: Wait so your example of something being taught wrong was something from WWII? A lot of history about that war is taught wrong, both in the military and outside of it. It really isn't that big of a deal, especially considering (although this is based off my limited understanding in the area of naval warfare) the changes that have come upon naval warfare in the, what, 60 odd years since WWII? You actually had me interested to hear your side until then Baron, but if your main example is based on a bit of history about WWII that you disagreed with in a history book provided to US Navy personnel, then it loses a lot of punch.
Actually it's very much a tangent to my main point.
I used it as an example of how the military cherry picks history. Since the assertion was that the military learns from it's past, the question is then how could it if it doesn't look at the whole picture? Saying 'These men gave their lives heroically' without looking at things like how Halsey screwed up and put them in that position to begin with, or Kinkaid dropped the ball when it came to recovering the men? These are just as important as a heroic example, because by seeing the mistakes made previously, they can be avoided in the future.
If young officers are not taught the mistakes (and why those mistakes happened) as well as the triumphs, it doesn't do them much good.
Well Australian soldiers have ANZAC Day, and while we do learn how everything went wrong in that campaign, we don't learn about the errors from the books we read, but rather from our instructors. Not that we can't look up additional military histories, but they aren't necessary. So who is to say the US Navy isn't the same? That the 'technically correct' books say one thing about an incident, but the instructors say 'guys, this thing is good but it does miss some points, X, Y and Z'. It certainly wouldn't be a novel concept.
And saying 'these mistakes can be avoided in the future' eventually has to lose relevance, when the technology and material available eventually outstrips that lesson. One could point to the Gallipoli campaign and say 'look at all these mistakes, lets not make them again, but it would be irrelevant because combat has changed so profoundly that the tactical lessons have lost the vast majority of their relevance. Maybe not all, but the majority
motyak wrote: Well Australian soldiers have ANZAC Day, and while we do learn how everything went wrong in that campaign, we don't learn about the errors from the books we read, but rather from our instructors. Not that we can't look up additional military histories, but they aren't necessary. So who is to say the US Navy isn't the same? That the 'technically correct' books say one thing about an incident, but the instructors say 'guys, this thing is good but it does miss some points, X, Y and Z'. It certainly wouldn't be a novel concept.
You're not wrong, and that's good teaching. However, that sort of lesson should not be incumbent on the whims of if the instructor knows more about it than what is written in the book.
Again, some lessons are inapplicable, this is true.
However, I think that ensuring your subordinates know you're withdrawing forces supporting them before doing so will probably be a good idea for the foreseeable future. Same with prompt recovery of men in the water following a ship sinking.
Again, some lessons are inapplicable, this is true.
However, I think that ensuring your subordinates know you're withdrawing forces supporting them before doing so will probably be a good idea for the foreseeable future. Same with prompt recovery of men in the water following a ship sinking.
I don't disagree with this. However, the idea that without this example being properly presented, personnel won't learn this lesson, is false. There are plenty of other more recent, and more relevant, situations with which this lesson could be taught, with situations from a time where a lot of the combat tactics have been outdated (again, working from limited knowledge in naval warfare) where something similar occurred being relegated (not the appropriate word, but the best I can do) to a scenario to help build the esprit de corps, rather than help educate potential leaders. While I can't give a list of examples from the US Navy, you don't need to remain within a particular wing to help outline why support is important. The Army, Marines, and probably the Air Force would have examples that are more relevant to our current tactics and technology.
I do want to outline that I'm not intending any disrespect, and if any is communicated it is because of a lot of beer. Rather, I want to point out the problems with expecting a story about an engagement and the aftermath from WWII to remain relevant and important to training.
motyak wrote: Well Australian soldiers have ANZAC Day, and while we do learn how everything went wrong in that campaign, we don't learn about the errors from the books we read, but rather from our instructors. Not that we can't look up additional military histories, but they aren't necessary. So who is to say the US Navy isn't the same? That the 'technically correct' books say one thing about an incident, but the instructors say 'guys, this thing is good but it does miss some points, X, Y and Z'. It certainly wouldn't be a novel concept.
You're not wrong, and that's good teaching. However, that sort of lesson should not be incumbent on the whims of if the instructor knows more about it than what is written in the book.
Or, you know, using the real lessons learned and evolving doctrine as a result. And you know, doctrine changed dramatically during the war after these events, and continues to evolve as different operational experiences occur. It isn't like every history book is written with the purpose of being a critical AAR nor do they all give a plausible 'it would have been better if'. The services don't rely on published history books for much more than back ground info or to provide data points to further analysis on a topic. The instructor is teaching off an approved lesson planned based on much more than any particular book.
motyak wrote:
I do want to outline that I'm not intending any disrespect, and if any is communicated it is because of a lot of beer. Rather, I want to point out the problems with expecting a story about an engagement and the aftermath from WWII to remain relevant and important to training.
No, actually I find this much better tahn certain other posts. And again, also not wrong, but other potential incidents that might be of a similar nature were never addressed in the book.
CptJake wrote:
Or, you know, using the real lessons learned and evolving doctrine as a result. And you know, doctrine changed dramatically during the war after these events, and continues to evolve as different operational experiences occur. It isn't like every history book is written with the purpose of being a critical AAR nor do they all give a plausible 'it would have been better if'. The services don't rely on published history books for much more than back ground info or to provide data points to further analysis on a topic. The instructor is teaching off an approved lesson planned based on much more than any particular book.
Doctrine changed after these events, and has continued to do so in the face of evolving weapon technologies and operational experiences, this is again very true. However, again, it makes a much bigger impression on the student if they can understand 'why' something is done a certain way. One of my own instructors was fond of showing students a power supply that a screwdriver had been welded to by the voltage when it had fallen across the terminals while explaining why you always wanted to be sure that there was no power on while working on something. Not one student failed to follow safety procedures. Saying 'this is doctrine' always needs to be followed by 'and this is why'.
BTW: Seaward, if what he said happened was fantasy, please explain Barksdale. Or do you think that was the only time in history the USAF has ever made that sort of mistake?
I used it as an example of how the military cherry picks history. Since the assertion was that the military learns from it's past, the question is then how could it if it doesn't look at the whole picture? Saying 'These men gave their lives heroically' without looking at things like how Halsey screwed up and put them in that position to begin with, or Kinkaid dropped the ball when it came to recovering the men? These are just as important as a heroic example, because by seeing the mistakes made previously, they can be avoided in the future.
If young officers are not taught the mistakes (and why those mistakes happened) as well as the triumphs, it doesn't do them much good.
I used it as an example of how the military cherry picks history. Since the assertion was that the military learns from it's past, the question is then how could it if it doesn't look at the whole picture? Saying 'These men gave their lives heroically' without looking at things like how Halsey screwed up and put them in that position to begin with, or Kinkaid dropped the ball when it came to recovering the men? These are just as important as a heroic example, because by seeing the mistakes made previously, they can be avoided in the future.
If young officers are not taught the mistakes (and why those mistakes happened) as well as the triumphs, it doesn't do them much good.
Oh sweet Jesus.
