• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

We need a president with active duty experience

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
This is true. But remember President Obama insisted on the backup helicopter which was fortunate since one of the helicopters failed and they had to destroy it.

Yes the capabilities of the Special Forces improved since Carters time but the fact that President Obama changed the initial plan to add in more "fail safes" like the extra Helicopter shouldn't be discounted....

As for Carter, he has largely proved to be a better former President than a President.

Back to the subject of the original post, I have to wonder what might have been if General Powell hadn't been persuaded to not run in the 2000 election. I think I might've liked the years 2001-2009 a lot better.
Well, President Obama insisted on the backup helicopter according to President Obama. It's possible that he deserved as much credit as he gave himself, but personally I highly doubt it. I'd much more easily believe that he harangued the military about things they had long ago considered and adopted. It's always technically possible that a community organizer turned President is better at planning military operations than the people who plan military operations, but that's not where the smart money is riding.

As far as Powell, I don't care for him. He's the one who convinced Bush I to stop the Gulf War because "It's a massacre!" which in hindsight was a major problem, allowing Hussein to escape with most of his forces. Then he testifies that Iraq has WMDs - but then later says he never really believed it. Far too McNamara for me. Of course, he might well still have been better than Bush II, especially given the wars that defined that Presidency.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,471
423
126
As far as Powell, I don't care for him. He's the one who convinced Bush I to stop the Gulf War because "It's a massacre!" which in hindsight was a major problem, allowing Hussein to escape with most of his forces. Then he testifies that Iraq has WMDs - but then later says he never really believed it. Far too McNamara for me. Of course, he might well still have been better than Bush II, especially given the wars that defined that Presidency.
The reason I'm interested in how it might've been different if Collin Powell decided to run in 2000 is that as a president I doubt that he would've had chickenhawks like Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney in prominent positions in his administration.

One main differences of that possible administration change as a result of that is that the initial invasion of Iraq (if it happened) probably would've had as an initial number the amount of troops that were in Iraq at the peak of the "surge."

Why would this matter? Initially only enough soldiers were in Iraq to defeat the army and support the combat arms personnel. No attention was paid to security. Mainly because not enough military personnel were on the ground to provide it. This is backed up by the fact that a surge was deemed necessary by the Bush Administration a few years into the occupation.

The initial smaller invasion force, while enough to destroy Saddam's military was inadequate to provide security. This allowed looting to happen and the looting and lack of order was one of the first things that started changing the average Iraqi citizen's view of the invasion.

Shinseki publicly clashed with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld during the planning of the war in Iraq over how many troops the U.S. would need to keep in Iraq for the postwar occupation of that country. As Army Chief of Staff, General Shinseki testified to the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that "something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would probably be required for postwar Iraq.

This was an estimate far higher than the figure being proposed by Secretary Rumsfeld in his invasion plan, and it was rejected in strong language by both Rumsfeld and his Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, who was another chief planner of the invasion and occupation. From then on, Shinseki's influence on the Joint Chiefs of Staff reportedly waned. Critics of the Bush Administration alleged that Shinseki was forced into early retirement as Army Chief of staff because of his comments on troop levels, but the claim is disputed as his retirement was actually announced nearly a year before those comments.

When the insurgency took hold in postwar Iraq, Shinseki's comments and their public rejection by the civilian leadership were often cited by those who felt the Bush administration deployed too few troops to Iraq. On November 15, 2006, in testimony before Congress, CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid said that General Shinseki had been correct that more troops were needed.
As for the presentation to the U.N. I believe that it was General Powell being the "good soldier" and following orders.

I think that a lot of people just want to discount (or refuse to acknowledge) the testimony that President Obama wanted the SEALs to be able to fight their way out if it turned out that Bin Laden wasn't there or in the worst case scenario he was actually guarded by Pakistani military forces.

http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/03/obama-pushed-for-fight-your-way-out-option-in-bin-laden-raid/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/world/asia/10intel.html?_r=1&hp
 
Last edited:

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
In the three years he was IN OFFICE, the man did little good and lots of bad. His ideas and his speeches are why people remember him and love, thats been twisted and morphed into him actually doing good which is not true.
You really should stop huffing glue..it's bad for you.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
With the exception of the Bay of Pigs, what exactly was JFK horrible at? Preventing nuclear war I would think trumps [insert whatever].
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,471
423
126
He was doing his job, which I would expect anyone in such a position to do. He did it well.
Unfortunately there has been no proof of a modern WMD program found in Iraq. I was replying to the person who said this...

