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

Do you mean like in Somalia or Kosovo?

There's a big difference in venue, my friend!

Considering all that's been done, our losses have been very small in Iraq. No one likes it but it's not nearly the losses that were once predicted in Iraq such as when we went in the first time. The price is high but not nearly as high as it could have been.

Are you saying we should have committed 300,000 troops to an "occupation force" after the end of the initial victory? How would they have been used? Do you think the Iraqi people would have liked that more or less than they do the smaller force we have now?

Are you in favor of escalating the fight to the borders and beyond now? Do you want to go into Syria and Iran? Are you now saying the Generals were right to want more troops to press the fight even further? I thought you guys wanted to quit and leave Iraq!

Would you have favored going all the way to Baghdad in the first Gulf war?

Exactly what recommendations is it that you believe should have been followed?

 

Galation, this is more good material for the joke forum!

 

Yep. Clinton used the threat of force skillfully and convincingly, and only actually used the stick when it was clear that it had to be done. The Serbs (who had a much better and more well-equipped army than Saddam) eventually folded with a minimum of fighting. And the Russian Republic was strongly backing them. Clinton finessed the Russians with diplomacy and a public relations blitz that put them on the defensive regarding the atrocities in Bosnia.

True. The Serbs could have been very hard to fight. But they were intimidated and isolated by Clinton's use of threats and diplomacy.

And it's 2000+ more than could have been done, if Bush hadn't been so eager to forget Al-Qaeda and settle a score with Saddam.

First, we should never have invaded. It was a waste of money and lives in a cause that we now know was pointless.

Assuming we did it, we should have followed the advice of professional soldiers, not the draft dodgers who thought they knew better.

The Generals didn't tell them to attack Syria or Iran. You might want to see what advice they gave Bush.

Too late for that, now. We can't just cut and run, now. Bush's incompetence will have a long reach.

Bush's daddy made a very good case why that would be stupid. His son proved Daddy was right.

Very simple advice. "Mr. President, you have commanders with a great deal of combat experience, and understanding. Listen to what they have to say, and pay attention, for once."

That's what Clinton did. And that's why he didn't have one retired general officer after another criticizing him. He listened to them, and used what they told him when he made decisions.

And it worked.

Imagine that.

 

Military.com is like the National Enquirer of military websites.

I share your sentiments on the the K Street pundits MRCoon and shout in their general direction...ISNT THERE A TEE TIME AVAILABLE FOR YOU??

 

Even more military are going to speak out.

New Storm on Pentagon Horizon

snippet:
You know, the six retired generals whose picture appeared on the front page of Friday's New York Times: all have criticized Rumsfeld's handling of the Iraq war and called for his resignation. Hendren and the other panelists speculated that additional generals might soon be climbing on the anti-Rumsfeld bandwagon. But why now? Why speak up more than three years after the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom? Hendren said that one reason the top brass might be positioning themselves against Rumsfeld is that they're worried that H.R. McMaster is writing another book.

H.R. who? He's not exactly a household name, but it's safe to say that every senior officer in the US Army, and probably in the entire Defense Department, knows exactly who H.R. McMaster is. He is the author of a 1997 book, Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam. Zeroing on 1965, the hinge year of escalation for the Vietnam War, McMaster wrote in his conclusion, "Lyndon Johnson, with the assistance of Robert S. McNamara and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had set the stage for America's disaster in Vietnam." Hot stuff, especially since "dereliction of duty" rings bells inside the armed services; it is, after all, a specific term of legal art, punishable according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The book was one long indictment. It had zero legal force, but maximum moral force.

 

My questions, Galatian and ASLANSPAL, remain unanswered! What I see here is some rumblings for a few retired General officers that's not all that uncommon after the fact. All one has to do to prove that is read the wide variety of books on about past wars written by former military leaders. All one has to do is consider the conflicts of past administrations. There's always been plenty of alternative views.

However, once again just for you two, the military doesn't set national policy - it is the shield and the sword that makes it happens.

What's happening now is yet another attempt to pounce on the present administration and its policies using whatever scraps of information or resources can be rounded up. Again, some of the men were speaking out about their opinions a few years ago. One of them did so right before he was demoted and forced into early retirement.

The comments of former military leaders are always interesting. But, exactly what is the advice of these Generals that you two think should have been followed? What real tactical information was not utilized? When, where, and how did the civilian leadership "interfere" with the things the military knows best about?

I'm not asking for a repeat of generalities and unrelated events or vague complaints about the Secretary's management style. All these words - like "dereliction of duty", etc. - being tossed about are easy to claim when things don't go like you wanted them to but it's another thing to have a workable alternative. Exactly what part of the war - the combat part at which our military excels - didn't work out very well? What part of the operations were they not able to execute like they wanted to? I thought they achieved a rather solid initial victory in that respect. The second phase is working out okay if not as well as hoped. What part of that would the Generals in question, or you two for that matter, want to handle differently?

The biggest issue I've read in their comments has been about the number of troops to be committed to the war. They wanted more than they were give. So did other Generals in previous wars! They always want to mass troops, weapons, ammunition, and equipment to have the flexibility for delivering killing blows to our enemies. We did that in Iraq without the 300,000 troops requested. It's already been proved that more wasn't needed for that phase.

The present phase - that of training the Iraqi security and law enforcement forces - is being done with fewer troops. We're purposefully limiting our engagement in this effort. Our goal is to get the Iraqis to handle this work. What's wrong with this strategy? If we want to truly occupy Iraq - the alternative to what we're doing - we'd need a whole lot more than 300,000 troops. There aren't enough troops in our entire military to occupy - perform the internal security and law enforcement functions - the even half of Iraq.

The reason we have civilian leadership in the Dept. of Defense is so that they can set the overall policies. It's by design that we don't want the Generals calling those shots. Their job is to organize, train, and command troops in the execution of the missions handed to them by the President through the Secretary of Defense. Opinions of retired Generals are interesting but they don't trump the policies of the government any more than they do while they're on active duty.

Oh, by the way, ASLANSPAL, aren't you the one who often accuses me of bringing up the Viet Nam war? Why then, friend, did you bring it up in your last post? Perhaps it is you that needs to find peace from that war as well as this one?

History will decide whether the government made the right choices in Iraq. I hope they have. I hope it all works out. But, either way, just like in Viet Nam, the military will have done the best it could to execute its missions without attempting to second guess its civilian leadership. Thank God our military leaders have the discipline to continue doing that else we'd endure not only war with our enemies but internal military coups.

 

Nope. Answered every one, although you didn't respond to at least one of mine. If you feel one wasn't addressed, which is it?

It is unprecedented, for six general officers to retire and then blast the civilian leaders they reported to.

Nevertheless, as Clinton did, the president should be paying attention to what his generals tell him. Especially, when he spent most of his service absent without leave.

There's a good reason why this administration gets no respect from the troops.

And it's not a "coup" for retired generals to vent their frustration at an incompetent administration.

 

Nope. Answered every one, although you didn't respond to at least one of mine. If you feel one wasn't addressed, which is it?

It is unprecedented, for six general officers to retire and then blast the civilian leaders they reported to.

Nevertheless, as Clinton did, the president should be paying attention to what his generals tell him. Especially, when he spent most of his service absent without leave.

There's a good reason why this administration gets no respect from the troops.

And it's not a "coup" for retired generals to vent their frustration at an incompetent administration. They served loyally and without complaint when they served. Now they are retired, they have every right to say what they think.

 

"Retired Army Brig. Gen. Charles Brower, a military historian and deputy superintendent at Virginia Military Institute, said it is unusual to see such a group of retired generals issuing public criticism.

"Officers now feel that there is almost an obligation to speak more openly about policies that they disagreed with once they have retired," Brower said. "There is now a group of officers who feel an obligation to speak more aggressively, and I think that has to have been influenced by the Vietnam experience," during which miscalculations by the civilian leadership caused a military defeat and a years-long erosion in military morale.

"It's an important thing happening right now, an important phenomenon that's going on," he said.

What makes the recent criticism more threatening to the Bush administration is the sense that it represents an unspoken strain of thought within the active duties. A poll of 944 troops serving in Iraq released by Zogby International and LeMoyne College did not ask about Rumsfeld but found that 72 percent think the United States should withdraw within a year and more than a quarter said they should leave immediately.

"That and other questions lead to the obvious conclusion that they're not sure they're doing anything positive over there anymore,"said pollster John Zogby. "When it comes to the leadership, there seems to be a disconnect."
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060415/REPOSITORY/604150352/1013/48HOURS

 

Actually, they probably didn't get the high paying consulting jobs they expected to get.