Both CptJake and I actually explained our problems with this point. I know you were expanding upon your problems earlier, but a one line response isn't going to help with the discussion. Baron has admitted that instruction without accounting for advancements in technology and tactics is a problem, what did your post do but drag it back to the slap fight you two had going?
Both CptJake and I actually explained our problems with this point. I know you were expanding upon your problems earlier, but a one line response isn't going to help with the discussion. Baron has admitted that instruction without accounting for advancements in technology and tactics is a problem, what did your post do but drag it back to the slap fight you two had going?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I believe that discussion and actual dialogue is not the point in his case. He and, to an extent, dreadclaw, like to try and troll anything I have to say on matters military, correct or not. He's been trying to strawman most of my posts in this thread, rather than actually offer any actual counter points, or act to disprove my view as you, Jake, and Jihadin do. I might or might not agree with you, but I respect your opinions and am interested in your input. Seaward I do not. I grant I am not the best communicator in the world, I work with machines for a reason, but I at least take the time to try and pose valid counterpoints to people's arguments, even if they don't quite come out as clearly as I'd like.
So, you gave a 4 sentence insult instead of a 1 sentence one. Again, adding nothing to the discussion which was, initially, about the Iraqi retaking (lol) of Fallujah, but which has since morphed into the far more interesting topic of how military history can be twisted, and just how far it can be twisted (and what variables affect that; age, technological advances, tactics changes) before it ceases to be necessary, or even remotely useful. I'm sure if you two laid off you could get a great discussion going about the weaknesses of using certain sources as opposed to others, and try and nut out which engagements have lost relevance and which haven't.
Or you can keep sniping at each other.
One will get this thread locked sooner rather than later, and one won't. Choose.
I'd say Jutland is out, though there are a few lessons from that still viable. Based on current naval doctrines though, I'd say the operations with the most baring, as far as surface fleets go, are close to shore engagements. There's been a general move away from fleet engagements on the open ocean in favor of littoral actions.
motyak wrote: Both CptJake and I actually explained our problems with this point. I know you were expanding upon your problems earlier, but a one line response isn't going to help with the discussion. Baron has admitted that instruction without accounting for advancements in technology and tactics is a problem, what did your post do but drag it back to the slap fight you two had going?
I don't feel there's a lot of discussion to be had with someone who's concluded he knows everything relevant about how officers are trained in the modern military because he read a book whose title he can't remember that he believes is handed out in the Navy.
I've explained several times now why his driving point simply has no basis in reality. An advancement system structured the way he believes it's structured simply wouldn't be sustainable, and moreover wouldn't account for the overwhelming majority of officers who are actually competent at their jobs. There are simply too many checks in place to prevent guys who can't hack it from advancing for it to be the rule rather than the exception. If anything, it's gotten more results-driven.
You see, there are specific examples that agree with that. I knew a Leftenant (admitedly not a high rank, thank god in this case), who was training riflemen at Singo (our Infantry Training Centre), who had injured himself cooking off a grenade and been shafted from a deployment because of it. Was he a good officer? No. Did he advance once and was he on the cusp of another advancement within a year? Yes. Bad officers rise in every nation's armed forces, Baron may have only had experience with/known the worst of them. And that's all that really needs to be explained, for him to understand that across the armed forces of different nations, and across the different arms of those forces, the rule is that advancement is based on competency, and it is only the vocal and media-set-upon minority who are advanced because of other reasons. There is no real joy gained from recounting 'we had this really switched major/colonel/whatever, who knew his gak and did everything right', and a lot of lulz to be had from 'we had this absolute gak fight of a 'insert rank here' who failed all around the place and still got promoted'.
motyak wrote: You see, there are specific examples that agree with that. I knew a Leftenant (admitedly not a high rank, thank god in this case), who was training riflemen at Singo (our Infantry Training Centre), who had injured himself cooking off a grenade and been shafted from a deployment because of it. Was he a good officer? No. Did he advance once and was he on the cusp of another advancement within a year? Yes. Bad officers rise in every nation's armed forces, Baron may have only had experience with/known the worst of them. And that's all that really needs to be explained, for him to understand that across the armed forces of different nations, and across the different arms of those forces, the rule is that advancement is based on competency, and it is only the vocal and media-set-upon minority who are advanced because of other reasons.
JOs normally go up unless absolute disaster strikes. That's the way it goes. I'll bet he didn't make O-6.
motyak wrote: You see, there are specific examples that agree with that. I knew a Leftenant (admitedly not a high rank, thank god in this case), who was training riflemen at Singo (our Infantry Training Centre), who had injured himself cooking off a grenade and been shafted from a deployment because of it. Was he a good officer? No. Did he advance once and was he on the cusp of another advancement within a year? Yes. Bad officers rise in every nation's armed forces, Baron may have only had experience with/known the worst of them. And that's all that really needs to be explained, for him to understand that across the armed forces of different nations, and across the different arms of those forces, the rule is that advancement is based on competency, and it is only the vocal and media-set-upon minority who are advanced because of other reasons.
JOs normally go up unless absolute disaster strikes. That's the way it goes. I'll bet he didn't make O-6.
No, he was on the cusp of major, not colonel. I was agreeing with you by and large, by the way. But major isn't exactly an insignificant rank, it is a middling rank.
motyak wrote: No, he was on the cusp of major, not colonel. I was agreeing with you by and large, by the way. But major isn't exactly an insignificant rank, it is a middling rank.
Yeah. If he was a rising major, at least in ours, he'd still have to really screw the pooch to not get the oak leaf. I'm pretty sure it's like 85% that go through at eligibility.
Your military is quite a bit different to ours, true. I think because of the size differences, if you scale everything down by 1 or 2 ranks you have it about right
motyak wrote: Your military is quite a bit different to ours, true. I think because of the size differences, if you scale everything down by 1 or 2 ranks you have it about right
My understanding is that, your military has few officers per enlisted man, as well, or am I wrong about that?
motyak wrote: Your military is quite a bit different to ours, true. I think because of the size differences, if you scale everything down by 1 or 2 ranks you have it about right
My understanding is that, your military has few officers per enlisted man, as well, or am I wrong about that?
We have fewer than you, in terms of both NCOs and actual officers. At least that is my understanding. We had (until recent reorginatizations) a section, which had one lancejack, a full track, a sergeant and a leftenant, and 4 of them make up a platoon, although all that did change recently, but not too much in terms of changing the number of officers. The change didn't really affect the ratio of platoons to company, or companies to battalions. And we only really have one Regiment (the greatest in the world ) so yeah, it is a lot smaller than your army.
^The above is from an incredibly biased infantry view, and probably not too relevant for the other branches/corps.
Chaos, you're probably not wrong, but what allows that to happen is a system of promotions that is blind to merit. It's much easier to play the system in favor of Person A over Person B, if you don't have to factor in, say, Person B having a history of distinction where Person A does not.