Then he testifies that Iraq has WMDs - but then later says he never really believed it.
I feel that given the fact that there were no WMDs found in Iraq except old chemical weapons that probably were obtained in the eighties....



The U.N. speech may have tarnished Gen. Powell's image... I think it's unfair given the fact that he is a team player and as you say was doing his job.

As I have said in a previous post if Gen. Powell's wife wasn't so concerned for his safety he might've ran in the primary and won the Republican nomination. If that happened I would've voted for him.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I think it depends on the war and the actions. It would be hard to slander someone who won the Congressional Medal of Honor, for example.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
Unfortunately there has been no proof of a modern WMD program found in Iraq. I was replying to the person who said this...



I feel that given the fact that there were no WMDs found in Iraq except old chemical weapons that probably were obtained in the eighties....



The U.N. speech may have tarnished Gen. Powell's image... I think it's unfair given the fact that he is a team player and as you say was doing his job.

As I have said in a previous post if Gen. Powell's wife wasn't so concerned for his safety he might've ran in the primary and won the Republican nomination. If that happened I would've voted for him.
Regarding Powell he had reason to suspect the administration, but they tried their best to exclude him and keep him in the dark. They even had the CIA director spouting nonsense as gospel in his ear and watched over him during his presentation. Know when Powell found out we were at war? When he turned on the TV like the rest of us. He wasn't a team player.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,936
1
0
I think it depends on the war and the actions. It would be hard to slander someone who won the Congressional Medal of Honor, for example.
A Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts didn't seem count for much.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
A Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts didn't seem count for much.
On the other hand we had someone who served in a better capacity in the service and wasn't given any medals. We threw him off the forum.

The CMH has higher standards.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,471
423
126
Regarding Powell he had reason to suspect the administration, but they tried their best to exclude him and keep him in the dark. He wasn't a team player.

Yes he was. Just because the administration may not have been dealing honestly with Gen. Powell doesn't mean he wasn't a team player. If he wasn't a team player he would've demanded incontrovertible proof from the inspectors in Iraq.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
Yes he was. Just because the administration may not have been dealing honestly with Gen. Powell doesn't mean he wasn't a team player. If he wasn't a team player he would've demanded incontrovertible proof from the inspectors in Iraq.
He was a Secretary, not God Incarnate. "Demand incontrovertible proof"?

If he wasn't a concern then he would have been a team player and they would have had him in the circle.

There were three who were the primary bad guys, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Bush was incredibly foolish so they could convince him of anything. Powell they had to keep at arms length, because they knew that doubt is not certain unless one provides sufficient evidence. They lied to him too through the intel agencies that had been gutted and replaced with "team players" as you say. Besides, he had incontrovertible proof. The CIA and others provided proof of mobile chemical weapons factories.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,471
423
126
He was a Secretary, not God Incarnate. "Demand incontrovertible proof"?

If he wasn't a concern then he would have been a team player and they would have had him in the circle.

There were three who were the primary bad guys, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Bush was incredibly foolish so they could convince him of anything. Powell they had to keep at arms length, because they knew that doubt is not certain unless one provides sufficient evidence. They lied to him too through the intel agencies that had been gutted and replaced with "team players" as you say. Besides, he had incontrovertible proof. The CIA and others provided proof of mobile chemical weapons factories.
He went and made the U.N. speech. He made the "team player" decision.
He could've resigned.


He may have had reservations (I see that as being a person who actually was interested in the facts). If being interested in factual information makes a person not a team player in your book, as it appears to be the casein Bush's, Cheney's, and Wolfowitz's books, then I disagree with your definition.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY