Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Yeah, that worked didn't it? You got em all didn't ya?

In answer to your question, I honestly don't know. While handing out guns is easy, but building a decent country from scratch isn't. In the words of an obscure Aghani tribesmen (saw it on documentary about mixed schools being started in the villiages):

Tribesman Elder: We don't need anything that the western countries have to offer. In the past it has only be blood/sweat/tears/corruption (words to that effect). Except your education. Yes...we could use some of that.

I would support America as a country moving out, and instead leaving Support groups and Life centres and such run by UN to help build schools, hospitals and economies. (With a bolster of US troops as UN armed guard).

That way, when the people see that we are helping, not blowing them up, the support for the Taliban will falter.

You have a noble sentiment and I don't fault it, but a UN armed guard would be essentually in the same position as what is happening now.

@God of Yams: Oops...heh, heh. eh, ya know what I mean!

@Relapse: I mean armed gaurd only as an escort for those building the hospitals and schools and such. The wouldn't go out hunting and seeking out Taliban. Also, as peacekeepers Americans are a poor choice becuase there is so much angst and bad blood between them at the moment. The UN is usually less refutable.

I was in country. The Northern Alliance was and is made of of armed gangs of drug lords, rapists, murders and other such undesirables who were outcast from their own tribes.

Exactly the opposite of the Taliban. And when you need fighters you in country like that, you can't be picky.

Think on what you have to do to be outcast from an Afgan tribe for a moment.

Disobey your family or tribal elders?

Abdul Rashid Dostum is a modern day Hitler. Most of the NA's have changed sides at least once, some more often.

Dotsam was fighting his own war against the Taliban and was by no means connected to the NA until after the US came into the picture and started recruiting allies.

Forgot to add drug lords

Considering it is one of the crops they can grow in abundance and make money off of. Who are we to say what they can and cannot grow?

This isn't only about winning, it's about not leaving the country as a wrecked crater full of people who now blame USA for everything.

Which country? Afghanistan? The Soviets left it a wrecked crater when they left in the 80's. Infighting between different warlords and groups made it an even bigger wrecked crater.

The only support we provided to the mujahedein in the 1980's was weapons, money and technical support. We didn't tell them how to defeat the Soviets, we just provided them with the means. Covertly I might add. Once the Soviets were out, we stopped. It was a different era back then. It was the Cold War. We were more worried about stemming the "red" tide and making sure we had the best military than about rebuilding countries.

@RickC1971 and Relapse: Emperor's Faithful is referring to the covert support we provided the mujahedein and afghanis in the 1980's.

[quote=Emperors Faithful@Relapse: I mean armed gaurd only as an escort for those building the hospitals and schools and such. The wouldn't go out hunting and seeking out Taliban. Also, as peacekeepers Americans are a poor choice becuase there is so much angst and bad blood between them at the moment. The UN is usually less refutable.

Ahtman wrote:

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:Governments do what the voters wanted, Americans were told we won, so they promptly pulled all support.

Well most Americans didn't know much about the situation other than the Soviets were up to no good. We never voted on it so the whole voting angle doesn't make a lot of sense. We also don't vote like that, being a Republic.

Politicans who voted for Vietnam were ran out of office after we pulled out of Nam so it did work.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:The only way Americans as a whole ever gets solidly behind a war and the patching up afterward is when there is a DRAFT and rich folks kids are dying along side poor folks kids.

Is that why we were so gung-ho about Vietnam? I don't recall us being all that behind it even though there was a draft.

Vietnam was very unpopular because of the draft so we pulled out, this war will last forever because there is no draft so except for the 220,000 active duty families who do have close family members dying America does not give a rats ass. Otherwise why would we be fighting with worn out equipment and personnel in understrength units?

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:This statement brought to you by a 22 year combat vet who retired from the sharp end of the stick. If you disagree with it, tough, you opinion on this matter does not matter unless you have been there.

Well that would make your opinion on military procedure valuable, but this is political science, not military science. Or are you also a 22 year veteran of the Kennedy School of Political Science? Also, you aren't the only person who has ever served in the military. Being in the Military doesn't grant special wisdom as it is a cross section of people and views with varying degrees of reliability gathered by a common cause. Just saying one was in the military in this instance doesn't give someone carte blance to think their views are unassailable. If not for any other reason than that this was a covert non-military operation by the US and not a military one. Are you now a 22 year veteran of the CIA? What happens when you meet another vet with a differing opinion? Does the world implode or something as two absolutely right but different opinions come together?