Well, I can't speak for the other branches, but in the case of the AF I would disagree. The AF promotion system is based on performance reviews on a standardized form, I'm not going to go into too much detail as to what goes onto that form, all you need to know is that it requires very specific language (seriously, even though its all written in typical english, the wording used, even though it might appear to be a positive statement could very well be a negative statement that can end an officers career) and everything needs to be over-hyped to the max if you want to look good for a promotion board. Because of the nature of this, the Air Force has adopted the view that 'merit' has somehow equated to non-performance based criteria, such as community service hours, etc. rather than what you actually do in your job. Besides that, when the AF hands out distinguished service medals for processing paychecks for deployed troops, 'merit' is no longer a valid metric for determining a promotion.
I assure you, the enlisted performance system is far worse.
Let me put it this way: he screwed up one day and almost caused WW3. (Or at least, so he says. I'm not sure I buy it, but he retired early. This may be a 'There I was' story, but having seen him screw up other projects, I have no problem believing he sent a nuke on the wrong plane one day)
I can almost guarantee it was a 'no gak, there I was' type story. The military is chock full of them, especially the Air Force/the military aviation community as a whole.
BTW: Seaward, if what he said happened was fantasy, please explain Barksdale. Or do you think that was the only time in history the USAF has ever made that sort of mistake?
I'm reasonably certain it wasn't, doesn't mean your uncle wasn't telling a tall tale. Barksdale, btw, most certainly did not almost result in WW3, unless there is a tinfoil hat conspiracy involved that I am completely unaware of.
chaos0xomega wrote: Besides that, when the AF hands out distinguished service medals for processing paychecks for deployed troops, 'merit' is no longer a valid metric for determining a promotion.
In that context I can agree with that. And personally think that's fething insane. That's right up there with the 'Distinguished Warfare' Medal being higher than the Bronze Star level of crazy.
chaos0xomega wrote: Besides that, when the AF hands out distinguished service medals for processing paychecks for deployed troops, 'merit' is no longer a valid metric for determining a promotion.
In that context I can agree with that. And personally think that's fething insane. That's right up there with the 'Distinguished Warfare' Medal being higher than the Bronze Star level of crazy.
The Air Force has not handed out any "Distinguished Service Crosses" to finance personnel. What you are thinking of was an E-6 who ran the finance operations of 8 separate bases in a warzone, and was recognized for her extraordinary actions with a Bronze Star (without Valor). Quite frankly, she earned it, and people who attack her over it generally do so because they have no clue why she was awarded the medal. The Air Force does not just hand out medals for deployments. If that was the case, I'd actually have one today, instead of having been denied on every one my leadership has put me in for.
In a thread about Marines in Falluja, what the hell does Air Force medals for pogues have to do with anything? Or the Battle of Leyte Gulf? Or Officer promotion in general?
If you want to argue about any of those go for it, but honestly does it belong in this thread?
Oh and feel free to insert something aggressive and tough sounding here to go along with your comment.
In a thread about Marines in Falluja, what the hell does Air Force medals for pogues have to do with anything? Or the Battle of Leyte Gulf? Or Officer promotion in general?
If you want to argue about any of those go for it, but honestly does it belong in this thread?
Oh and feel free to insert something aggressive and tough sounding here to go along with your comment.
I guess my overly sarcastic comment wasn't sarcastic enough for some.
26FireGuy0369 wrote: My Bad. I will go be overly defensive about anything Marine Corps related over here in the corner with my Dumb Ass Hat on.
The Corps seems to be relatively free of this sort of infraction at the officer level. Which is nice to know that someone is still in the business of waging war, rather than selling a product to Congress.. Off the top of my head, I can only think of one incident a few years ago where a staff Sergent and a friend of his took about 150k in bribes while contracting officer at Camp Fallujah, and got caught trying to get the money back into the US. The only other case I can think of was the one announced yesterday against several men from DLA attached to MCLB Albany, but afaik no Marines have been charged in relation to that.
"ohh, I'm good at Call of Duty, so I'd make a great soldier"
I have run into some of those, they usually aren't the anti government crowd their usually the wannabe types.
And I really don't know/get where the hell you're getting this gak from.... If you've really been around the "subculture" that exists around military bases, then you'll know how soldiers drive on a daily basis, which should alone destroy this notion that "everything that risks the lives of solders is evil". Combine that with many soldiers' love of "Adult Beverages" and other activities, and you should be getting a very different view of the people who serve the country. and their view on risks.
I'm criticized for making assumptions yet huge assumptions are made about me when in reality you don't even know if I'm an American or not, whether my family is a military family or not, or if I've been in the military. I somewhat resent the idea that my statements are motivated by spite or some sort of cathartic release. Their made from experience.
I hate to give an example and bore people but sense my credentials seem to be on the line. I got mixed up with an argument with a friend of a friend. This is in college and this army guy hated that he had to read Curt Vonnegut's Slaughter House Five. For those of you who don't know its a sappy anti war novel by a disillusioned American Veteran. He hated it and didn't think he should have to read it. I get not likening the book because I didn't but it was amazing the anger he had over it, then he went on a murderous rant about kids deserving to die, I told him he was pretty f@cked up. He turned his fist into balls and I could tell he was contemplating an uppercut fist to my chin, and so would faced on giving vaguely intimidating looks to each other. Another example of how this college in question treats its veterans, apparently the head of student veterans thinks that professors need to be brought in line and give up their anti war stances(its only in the social science department where their are lots of anti war types for some reason the econ dept. people love American foreign policy. One of his colleages that I've known for quite some time doesn't think much of this made up controversy and has feelings pretty similar to mine.
Also about the wikileaks video and public reaction. If what happened is right then their should be no complaints about the video, the people involved should go on TV and say they stand by what they did. Also I don't buy the idea that wikileaks manipulated the video, they slimmed it down so that people with busy days would see it and so it could be shown on TV even though it wasn't. I've seen both videos and slimming it down doesn't change much.
Back to the main topic I don't believe that Fallujah is in anyway like Vietnam. During the Vietnam war the United States faced an ideological opponent. Now the US faces opponents motivated by thing such as tribe(like the Punjab), religion(Al Qaeda), and money(Russia and China). If you want a parallel to the US in Iraq look the British in India, the Sunni Muslims are Sunni Muslims the Shia are the Hindus, and the former outcast the Kurds are like the Sheik's(I know I misspelled that). We have no draft like the English yet like them our military is draining the economy.
If you want to understand the zealousness in how to the US goes after Wikileaks its because people like Assange are some of the few ideological enemies of the US, people who could potentially draw sympathy from the US population something that neither Putin nor China will likely do.
Also about the wikileaks video and public reaction. If what happened is right then their should be no complaints about the video, the people involved should go on TV and say they stand by what they did. Also I don't buy the idea that wikileaks manipulated the video, they slimmed it down so that people with busy days would see it and so it could be shown on TV even though it wasn't. I've seen both videos and slimming it down doesn't change much.
I strongly suggest you look up the 15-6 investigations and look through the still photos taken from the gun film and from the site (to include from the insurgent's camera) because unless you know what you are looking for and at you will miss some things in the video. The RPGs and rifles are pretty darned clear, the reporters showing the accompanying insurgents photos of the US patrol are pretty clear, as are the photos they took of the US patrol gotten from their camera. Coupled with the knowledge that insurgents routinely film and photograph their engagements for a variety of reasons to include recruiting/fund raising and 'lessons learned', the presence of a camera with a group of clearly armed men engaging or preparing to engage a US patrol does not invalidate the target at all. If you REALLY saw the whole thing in context there is zero doubt it was a righteous engagement on the part of the Apache crews.