You don't talk about your commander n chief even after you quit working. Its just NOT the thing to do.

Besides, informtion is compartmentalized. Even the generals don't have all of the information that the President has.

 

I think we'd all be interested in seeing your evidence for that. Since most of them do have high-paying jobs, your accusation seems rather unrealistic.

If your loyalty to America is stronger than your loyalty to one man, you do.

It is their responsibility to do so. Bush is not king by divine right. He's a public servant, and if they know he's messed up, they are morally obligated to step forward and say so.

We've seen that "information." The generals certainly have. And it's an embarassment to America that we so recklessly condemned so many Amerian troops to death with nothing to show for it, but a weaker America.

 

This first comment was a joke, Galatian, get over it please.

The president may be commander and chief but he is not all powerful. What happened to the senate and congress?

You guys act like the President is doing anything he wants to any time he wants to. Who do you think recommends to the President what to do in military situations? The Pentagon. The president won't make a move without advice from the Pentagon.

Someone is just mad at someone else. What you hear on the news and what happens behind closed doors between the president and Pentagon, you will never know about until the classifications are removed.

Everybody thinks they can second guess those who have access to information, but usually AFTER the fact.

 

(Phillip suggests the generals criticizing Bush and Rumsfeld are motivated by failure to get high-paying consulting jobs)

Barbarian suggests:
I think we'd all be interested in seeing your evidence for that. Since most of them do have high-paying jobs, your accusation seems rather unrealistic.

That sort of accusation, against men who served bravely and well for you, seems to be a particularly tawdry joke.

Controlled by Republicans. They gave him a blank check.

Problem is, he didn't pay any attention.

That's the problem. He ignored their advice, which led to the various debacles we've seen in Iraq.

 

They served well and bravely for you as long as they turn on their Republican leaders. Goodness.

If they had good things to say about President Bush, then you would hate them for the military they stand for.

and yes he did pay attention, you wouldn't know. I'm sure you have a compartmentalized Top Secret Clearance for those particular discussions, or do you go by what the news media tells you the Pentagon says?

The military never did have a problem with taking Iraq, they suggested it. Where in the WORLD did you get YOUR information?

I'm outta here. Got to go work for my Republican leaders.

Maybe Hillary will run, I'm sure she will listen to the military, yuk yuk yuk

 

Sounds like you've gotten a little flustered. Which ones do you think failed to serve well and bravely?

Yep. Flustered. In fact, I've had some good things to say about Bush in this very thread. You aren't a very cautious person, are you?

They say he didn't. And they were there.

Didn't you read the links? The generals who were there. They didn't express an opinion on taking Iraq. They just pointed out that the way it was handled was foolish and with unnecessary casualties.

Her husband did. That's why there wasn't one general after another criticizing him. If she's elected, I hope she has as much sense as Bill in that regard.

A few thousand dead American troops is too high a price for someone's re-election campaign.

Yeah, the joke was on them, huh?

 

True AF Guy!

Same here.

That is why I am confident that most of what is posted here is mostly guessing and in that, horribly inaccurate. Eh, well at least I sleep pretty well knowing who has the watch when I dont.

 

YAY 10 PAGES!!

 

Nope. Answered every one, although you didn't respond to at least one of mine. If you feel one wasn't addressed, which is it? </font>[/QUOTE]No, Galation, you have not and you can not!

The main question is just what recommendations were made that were not accepted which should have been? It's clear a few people are not happy about something - like who is the boss - but exactly what that has to do with strategic or tactical policies remains a big mystery.

It's my opinion that some of you jump on this kind of news because it discredits what we're doing in Iraq. You play it to whatever end suits your needs at the moment. You can't seem to put it into perspective. That all reflects and fits with the true quitter's attitude you have about it.

 

I feel the majority of the news we get is grossly distorted and pumped up to sell a particular agenda. Even the accurate quotations presented are often juicy little snippets taken out of context and made to convey a meaning not intended by the source. I find it increasingly difficult to deal with but I refuse to give up and I hope to keep trying to set the record straight to the extent that I can. Just trying to do so on this board consumes a lot more time that I probably should spend on it.

I'm very proud of the military in which I served and the one that serves us still today. I remain 100% in support of our cause in Iraq, and elsewhere, and of those we've sent to do the job.