Show me another combat vet of this Iraq and Afgan conflict and I will agree, but having been there I do not think you are going to find any who disagree with me. As for the Kennedy School of Lets Get Poor Kids Killed While We feth Around With Things That Sound Good in Political Theory 101 class how many grads have ever put their ass in a combat zone to test that theory? A bunch of Senior Officers (read that as guys who will never fight in the front lines) have attended that school on the way for their 3 or 4 th star. Even their opinion of the curriculum and the Professors is better left unsaid.

You also seem to assume the only way anyone can ever know anything is by specific experience. This is a false dichotomy. There are multiple ways people can come to knowledge. If it was the only way there would be no need for books, such as Army Training manuals. Either your military service was incredibly myopic or you are just playing the internet tough guy because it is made up of more than just poor kids from the bad part of town and the US is made up more than people who care only about their kids. Your assessment is overly simplistic.


If you think you can learn to fight by a book please pick up a few FM's, go buy yourself a ticket and I will let my friends know you are coming. Be glad to see a civilian put his ass where his mouth is. After the first firefight where would you like your body sent?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Well that would make your opinion on military procedure valuable, but this is political science, not military science"

Forgot to comment on that. If this is political science and not military they why have we buried so many soldiers and crippled for life so many more?

And here I thought this thread was about the Obama administration choosing to just let this guy's orders be rescinded rather than bring him into court for dereliction of duty, amongnst a long list of other offenses they could get him for. Why would they make that choice?

Tyras wrote:And here I thought this thread was about the Obama administration choosing to just let this guy's orders be rescinded rather than bring him into court for dereliction of duty, amongnst a long list of other offenses they could get him for. Why would they make that choice?

True we have gotten off topic, my bad

I am betting they let him go to avoid a stink, it's a bad idea , others will follow.....

NeedleofInquiry, you keep changing the goalposts of your statements, you keep modifying your statements, and you keep confusing bravado with reason. You are not proving worth responding to anymore on this thread. I am suspicious that someone that has trouble grasping the simple idea that we learn things in different ways or that people can have differencing opinions, has ever even served, let alone for 22 years, putting you at an age of maturity and experience. You sound more like either a military obsessed 15 year old that wants to come across as an internet tough guy or a 40 something year old who never served but really, really wanted to so you bluster on the internet and put on a front thinking that it makes you above reproach.

Pretty funny. I have served over 22 years in combat arms in several "wars". I parened "Wars" because the civilian leadership of this country has not fully supported the army in a war since the Vietnam conflict, the last one where draftees served.

For every twenty army vets maybe 1 or 2 of them serve at the sharp end of the stick. I was one of those ones at the sharp end for most of my career. Most of us do not talk about it. I think that's a mistake.

I have no problem "grasping the simple idea that we learn things in different ways or that people can have differencing opinions".

My real life experiences however have shown me that civilians who have not been there there are clueless. They also tend to get angry when we tell them so.

If you don't like that, tough.


By the way if you can show me where I changed my opinion please do. I did agree we were getting off topic if that's what you mean.

" the civilian leadership of this country has not fully supported the army in a war since the Vietnam conflict, the last one where draftees served." If you want to show the First Gulf war as an exception to that go ask anyone who was there what the state of resupply was for ammunition and POL when we canceled operations and remember 911 was fresh in everyones minds where a lot of civilians got dead and we still attacked the wrong country.

Ｉ　ｄｉｄ　ａ　ｂｉｔ　ｏｆ　ｒｅｓｅａｒｃｈ　ｉｎｔｏ　ｔｈｉｓ　Ｏｒｌｙ　Ｔａｉｔａｚ．

Ｔｈｅ　ｆｏｌｌｏｗｉｎｇ　ｓｉｔｅｓ　ａｒｅ　ｗｏｒｔｈ　ａ　ｒｅａｄ．

http://drorly.blogspot.com/
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/
http://acandidworld.net/2009/03/13/turnabout-is-obama-denialist-orly-taitz-really-a-lawyer-will-she-be-for-long/
http://www.examiner.com/x-12278-Louisville-Independent-Examiner~y2009m7d17-Which-one-is-lying--Major-Stefan-F-Cook-USAR-or-Orly-Taitz
http://www.ocweekly.com/2009-06-18/news/orly-taitz/

Obama, shakes head.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Politicans who voted for Vietnam were ran out of office after we pulled out of Nam so it did work.

Huh? You do realize that the Vietnam War lasted for 16 years, correct? If the politicians who voted for the war were 'run out of office', it wasn't until 16 years after the fact. Unless you're really talking about deployment expansions, in which case your point is massively over simplistic.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Vietnam was very unpopular because of the draft so we pulled out,

But you just said that the draft would necessarily produce popular support for any given war effort.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
this war will last forever because there is no draft so except for the 220,000 active duty families who do have close family members dying America does not give a rats ass. Otherwise why would we be fighting with worn out equipment and personnel in understrength units?