I strongly suggest you look up the 15-6 investigations and look through the still photos taken from the gun film and from the site (to include from the insurgent's camera) because unless you know what you are looking for and at you will miss some things in the video. The RPGs and rifles are pretty darned clear, the reporters showing the accompanying insurgents photos of the US patrol are pretty clear, as are the photos they took of the US patrol gotten from their camera. Coupled with the knowledge that insurgents routinely film and photograph their engagements for a variety of reasons to include recruiting/fund raising and 'lessons learned', the presence of a camera with a group of clearly armed men engaging or preparing to engage a US patrol does not invalidate the target at all. If you REALLY saw the whole thing in context there is zero doubt it was a righteous engagement on the part of the Apache crews.
The initial opening fire I'm inclined to agree, that under the circumstances they would have appeared a threat to American troops (the size of the display Apache pilots have would have made their press tags, which are also visible, difficult to make out, and neither one is wearing the common 'Press' identifying jackets/body armor). The second action with the van I find more questionable. The recording and the UP AR 15-6 report appear to directly contradict each other in places re the second action. In the recording we hear orders given that the children are to be handed over to Iraqi Police (whose own report is missing) rather than evaced to FOB Loyalty, which is the reverse of what the report claims. The other issue is, unlike in the first example, the men are clearly unarmed and evacuating wounded. The pilot knows that the man they're picking up is wounded, not dead, he's been watching him hoping he'd pick up a gun so he can kill him. He makes this quite clear in the recording. But he tells command they were picking up bodies and weapons, and repeatedly requests permission to open fire. US troops were already now closing on the position. No one left is in a position to resist, or even visibly armed. While since the vehicle is not a marked ambulance, this is still clearly casevac.
There is no 'second action'. It is all part of one action. Insurgents had been being transported around in civilian vehicles, the presence of a civilian vehicle picking up wounded insurgents doesn't invalidate the target. 'No one left' able to resist is not something you decide unless they are all dead. Not 'visibly armed' also makes no real difference. A guy with nothing but a cell phone on his person can cause a lot of damage. Why allow your grunts to accept the risk of moving onto a kill zone that may indeed end up having guys able to resist on it when you can ensure there are no threats by blowing them away? Frankly it isn't even a hard call.
But, none of this is relevant to the fact that Wikileaks DID edit the video and present it in such a way as to portray the engagement as 'murder'. That really is not questionable, and that is the point of my above post.
CptJake wrote: There is no 'second action'. It is all part of one action. Insurgents had been being transported around in civilian vehicles, the presence of a civilian vehicle picking up wounded insurgents doesn't invalidate the target. 'No one left' able to resist is not something you decide unless they are all dead. Not 'visibly armed' also makes no real difference. A guy with nothing but a cell phone on his person can cause a lot of damage. Why allow your grunts to accept the risk of moving onto a kill zone that may indeed end up having guys able to resist on it when you can ensure there are no threats by blowing them away? Frankly it isn't even a hard call.
But, none of this is relevant to the fact that Wikileaks DID edit the video and present it in such a way as to portray the engagement as 'murder'. That really is not questionable, and that is the point of my above post.
I agree with you about Wikileaks and misrepresenting it.
There was a few min or time between the shooting and the van arriving on the unedited tape, so I tend to think of them was two separate things.
As far as granting no quarter or killing everyone to be sure...
Hague, 1907
"Article 23: In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -
...
To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
To declare that no quarter will be given; "
Further, the wounded, civilian or otherwise, are protected under the Geneva conventions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Your lack of combat experience is showing Baron..
I'm aware that gak happens. I even fully understand the reason a mistake like that can be made.
The Colombians used to go out, and come back having killed dozens and dozens, all FARC. Until someone went out there and saw what they actually did. They'd find a gun, hell, everyone had guns, and so there was FARC there. Someone was FARC. They had no idea which one it was, so the only way to make it safe was kill everyone. Men, women, kids. So they were all FARC, and all dead, and it made great news. Great front page stuff, Army kills dozens of terrorists.
I've seen where this goes. It's a really slippery slope, shooting people because you suspect they might be unarmed sympathizers, or an unseen threat. Medina did that. He ordered his men to kill anyone they suspected. Look what it got, 500 dead civvies.
As I said, I understand shooting everyone that looked armed. I get that. That's unfortunate, but understandable. I've watched the uncut footage. This guy was more than a little keyed up, and wanted to shoot people. You might say 'Your inexperience is showing' but frankly, if I had a guy that eager to kill, I would not be able to trust his judgment on if a target was hostile or not. Because he's gonna be seeing hostiles everywhere. In the middle of a firefight, that's understandable. In a chopper, looking through a scope? Particularly since he's still orbiting the spot when the infantry do get there. If they had so much as twitched he could have obliterated them at any time.
Granted, we're all sitting here with the benefit of hindsight, which makes it easy to condemn someone's actions, but...
Those guys did not surrender, nor could (or should have) the pilots confirmed they had 'laid down their arms' or 'no longer had the means of defense'. In fact, the adult males grabbing wounded were clearly capable of turning into fighter within seconds of desiring to do so, and even a wounded guy can fire a weapon/set off an IED.
Then we can discuss the applicability of that portion of the Geneva Conventions to non-uniformed wearing insurgents...
There were US troops in contact within a few hundred meters. The pilots were there to KILL any threats to those US troopers. Again, not even a hard call.
as an enlisted guy, here's my whole take on advancement... we see time and again people getting promoted who shouldnt have, due to the system in place (im a victim of this myself, but thats for another discussion)...
in my own experience, the BEST officers are in their military career with a goal in mind. i've served with some outstanding Os who's goals were achieved, and were pursuing other things in life. ie, a CO i had wanted his masters, and to start a business once he got out. he got into an Army funded Masters program and got out. I served my first tour under H.R. McMaster, who is FINALLY getting the recognition he deserves for being hor awesome he is...obviously his plan is to stay in until he's too old to do it any more (and the army is better for having him)
the vast majority of 'bad' officers ive seen/been around are ones who either are unsure what they want in life, they suck at their job, or their goals are nowhere near what they should be (or a combination). of course, a few actual bad apples get aound from time to time, but often times, the guys with no real plan will stick around because they have a paycheck and can do the work well enough...they arent really helping anything, but not hurting things very much at all either.
where the thunder seems to come from, is when the good guys with a plan get sucked into "good idea fairy" territory, and end up having to put up with inordinate amounts of BS, which drive many who originally wanted to be 'lifers' to simply get out and pursue other things.
CptJake wrote: Those guys did not surrender, nor could (or should have) the pilots confirmed they had 'laid down their arms' or 'no longer had the means of defense'. In fact, the adult males grabbing wounded were clearly capable of turning into fighter within seconds of desiring to do so, and even a wounded guy can fire a weapon/set off an IED.
Then we can discuss the applicability of that portion of the Geneva Conventions to non-uniformed wearing insurgents...
