This Article Is Bound To Inflame Everyone Here!

[Perknose]

http://gawker.com/u-s-military-is-losing-patience-with-civilian-rule-ge-1269082461

My commentary is that the article is an over the top polemic written to provoke, but also, that retired United States Army major general Robert H. Scales, quoted in it, is a dick.

In the comments section, one guy says to the author:

You [sic] headline implies the military is growing weary of the concept of a civilian CINC, and thus in contemplating a coup. In fact, they're weary of this CINC, but not the general concept.

Fair enough criticism about the author's implication that our military might be contemplating a coup. Nevertheless, I do like his reply to the second sentence:

No, you don't get to pick and choose which civilian commanders-in-chief you respect and which ones you don't. This isn't Egypt.

 

[monovillage]

Quote:
No, you don't get to pick and choose which civilian commanders-in-chief you respect and which ones you don't. This isn't Egypt.

Actually you do get to choose who you respect and who you feel contempt for in this country and in the service, you just don't get to pick and choose who's legal orders you take. This isn't Egypt, you can't be forced to respect the clown.

 

[EagleKeeper]

A hit piece by the Washington Post(no love to the military) that seems to potentially twist the words.

I would love to have them link to the actual statements.

I do agree, that the military does not want a war to be started.

1) It will prove of no value/benefit to the US.
2) The military is being used for political purposes, not for the aims of the country.
3) The civilian leadership has not defined any military objectives.

Given the way that Powell was manipulated; Kerry is suspect and political.
The general and Kerry both served in the same conflict.
Kerry bailed and has flip flopped on the military multiple times. Depending on convienence and political winds.

 

[Jaskalas]

I oppose ANY military action the President does not command.

Lack of action, OTOH, is another thing entirely. If they feel the need to resign... then so be it.

 

[Doppel]

There is no way any significant number of people in US military are in support of a coup in the US. I am sure many are tired of being a tool used by buffoons and I agree with them on that.

 

[Fern]

Here's a link to Scales' article the Gawker article is about: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...a07114-15bb-11e3-be6e-dc6ae8a5b3a8_story.html

Much ado about nothing it seems to me.

I see no basis for anyone to bring up the possibility of a coup.

The Gawker author makes much of Kerry's military duty. True he was in the Vietnam war, but 4 years of on-n-off piloting a river boat doesn't make one a military professional.

I think Scales' "amateurism" charge is really aimed at the WH, including Obama and his advisors. Hagel, as Sec of Defense has only 2 yrs of service, again not a military professional.

What I mostly see is is a retired general criticizing Obama's actions and decisions, or lack thereof, as amateurish. Some might agree and it's not a new criticism. I think there's a book out on Obama with amateur as the title. OTOH, If you like Obama you'll disagree with Scales.

But criticism for a US President is nothing new, rather mundane really.

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

A coup? I'd be worried about the FEMA camps first (which I also don't believe in).

Seriously, a general doesn't looked enthralled and someone associates it with a coup.

As far as Kerry? Happy Puppy deserved the purple heart more, but no one like him would get it over a favorite son.

 

[Scotteq]

The article Reads like Craig and Anarchist toned down a little... Breadcrumbs, twisted and blown way out of proportion.

 

[Jhhnn]

Just another Hate-Um Obama! hit piece from a disgruntled old cold warrior.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Just another Hate-Um Obama! hit piece from a disgruntled old cold warrior.

I hope you get paid to constantly defend Obama's honor as you do.

 

[Jhhnn]

I hope you get paid to constantly defend Obama's honor as you do.

I'm no great fan of Obama. OTOH, most of the attacks against him are scurrilous, including those made by Scales.

Most of the time, what it amounts to is when you've got nothin', the only thing to do is to tear down the opposition out of blind partisanship. If Obama had an (R) next to his name, his critics would be fawning.

He is entirely too "Conservative" from my personal perspective. I used to say that Clinton was the best Repub president since Eisenhower, but Obama has taken that from him.

 

[hal2kilo]

He is entirely too "Conservative" from my personal perspective. I used to say that Clinton was the best Repub president since Eisenhower, but Obama has taken that from him.

Yep, the idiots still haven't figured out that Clinton was the best Republican president they ever had.

Just goes to show how far wacked out right the conservative element of this country has become.

 

[Jaskalas]

Yep, the idiots still haven't figured out that Clinton was the best Republican president they ever had.

Just goes to show how far wacked out right the conservative element of this country has become.

So the Clinton legend of a booming economy actually belongs to us? :wub:

This Article Is Bound To Inflame Everyone Here!

We're so inflamed that we've gone off topic and disowned our moderates. Hope you're happy.

 

[sourn]

Actually you do get to choose who you respect and who you feel contempt for in this country and in the service, you just don't get to pick and choose who's legal orders you take. This isn't Egypt, you can't be forced to respect the clown.

Exactly you have to respect the rank not the person.

 

[Greenman]

Inflammation not found (sorry, it had to be said).
Everyone is allowed an opinion, even soldiers. They have to obey the orders given them, they don't have to like them. Also, grumbling doesn't equal a coup, all soldiers bitch about the higher ups, be it a private or a general.

 

[Fern]

Just another Hate-Um Obama! hit piece from a disgruntled old cold warrior.

You say that as if there couldn't possibly be any legitimate criticism in how Obama has handled this Syria thing.

Assuming Scales is accurate in his descriptions, what I mostly see is frustration in the military with how Obama is handling Syria. That makes sense if reports are correct that the WH has looked at more than 50 attack plans regarding Syria. More than 50 plans? Yeah, I'm guessing the Pentagon is pretty damn frustrated.

And I think that being tasked with drawing up an attack plan when no clear objective is known would drive people up a wall. The normal course is to identify the objective first then let the military experts draw up a plan getting you there. This is a "we don't know where we're going with this, but we want you to draw up a plan getting us there". WTH?

Fern

 

[Abraxas]

You say that as if there couldn't possibly be any legitimate criticism in how Obama has handled this Syria thing.

Fern

You just hit on something truly profound in the right wing psyche, not just on Syria but with everything. There is legitimate criticism to be made of Obama, loads of it; tons of it. Day after day however what we see is a focus on scandals and condemnations with all the substance and content of a vacuum instead of a focus on what really matters. You see jabs like "dear leader" and "messiah" as though the left actually is happy with what Obama has done where for the most part we aren't, we're just tired of the right going after stupid non-issues (while ignoring everything the right wing does wrong) while ignoring the major ones (likely because for the most part they are just as guilty).

In this case, having the people in the military draw up a large number of scenarios regarding what kind of damage we can do, what the relative risk to Americans is, what the relative cost of each is, etc. is completely reasonable. This is part of what we pay the military to do. What is more, their frustration really doesn't enter into it when the level of authorized force is still being debated by congress not to even mention our allies world wide.

Is there legitimate criticism to be made? Sure. Is this it? No.

 

[classy]

I have never been in favor of going to war over another country's in house issues. I am not in favor of attacking Syria. Political issues, should be resolved using political means, not military action.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Is there legitimate criticism to be made? Sure. Is this it? No.

Seriously?

Drawing up an attack plan without objects is like drawing a map of how to drive somewhere when the destination isn't given. It's a stupid useless exercise.

And I think +50 plans is stupid. If I asked for a plan and they offered 50 I'd tell them to narrow to their best 3 or 6 (and I'd want them ranked). Who the hell wants to look at 50 different plans, especially like those in the WH who aren't even military professionals? That's overkill.

Edit: Wanted to add that this attack is supposed to be small, no troops etc and of a short duration.

And he still hasn't defined his objectives. It's not reasonable to criticize that?

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm no great fan of Obama. OTOH, most of the attacks against him are scurrilous, including those made by Scales.

Most of the time, what it amounts to is when you've got nothin', the only thing to do is to tear down the opposition out of blind partisanship. If Obama had an (R) next to his name, his critics would be fawning.

He is entirely too "Conservative" from my personal perspective. I used to say that Clinton was the best Repub president since Eisenhower, but Obama has taken that from him.

What's scurrilous about Scales opinion? The sad truth is that Obama has handled this badly and Syria is Today and it's Obama's. He doesn't project the "well if we had killed all those Commies in Vietnam we'd be much better off. He says something very rational in that Iran isn't going to be influenced by Syria and we're going to wind up killing quite a few innocents on our own. That was a grave moral issue in Iraq, where we "saved" people by killing them. There is no convincing argument that we are threatened by Assad (SOB he is, no argument) any more than we were threatened by Saddam. There's a lot of stretching of the truth here, and it looks like we're going to shore up our reputation by causing a lot of people to die, and in no small measure due to a "red line", which was amateurish.

No surprise to you that I don't think much of Obama, but his foreign policy had been acceptable until recently when he decided to bully much of the world over Snowden. Now there's Syria, a completely strange situation. There's no immediate need to attack, we can wait and blow people up when Congress isn't on vacation. Somehow the seriousness of the issue seems to be more about achieving a saving of face than supposedly saving lives. It doesn't really make sense, and this is almost as confusing as the"Axis" speech, another low point in international relations.

So yeah, I think scales has some reasonable basis for his criticism even if you don't agree with it, but the idea that what he says and relates raises real concerns about a coup is rather silly. The military will do what it's told as always. Obeying orders is mandatory but thinking they are wise is not.

 

[Jaskalas]

Were it my !@# on the line, I'd sure as hell want a clear objective. Such as the elimination of WMDs in Syria. That is at least something to objectify. Saving face is not.

Committing acts of war with no objective is a terrible waste, and no one should want to be a part of that.

 

[Abraxas]

Seriously?

Drawing up an attack plan without objects is like drawing a map of how to drive somewhere when the destination isn't given. It's a stupid useless exercise.

And I think +50 plans is stupid. If I asked for a plan and they offered 50 I'd tell them to narrow to their best 3 or 6 (and I'd want them ranked). Who the hell wants to look at 50 different plans, especially like those in the WH who aren't even military professionals? That's overkill.

Edit: Wanted to add that this attack is supposed to be small, no troops etc and of a short duration.

And he still hasn't defined his objectives. It's not reasonable to criticize that?

Fern

Not if part of what they are determining with the plan is what objectives are achievable. In the broad sense the objective is hurt Assad's military. What ways we can do that (attacking chemical weapons sites, airforce targets, artillery targets, munitions stores or factories, etc. or some combination of the above), determining the most effective way to do it and at what cost is going to constitute different plans.

Also, 50 plans is vague. Suppose I had five target options to choose from to strike in some combination, ie strike target 1 alone or 1 and 5 or 1, 2, and 4, etc. That is 31 "plans" right there. Make it a choice between airstrike or cruise missile and we are already way beyond 50.

Need more information, and for that matter, more expertise before coming to a conclusion. Does anyone know what is typical of a military strike being planned for number of plans drafted?

 

[EagleKeeper]

The WH has not defined what they want to happen; whack a mole is what they are asking the military to plan for.

The WH is to define an objective and then ask the military on the 3-4 best ways to accomplish such.

The military will then produce overall plans based on

• success rate
• collateral damage
• risk to US personnel
• equipment needed to be realigned.

to accomplish the objective.

Now the WH has to decide is their objective to:
Remove Assad
Damage military capability as punishment
Damage military capability to equalize the playing field
Destroy the Chemical Weapons
Slap his hand.
Control the Chemical Weapons

As long as the WH wants to use the military as a ping pong ball, it allows them (politicians) to pass the buck when something goes wrong. AKA Vietnam

 

[Jhhnn]

Seriously?

Drawing up an attack plan without objects is like drawing a map of how to drive somewhere when the destination isn't given. It's a stupid useless exercise.

And I think +50 plans is stupid. If I asked for a plan and they offered 50 I'd tell them to narrow to their best 3 or 6 (and I'd want them ranked). Who the hell wants to look at 50 different plans, especially like those in the WH who aren't even military professionals? That's overkill.

Edit: Wanted to add that this attack is supposed to be small, no troops etc and of a short duration.

And he still hasn't defined his objectives. It's not reasonable to criticize that?

Fern

Please. The objective is to assist rebel factions in the ouster of the Assad regime. The rest is merely rationale for doing so, excuses.

The underlying problem is that the cure may end up worse than the disease, given the ideology of some of the rebels.

 

[kage69]

You just hit on something truly profound in the right wing psyche, not just on Syria but with everything. There is legitimate criticism to be made of Obama, loads of it; tons of it. Day after day however what we see is a focus on scandals and condemnations with all the substance and content of a vacuum instead of a focus on what really matters. You see jabs like "dear leader" and "messiah" as though the left actually is happy with what Obama has done where for the most part we aren't, we're just tired of the right going after stupid non-issues (while ignoring everything the right wing does wrong) while ignoring the major ones (likely because for the most part they are just as guilty).

In this case, having the people in the military draw up a large number of scenarios regarding what kind of damage we can do, what the relative risk to Americans is, what the relative cost of each is, etc. is completely reasonable. This is part of what we pay the military to do. What is more, their frustration really doesn't enter into it when the level of authorized force is still being debated by congress not to even mention our allies world wide.

Is there legitimate criticism to be made? Sure. Is this it? No.

One of those posts that should be a sticky. It touches on a point that has been made here several times before, but the eloquence here deserves quotation. Thank you Abraxas, for stating something that needs to be said, periodically it seems.