Vietnam was characterized by the draft. It lasted 16 years, and was home to many an understrength unit, and scads of worn out equipment. Conscripted armies are, almost by definition, poorly equipped when compared to professional forces.

If there had been a draft the Iraq War would have been much shorter, but for the reasons you believe. Imagine the public furor when it was discovered that citizens were conscripted on false pretenses.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
As for the Kennedy School of Lets Get Poor Kids Killed While We feth Around With Things That Sound Good in Political Theory 101 class how many grads have ever put their ass in a combat zone to test that theory?

Quite a few; assuming you're only using the Kennedy School as a metaphor for all of the academy. The majority of the armed forces, even during the draft, were composed of people in the middle class. And lets not forget all those officers, because they do teach political theory in the military academies.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
A bunch of Senior Officers (read that as guys who will never fight in the front lines) have attended that school on the way for their 3 or 4 th star. Even their opinion of the curriculum and the Professors is better left unsaid.

No, I think its much better if its said. Preferably in the form of direct quotation.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
If you think you can learn to fight by a book please pick up a few FM's, go buy yourself a ticket and I will let my friends know you are coming. Be glad to see a civilian put his ass where his mouth is. After the first firefight where would you like your body sent?

So, wait, doesn't that mean that all of our soldiers who see combat for the first time should be dead by default?

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Forgot to comment on that. If this is political science and not military they why have we buried so many soldiers and crippled for life so many more?

Because the military is dictated by the political process.

dogma wrote:

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Politicans who voted for Vietnam were ran out of office after we pulled out of Nam so it did work.

Huh? You do realize that the Vietnam War lasted for 16 years, correct? If the politicians who voted for the war were 'run out of office', it wasn't until 16 years after the fact. Unless you're really talking about deployment expansions, in which case your point is massively over simplistic.

Not correct, you may have not been born at the time I am guessing since you used the Wikpedia dates which start with the French. We did not get seriously into the was until after that idiot Kennedy took offense in Nov 63. We also had most of our troops out by the end of 71 when most of the other countries bailed out. We did have very small numbers still there in early 72. No troops after that. Not 16 years. And most of the politicians who supported the war and were still in office got handed their hat on the way out.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Vietnam was very unpopular because of the draft so we pulled out,

But you just said that the draft would necessarily produce popular support for any given war effort. No, I said doing a draft would either make the country go to total war or pull the troops out, how is your reading comprehension?

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
this war will last forever because there is no draft so except for the 220,000 active duty families who do have close family members dying America does not give a rats ass. Otherwise why would we be fighting with worn out equipment and personnel in understrength units?

Vietnam was characterized by the draft. It lasted 16 years, and was home to many an understrength unit, and scads of worn out equipment. Conscripted armies are, almost by definition, poorly equipped when compared to professional forces.

Wrong again. Units were at or over authorized strength in country most of the war in Vietnam. In the bush counts were low in some units but that was because Hq's kept lots of guards around them. The vast troop increase after Tet was after the politicians getting their eyes opened by the reporters and realizing the generals had been lying to them and more units would be needed(sound familiar). Equipment was not in short supply at any time during the war. Not at all like the situation in the Crack or Afgan now. The American conscripted armies have normally had poor equipment at the start of an unexpected war, never in the middle of one if there was a draft in effect. But I would not expect a civilian to know that.

If there had been a draft the Iraq War would have been much shorter, but for the reasons you believe. Imagine the public furor when it was discovered that citizens were conscripted on false pretenses. Yeah, do image, bet we would be out of there by now? [u]I do, and I bet Bush and Cheney would be in Federal prisons [/u]

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
As for the Kennedy School of Lets Get Poor Kids Killed While We feth Around With Things That Sound Good in Political Theory 101 class how many grads have ever put their ass in a combat zone to test that theory?

Quite a few; assuming you're only using the Kennedy School as a metaphor for all of the academy. The majority of the armed forces, even during the draft, were composed of people in the middle class. And lets not forget all those officers, because they do teach political theory in the military academies.

Wrong again donkey-cave. I am third generation military. I grew up in the military. I was at Benning when the 1st Cav got their ass shot off and the taxis came around. My father did one tour in Korea and three in Vietnam. I have done quite a few myself and I can promise you rich white kids are always in real short supply in combat zones and middle class kids are not that common anymore. The majority of the military that fights is made up of the lower class and minorities except doing a draft when every one gets to come. My church does family day style events for those kids in the Fort Knox area who have no families or their families can not afford to visit them a few weeks out from graduation. The vast majority are poor and have joined to feed their families. A very large number are from broken homes. That's why wars that use drafts are so unpopular.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
A bunch of Senior Officers (read that as guys who will never fight in the front lines) have attended that school on the way for their 3 or 4 th star. Even their opinion of the curriculum and the Professors is better left unsaid.

