English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I highly respect the US military but what is it with the leaders these days. I don't care the politics of anyone but all you hear about the last few years is generals going after generals and telling plans or pointing out weaknesses in policy or military leadership whom by the way are suppose to call the bulk of the shots in a war or conflict. I understand that Rumsfield probably had a lot to do with it wanting to limit the size of the force but still I have to ask who taught the leadership strategy or loyalty or just not to share information that could help the enemy or demoralize the troops? I mean who came up and again I understand having a small force in the middle east & only 1/3 of it really combat troops but who invades a town or city just to turn around and leave? Common sense should tell you to take the town or city hold it tell you have it secured but reinforcements before moving on. In and out policy is why we are where we are today. Fast isn't always better.

2007-10-08 15:22:12 · 4 answers · asked by bpeter3196 5 in Politics & Government Military

4 answers

Yeah all the 4 stars are politicians now. We have not had any real Generals since Omar Bradley and George S. Patton Jr. They were true military men, great generals and knew how to lead. I so wish and pray we could find just one that had the guts and the brains of those 2 men.

2007-10-08 15:30:15 · answer #1 · answered by Prof. Dave 7 · 0 0

Those officers who are criticizing the conduct of operations in Iraq are on the retired list. Therefore, they are free to do so, following Napoleon's Maxim # 49. But, most of them are tactical and strategic dinosaurs whose focus is still on masses of troops moving to contact against other masses of troops. The current war requires small unit tactics and concentration on urban warfare. It's one of the reasons that General Petraeus got the job of overall commander in the theater. He is the co-author of Field Manual #3-24, the new doctrine on counter-insurgency operations being used by both the Army and the Marine Corps. In fact, the Marines may have had an "edge" in training their troops for such warfare because they have had "Combat Town" as a training area at Camp Pendleton for over forty years.
Simply put, this war isn't the massive assault with air and armored support that characterized Operation Desert Storm in 1991. It is fought by platoon down to squad-sized units who kick in doors and shoot people in the head.
I wouldn't worry too much about the retired generals popping off. They did the same thing in the run-up to execution of Operation Desert Storm and they were uniformly wrong. The same thing happened when Operation Enduring Freedom kicked off and they bemoaned the lack of robust commitment of U.S. ground forces. They did not understand or appreciate the new doctrine of using insular forces to carry out most of the ground warfare against the Taliban and Al Queda.

2007-10-09 02:45:30 · answer #2 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 0 0

Senior officers need to watch their mouths. Officers 0-6 and above are supposed to be seasoned veterans--or they shouldn't be given that rank. They should make absolutely certain that the government has all that their expertise can supply. But it should be so secret that most of Congress is unaware of it. Why?

Because Congress needs to watch their mouths too. But they don't know what they're doing most of the time. Many of them have no first hand experience with war... let alone with the military. And so they leak stuff to the press. Being able to leak secrets seems to be some kind of a badge of honor to them.

The press (media) needs to watch what it promulgates. They're basically morons who have delusions of grandeur. They see themselves as the fourth branch of government... but without the checks and balances. AP has a policy that is to tell the people what they have a right to know. The press is too ignorant to know what the public has a right to know. The press only prints/broadcasts what it thinks people will read/listen to/watch. They're only interested in circulation/ratings. Facts? Truth? Secondary concerns. Verification? Sources? Hardly concerns at all. Representing reality? Of no concern. Leaking secrets seems to be some kind of a tremendous accomplishment for them.

In days gone by... leaking secrets was considered an act of espionage... even treason. The penalty frequently was death.

2007-10-08 22:52:16 · answer #3 · answered by gugliamo00 7 · 1 0

Leadership is responsible for what is happening in the war efforts of the US now. No matter what happens, it is the leadership that will be blamed if not praised in case of success.

2007-10-08 23:57:51 · answer #4 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers