David Hackworth says Rummy is a A**-Hole.

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa

burnedout

Tom Clancy could probably hold his own in a discussion about armored action and capabilities. He never commanded an armored division either.

Tom Clancy is a great writer. He makes observations, gathers information based on experiences of others and then creates a fictionalized essay.

However, my questions are this: Why isn't Tom Clancy then an armored commander in the U.S. Army? If he is so effective at these types of discussions, then why haven't we "bent the rules", so to speak, and placed him in charge of 18,000-75,000 American lives? Or to analyze this idea from another perspective, if Mr. Clancy is such a sophist then why isn't he therefore employed by Rand Corp, Lockheed- Martin or the Pentagon in a position of doctrinal influence?

Where is he during After-Action Reviews? You know, the same division and corp-level AARs in which the contracting company must hire a retired O-8 through O-10 to conduct and evaluate because little comparable experience exists. Where is his published research through the infantry or armored schools expanding upon such subjects as BOS synchronization during the retrograde, variances in Class IX resupply methodology with organic airmobile assets in an arid environment, or perhaps even intrinsic differences in OPFOR advanced guard and main body based on region?

Sure, Mr. Clancy can write. But can he lead?

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa

burnedout

Tom Clancy could probably hold his own in a discussion about armored action and capabilities. He never commanded an armored division either.

Tom Clancy is a great writer. He makes observations, gathers information based on experiences of others and then creates a fictionalized essay.

However, my questions are this: Why isn't Tom Clancy then an armored commander in the U.S. Army? If he is so effective at these types of discussions, then why haven't we "bent the rules", so to speak, and placed him in charge of 18,000-75,000 American lives? Or to analyze this idea from another perspective, if Mr. Clancy is such a sophist then why isn't he therefore employed by Rand Corp, Lockheed- Martin or the Pentagon in a position of doctrinal influence?

Where is he during After-Action Reviews? You know, the same division and corp-level AARs in which the contracting company must hire a retired O-8 through O-10 to conduct and evaluate because little comparable experience exists. Where is his published research through the infantry or armored schools expanding upon such subjects as BOS synchronization during the retrograde, variances in Class IX resupply methodology with organic airmobile assets in an arid environment, or perhaps even intrinsic differences in OPFOR advanced guard and main body based on region?

Sure, Mr. Clancy can write. But can he lead?

Burnedout

Can you tell me why Janes Magazine has experts on armoured vehicles who never were in the army.
Do you think the dude who write a review on a Su-27 actually flew the plane.
can you tell me why the Pentagon probably has thousands of experts in every type of warfare who probably never fired a rifle.
can you tell me why institutes like the "Institute for strategical studies" in stockholm release studies about modern warfare while at the same time the person who wrote the paper never was in the army. Still the writer is considered an expert.

You can be an expert in something without having hands on experience in something. That's my point!!!!!!!!!!

the logic you are using is very flawed

and about Tom Clancy: maybe he doesn't work for the DoD because he can make more money writing books (much more) or maybe he just doesn't like the colour of the uniform

 

[hagbard]

They're all a**holes.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
Burnedout

Can you tell me why Janes Magazine has experts on armoured vehicles who never were in the army.

Sure. Because they are subject matter experts in the vehicles themselves. However, are they also experts in tactical employment? Were they ever responsible if the armored vehicles did not function correctly? How accountable were these experts for the men who operate them? Who do these experts answer to, other than an editor? How many of Jane's experts would be hired immediately to run a world class army based upon their mere 'expertise'? I know we haven't hired them. And NATO? No.

Do you think the dude who write a review on a Su-27 actually flew the plane.

But was the dude responsible if the plane could not fly? Was the dude accountable for the maintenance performed on the plane enabling it to fly? Would he be held accountable if the plane crashed?

can you tell me why the Pentagon probably has thousands of experts in every type of warfare who probably never fired a rifle.

This is what we call systems management. Both UQ and Cap'n Kirk could probably expand upon this subject more so than I. These experts at the Pentagon contribute to the overall effort of fielding an effective force. Anyway, if these thousands of experts at the Pentagon were so adept at applying the traits of responsibility and accountability, we would not require proven leaders in the military. Historically, leaders are not manufactured in a short time based upon their intrinsic knowledge of weapon systems and tactics. A leader must accept responsibility and be held accountable for their actions.

can you tell me why institutes like the "Institute for strategical studies" in stockholm release studies about modern warfare while at the same time the person who wrote the paper never was in the army. Still the writer is considered an expert.

Certainly. An 'expert' or sophist is a paid educator. His/her task involves gathering data, formulating a hypothesis and presenting the matter in such a way that it is termed acceptable by the reader or listener. This 'expert' at the "Institute for strategic studies" may in fact be able to present a convincing account of whatever. However, this 'expert' is apparently not convincing enough to be hired by a world-class military.

You can be an expert in something without having hands on experience in something. That's my point!!!!!!!!!!

Sure. But can you apply this expertise under pressure and accept the responsibility for your decisions?

the logic you are using is very flawed

Not at all. The military is a people-oriented institution. An 'expert', without proven relavent experience, can rarely be found in a critical leadership position. Military leaders are not only a product of the institution in which they reside, they also assist in the evolution thereof.

and about Tom Clancy: maybe he doesn't work for the DoD because he can make more money writing books (much more) or maybe he just doesn't like the colour of the uniform

Or maybe he hasn't been there, done that and paid the price. Truthfully though, 1) I doubt he could pass the physical, 2) No military on the planet hires a man off the street and places him in charge of thousands of lives.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: freegeeks
Burnedout

Can you tell me why Janes Magazine has experts on armoured vehicles who never were in the army.

Sure. Because they are subject matter experts in the vehicles themselves. However, are they also experts in tactical employment? Were they ever responsible if the armored vehicles did not function correctly? How accountable were these experts for the men who operate them? Who do these experts answer to, other than an editor? How many of Jane's experts would be hired immediately to run a world class army based upon their mere 'expertise'? I know we haven't hired them. And NATO? No.

Do you think the dude who write a review on a Su-27 actually flew the plane.

But was the dude responsible if the plane could not fly? Was the dude accountable for the maintenance performed on the plane enabling it to fly? Would he be held accountable if the plane crashed?

can you tell me why the Pentagon probably has thousands of experts in every type of warfare who probably never fired a rifle.

This is what we call systems management. Both UQ and Cap'n Kirk could probably expand upon this subject more so than I. These experts at the Pentagon contribute to the overall effort of fielding an effective force. Anyway, if these thousands of experts at the Pentagon were so adept at applying the traits of responsibility and accountability, we would not require proven leaders in the military. Historically, leaders are not manufactured in a short time based upon their intrinsic knowledge of weapon systems and tactics. A leader must accept responsibility and be held accountable for their actions.

can you tell me why institutes like the "Institute for strategical studies" in stockholm release studies about modern warfare while at the same time the person who wrote the paper never was in the army. Still the writer is considered an expert.

Certainly. An 'expert' or sophist is a paid educator. His/her task involves gathering data, formulating a hypothesis and presenting the matter in such a way that it is termed acceptable by the reader or listener. This 'expert' at the "Institute for strategic studies" may in fact be able to present a convincing account of whatever. However, this 'expert' is apparently not convincing enough to be hired by a world-class military.

You can be an expert in something without having hands on experience in something. That's my point!!!!!!!!!!

Sure. But can you apply this expertise under pressure and accept the responsibility for your decisions?

the logic you are using is very flawed

Not at all. The military is a people-oriented institution. An 'expert', without proven relavent experience, can rarely be found in a critical leadership position. Military leaders are not only a product of the institution in which they reside, they also assist in the evolution thereof.

and about Tom Clancy: maybe he doesn't work for the DoD because he can make more money writing books (much more) or maybe he just doesn't like the colour of the uniform

Or maybe he hasn't been there, done that and paid the price. Truthfully though, 1) I doubt he could pass the physical, 2) No military on the planet hires a man off the street and places him in charge of thousands of lives.

i'm not going to discuss this any further

goodbye