No, I think its much better if its said. Preferably in the form of direct quotation. One of those gentleman scholars from the JFK school of gak was a general who went around his superiors backs via another civilian and and got the then presidents OK to stab his superior in the back and take his place because his boss said we would need more troops. General Sheineski http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki was the first victim, Adm Fallon was the next and General Betrayus as he is known to us was the snake who should have been Court Martialed and the civilians had no idea what went on. Guess how that came out for the troops?

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
If you think you can learn to fight by a book please pick up a few FM's, go buy yourself a ticket and I will let my friends know you are coming. Be glad to see a civilian put his ass where his mouth is. After the first firefight where would you like your body sent?

So, wait, doesn't that mean that all of our soldiers who see combat for the first time should be dead by default? [u]They get real training, not enough in my opinion, but do not just read books. In addition, they are more of a danger the first year or so that a troop who has had a few years to build up his knowledge and reflexes and has blended into the squad.
[/u]

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Forgot to comment on that. If this is political science and not military they why have we buried so many soldiers and crippled for life so many more?

Because the military is dictated by the political process.

True, and we have never seized control like some banana republics elsewhere no matter how badly we have been abused and make no mistakes the US military is in bad shape at the moment, likely the worst shape it has ever been in, and you are clueless so I shall stop here and not waste any more time trying to convince you otherwise. Just remember this conversation we we do eventually pull after after God knows how many more American kids killed in a war that can not be won as we are fighting it now.

made a correction to the sequence.

Gen. Shinseki was wronged. The numbers needed for Iraq were dead on.

What do you mean though about Gen. Betrayus? I'm assuming you are referring to Gen. Petraus, but I don't recognize the context since he had nothing to do with Shinseki.

Oh yes he did, He did a back channel run via a retired army general who was a friend of Bush and got him canned. Look at the dates. He was promised a major command if he lied to congress and he did so.

He is a god damned snake. Do not like move on dot org but they have Betrayus dead to right.

http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html

The Washington post caught a piece of it, we all knew what happened, it was all over the O clubs how he had got away with it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/08/bush-gave-petraeus-back-channel-support/

I still don't see the connection with Shinseki. Shinseki retired in June 2003. Long before te name of Petraus had any meaning to anyone. His rise to popularity didn't even begin until his time in Mosul with the 101st. On neither of links you provided does it mention any connection between Shinseki retirement in 2003 and Petraus' rise to stardom.

Ironhide wrote:I still don't see the connection with Shinseki. Shinseki retired in June 2003. Long before te name of Petraus had any meaning to anyone. His rise to popularity didn't even begin until his time in Mosul with the 101st. On neither of links you provided does it mention any connection between Shinseki retirement in 2003 and Petraus' rise to stardom.

I do not how much of this is out on the Net. Betrayus while the CMDR of the 101st started his campaign against the then Chief of Staff Shinseki along with a bid for General Kerne for Kerne to take the Chief of Staff of the Army slot from Shiniski. Both of them went to Congress in back door meetings with facts of dubious accuracy. Betrayous should have been fired at that point but Kerne was a favorite of the President and the President did not like what Shinski was saying when asked by Congress. Kearne was even announced for the slot as Shinski's replacement. Several senior Senators got very mad and pulled it after it had been publicly announced. Kerne was invited to retire and did so. He remained a close friend of the Bush family. Shinski was replaced early and retired. No senior officers attended, a first in history. Betrayus kept his job but was discredited for the poor job he did in Iraq and his back dooring his Chief of Staff.

Kearne becomes a go between the President and subordinates of the current Chief of Staff and Betrayus was his favored son. General Casey got the Chief of Staff job and kept Betrayus at arms length in Iraq with the Multi command which he hosed up and then collected a lot of strap hangers he started taking with him from one assignment to the next, NOT army policy but he had Kearne and Kearne had the Pres at his back door.

In 2007 he got Multi command again and back doored several senators without either General Casey's or Adm. Fallon"s (His immediate superior at Centcom) approvals to not pull out of the Crack. Adm. Fallon recommended that Betrayus be retired buy Kearne protected him again. Adm. Fallon was retired instead and Betrayus took the job of the boss he had betrayed along with all the troops about what was really needed in the Crack and the monster was loose. God knows how many troops have died for the politics of General Betrayus.

Fallon- Jesus. I served under that guy (hey another vet! but I don't feel the need to trumpet it). Let a sub surface within freaking pistol range of a battle group, undetected. And then gets promoted. Not to mention circumnavigating the entire chain of command to freaking esquire.

I can't talk for Petraeus, I've never served under his direct command, but I've flown under Fallon and JESUS it was bad.