There were US troops in contact within a few hundred meters. The pilots were there to KILL any threats to those US troopers. Again, not even a hard call.
You'd think someone of Baron's background would be aware of all of this...
CptJake wrote: Those guys did not surrender, nor could (or should have) the pilots confirmed they had 'laid down their arms' or 'no longer had the means of defense'. In fact, the adult males grabbing wounded were clearly capable of turning into fighter within seconds of desiring to do so, and even a wounded guy can fire a weapon/set off an IED.
Then we can discuss the applicability of that portion of the Geneva Conventions to non-uniformed wearing insurgents...
There were US troops in contact within a few hundred meters. The pilots were there to KILL any threats to those US troopers. Again, not even a hard call.
According to the report the pilot fired not to protect American lives, but to 'ensure the wounded insurgents did not escape'.
I could understand 'I was concerned for the lives of the men near by','I was under fire and believed them a threat', 'I thought they had a trigger device', and so on. Some reasonable explanation.
Jihadin wrote: You forget Baron job...well at that time a bit back, was watching monitors and at his finger tips was rockets and a 90mm cannon or something crazy...
Which just helps to make my point... I'm a freaking weather forecaster and I understand what is going on here. If dude was really a guy who was responsible for delivering hardware, then he knows what's really going on out there.
Jihadin wrote: You forget Baron job...well at that time a bit back, was watching monitors and at his finger tips was rockets and a 90mm cannon or something crazy...
Actually at the time this was happening (based on the date) I was collecting a paycheck from a casino.
Jihadin wrote: You forget Baron job...well at that time a bit back, was watching monitors and at his finger tips was rockets and a 90mm cannon or something crazy...
Which just helps to make my point... I'm a freaking weather forecaster and I understand what is going on here. If dude was really a guy who was responsible for delivering hardware, then he knows what's really going on out there.
Or he's just a poser.
Apparently a poser who unlike everyone else actually waded through the uncut video and the report.
'to prevent to wounded from escaping.' If he thought them to be a threat, I simply do not see this response being given. And yet in the report it clearly states he was firing to prevent the escape of the wounded, not to protect American lives.
Having been in engagements in Iraq I can attest that such things are immensely more complicated than what they appear to be on the news and its nearly impossible for a distant observer with no experience or understanding of how things worked to judge the situation accurately. What constitutes a threat before, during and after an engagement took months of training before we were even allowed into Iraq. A van picking up wounded insurgents? Threat. Guy watching battle with cellphone? Threat.
MWHistorian wrote: Having been in engagements in Iraq I can attest that such things are immensely more complicated than what they appear to be on the news and its nearly impossible for a distant observer with no experience or understanding of how things worked to judge the situation accurately. What constitutes a threat before, during and after an engagement took months of training before we were even allowed into Iraq. A van picking up wounded insurgents? Threat. Guy watching battle with cellphone? Threat.
Yes, and someone with the background that Baron attests to would know this...
MWHistorian wrote: Having been in engagements in Iraq I can attest that such things are immensely more complicated than what they appear to be on the news and its nearly impossible for a distant observer with no experience or understanding of how things worked to judge the situation accurately. What constitutes a threat before, during and after an engagement took months of training before we were even allowed into Iraq. A van picking up wounded insurgents? Threat. Guy watching battle with cellphone? Threat.
Exalted. All it takes is one guy lobbing grenades in a group of people throwing rocks to make for a bad time for all.
djones520 wrote: Which just helps to make my point... I'm a freaking weather forecaster and I understand what is going on here. If dude was really a guy who was responsible for delivering hardware, then he knows what's really going on out there.
MWHistorian wrote: Having been in engagements in Iraq I can attest that such things are immensely more complicated than what they appear to be on the news and its nearly impossible for a distant observer with no experience or understanding of how things worked to judge the situation accurately. What constitutes a threat before, during and after an engagement took months of training before we were even allowed into Iraq. A van picking up wounded insurgents? Threat. Guy watching battle with cellphone? Threat.
"The Apache pilot requests permission to engage the van in order to prevent the escape of the insurgents." 15-6 Report, 1st Air Cav, page 3
"the Apache pilots thought the van was to be used as a means of escape for the wounded insurgents. The van arrives as if on cue, and is immediately joined by two military-aged males who appear from the nearby courtyard. The children are never seen, while the driver slides open a door and then retakes his seat while the two other males attempt to load the first insurgent into the vehicle. It is unknown what, if any, connection the van had to the insurgent activity." from the 15-6 report for 1st Air Cav's actions that day, Page 4.
Again: "I believed the van to be a threat" is a long way from "I believed the van was evacuating the wounded." So far, all the justifications I've heard have claimed they shot because it was a threat. The report spells out in no uncertain terms they did not feel the van was a threat, that they felt it was being used to evacuate the wounded. You can all sit there, and lecture me about how the fact I've never been to Iraq makes me unfit to judge if something is a threat in this context and I'm willing to grant that is a good point. But I have their own admission here that they did not feel it was a threat either. Which puts a very different spin on it, and gives quite a different context to what I see on that tape.
Hell, the guys on the ground who were actually there are not even unanimous in their view about it being a 'righteous kill' as Jake put it. And they'd know better than any of us posting.
You seem to be under the impression that the only circumstances under which air assets are cleared hot is when there's an immediate threat presenting itself to coalition forces.
CptJake wrote: Those guys did not surrender, nor could (or should have) the pilots confirmed they had 'laid down their arms' or 'no longer had the means of defense'. In fact, the adult males grabbing wounded were clearly capable of turning into fighter within seconds of desiring to do so, and even a wounded guy can fire a weapon/set off an IED.
Then we can discuss the applicability of that portion of the Geneva Conventions to non-uniformed wearing insurgents...
There were US troops in contact within a few hundred meters. The pilots were there to KILL any threats to those US troopers. Again, not even a hard call.
You'd think someone of Baron's background would be aware of all of this...
There was someone on another game forum I used to go to that claimed he was a SEAL and had the war stories to prove it. he even had it in his bio on another game site he ran. Pretty scary stuff, all the brushes with death and combat heroics he would recount from his Vietnam days.
Somehow, though, he couldn't give his BUD/S info because he was a "secret SEAL". All his talk caught the attention of some real SEALs, and somehow, his claims of wartime heroics disappeared from his website bio. His name later appeared on the "Wall of Shame", a site that was maintained by SEALs outing poser's names and their offenses in claiming honors they hadn't earned.
It's pretty much a given once they start claiming they were secret ops or w/e, but still manage to spout off all their warstories, that they're a poser.
CptJake wrote: Those guys did not surrender, nor could (or should have) the pilots confirmed they had 'laid down their arms' or 'no longer had the means of defense'. In fact, the adult males grabbing wounded were clearly capable of turning into fighter within seconds of desiring to do so, and even a wounded guy can fire a weapon/set off an IED.
Then we can discuss the applicability of that portion of the Geneva Conventions to non-uniformed wearing insurgents...
There were US troops in contact within a few hundred meters. The pilots were there to KILL any threats to those US troopers. Again, not even a hard call.
You'd think someone of Baron's background would be aware of all of this...
There was someone on another game forum I used to go to that claimed he was a SEAL and had the war stories to prove it. he even had it in his bio on another game site he ran. Pretty scary stuff, all the brushes with death and combat heroics he would recount from his Vietnam days.
Somehow, though, he couldn't give his BUD/S info because he was a "secret SEAL". All his talk caught the attention of some real SEALs, and somehow, his claims of wartime heroics disappeared from his website bio. His name later appeared on the "Wall of Shame", a site that was maintained by SEALs outing poser's names and their offenses in claiming honors they hadn't earned.
MrDwhitey wrote: It's pretty much a given once they start claiming they were secret ops or w/e, but still manage to spout off all their warstories, that they're a poser.
It was pretty sad, he had a son that also would go on about his dad's exploits, and he was just about as ignorant. There was an exchange of mail between these two and the SEAL that exposed this guy. The proof was laid out that he was a fake, and still they tried to insist he was a SEAL.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A story about some fake SEALs that got outed.
Seaward wrote: You seem to be under the impression that the only circumstances under which air assets are cleared hot is when there's an immediate threat presenting itself to coalition forces.
That's not accurate.
*sigh*
I'm not talking about if he was cleared or not. (We hear him get cleared to fire) The problem is things like proportionality. Example, in Iraq, the insurgents started strapping bombs to kids and sending them to ask coalition forces for candy, then detonating when they get close. So, now what, shoot every group of school kids you see? When you take fire from a house, do you return fire, or do you drop a thermonuclear weapon on the city?
One of the guys you see there on the ground, when commenting on the video, asked the simple question, "why obliterate the van when a warning shot probably would have done"?
100% of the justification I've read on van is based on threat. But when I read the report, that does not hold up. The pilots did not fire based on threat. I can understand threat, I can excuse perceived threat. Everything I see in that film I can justify right up to the van. According to the report, the pilot simply did not wish that one wounded guy to get away.
The RoE explicitly prohibited (IIRC, and I may be incorrect) engaging persons in the act of recovering casualties.
Crazyhorse 18 had something of a track record for this sort of thing, based on reports.
CptJake wrote: Those guys did not surrender, nor could (or should have) the pilots confirmed they had 'laid down their arms' or 'no longer had the means of defense'. In fact, the adult males grabbing wounded were clearly capable of turning into fighter within seconds of desiring to do so, and even a wounded guy can fire a weapon/set off an IED.
Then we can discuss the applicability of that portion of the Geneva Conventions to non-uniformed wearing insurgents...
There were US troops in contact within a few hundred meters. The pilots were there to KILL any threats to those US troopers. Again, not even a hard call.
You'd think someone of Baron's background would be aware of all of this...
There was someone on another game forum I used to go to that claimed he was a SEAL and had the war stories to prove it. he even had it in his bio on another game site he ran. Pretty scary stuff, all the brushes with death and combat heroics he would recount from his Vietnam days.
Somehow, though, he couldn't give his BUD/S info because he was a "secret SEAL". All his talk caught the attention of some real SEALs, and somehow, his claims of wartime heroics disappeared from his website bio. His name later appeared on the "Wall of Shame", a site that was maintained by SEALs outing poser's names and their offenses in claiming honors they hadn't earned.
MrDwhitey wrote: It's pretty much a given once they start claiming they were secret ops or w/e, but still manage to spout off all their warstories, that they're a poser.
That's always been my experience, and I hate those kinds of people. They really cheapen the sacrifices I made in my years as a Seal-Sniper in the Marine Core.
Not sure if that's your sense of humor or auto correct striking.
Here's one I've been mulling over:
In Feb 2007 Crazyhorse 18 was instructed that "one cannot surrender to an aircraft". I know of at least one insistence where surrender to aircraft was accepted by US forces (back in gulf war 1, USS Wisconsin accepted the surrender of Iraqi forces to a UAV) and, under international law, aircraft can surrender to each other by transmitting their intent on certain frequencies. As far as I can find in international law, the only thing I can really find on this incident is that "It is prohibited to deny quarter to those manifesting the intent to surrender. "
Anyone have anything more on this? I can't say I've ever heard of anything like this off the top of my head.
I'm not talking about if he was cleared or not. (We hear him get cleared to fire) The problem is things like proportionality. Example, in Iraq, the insurgents started strapping bombs to kids and sending them to ask coalition forces for candy, then detonating when they get close. So, now what, shoot every group of school kids you see? When you take fire from a house, do you return fire, or do you drop a thermonuclear weapon on the city?
See Baron...what little credibility you had left with me just ended. As a self claimed "Operator" then you would know more about what AQ and Taliban did to get this discontinued. Or you were so deep in the mountains to be out of media contact to missed the week long stories they had on this topic and what both sides were doing?
Point of fact I never have. Frazz took something I said out of context and claimed that (wrong kind of operator, the equipment sort, not the Operative sort). Dreadklaw has been repeating it for a while, but it isn't actually what I said. But some posters have been getting a lot of mileage out of it, and are not likely to stop any time soon, since they just ignore it when I try to correct them.
And, bluntly, yes, I really am that disconnected from the world. Most of the information I do get comes from the internet, and that does not come in a logical order, and tends to lack context, until I can dig out more background information. It does however work well as my mind sort of works in a similar manner. I don't really assemble my thoughts in a manner most people would understand unless I stop and focus (and when I can't focus, either because of injury or anger, I spit out some really strange gak). So yes, I ask questions. I ask some pretty damn odd ones on occasion if you have not noticed.
I (rather obviously) struggle to understand people who do not see things the way I do. It might amuse you, for example, to know that I post on dakka more than I actually speak.
I do not relate to other people in what might be called a 'normal' manner. I find Seaward, as an example, not an an insult, horrifying. He, very frequently, takes positions that make me question his basic humanity, because he clearly has abandoned the same precepts that I cling to in order to function. My statement in an earlier post about him was not intended as an insult, simply a statement of what I perceived his intent to be. If I were to attempt to embrace the sort of 'I've got mine' mindset he espoused in another thread, I would not be as functional as I am.
Even if we both had the exact same experience, I would not understands how it effects you.
I do not have a particular agenda (something some posters seem to think I have for some reason), I more or less meander through things as I go, and so far have perplexed many people along the way, because I don't fit into their preconceived notions well at all. Almost everyone I meet along the way remembers me though, usually in a good way. Sometimes not.
Anyway, while you may not respect anything I have to say, I do respect what you have to say, and thought that perhaps an attempt to explain why I am the way I am was in order.
Sorry, Baron, I have to call bs on your comments. When you were making jokes about the Cole getting hit by terrorists, I called you on it and you came back with stories of your exploits.
Direct quote from your to me:
"US Servicemen die all the time. You put on a uniform, you have to realize that there is a very good chance that whoever your enemies are, they're going to take a shot at you. What I was laughing about was the first sentence (for reasons I will not go into here, I have fond memories of a heavily armed yacht being blown half way to the moon). The Cole was just an example of a ship gettign hit that occurred to me that everyone else might have heard of.
As far as saying gak in front of guys: I've been doing that for years. Wins so far the toll is three US marines (one single and one pair), one Royal Marine, one sailor off the USS Boxer (surprisingly, I grant, the most belligerent of them. I had to beat him unconscious.), one Navy SEAL (very fancy, very surprised when his big pressure point move didn't work), and two infantrymen from Texas (as a pair, and Texans live up to their rep, they were tough). Losses: Was held down by five guys once and beaten by a sixth. Was pistol whipped (poorly, they held the wrong end, which gave me scars on my arms for years from the hammer) by an angry Irishman once."
Relapse wrote: Sorry, Baron, I have to call bs on your comments. When you were making jokes about the Cole getting hit by terrorists, I called you on it and you came back with stories of your exploits.
Direct quote from a PM of yours to me:
"US Servicemen die all the time. You put on a uniform, you have to realize that there is a very good chance that whoever your enemies are, they're going to take a shot at you. What I was laughing about was the first sentence (for reasons I will not go into here, I have fond memories of a heavily armed yacht being blown half way to the moon). The Cole was just an example of a ship gettign hit that occurred to me that everyone else might have heard of.
As far as saying gak in front of guys: I've been doing that for years. Wins so far the toll is three US marines (one single and one pair), one Royal Marine, one sailor off the USS Boxer (surprisingly, I grant, the most belligerent of them. I had to beat him unconscious.), one Navy SEAL (very fancy, very surprised when his big pressure point move didn't work), and two infantrymen from Texas (as a pair, and Texans live up to their rep, they were tough). Losses: Was held down by five guys once and beaten by a sixth. Was pistol whipped (poorly, they held the wrong end, which gave me scars on my arms for years from the hammer) by an angry Irishman once."
If anyone doubts I have a big mouth when pissed off, please check my post history.
Just because I'm a tech guy doesn't mean I can't win a fight. The SEAL or so he claimed, was a gentleman by the name of Mark Darcangelo in a bar near Grove City PA. the US Marines and the guy off the Boxer (who happens to be my brother in law now) were in San Diego, the Texans were in a bar in Virginia. The RM guy I was told about after the fact, I don't actually remember it. The five guys were in a bar near Mercer PA, called the Landmark. The Irishman was in my own home at the time, because he has seen a picture of me and Gerry Adams among my stuff. (I met Adams in the late 90's in Pittsburgh.) all of which, other than the Irishman, I've talked about before. I've also talked about a few other times I've gotten my ass kicked, some of which were much more recent than those. (most of that list is more than a decade old)
The yacht I still won't talk about. I didn't carry it out, I provided gear, and sat back and watched. And thought the target richly deserved it and do to this day.
If you don't think my explanation holds water, I'll happily mail you a copy of my most recent schedule A with the names and addresses redacted.
It seems to me that the US gov wants it both ways, they like the Geneva convention and don't hesitate to mention it when other groups disobey it but can't stand it when it gets in the way of what they want. They complain when groups like wikileaks give people a version of the war they don't like but at the same time sanitize all the news they give the American people inevitably leading to people getting info from people like assange.
Ironclad Warlord wrote: It seems to me that the US gov wants it both ways, they like the Geneva convention and don't hesitate to mention it when other groups disobey it but can't stand it when it gets in the way of what they want. They complain when groups like wikileaks give people a version of the war they don't like but at the same time sanitize all the news they give the American people inevitably leading to people getting info from people like assange.
That's not how I see it.
It isn't that cut & dry.
I mean, there's the Medevac ordeal where actual medevac helicopters are being targeted (direct violation of Geneva Convention) that may have unnecessarily caused serviceman's death.
Ironclad Warlord wrote: It seems to me that the US gov wants it both ways, they like the Geneva convention and don't hesitate to mention it when other groups disobey it but can't stand it when it gets in the way of what they want. They complain when groups like wikileaks give people a version of the war they don't like but at the same time sanitize all the news they give the American people inevitably leading to people getting info from people like assange.
I would love to see you cite some sources which lead you to this opinion. Where has the US gone against or gotten upset at the Geneva convention? How can you say that the absolute massive amount of embedded reporters in both Iraq and Afghanistan which have reported all kinds of stuff, coupled with reports from non-embedded reporters have equalled sanitization of all news about these wars? I would say the exact opposite is true, and you would have a very difficult time giving examples of better and more timely coverage of any other military operations.
Relapse wrote: Sorry, Baron, I have to call bs on your comments. When you were making jokes about the Cole getting hit by terrorists, I called you on it and you came back with stories of your exploits.
Direct quote from a PM of yours to me:
"US Servicemen die all the time. You put on a uniform, you have to realize that there is a very good chance that whoever your enemies are, they're going to take a shot at you. What I was laughing about was the first sentence (for reasons I will not go into here, I have fond memories of a heavily armed yacht being blown half way to the moon). The Cole was just an example of a ship gettign hit that occurred to me that everyone else might have heard of.
As far as saying gak in front of guys: I've been doing that for years. Wins so far the toll is three US marines (one single and one pair), one Royal Marine, one sailor off the USS Boxer (surprisingly, I grant, the most belligerent of them. I had to beat him unconscious.), one Navy SEAL (very fancy, very surprised when his big pressure point move didn't work), and two infantrymen from Texas (as a pair, and Texans live up to their rep, they were tough). Losses: Was held down by five guys once and beaten by a sixth. Was pistol whipped (poorly, they held the wrong end, which gave me scars on my arms for years from the hammer) by an angry Irishman once."
If anyone doubts I have a big mouth when pissed off, please check my post history.
Just because I'm a tech guy doesn't mean I can't win a fight. The SEAL or so he claimed, was a gentleman by the name of Mark Darcangelo in a bar near Grove City PA. the US Marines and the guy off the Boxer (who happens to be my brother in law now) were in San Diego, the Texans were in a bar in Virginia. The RM guy I was told about after the fact, I don't actually remember it. The five guys were in a bar near Mercer PA, called the Landmark. The Irishman was in my own home at the time, because he has seen a picture of me and Gerry Adams among my stuff. (I met Adams in the late 90's in Pittsburgh.) all of which, other than the Irishman, I've talked about before. I've also talked about a few other times I've gotten my ass kicked, some of which were much more recent than those. (most of that list is more than a decade old)
The yacht I still won't talk about. I didn't carry it out, I provided gear, and sat back and watched. And thought the target richly deserved it and do to this day.
If you don't think my explanation holds water, I'll happily mail you a copy of my most recent schedule A with the names and addresses redacted.
Baron, don't even bother. I have heard more than my share of war stories over the years to really believe much anymore. Put it down to cynicism on my part from getting taken by such tales one too many times in my teenage years.
I would love to see you cite some sources which lead you to this opinion. Where has the US gone against or gotten upset at the Geneva convention? How can you say that the absolute massive amount of embedded reporters in both Iraq and Afghanistan which have reported all kinds of stuff, coupled with reports from non-embedded reporters have equalled sanitization of all news about these wars? I would say the exact opposite is true, and you would have a very difficult time giving examples of better and more timely coverage of any other military operations.
The US government pressure the media into not showing non sanitized footage. I know people who work in media who tell me about how theirs pretty much an unspoken black list going on. The media is very afraid of pissing off the military because most of the stories they get are about the war on terror are from the military. Their were several videos on youtube showing footage of US troops in Iraq that have been taken off. One showed a group of US troops laughing at Iraqi children drinking dirty water, the soldier who posted the video received both a video from YOUTUBE and the US gov condemning him not for what he did but posting the video.
YouTube tried to get rid of the collateral murder video but people kept posting it and they eventually gave up.
Ironclad Warlord wrote: It seems to me that the US gov wants it both ways, they like the Geneva convention and don't hesitate to mention it when other groups disobey it but can't stand it when it gets in the way of what they want. They complain when groups like wikileaks give people a version of the war they don't like but at the same time sanitize all the news they give the American people inevitably leading to people getting info from people like assange.
It's a sticky, nasty business there, actually, and more or less depends on if you consider them to be criminals or irregular troops. Some countries see them that way, some don't. Whether or not they do frequently has more to do with history and politics than law.
The other problem is whether nor not a given group of terrorists follow part or even the whole of the conventions themselves varies wildly between groups, and sometimes even within a given group. Ostensibly, as an example, historically the IRA prefers to deal property damage and use lethal force on military targets only. In theory. The reality of it though is that you have individual commanders who will ignore those broad guidelines if it suits them or even splinter groups and rogue elements who are off the reservation entirely. And this is within a culture that shares the same values as the authors of many of the 'laws of war'.
A possible example, and I grant, I don't have a context for the Feb helo chase, other than the target was a dumptruck with a mortar. Crazyhorse 18 does the right thing here, he's unsure of how to proceed when the Iraqis driving it show 'intent to surrender' and asks his superiors. Depending on what they have been shelling, two different laws apply. If the were targeting civilians, then they are not protected under Hague. If they have been engaging military targets, they could be construed as irregular forces, and horsde combat applies. I can't say if this was the right call or not, based on the information I have. What makes it questionable to me is the lawyer claimed that one cannot surrender to aircraft. As far as I know, regardless of US policy, this is untrue. All that has to take place (at least under Hague) is that they demonstrated an understood intent to surrender for horsde combat to apply, and make killing them out of hand a war crime, IF they're irregular forces.
As you can see there's a lot of 'ifs' there. The conventions really need updated to take asymmetrical warfare and insurgencies into account. This would simply things a great deal of there were a clear set of rules to go by, but as stands there are a lot of grey areas.
An unverified document discovered by the UK tabloid The Daily Mirror claiming to have been leaked from Downing Street has been reported to contain a statement from US President George W. Bush about wishing to bomb the headquarters of Arabic TV station Al Jazeera in Doha, Qatar. According to The Daily Mirror, the President was dissuaded from bombing Al Jazeera's headquarters in Qatar by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. The newspaper said its story was based on information from an unnamed source with access to the "top secret" memo of the President and Prime Minister's conversation.
Key words that debunked this off the bat
Unveirfied and a Tabloid
Also since I have a security clearance and pretty much deal with sensitive information.
unnamed source with access to the "top secret" memo of the President and Prime Minister's conversation
Yep going place all my trust with two words and a document on this perception
This 110% undeniable proof of a conspr....hoax...yep...and the moon landing was a hoax to right?
Calling someone a conspiracy theorist is just saying your sources are better than theirs. Isn't saying that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction a conspiracy theory?
Negative. Don't claim that defense. You threw that up on CPTJake as "proof".
Edit 1
Seriously?
Isn't saying that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction a conspiracy theory?
Same area of source but proven
The fifth president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein,[1] was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against Iranian and Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran–Iraq War. In the 1980s he pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program, though no nuclear bomb was built.
After the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, the United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi chemical weapons and related equipment and materials throughout the early 1990s, with varying degrees of Iraqi cooperation and obstruction.[2] In response to diminishing Iraqi cooperation with UNSCOM, the United States called for withdrawal of all UN and IAEA inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox. The United States and the UK asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003, and that he was clandestinely procuring and producing more. Inspections by the UN to resolve the status of unresolved disarmament questions restarted from November 2002 until March 2003,[3] under UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which demanded Saddam give "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspections, shortly before his country was attacked.[4
Edit 2
On June 21, 2006 the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released key points from a classified report from the National Ground Intelligence Center on the recovery of a small number of degraded chemical munitions in Iraq. The report stated that "Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent." However, all are thought to be pre-Gulf War munitions.[120]
These munitions meet the technical definition of weapons of mass destruction, according to the commander of the National Ground Intelligence Center. "These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee. The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, though agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said.[121]
Just saying since you appear to deny Saddam and Iraq to have produced chemical weapons. Majority of those recovered were two chamber 155mm shells. What clued Coalition forces was the Insurgents thout they were HE 155mm rounds. (Russian Equivilant)
Edit 3
Baron two kids were used as Sucide Bombers in Afghanistan. That and targeting local government gathering which, if I remember correctly involved school kids. Not to mention a couple IED's getting a couple buses of kids over time....the kid suicide bomber being smuggled into Afghanistan that Coalition troops captured and made news in 2008. No idea why I'm still dealing with you Baron but hey...3rd time the charm
Baron two kids were used as Sucide Bombers in Afghanistan. That and targeting local government gathering which, if I remember correctly involved school kids. Not to mention a couple IED's getting a couple buses of kids over time....the kid suicide bomber being smuggled into Afghanistan that Coalition troops captured and made news in 2008. No idea why I'm still dealing with you Baron but hey...3rd time the charm
Ok that gives me some context for what Doc Bailey was talking about, and also tells me why I didn't hear about it. His blog was the only source I could find where a guy present discussed what constituted 'threat', since there seemed to be inconsistencies between the guys present if the van constituted a threat. He included children as a possible threat, which is what I was making reference to, but failed to make it clear what I was talking about exactly.
As far as the comment asking how the US military feels inconvenienced by the Geneva convention just Google use of white phosphorous.
I also feel guilt free mentioning "soldiers logic" given others on this thread have opened the door talking about having a society where only veterans could vote.
No such thing, the media censors anything that could look bad on the government except for social issues.
Having a friend who spent many years in the industry, this is quite wrong as well.... It has more to do with advertising dollars.... Or, the money that comes into the Networks. Government doesn't really fund the news, so often times, the various networks will bash the gov't how they see fit (being too liberal if you're Fox, or being too conservative if you're just about anyone else, in the US)
Having a friend who spent many years in the industry, this is quite wrong as well.... It has more to do with advertising dollars.... Or, the money that comes into the Networks. Government doesn't really fund the news, so often times, the various networks will bash the gov't how they see fit (being too liberal if you're Fox, or being too conservative if you're just about anyone else, in the US)
Your misunderstanding what I'm saying, i'm not saying the US gov directly sensors the media, i'm saying the media censors itself to make money. Part of the reason is because the get a lot of their stories from the government. I remember hearing about a journalist who got fired for pissing off a senator who later refused to do an interview about an agricultural bill.
You know what this is my last post. I'm sick of explaining my point of view what it is and i'm aware no one is listening. I don't blame anyone I came on way to strong talking about weird encounters and fights at shady bars. Best to everyone, i''m going to do something else now.
