|
Post by artraveler on Sept 6, 2021 8:33:05 GMT -8
Yes, I know I am probably overthinking this, but that is something I often do I guess we both tend to overthink about subjects like this. But I believe you have hit the essence of the thing. The over use of any complement lessens the value and becomes just another marketing tool for the left. consider the Clinton, Obama use of the military as a social project as just another method of saving, "have a nice day." And compare to the Trump use of the military. Our military, or any country military for that matter, exists only to project power. Military power is a broadsword that cuts down everything in its path. It has to be the absolute scariest tool in a nations diplomatic pouch and has to be used sparingly to be most effective. The most effective use of the military is that it never has to be used. As Sun Tzu said to win wars without having to fight. Projecting weakness is what causes wars. Curtis Lemay was interviewed at SAC HQ and the reporter asked about the motto of SAC, "peace is our profession". The reporter thought that given that SAC was the nuclear tip of the spear it was not appropriate. Lemay responded, "hell boy peace is our profession, we do war just for kicks". Lemay was a lot of thing, but never a girly man.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Sept 6, 2021 8:55:16 GMT -8
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 6, 2021 9:04:57 GMT -8
I think another reason for “Thank you for your service” being trite is because it has to be trite. You can’t say “Thank you for ridding us of the Taliban” because that didn’t happen. One could say “Thank you for throwing yourself into this clusterfuck of a meatgrinder led by people who haven’t a clue. Hope your physical and emotional scars aren’t too deep.”
But that’s the truth of it. Granted, there have been many successes against terrorist cells and stuff around the world, mostly by special forces. But if you are today’s soldier thrown into this meatgrinder in Afghanistan, what else is there to say? “Thanks for not guarding the airports properly when you bugged out.” Yeah, that’s not the common soldier’s doing. But just what can one say that was accomplished?
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 6, 2021 9:09:43 GMT -8
Great story. Yeah, Lemay was the man. Let's throw Billy Mitchell in there as well, another fine man that the upper echelons sacrificed because of their incompetence being pointed out to them. Can't have that.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 6, 2021 14:28:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Sept 6, 2021 15:28:47 GMT -8
Yes, a couple of these videos were on some news consolidating sites. 70,000 people at West Virginia seemed to be in unison. Must be some kind of Guinness World Record. Maybe that's why the bum Joe Manchin appears to be applying the brakes to Biden's agenda.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 6, 2021 17:29:12 GMT -8
One might question the ease with which the f-bomb has entered public discourse. But at least it's being hurled toward the right target.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Sept 6, 2021 18:05:35 GMT -8
My sentiments exactly!
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Sept 15, 2021 11:09:34 GMT -8
I believe Artler will be interested in this very good article on our military. Mission Command I will say what the author didn't. The military is a bureaucracy and like all bureaucracies people advance through ass-kissing and being averse to risk, not actual performance of useful acts. (The author calls it risk averse and loyalty.) Bureaucrats promote those like themselves. Those who protect and expand the bureaucracy. As organizations grow and become bureaucratized, they add lawyers who create complications for making decisions and taking action on any decision made. This all results in a "do-nothing" attitude, action is frowned upon unless one receives specific instructions from above. Initiative is discouraged, therefore it withers on the vine. People who have initiative are not sought and if they happen to slip through the vetting process are encouraged to leave once they have been discovered and do not conform. Bureaucracies are organizations in which the whole is less than the sum of the parts.
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Sept 15, 2021 12:26:57 GMT -8
1. Brits’ perception of their American counterparts, even in the world of special operations, was that we had a penchant for centralized decision making, an aversion to risk, and an obsession with working hard regardless of output. In 1776 this was the American perception of English tactics in North America. The communication lapse between Europe and America, often as much as 6 weeks or longer, left British commanders stuck with policy decisions that were not relevant. 2.Indeed, time and again over the course of my career I have been surprised by how relatively few officers appear to understand what Maneuver Warfare is about. Not a surprise all military decisions are now political first and mission centered last. It's not the size of the bureaucracy but wether the bureaucracy works for the commanders in the field. 3.Despite the high-tech nature of the exercise, it is old fashioned principles such as mission orders, commanders’ intent and implicit communication that carry the day Same answer as #2 4.In Vietnam, centralization and managerial command went hand in hand with an increasing dependence on firepower, a hunger for information from the top, and an obsession with statistics, notably the infamous body count. Units conducted clumsy hammer and anvil operations in thick jungle, during which all movement would cease upon enemy contact, while commanders focused on coordinating fire support and reporting to superiors. There was a short period 1965 (Hal Moore in the IDrang) to January 1968(TET) when Army and Marine battalions were given greater autonomy to find and kill the enemy. Thus, Westmoreland could accurately say the war was almost won. The media and the jellyfish in DC were afraid to actually fight the war. 5.Commander’s Intent is a two-way conversation, in which those tasked with the mission acknowledge their commander’s concerns and in turn share theirs along with their proposed plan for mitigation, and any attendant requests for support. If this sounds preposterous to those inured to the current process of CONOP presentation, think about the purpose of these briefs, and ask yourself how often the really important questions are discussed. The only really important question is where is the enemy and how do I kill him, and a power point never killed anyone although I have prayed for death sitting through some of them. Perhaps if we could just get the enemy to watch our power points? 6.Despite a legacy infused with the tenets of mission command, the Israeli Army had succumbed to centrifugal forces within its own culture. Perhaps the lesson here is that as institutions grow, they tend to evolve towards centralized control, unless there is deliberate and sustained counter-effort. This is a problem my son has often mentioned. The unit of the Golan Brigade I fought with in 73 the officers gave orders and often listened to the NCOs on tactics. This was something marines had gotten away from. We used to call it problem solving. The solutions he offers are valid and need be implemented. However, unless and until the military either grows up and tells our political leadership to quit interfering in operations there will not be much in the way of change. Or the only other method of change is a major war, where the iron asshole bastards are either fired or fired upon by their own troops.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 15, 2021 19:46:24 GMT -8
Wow, what a concise treatise on bureaucracies, Mr. Flu. Not much to add other than my gut instinct that We probably can’t win the next war against a committed and large adversary. That could be China but, hell, it could be some other country.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 15, 2021 19:50:16 GMT -8
I got my rimshot machine fixed.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Sept 15, 2021 20:22:26 GMT -8
I fear you are correct.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Sept 15, 2021 20:25:14 GMT -8
As I read the piece, the author blames the in-grown attitude/culture of the military as much as he does the politicians. I think he is correct.
I do agree with you that it will probably take a big war for any of this to change, and I'm not so sure a big war would turn out well for us.
The American way of war is simply to throw masses of material at a problem. That this doesn't always work has been proven over the last 60 years. Scenes from a couple of war movies hint at this. The first is from "A Bridge Too Far" when SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wilhelm Bittrich, played by Maximilian Schell looks up at the hundreds of planes flying past and says something like, "If I only had a part of this equipment at my command, I could win the war." The second is "The Young Lions" when at the end of the movie Montgomery Cliff and Marlon Brando encounter each other and Cliff throws hand grenades at Brando and kills him. Before Brando dies he shakes his head and says something about Americans being less than subtle. In effect, having little skill and using hammers to kill ants. The scene may be in the book. Don't hold hold me to exact quotes. I am just expressing the mood which I recall.
With all due respect to those who fought in WWII, I will again say that what won the war was Soviet lives (the majority of dead were not Russian) and American logistics.
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Sept 16, 2021 6:45:59 GMT -8
I'm not so sure a big war would turn out well for us. I don't have much optimism either, The first reaction to a 21st century invasion of Poland will echo Nevil Chamberlin and be just as ineffectual. A determined Russian invasion of the rest of Ukraine would not be opposed by Biden or the current leadership in NATO. Likewise a PRC invasion of Taiwan would gather a lot more press outrage but little, if any military action. Granted a sea invasion is the most difficult of military maneuvers, and I would place an opposed landing at best as a 50/50 chance of success. An invasion opposed by the US Navy, Australian, British and Japanese military would be foolish and a guaranteed fail. The question is; without leadership by the US that alliance just falls apart.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Sept 18, 2021 6:06:56 GMT -8
Lt. Col. Scheller is back. Although his demeanor in this video is calm, what says he is going to do will bring about an uproar. General McKenzie must be held accountable Just a couple of days ago, this scoundrel McKenzie came out and "sorrowfully" admitted that "they" had vaporized and innocent man and family in retaliation against the suicide bomber attack in which 13 American military members were killed. From the beginning, it was clear that the "strike" was done for political/optical purposes so as to show the American public the military/Biden were in control and doing something. They lied about hitting an Al-Qaeda bigwig and most people seemed to know it. This criminal order had to go through McKenzie and he should be held accountable. Oops, we killed seven children who we said were terrorists
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Sept 18, 2021 7:55:32 GMT -8
Lt. Col. Scheller
I fear the establishment is going to eat this guy alive. If Trump is elected or Desantis he is my choice for SECDEF.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 18, 2021 8:14:51 GMT -8
Well, best of luck to Lt Col Scheller. But I don’t think he’s going to get very far because he’s not a particularly good speaker. He doesn’t even get to a specific point until about 7 minutes into his presentation. He needs assistance if he’s going to make an impact. Maybe he will get that assistance.
Note: Did Trump fire any of these insubordinate or incompetent SOBs in the high command?
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Sept 18, 2021 8:49:41 GMT -8
Not that I am aware of, and I believe I have criticized him for that here at R&T. It is part of the horrible personnel choices he made during his term in office. I still wonder how much his ego contributed to these choices. Did he think he could schmooz everyone and bring them around to his point of view?
I don't care how "persuasive" one is, it is just about impossible to change a person's self-interested point of view by B.S. This is even more true for countries. All the happy talk about "great personal relations" with this or that country's leader is pretty meaningless. Interests push policy. A perfect example of this is that of WWI. The Tsar of Russia, Kaiser Wilhelm and George V (King of the United Kingdom and British Dominions and Emperor of India) were cousins, yet could not keep their countries from going to war.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 19, 2021 5:54:34 GMT -8
|
|