Never said Fallon was my idea of a guy I wanted on my team in country but he did get grill doored by Betrayus and got his job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Silverthorne wrote:Fallon- Jesus. I served under that guy (hey another vet! but I don't feel the need to trumpet it). Let a sub surface within freaking pistol range of a battle group, undetected. And then gets promoted. Not to mention circumnavigating the entire chain of command to freaking esquire.

I can't talk for Petraeus, I've never served under his direct command, but I've flown under Fallon and JESUS it was bad.

Guessing you were Navy flyer?

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Not correct, you may have not been born at the time I am guessing since you used the Wikpedia dates which start with the French.

No, the dates I used were memorized from a class on military history; with some cross reference from Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson (terrible book, but he is ex-military, so according to you he must be an expert). Either way, you're incorrect. The French presence ended in 1954 with their abdication of colonial authority.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
We did not get seriously into the was until after that idiot Kennedy took offense in Nov 63.

Which would still mean the war lasted for 12 years. You're also ignoring the presence of our military advisers, which began in 1949.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
We also had most of our troops out by the end of 71 when most of the other countries bailed out. We did have very small numbers still there in early 72. No troops after that. Not 16 years. And most of the politicians who supported the war and were still in office got handed their hat on the way out.

You have an extremely strange definition of 'handed their hat' because where I'm from serving in office for at least 9 years (using your erroneous dating system) is hardly being 'handed your hate'.

That said, the removal of troops you're referring to is known as the Nixon Doctrine, which did draw down the overall number of troops by roughly 270,000, but in 1971 there were still almost 200,000 American soldiers in Vietnam. That is not an insignificant presence.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
No, I said doing a draft would either make the country go to total war or pull the troops out, how is your reading comprehension?

No, this is what you said:

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
The only way Americans as a whole ever gets solidly behind a war and the patching up afterward is when there is a DRAFT and rich folks kids are dying along side poor folks kids.

You didn't mention the potential for a reversal of your prediction. You may have intended that, but it isn't what you wrote.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Wrong again. Units were at or over authorized strength in country most of the war in Vietnam. In the bush counts were low in some units but that was because Hq's kept lots of guards around them.

Wait, how are you defining unit strength? By platoon? By company? By brigade? By squad? Because the distinction is very important. As is your understanding of authorized strength, because that varies a great deal as well.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
The vast troop increase after Tet was after the politicians getting their eyes opened by the reporters and realizing the generals had been lying to them and more units would be needed(sound familiar).

The vast troop increase was BEFORE the Tet Offensive. That's why it is widely considered the single most demoralizing event in the entire course of the war. There were roughly 1 million soldiers on the ground during the offensive itself; the peak of American deployment. There were troop increases debated in the aftermath of the Tet Offensive, but they were never enacted by dearth of monetary concerns and legitimate doubts regarding the tactical merit of the plan.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Equipment was not in short supply at any time during the war. Not at all like the situation in the Crack or Afgan now.

You seriously don't recall the problems with the switch the M-16? Or the issues with an army built around fighting platform centric conflict transitioning to an anti-guerrilla campaign? Because it isn't like those issues were dealt with over night, and they both relate directly to supply.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
The American conscripted armies have normally had poor equipment at the start of an unexpected war, never in the middle of one if there was a draft in effect. But I would not expect a civilian to know that.

Wait, you're a 22 year combat vet? That means the first year you saw action was 1987. You've never been involved in a conflict which featured conscription. By your own definition of valid knowledge you are horribly ignorant.

Either way, there have been supply-side logistical problems in every major US conflict following Korea (which benefited from the minimal technological shift in the aftermath of the total mobilization of WWII). I'm not going to quote anymore numbers at you, because you don't seem interested in anything approaching reason.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Wrong again donkey-cave. I am third generation military. I grew up in the military. I was at Benning when the 1st Cav got their ass shot off and the taxis came around. My father did one tour in Korea and three in Vietnam. I have done quite a few myself and I can promise you rich white kids are always in real short supply in combat zones and middle class kids are not that common anymore.

Middle class (using the official definition of middle class) enlistment accounts for roughly 50% of military personnel. With the remainder split evenly between those households earning less than 30k a year, and those earning more than 50k a year. That said, the retention rate among recruits from households earning less than 30k is considerably higher than the other two demographics, which accounts for some of the observational disparity you're talking about.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
The majority of the military that fights is made up of the lower class and minorities except doing a draft when every one gets to come.

Minorities are disproportionately represented, but income statistics contradict the point you're attempting to make. And I really have no idea what you're trying to get at with that comment about the 'military that fights'.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
My church does family day style events for those kids in the Fort Knox area who have no families or their families can not afford to visit them a few weeks out from graduation. The vast majority are poor and have joined to feed their families. A very large number are from broken homes. That's why wars that use drafts are so unpopular.

I have no idea how you're arriving at the conclusion that the draft is unpopular because only the poor fight.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
One of those gentleman scholars from the JFK school of gak was a general who went around his superiors backs via another civilian and and got the then presidents OK to stab his superior in the back and take his place because his boss said we would need more troops. General Sheineski http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki was the victim♠ and General Betrayus as he is known to us was the snake who should have been Court Martialed and the civilians had no idea what went on. Guess how that came out for the troops?

What are you talking about? Shinseki and Petraeus aren't even related. If you want to blame someone for ignoring his recommendations, and intervening in the chain of command, blame Donald Rumsfeld.

Also, Petraeus never attended the Kennedy School of Government.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
True, and we have never seized control like some banana republics elsewhere no matter how badly we have been abused and make no mistakes the US military is in bad shape at the moment, likely the worst shape it has ever been in, and you are clueless so I shall stop here and not waste any more time trying to convince you otherwise.

The military is in bad shape, largely because we spent 30 years focusing on a platform based conflict that would never come. That said, most of your basic facts regarding military history are flat out incorrect, so I'm pretty sure I'm not the clueless one.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Just remember this conversation we we do eventually pull after after God knows how many more American kids killed in a war that can not be won as we are fighting it now.

You mean using proven counter-insurgency tactics?

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

Ironhide wrote:I still don't see the connection with Shinseki. Shinseki retired in June 2003. Long before te name of Petraus had any meaning to anyone. His rise to popularity didn't even begin until his time in Mosul with the 101st. On neither of links you provided does it mention any connection between Shinseki retirement in 2003 and Petraus' rise to stardom.

I do not how much of this is out on the Net. Betrayus while the CMDR of the 101st started his campaign against the then Chief of Staff Shinseki along with a bid for General Kerne for Kerne to take the Chief of Staff of the Army slot from Shiniski. Both of them went to Congress in back door meetings with facts of dubious accuracy. Betrayous should have been fired at that point but Kerne was a favorite of the President and the President did not like what Shinski was saying when asked by Congress. Kearne was even announced for the slot as Shinski's replacement. Several senior Senators got very mad and pulled it after it had been publicly announced. Kerne was invited to retire and did so. He remained a close friend of the Bush family. Shinski was replaced early and retired. No senior officers attended, a first in history. Betrayus kept his job but was discredited for the poor job he did in Iraq and his back dooring his Chief of Staff.

Kearne becomes a go between the President and subordinates of the current Chief of Staff and Betrayus was his favored son. General Casey got the Chief of Staff job and kept Betrayus at arms length in Iraq with the Multi command which he hosed up and then collected a lot of strap hangers he started taking with him from one assignment to the next, NOT army policy but he had Kearne and Kearne had the Pres at his back door.

In 2007 he got Multi command again and back doored several senators without either General Casey's or Adm. Fallon"s (His immediate superior at Centcom) approvals to not pull out of the Crack. Adm. Fallon recommended that Betrayus be retired buy Kearne protected him again. Adm. Fallon was retired instead and Betrayus took the job of the boss he had betrayed along with all the troops about what was really needed in the Crack and the monster was loose. God knows how many troops have died for the politics of General Betrayus.

Never heard that. This mainly O-Club talk or did this story ever surface in the news? Seems Shinseki would have talked about this. Not to mention Kearne would have realized that trying something like that would hurt his career. After all, who wants a backstabber who only cares about his own ass running the US Army? Doesn't make since and sounds like conspiracy talk without factual info to back it up.

Holy smokes - we're going over Vietnam, again?

Well not going to get into a long one as I am heading to bed. so quickly:

Middle class (using the official definition of middle class) enlistment accounts for roughly 50% of military personnel. I live less that 2 miles from Fort Knox which is the home of Recruiting command. My next door neighbor works there. Want to try again?

"I have no idea how you're arriving at the conclusion that the draft is unpopular because only the poor fight. "
Well sure do not see a lot of rich kids coming in to fight, only saw then when we had the draft and by the way I did serve with draftees, and they were not happy to be there.

If the draft was popular then why has not the Congress enacted it? Answer that.

As for the military that fights, that would be 11B, 19D, SF, 11C, 11M, 19K, etc..., you getting the idea?

Not clerks, truck drivers, JAG lawyers or clerks, etc.... That 95 % of the army may defend themselves but they do not go down dark allies kicking down door and killing insurgents on a day to day basis. They are at least there but their risk is far less.

You apparently can not do math.

"Wait, you're a 22 year combat vet? That means the first year you saw action was 1987" Not sure how you got that but wrong.

You also do not know what authorized MTOE is nor the difference between supply and training.

Petraeus did spent time there as part of his Staff College time and even gave a speech on the merits of the JFK school for military idiots.

"The vast troop increase was BEFORE the Tet Offensive. That's why it is widely considered the single most demoralizing event in the entire course of the war. There were roughly 1 million soldiers on the ground during the offensive itself; the peak of American deployment. There were troop increases debated in the aftermath of the Tet Offensive, but they were never enacted by dearth of monetary concerns and legitimate doubts regarding the tactical merit of the plan. "

We took a while to build to that but right after TET the generals asked of an additional 200, 000 troops and were granted 100,000.

Your "because we spent 30 years focusing on a platform based conflict that would never come" is about the strangest thing you have said tonight.

How do you think the first Gulf war would have gone with that platform based equipment?

BTW, if you can pick the wars we are going to fight 10 or 15 years out which is the normal procurement cycle then please contact DOD, we need you.

We are in bad shape because we have broken our training cycle due to lack of personnel and our equipment due to overuse, lack of maintenance time, lack of replacement parts and various other things too long to list but not because we planned for the wrong war. Not to mention stop loss and putting off schooling for the next level jobs due to no drew time.

You can even make it to SSG now without going before a board or even having any official training, sounds good unless you are one of the privates and your not prepared SSG returns to base and leaves you out there somewhere for the bad guys to find.

The proven COIN tactics that you are talking about consisted of us bribing the guys shooting our troops not to if we gave each one a little over $100 a month and allowing then to wipe out the minorities in their neighborhoods.

Perhaps you should hunt down a vet in your area who has actually been there. Do you really think we have succeeded? What is your measurement?

Anyway

Have a good night..... :}

Needle,
Just out of curiosity, what exactly did you do again in your 22 years and where did you serve? What units where you with? I just ask because I've read this kind of talk before on another gaming forum a couple of years back from someone and it sounds really familiar.

I think this whole conversation should be opened under a new thread.

Yeah, totally OT here. Wait a second, what forum are we in again? (just being cheeky)

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
I live less that 2 miles from Fort Knox which is the home of Recruiting command. My next door neighbor works there. Want to try again?

Cool. My next door neighbor works at UPS. Apparently I'm now a reputable expert on the logistics of commercial post. I'll be sure to tack that on to my next resume.

Anyway, here is a recruitment profile study from just before 9/11.

In pictographic format:

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Well sure do not see a lot of rich kids coming in to fight, only saw then when we had the draft and by the way I did serve with draftees, and they were not happy to be there.

Unless you started service prior to 1977 (which might be true, I don't know how old you are) that is impossible.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
If the draft was popular then why has not the Congress enacted it? Answer that.

When did I claim the draft was popular? All I did was question your assertion that the institution of a draft would generate popular support for any given conflict.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
As for the military that fights, that would be 11B, 19D, SF, 11C, 11M, 19K, etc..., you getting the idea?

Not clerks, truck drivers, JAG lawyers or clerks, etc.... That 95 % of the army may defend themselves but they do not go down dark allies kicking down door and killing insurgents on a day to day basis. They are at least there but their risk is far less.

Yeah, I got that. I just don't think your percentage is accurate. The US has a little under 1.5 million active duty personnel. Between the Army and Marines we maintain 14 active divisions. Even assuming minimum strength across all of them (because I don't want to pull up the stats on each division) that's 140,000 soldiers; the vast majority of whom will serve in combat. That's at least 10% of the enlisted population. With that many combat personnel its hard to believe that the lower income groups would be disproportionately present given the relatively small percentage of enlisted personnel from such a background.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
You apparently can not do math.

"Wait, you're a 22 year combat vet? That means the first year you saw action was 1987" Not sure how you got that but wrong.

I assumed you were still active given your discussion of Iraq/Afghanistan. That assumption may be incorrect, but the math is right: take 2009 subtract 22 years and arrive at 1987.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
You also do not know what authorized MTOE is nor the difference between supply and training.

I'm fully aware of the difference between supply and training. Aware enough to realize that they are intrinsically linked. A military built to fight a platform centric conflict is also equipped to fight a platform centric conflict. Since, barring special forces, you can only train on the equipment you have the issues inherent in dropping an Army built for the European theatre into Vietnam is one of both supply and training.

Honestly, I'm fairly astounded that you feel justified in claiming I don't know anything when I didn't make any grand sweeping assertion of knowledge in this area.

But yeah, Modification Table of Organization? That what you're getting at? Because that's what I was referring to when I said its important to clarify what you mean by authorized strength.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Petraeus did spent time there as part of his Staff College time and even gave a speech on the merits of the JFK school for military idiots.

Which isn't really all that significant given that he has a much longer affiliation with other educational establishments. Plus, you know, JFK is one of the best strategic planning institutes in the nation.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
We took a while to build to that but right after TET the generals asked of an additional 200, 000 troops and were granted 100,000.

They didn't get the 100,000. Westmoreland was able to secure an additional 10,500 soldiers during the offensive, but they were previously authorized. The closest we came to sending more troops was Johnson's plan to call-up 60,000 reservists with the intent of sending 13,000 to Vietnam. Of course, that never came to pass and once Nixon was elected the draw down began.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Your "because we spent 30 years focusing on a platform based conflict that would never come" is about the strangest thing you have said tonight.

How do you think the first Gulf war would have gone with that platform based equipment?

Do you mean without? Because the Desert Shield/Storm went well because of that equipment.

That said, the failings of the military in the context of protracted combat (you know, that thing which is exposing our weaknesses) are directly related to a focus on platform technology in maneuver warfare. We invested an awful lot in staying 3 technical generations ahead of the nearest equivalent force, but very little in infrastructural requirements of soldiers operating in an urban live-fire zone. Hence the lack of survivable light vehicles, body armor, and well supplied towed artillery.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
BTW, if you can pick the wars we are going to fight 10 or 15 years out which is the normal procurement cycle then please contact DOD, we need you.

You know, that's pretty much the point of military planning. The DoD pays a lot of very smart, knowledgeable people to study landscape of future need. There's that whole bit about having a budget to work under, it requires prioritization and foresight.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
We are in bad shape because we have broken our training cycle due to lack of personnel and our equipment due to overuse, lack of maintenance time, lack of replacement parts and various other things too long to list but not because we planned for the wrong war.

From my perspective (which is admittedly focused on the strategic) those are all elements involved in the preparation for conflict. The last 30 years have been characterized by the institution of high tech systems designed to minimize the human presence, and indirectly maximize maintenance space and training time, in any given war zone. This is the exact opposite of what is required in any form of counter-insurgency/nation-building exercise.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Not to mention stop loss and putting off schooling for the next level jobs due to no drew time.

I agree with this. The armed services as a whole need to put more effort into attracting a more diverse recruitment base (the income distribution is solid, but certain studies have pointed to an increasingly homogeneous cultural profile). How this could be accomplished is the stuff of research papers, but would almost certainly feature adjustments to the GI Bill.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
You can even make it to SSG now without going before a board or even having any official training, sounds good unless you are one of the privates and your not prepared SSG returns to base and leaves you out there somewhere for the bad guys to find.

Agreed.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
The proven COIN tactics that you are talking about consisted of us bribing the guys shooting our troops not to if we gave each one a little over $100 a month and allowing then to wipe out the minorities in their neighborhoods.

That was one of Britain's favorite COIN methods during its Imperial period.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Perhaps you should hunt down a vet in your area who has actually been there. Do you really think we have succeeded? What is your measurement?

I know more than a few vets, some of them high school classmates.

But, to your question, no. I don't think we've succeeded. I also don't think it will be possible to measure the success or failure of the conflict for at least 15 years; provided the whole nation doesn't implode before that. To my mind Iraq is a conflict in the same genre as those limited wars which characterized the failures inherent in the Metternich system of power balancing. It was a strategic play, not a fight for life: not the kind of war that sees a parade on V-Day.

Kilkrazy wrote:Ｉ　ｄｉｄ　ａ　ｂｉｔ　ｏｆ　ｒｅｓｅａｒｃｈ　ｉｎｔｏ　ｔｈｉｓ　Ｏｒｌｙ　Ｔａｉｔａｚ．

Ｔｈｅ　ｆｏｌｌｏｗｉｎｇ　ｓｉｔｅｓ　ａｒｅ　ｗｏｒｔｈ　ａ　ｒｅａｄ．

http://drorly.blogspot.com/
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/
http://acandidworld.net/2009/03/13/turnabout-is-obama-denialist-orly-taitz-really-a-lawyer-will-she-be-for-long/
http://www.examiner.com/x-12278-Louisville-Independent-Examiner~y2009m7d17-Which-one-is-lying--Major-Stefan-F-Cook-USAR-or-Orly-Taitz
http://www.ocweekly.com/2009-06-18/news/orly-taitz/

So KK, now that you have an indepth back ground on the subject, how do you feel about Orly Taitaz?

I wouldn't call it in-depth, but it made me not want to spend any more time researching it. It was just the first five results that popped up in Google.

I thought this thread would benefit from a bit of direction towards actual research rather than just speculation.

Sure, KK, sure. I think you're just into Orly Taitaz-it would explain the avatar


Modquisition on:
Gentlemen lets maintain politeness here or this thread will be closed.