ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, January 18, 2020

It's not as if he's wrong

The truth is that many of the U.S. military's leaders and senior officials are losers, dopes, and babies. Just look at their track record. They're fortunate that Trump isn't as ruthless as Stalin, who would have had them all shot for their obvious inability to complete their missions, if not treason:
The president reportedly called Afghanistan a “loser war,” and told his military leaders: “You’re all losers... You don’t know how to win anymore... I want to win... We don’t win any wars anymore... We spend $7 trillion, everybody else got the oil and we’re not winning anymore.” It’s reported that Trump was so angry at this point that he wasn’t breathing properly.

In his most incendiary comment, Trump—a man who, remember, managed to get out of military duty in Vietnam due to a supposed bone-spur problem—is said to have told the assembled forces, “I wouldn’t go to war with you people... You’re a bunch of dopes and babies.”

The comment reportedly left the room dumbfounded. Tillerson was “visibly seething,” and decided to speak up. The secretary of state said, “No, that’s just wrong... Mr. President, you’re totally wrong. None of that is true.” When the meeting ended soon afterward, Tillerson reportedly stood with a small group of confidants and said, “He’s a fucking moron.”

One senior official summed up the meeting: “We needed to change how he thinks about this, to course correct... They were dismayed and in shock when not only did it not have the intended effect, but he dug in his heels and pushed it even further on the spectrum, further solidifying his views.”
For all the feigned indignation of the Washington Post writers, the fact is that the god-emperor was absolutely right and is still absolutely right about the ineptitude of the U.S. military leadership. Notice the wildly inappropriate attitude of the senior official - almost certainly Deep State - who clearly believes that his views, and the views of his colleagues, take precedence over the views of the American people and their duly-elected President of the United States.

Julius Caesar won the Gallic War in eight years. The Allies won World War II in six years. This pathetic collection of inept, corrupt, and mediocre perfumed princes haven't been able to defeat anyone since 1950. Except, of course, Grenada.

At this point, I don't like the new U.S. Space Force's odds against the space invaders. Or even the asteroids, for that matter.

Labels: ,

99 Comments:

Blogger Shane Bradman January 18, 2020 6:06 AM  

Trump is 100% right. Nobody should want to fight for America in that poor excuse of an army. Meanwhile, Russia is sitting on nuclear missiles that travel 27 times the speed of sound and conventional weapons that can destroy aircraft carriers. American dominance is over. Admit it and get the troops out of all those endless foreign wars.

Blogger Lazarus January 18, 2020 6:24 AM  

It’s reported that Trump was so angry at this point that he wasn’t breathing properly.

No it wasn't.

Blogger Dan in Georgia January 18, 2020 6:39 AM  

The comment reportedly left the room dumbfounded. Tillerson was “visibly seething,” and decided to speak up. The secretary of state said, “No, that’s just wrong... Mr. President, you’re totally wrong. None of that is true.” When the meeting ended soon afterward, Tillerson reportedly stood with a small group of confidants and said, “He’s a fucking moron”

And people wonder why TGE didn’t bother telling T Rex he was fired before the whole world already knew.


Blogger Ryan G January 18, 2020 6:47 AM  

While Trump may be right, it is difficult to win a war for which there exists no militarily achievable goal. Putting the military in charge of installing Democracy in an area is like putting a football team in charge of building a rocket to Mars: even the best team ever is going to suck at that.

Blogger VD Bear January 18, 2020 6:47 AM  

The system is designed to prevent people who are willing to rock the boat from advancing into senior leadership positions. Anyone who makes it that far is practicing for a future in politics in one form or another. Trump is 100% correct.

Blogger Steve Samson January 18, 2020 6:51 AM  

“visibly seething”

Truth hurts, I guess.

Blogger VD January 18, 2020 7:03 AM  

Putting the military in charge of installing Democracy in an area is like putting a football team in charge of building a rocket to Mars.

Agreed. And it is the responsibility of the military leadership and the senior civilian officials to avoid putting the military in a position where it cannot possibly win. That's Trump's central argument, and why he correctly characterizes them as losers and dopes.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 18, 2020 7:10 AM  

"While Trump may be right, it is difficult to win a war for which there exists no militarily achievable goal."

That's the second step of the realization there. We were never there to win. We were there to agitate and accrue a certain sort of elites a lot of money and/or influence. Winning quickly and cleanly would stop the flow just as surely as losing quickly, so obviously retarded victory conditions must be declared in advance to hedge against an easy departure.

Socialize costs, privatize profits. Blood stops flowing if you leave the scab alone.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan January 18, 2020 7:14 AM  

GloHo needs just enough military power to make dissenters think twice about open defiance, besides GloHo's power is cultural thru the social game. "Wokeness" is probably a CIA product for export to the Red States and the rest of the world, Cultural Marxism rolls on and the Contards are there cheering it on.

I can't say I really want Trump to succeed in bringing the military back to its Gulf War strength or Cold War 1980s freshness of equipment and attitude for victory. If the contards send their sons off for glory let them come back to an America where they are second class citizens and become an American FreeKorp.

Blogger Cataline Sergius January 18, 2020 7:34 AM  

VD Bear wrote:The system is designed to prevent people who are willing to rock the boat from advancing into senior leadership positions. Anyone who makes it that far is practicing for a future in politics in one form or another. Trump is 100% correct.

This all day.

The entire feeder system is run by the Generals and they are the ones who decides who gets to join their club. And you don't get to join unless you are "least likely to damage military institutions."

Blogger JACIII January 18, 2020 7:36 AM  

“We needed to change how he thinks about this, to course correct... They were dismayed and in shock when not only did it not have the intended effect, but he dug in his heels and pushed it even further on the spectrum, further solidifying his views.”

The bubble these people live in is impenetrable. They all go to the same schools. They all lap up the same bullshit and hold to it regardless of feedback. When an outsider doesn't hold to that bullshit he must be "educated" and "corrected". This is a micro of the macro that is the USA right now. The left is at 100% good student buy-in. It's why they consider MAGA "ignorant". Complete cultural separation.

Draining the swamp is a bigger job than we imagined.

Blogger Cataline Sergius January 18, 2020 7:42 AM  

In Gulliver's Lilliput, there is a servant called the Flapper. He follows his master around and when his master speaks to someone. The flapper, Flaps his master's ears and lips for him, this being the only way his master can speak listen and speak.

But only if the Flapper decides his master should do so.

Generals are slaves to the Flapper system.

The thing about modern American Generals is that they are really more like Board of Director types.

The actual day to day CEOs are the Colonels.

Decisions and policies are so curated by staff officers that the only real change the Commandant of the Marine Corps can make is minor uniform changes.

Which are reversed by the next Commandant.

Generals aren't really allowed to make real decisions. They can influence but that's about it.

Blogger Bernard Korzeniewicz January 18, 2020 7:43 AM  

Military is build around wars. If it's commanders "have office" in Pentagon and not command in the field the results are always the same.
Look at the monumental difference between French colonial units and "the Continental Army" of 1914, 1940 or 1944. Look at faliture called British Army in South Africa, or German East Africa or the Boer War.
If USArmy is to grow in real strength it has to be by fighting for survival with a near peer.

Blogger Lazarus January 18, 2020 7:50 AM  

It all goes back to Soviet Jew Natan Sharansky.
Another book, The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror (2004) attracted wide-spread attention and was famously quoted by President George Bush during his presidency.

From the blurb for the book on Amazon. Sharansky was catapulted onto the Israeli political stage in 1996. In the last eight years, he has served as a minister in four different Israeli cabinets, including a stint as Deputy Prime Minister, playing a key role in government decision making from the peace negotiations at Wye to the war against Palestinian terror. In his views, he has been as consistent as he has been stubborn: Tyranny, whether in the Soviet Union or the Middle East, must always be made to bow before democracy.

Drawing on a lifetime of experience of democracy and its absence, Sharansky believes that only democracy can safeguard the well-being of societies.


More here:

A Compliment Sharansky Can't Refuse

Mr. Sharansky developed his ideas, which are expected to be featured in Mr. Bush's State of the Union address, after years of battling the Soviet system and observing Israel's negotiations with the Palestinians.

He basically convinced Bush that democracies don't war with each other. Bush treated him like a Messiah. And the rest is history

Blogger God Emperor Memes January 18, 2020 8:01 AM  

How can you "win" when you have no clearly defined goals, and ROE that literally allow the enemy to kill your men before they're permitted to return fire?
It's an utterly retarded situation. OF COURSE it is possible to win against, for example, Muslims. It just requires a ruthless iron fist that crushes even the slightest sign of insurgency.

As Ryan G noted, a military force is not meant for spreading democracy or any of that "winning hearts and minds" bullcrap.
The military has only two jobs: killing people and breaking things. Anything that interferes with those primary functions should be turfed.

Blogger Servant January 18, 2020 8:09 AM  

Journos don't even try anymore. It's reported means that they are saying it right then. I love 'the president, who didn't go to a loser war, said he wouldn't want to go to war with a bunch of losers' I believe that's called consistency.

Blogger Rek. January 18, 2020 8:10 AM  

My impression exactly. The goal has never been to win and leave the region. Stay there indefinitely and make some large amounts of money.

Blogger xevious2030 January 18, 2020 8:32 AM  

“You’re all losers... You don’t know how to win anymore“

The decay and the rot (Tillerson and such) decay and rot, they line pockets, they do not build, they do not win.

Blogger Johnny January 18, 2020 8:38 AM  

Did ya ever notice that with the lefties it is always a personal criticism. And here we go again. What they are objecting to is Trump's attitude, not anything he has done. How dare he want to win is what they don't like.

As for Afghanistan, the loser decision was us going there, and then trying to change the place to our liking. What is a little too grim for me to find laughable, is our effort to push a kind of soft core feminism onto the place by educating the young girls more than the local population would. Push that stuff as an outsider, and the local population will only retrench all the harder the moment we pull out. Are we going to occupy Afghanistan for an eternity?

Blogger JG January 18, 2020 8:38 AM  

Hey, we won Panama! That was a big win!

Big!

Blogger MagnusStout January 18, 2020 9:07 AM  

Interesting: none of the brass seemingly had a coherent response, other than to plug their ears and deny Trump’s points. This response actually demonstrates them being dopes and babies. Sad!

Blogger VD Bear January 18, 2020 9:10 AM  

It is true that they are often in a militarily impossible position, but that doesn’t justify their Motives or actions. OEF was a waist of time, but instead of making the best of a bad situation, they will without fail make totally risk-averse decisions, implement ridiculous rules and limitations in the battlefield, and offer up nonsense padded stats to show “success.” It’s the difference between rolling your eyes but still paying your taxes and thinking the IRS is great. These people think the IRS is great.

Blogger Jay Will January 18, 2020 9:15 AM  

War provides economic activity that otherwise wouldn't happen. If your struggling to sell windows pay somebody to break them in. Better still make the guy who smashes the window have reason to hate the guy with the window. He might do it for nothing. Overhead nullified.

Same with war, exploit nationalistic/tribalistic sentiment to reduce the overhead of doing the smashing.

Frontline soldiers should be paid with company shares. Instead of cheering the flag they cheer the FTSE.

Blogger Doktor Jeep January 18, 2020 9:15 AM  

The federal government has had a few victories since WWII. Here's a list.
Waco
Ruby Ridge
Robert LaVoy Finicum.
Assorted gay ops setting up retards in so called "Terror plans"

On a serious note, brass such as what we have, mainly Obamanoids and deep staters, plus a green card army, is how you end up in the gunsites that your tax dollars paid for. I pray they try it, as it would be many things coming to a head of which many problems will be solved. But I feel bad for the president who is, for the most part, surrounded.

Blogger Akulkis January 18, 2020 9:34 AM  

The Battle of Hurtgen Forest broke the US Army's officer corps.

Heavily wooded, hilly terrain with steep ravines. Easily defended with no more than rifles, armored vehicles are of little use on the offense, and large guns can control natural avenues of attack. For an infantryman ordered to defend it, it's a beautiful terrain.

Hurtgen Forest was a disaster which could have easily been avoided.

This battle went on for six months.

SIX MONTHS!

It started in Sept. 1944, the summer before the Battle of the Bulge, and continued on after Bulge, all the way until Feb 1945. The worst part is, the German units inside the forest could have been bypassed, isolated, and waited out until they surrendered due to lack of food.

In 2-weeks rotations into the Hurtgen Forest section of the American lines, many companies and battalions lost so many initial (Table of Organization and Equipment (TO&E)) manpower PLUS in-battle replacements that they would rack up casualties of up to, 150% of TO&E. Roughly speaking, this is taking 75% casualties, being replenished in place on the line (Vietnam war style) with the replacements not being properly integrated into the unit to create cohesion between the old hands and the new guys, and then losing 75% AGAIN, all in a mere 2 weeks.

When authors write about the Battle of the Bulge, and that the 28th Infantry Division, the first hit, didn't expect much action, because they had been moved to "a quiet place on the line." Few mention that the 28th Inf Div had just come out of 2 weeks in Hurtgen forest, where the division, overall, had taken over 50% casualties. Some companies suffered far worse. This is why they broke so easily. This was SUPPOSED to be there R&R (as the line had grown to long for them to go to a proper R&R camp to get a shower, receive replacements, and integrate them into their units to create some form of unit cohesiveness). They had just received substantial replacements, fresh off the boat green privates. Even squad level cohesion was lacking throughout every line company, due to combat losses in Hurtgen. In short, they could not have stood against a determined infantry attack, let alone an armored spearhead with close infantry support.


Charles B MacDonald took over and infantry company about 2 months after D-Day, and wrote his memoirs in the (excellant) book "Company Commander". Although he doesn't mention Hurtgen by name, tracking the localities in the book you can see when his company was in Hurtgen (E.g. when they are in heavy woods near Aachen). During that time, EVERY SINGLE NCO in MacDonald's company was killed or incapacitated, and so he had a Private First Class (time in service, typically < 3 years) as his acting First Sergeant (time in service, typically > 15 years). MacDonald also noted that the German had prepared the place for defense, as lanes of fire for machine guns had been very well cleared, and yet, discretely enough that if you didn't know what you were looking for, you wouldn't immediately notice them. New guys blundered into these lanes of fire and were mortally wounded before they realized their mistake.

As far as I know, there has only been one book written in English about this battle, "The Battle of Hurtgen Forest" by Charles Whiting.

The American troops who fought there called it "The Death Factory"

When Eisenhower wrote his memoirs of WW2, he devoted exactly one sentence to Hurtgen Forest, referring to it as "a mistake"

This turned out to be one of the most consequential and long-lasting mistakes of the war. The officers who fought there learned the wrong lesson -- namely, to keep banging their head against the wall no matter how many casualties they take.

Blogger Akulkis January 18, 2020 9:34 AM  

-continued-


There's been one movie made about this battle. "A Time for Trumpets." I highly recommend it; it portrays very well the atmosphere and futility described in Whiting's book.

This was a battle in which, for some incomprehensible reason, ridiculously high casualties were accepted, attempting to execute the same failed plans, over and over and over again.

And this is why it was the mistake with the most long-lasting consequences.

EVERY single theater commander in the Vietnam war, for example, General Westmoreland, had been a company commander in the Battle of Hurtgen Forest.

It was there that they learned the horrible lesson that taking tremendous casualties with little to show for it was not only acceptable, but would be expected and commended all the way up to Corps- and field Army-level commands.

(One can only imagine with horror what would have happened if Hurtgen veterans had been theater commanders in Korea).

I fear that Afghanistan is teaching this wrong-headed way of war to American ground officers in the same way that Hurtgen did.

Blogger Iron Spartan January 18, 2020 9:36 AM  

The deep state seeks to protect its own. They are pissed that Trump hasn't gotten them into a new quagmire

Blogger Jose Miguel January 18, 2020 9:47 AM  

@20

Knocking out your own uppity puppet then handing over the canal de facto to China for free a decade later is a big win indeed, especially if the Clinton's got their money's worth in foundation donations.

Blogger Akulkis January 18, 2020 9:57 AM  

Trump's best move would be to sideline every flag officer promoted to 1 star or higher under Obama, and recall to active duty every single officer who made 1-star or higher under Bush.

It won't solve the problem, but it would shake up the establishment well enough for everyone to realize that changes need to be made.

Fortunately, the commanding general of my Expeditionary Support Command put the word out to all the commanding officers at company level and above, and all of the first sergeants and command sergeants major that we are NOT training for counter-insurgency any more. We are training to operate in a theater of operations against a peer OPFOR. One with a functional air force, who can look for and tents with improperly used camo-netting. One with artillery getting hot intel from radio-direction finder units. One that will choose the night with the absolute worst weather to attack vital theater support assets.

Not Achmed who prepares for battle by putting on a pair of sandals.

Blogger James Dixon January 18, 2020 9:59 AM  

> Notice the wildly inappropriate attitude of the senior official - almost certainly Deep State - who clearly believes that his views, and the views of his colleagues, take precedence over the views of the American people and their duly-elected President of the United States.

That's what stood out the most in the excerpt, yes. Your boss tells you you're doing something wrong and your immediate reaction is that you need to convince him that he's the one that's wrong? That's a quick way to the unemployment line in the real world.

The problem Trump has is that if he fires every incompetent and traitor in the government, 2/3rd's of the government is gone. Yeah, I say that like it's a bad thing, right? Maybe in his second term.

Blogger My Shield Is Disgust January 18, 2020 10:03 AM  

Adeptus Astartes when?

Blogger Crush Limbraw January 18, 2020 10:09 AM  

Trump was right, but it's irrelevant. Twenty years ago I thought it was about military victory - it never was!
The war on terror is nothing more than globalist war on world trade - https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-war-on-terror-no-its-actuallya-war.html?m=0 - I read Michael Hudson and others who have made that pretty clear.
What Trump has discovered is that DaSwamp doesn't give rat's what WeDaPeople want - he better remember quickly that he was sent to DC to drain DaFreakingSwamp, not trying to please everybody making deals.
Presidents have been removed by DaSwamp before this in American history.

Blogger James Dixon January 18, 2020 10:09 AM  

> While Trump may be right, it is difficult to win a war for which there exists no militarily achievable goal.

It's the military leadership's job to come up with those achievable goals, and to tell the President if it's impossible to do so. They haven't been doing that since, and including, Korea.

> Winning quickly and cleanly...

Which we did. We should have left after they elected their government. Ditto for Iraq.

Blogger Tars Tarkas January 18, 2020 10:17 AM  

What I thought was most amusing is how a bunch of bureaucrats thought the status quo was so obviously correct that only a moron would oppose it and how we are all supposed to 'wow just wow' about Trump's questioning the status quo.

This article was a perfect example of why these things never seem to go away. It just seems so obvious to them that we need to have armed soldiers at the very same spot, literally staring down the enemy, 365 days a year for 7 and a 1/2 decades or the sky is going to fall.

These people are hopeless.

Blogger Tars Tarkas January 18, 2020 10:25 AM  

Don't forget, he made a female marine cry! He's a very bad man.

Blogger Wazdakka January 18, 2020 10:26 AM  

They can bleat all they want about being given an unwinnable task. They should have been willing to put their jobs on the line and tell Bush and Obama what the problems were. They didn't.
Read "losing small wars" by Frank Ledwidge. Its an absolute assassination of British command staff in Iraq and Afghanistan. Afghanistan was used as a training ground for generals. No thought was given to winning. They treated Basra like county Armagh and Burma. At the end they walked away and handed control to the strongest thugs. Utter madness.

Blogger Johnny January 18, 2020 10:34 AM  

A little commentary on WW2. An easy case can be made that we deliberately delayed taking Germany, apparently so Russia could take the territory they did. Once the Normandy Landing was a success, there was little need to take territory in France. We had the forces necessary to push east along the coast and take the Belgium-Holland area. That would give us access to some outstanding ports, and with better transportation, push down into Germany. quicker and a little easier to do than what we did do.

Blogger Ray - SoCal January 18, 2020 10:36 AM  

Hurtgen Forest was a Bradley production, and he was later head of the joint chiefs.

Blogger Stephen Davenport January 18, 2020 10:39 AM  

Do not forget Panama in 1989, I won't count the first Gulf War in 1991, because we threw it away at the end. To much death on that highway for Colon Powell.

Blogger Blunt Force January 18, 2020 10:39 AM  

.Rex Tillerson,the cuck who couldn't even conserve the boy in Boy Scouts boldy conserves the reputation of the perfumed Pentagramists...so shocked.

“Tillerson was instrumental in lobbying the Scouts’ board to accept openly gay youths,’ said John Hamre, president of the Washington think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies [CSIS], of which Tillerson is a board member,” reported the Dallas Morning News on Sept. 6, 2014. (Tillerson has served on the CSIS Board of Trustees since 2005.)

Trump’s Sec. of State Rex Tillerson Lobbied For Gay Youth in Boy Scouts

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia January 18, 2020 10:49 AM  

Of course, when it comes to the concept of "winning," particularly in the military arts, you have to ask yourself at the very start:

What does winning look like?

Once you know what it looks like, then you can structure your entry, AND your exit.

But sometimes, winning means "conquering." We conquered Germany. We conquered Japan. Sometimes you need to crush the enemy. Now we have crushed ISIS (with help, but then we had help in Europe, too). The Taliban? No crushing there.

Iraq was a bad idea, but we had our shot to crush the Shiite militias and kill Moqtada al Sadr. We didn't do it, and that problem persists to this day. And the minute we knew that Iran was using more effective IEDs, we should have targeted them too.

But there wasn't the will.

Blogger Tars Tarkas January 18, 2020 10:54 AM  

Crush Limbraw wrote:The war on terror is nothing more than globalist war on world trade

I support a war on world trade. "World Trade" is evil. It can work between modern equivalent nations, like Germany and Britain, but when it is between 2 nations with very different laws and standards of living, you just end up importing "domestic" foreign made goods. The poorer country becomes the low-cost manufacturing hub for the manufacturers in the richer country.

Blogger Joeplanet January 18, 2020 10:57 AM  

Hey Cataline.

With all due respect, no. In the 1990s, the chief of staff of the United States Air Force General Merrill McPeak, not only changed the uniforms entirely, he realigned all of the Air Force specialty codes (think Army MOS) affecting more than 200 career fields and all related technical training. Much more impactful was doing away with SAC and TAC and changing MAJCOM (Major Command) structure so that fighters and bombers are together under ACC (Air Combat Command) and airlift under AMC or (Air Mobility Command). Just some highlights. This one general changed nearly everything he touched.

Blogger Greg Hunt January 18, 2020 11:38 AM  

If they order our egress from Afghanistan, it will be admitting that "these people are different from us". Doing so would be dangerous as it would allow for the noticing of differences. What follows is a catastrophe for the current order as people notice further things, like how women make terrible soldiers.

Every leader of the current order knows it's a sham. You can't install a Western-style government on these people as they won't have it. They want their own way of life, and they're proud of the fact that their way of life has prevented foreign domination for millenia.

To admit that it won't work there is to admit that equalism/globalism won't work. They're stuck.

Blogger carnaby January 18, 2020 11:44 AM  

But they are good and quick at important stuff, like punishing young men for acting like young men. Someone draws a frank and beans in the sky with their F18, the officers are on it.

Blogger Crush Limbraw January 18, 2020 12:07 PM  

Tars - read the link I provided - and read it in total.
It will take some time - it's not a 5 second sound bite.
It ends up with this conclusion - the American military is now nothing more than the enforcing arm of (((GLOBALIST))) trade policy masquerading as DaWar on Terror.
As I tell folks on other comment forums - read more and comment less. Knee jerks waste our time!

Blogger Doktor Jeep January 18, 2020 12:11 PM  

"This was a battle in which, for some incomprehensible reason, ridiculously high casualties were accepted, attempting to execute the same failed plans, over and over and over again."

In Germany I met some of the veterans of that war, on the other side that is. They were expecting a bigger challenge.

Blogger tuberman January 18, 2020 12:14 PM  

Major digs on DS Generals and other people with converged influence of the military, and not just in the USA would be great.

Blogger rcocean January 18, 2020 12:15 PM  

Tillerson was another bad Trump pick. He seems to have a weakness for smart, disloyal, subordinates. In business, you don't need personal loyalty that much, its all about $$. In Government, loyalty is key.

Blogger rcocean January 18, 2020 12:17 PM  

He was so angry he wasn't "Breathing properly". whatever that means. I assume if you're shouting at someone for being stupid and weak, you might "Breathe" differently than if you're telling someone "Good Afternoon, how are you?" Anyway, I call BS on it.

Blogger Gen. Kong January 18, 2020 12:18 PM  

Ryan G wrote:

While Trump may be right, it is difficult to win a war for which there exists no militarily achievable goal. Putting the military in charge of installing Democracy in an area is like putting a football team in charge of building a rocket to Mars: even the best team ever is going to suck at that.

That's been the problem since day one of the misunderestimated misadventure. Why are we there? Who's country is it anyway? The (((Sacklers))) are happily counting their vast piles of opiate money and funding all manner of mischief at home and abroad as part of the (((healers')) global mission. The place has been long known as the 'graveyard of empires' for a reason. Alexander the Great tried, the Moguls tried, the British tried, the USSR tried. All failed. What makes the Rotten Banana Empire's legion so different from these - apart from its even greater level of corruption and degeneracy than the others?

Blogger kmad76 January 18, 2020 12:20 PM  

What I wouldn't give to have been a fly on the wall at this meeting. Especially when he told Gary Cohn to take his free trade and shove it. The fact that they defend the Europeans not paying their fair share into NATO is just unbelievable. All of these people are terminal.

Blogger Max January 18, 2020 12:21 PM  

It's funny how these smear attacks on Trump just make me like him more.

Blogger Gen. Kong January 18, 2020 12:33 PM  

The reaction of the long-time swamp-creature Tillerson and his associates to Trump's spot-on observation is telling. The military they control isn't there to win battles but to facilitate looting worldwide.

Blogger liberranter January 18, 2020 12:50 PM  

Imagine if these PoS were in charge of a national defense force the mission and purpose of which was exactly that: national defense as is its stated purpose in the Constitution.

Then again, we would probably have nothing to worry about in that case:

1) megalomaniac, avaricious, power-hungry scumbags like these would never be interested in commanding a mere national militia, and

2) per the Constitution, there would be no standing army by which they could become incompetent, dangerous career leeches.

Blogger Section 8A January 18, 2020 12:51 PM  

I remember when WaPo, during the W years, would 'report' only negative stuff about the Military and the W regime, whether it was true or not - because Republican.

Now this. Defending the MIC and the Derp State.

They don't seem to realize that some of us have protected our Mentals and can remember that far back. Makes WaPo look like an even bigger joke.

Blogger Unknownsailor January 18, 2020 1:25 PM  

Akulkis wrote:Trump's best move would be to sideline every flag officer promoted to 1 star or higher under Obama, and recall to active duty every single officer who made 1-star or higher under Bush.

It won't solve the problem, but it would shake up the establishment well enough for everyone to realize that changes need to be made.

Fortunately, the commanding general of my Expeditionary Support Command put the word out to all the commanding officers at company level and above, and all of the first sergeants and command sergeants major that we are NOT training for counter-insurgency any more. We are training to operate in a theater of operations against a peer OPFOR. One with a functional air force, who can look for and tents with improperly used camo-netting. One with artillery getting hot intel from radio-direction finder units. One that will choose the night with the absolute worst weather to attack vital theater support assets.

Not Achmed who prepares for battle by putting on a pair of sandals.

You're gonna have to go farther back in time for that. The rot of the US military started in the early 1990s with the rapid and radical post cold war draw down. The military of today is a logical consequence of the manpower decisions made then.

Who got the boot in the draw down? It wasn't the paper pushing pogues, it was the warfighters, the guys who cared about mission accomplishment above all else. Once the pogues were all that were left, those pogues set up the promotion system to favor those like themselves over the rough around the edges warfighters.

Think of it as the SJW entryism Vox talks about in his books, with the pogues standing in for SJWs. The pogues did not have to recruit, though, they were the only ones left standing once the draw down was done.

I cam in right after the stand down was done (1994), and got to serve with a few cold war veterans, but by and large those men were all retired by the early 2000s. Mission oriented people do not promote well in the military of today, so they tend to make the mid ranks, officer and enlisted, and get out after being denied promotion.

Blogger Tars Tarkas January 18, 2020 1:25 PM  

Crush Limbraw wrote:As I tell folks on other comment forums - read more and comment less. Knee jerks waste our time!

I skimmed through it the first time and now after reading your comment, I went back and read it in full. My comment still stands.

I agree with your post in terms of dollar hegemony, in that a big part of our offense spending is for the befit of protecting the dollar. But of course, I defend the protection of the dollar status. If it were 1970, I would say we shouldn't do it, but it's not, it's 2020 and our economy has been absolutely decimated and the reserve currency status of the USD is what allows Americans to not be dirt poor. Had all the same things happened during the last 50 years happened but without reserve currency status, our standard of living would be well below Eastern Europe.
Granted, those things probably would not have happened without reserve currency status, so it is somewhat of a double edged sword.

Blogger tublecane January 18, 2020 1:29 PM  

Tillerson was Foggy Bottom and Big Oil, not military. Why do we even care about his reaction? Is he running for something?

Blogger Hammerli 280 January 18, 2020 1:30 PM  

This is a problem with prolonged peace...you get flag-level officers who were promoted because they were good with the paperwork, looked good in uniform, and had charming wives. As opposed to the real war-winners, who are often rougher around the edges.

But it's also a reflection of a lack of solid strategic thought by the DOD and DOS leadership...and frankly, Trump failing to describe his vision of a post-American Unipolar Era world clearly. And he STILL hasn't figured this out completely.

Let me take a swing at it...

American foreign policy doctrine, for many years, was developed in the late 1940s. It was to keep the Soviets from acquiring the industrial capabilities of Western Europe by maintaining significant American forces there, keeping Europe under the American nuclear deterrent umbrella, and helping Western Europe rebuild their defense capabilities.

By the late 1970s, Western Europe had repaired the damage of the Second World War. But they continued to low-ball their defense spending, insisted that the USA spend a higher proportion of GDP on the military than our so-called allies.

And, of course, in 1990 the Cold War came to a crashing end. We won. But there was no change in policy...nor in the force balance. Our military remained configured for a land war, and merely substituted desert tan for NATO 4-color camo.

And, of course, we got involved in lots of efforts to remake the world. Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq...pick a spot. Some of these were backbreakingly expensive. But when all you have is a big Army, everything looks like a land war...

Now, the world has changed. The former Warsaw Pact is now the eastern lines of NATO...and the Europeans have more than enough capability to see off the Russian threat, IF they apply themselves. Likewise, fracking has made the Middle East far less critical to our national security, and given us a freedom of action that we didn't have before.

The big problem is China...which is disturbingly reminiscent of Wilhelmine Germany. There's a sense of being late to the Great Power Party, and of wanting tokens of status. The Chinese are building a massive navy, and appear determined to make east Asia their dominion. And, explicitly, to challenge the United States.

So we need a major adjustment in our military strategy and our force structure. Fewer soliders, more sailors and ships, more aircraft, too. And a shift in our alliances - Australia, India, and Japan will be the key allies of the future. Not the UK, Germany, and Italy.

Blogger Dad29 January 18, 2020 1:34 PM  

Speaking of Dopes and Losers........Tillerson was one of the prime movers behind opening the Boy Scouts to homosexuals.

Blogger Dwayne Thundergrit January 18, 2020 1:39 PM  

@26

The movie, "When Trumpets Fade" is about Hurtgen and very well done. I haven't seen the one you mentioned but will look for it.

Blogger Bernard Korzeniewicz January 18, 2020 1:55 PM  

@Hammerli 280
the last conflict in Ukraine showed that Russia has some minor problems with quality but it is the best - relatively to European medium - army in Russian history. They can take my country in in 7 days than rest of NATO _will_ collapse. Mongol horde, no jihad, no Nazi… no-one in history other than Stalin manager to hurt that many people on that vast territory in each a short time. No-one is going to die for Gdansk, again.
The only thing tying Putin's hands is China. Yellow mechanized divisions are waiting on the Turestan borders since 1970s.
So, IMHO for the USA the best way ahead is to scrap the USArmy, most of the Navy, rethink doctrines and than to start build up.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 18, 2020 2:20 PM  

Lazarus wrote:It’s reported that Trump was so angry at this point that he wasn’t breathing properly.
No it wasn't.

Yes it is. Right there in the article.

Johnny wrote:Are we going to occupy Afghanistan for an eternity?
that's the plan, yes.

JG wrote:Hey, we won Panama! That was a big win!
Big!

Panama's not a real country.

Blogger Glaivester January 18, 2020 2:38 PM  

In his most incendiary comment, Trump—a man who, remember, managed to get out of military duty in Vietnam due to a supposed bone-spur problem—is said to have told the assembled forces, “I wouldn’t go to war with you people... You’re a bunch of dopes and babies.”

That's a good point: not only does Trump say he wouldn't go to war with these losers, but he worked hard not to go to war with them when there was an opportunity.

The bone spurs claim seems to have been a wise decision.

Blogger bodenlose Schweinerei January 18, 2020 3:21 PM  

It's amazing how the Vietnam War was a horrific decade-long neocolonial crime against humanity that every Boomer and liberal nobly denounced and protested against and yet, Trump's a giant dishonorable pussy for not serving in it. I know lefty hypocrisy is hardly new, indeed it's pretty much their raison d'etre, but still, such blatant double dealing is dumbfounding.


We needed to change how he thinks about this, to course correct

"He done needs to educate hisself." Spoken like a true loser.

While Trump may be right, it is difficult to win a war for which there exists no militarily achievable goal.

It's true the politicians richly deserve a boat load of blame, but when has the military hierarchy ever demonstrated any real resistance to these wars? All they ever really do is plead for more men, more money, more gear, and more positive publicity. Victory's always just around the corner, if only we would all pitch in for the big win and give the troops everything they need!

Blogger Akulkis January 18, 2020 3:27 PM  

@37

"We had the forces necessary to push east along the coast and take the Belgium-Holland area. That would give us access to some outstanding ports,"

Study history better.

Montgomery tried exactly that, under political pressure to capture the V-1 and V-2 launching sites in Holland.

It was called Operation Market-Garden.

Cornelius Ryan wrote a 600-page book about it (interviewing everyone he could find from generals to privates), and then a movie about it was made using the same name.

The British lost the entire 1st Para Division (those who weren't killed were captured). A good number of the US 82nd Airborne Division were lost, too.

Perhaps you've heard of it: "A Bridge Too Far." (Excellent movie if you've never seen it).

==

The problem is, there was really only one highway capable of carrying allied armor into those areas. And it was only a 2-lane road. And for a good portion of the way through Holland, the highway is on landfill, with steep drop-offs on both sides down to the (very soft) farmer's fields.

Play any of the operational level war games made about Operation Market-Garden, or even any of the tactical games based on the ground-forces trying to advance rapidly enough to link-up with the airborne troops who took the far bridges, and you'll see that it wasn't as easy as it sounds.

Montgomery didn't want the mission (the 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein didn't want to tarnish his victory at the decisive battle in North Africa with a loss in the lowlands of Europe based on a foolhardly objectives with little military value -- the V-1's and V-2's were falling harmlessly north of London, and the Brits kept reporting -- both by radio, and via the German agents who they had captured and put int the Double-Cross system -- that the rockets were falling south of London, causing the Germans to dial in more and more false corrections, putting the impacts farther and farther out into the farmlands.)

http://www.vassalengine.org/wiki/Module:Mercury/Market_Garden

Look at the map. In some places, you can't even leave the highway, because the hexes on both sides are impassable. This means roadblocks cannot be easily bypassed.
In practice, a couple anti-tank guns positioned in the right spot, knocking out a couple of tanks across the width of the roadway between towns, was enough to cause serious delays.

One of the best games showing the problem on the tactical level is Hell's Highway


https://boardgamegeek.com/image/84878/hells-highway with a scale of each hex measuring 1300 meters across.

Here is the cyberboard gamebox representation of the map https://boardgamegeek.com/image/242899/hells-highway

Note that the ONLY useful roads for the British armor are the ones in red. The black roads are not really capable of moving armor down them quickly, and would have become progressively worse with the passage of each tracked vehicle in the springtime mud.

Many of those hexes to either side of the

Blogger Crush Limbraw January 18, 2020 3:49 PM  

Tars - let's bring this thing to a quick close between you and me.
First - I'm just DaLibrarian!
Second - if you read ALL the links within my comment, and the subsequent links within those, you would be reading for weeks, if not months.
I claim no personal expertise except what I have learned from reading others who have actually done the research and write on a consistent basis.
Yes, I have read every one of those 5000 plus articles I have archived in my library - over a period of almost 5 years!
As I mention in my comment, it's taken me 20 years to discover I knew shit! I continue to learn from others who've done their due diligence in research.
The only reason I put my links out there is for others to learn as well. What I've also learned is that most folks ain't interested - but they love to fight DaLastFreakingWar!
So I repeat - read more and comment less!

Blogger Akulkis January 18, 2020 4:46 PM  

@57

"You're gonna have to go farther back in time for that. The rot of the US military started in the early 1990s with the rapid and radical post cold war draw down."

Can't go back before Bush's Generals.You have Clinton's Generals -- Not good. So, you have to go back to Reagan's Generals; you can't recall them to active duty, because most are literally dead.

So, Bush's Generals it is. Brief them on what the Bush-era decisions lead to, and the moral rot and decay that set in under Obama, and tell them to clean house and turn the entire apparatus around, and suggest then implement the policies that would be needed to win if we were to find ourselves at war with China and Russia as allies, with various assorted hangers on around the world (Venezuela, Nicaragua, Iran + the most inconvenient (for us) African nations being used as operations bases).

Get rid of "We need grrlzz in infantry" -- put them back where they belong in medical, quartermaster, finance, non-vehicular maintenance, and civil affairs/psy-ops units. These are the areas where they do best, and thereby free up more men to be in line units pulling triggers.

Pull the support MOS personnel out of "support companies" from support battalions cross-attached to combat arms units and put those men back IN those units. The mechanics and cooks MUST go through the same sorts of training as the infantry battalion they support. Does pulling them out into a support company that just does cooks and mechanics things make training the infantry battalion less of a work for the officers AND the cooks and mechanics sections? Why yes it does... which is part of why it was wrong in the first place to pull them out, and pretend that they have nothing to do with the battalion which, in a maneuver warfare situation, they would be thoroughly integrated INTO, and yet, if bad shit happens, doesn't know how fight through it, because "they don't need to know that infantry shit."

I spent over 2 decades as a commo soldier, most of it in an infantry battalion, doing infantry things. I am a better soldier & warrior for it.

"Mission oriented people do not promote well in the military of today, so they tend to make the mid ranks, officer and enlisted, and get out after being denied promotion."

Absolute Truth. First joined in 1989 and have seen it repeatedly.

@60
"And, of course, in 1990 the Cold War came to a crashing end. We won."

Look deeper. Between the USA, UK, France, W. Germany, various Warsaw Pact countries, the Russian Communist Party, the Soviet Red Army, and the KGB, and other, The Winner was:

The KGB.

"The big problem is China...which is disturbingly reminiscent of Wilhelmine Germany."

China has far greater aspirations, with far less inventiveness and ingenuity. On the other hand, since the Chinese are into copying other people's equipment, they're less likely to create the sort of difficult-to-repair equipment that the Germans made, or over sized resource hogs like a railroad gun requiring a battalion of specially-trained men 2 weeks + 2 parallel rail lines to set it up, and that same battalion of men to fire it -- at the rate of 4~6 shells per day. A squadron of Stuka dive bombers would have been more effective.

The Germans also love of to make overly complex machinery which fails to perform properly when even only slightly out of adjustment, and requires more man-hours to maintain and repair than competitors' products. See: most German cars.

"Australia, India, and Japan will be the key allies of the future."

Idiot Carter blew up SEATO in 1977.

@62
"The movie, "When Trumpets Fade" is about Hurtgen and very well done. I haven't seen the one you mentioned but will look for it."

My mistaken memory. You got the title right.

@64
"Panama's not a real country."

True Story. Panama province was given arms to secede from Columbia in exchange for an agreement to let us build the canal.

Blogger Karen took the Kids January 18, 2020 5:12 PM  

David Hackworth is one notable victim of these so-called leaders. As far back as Vietnam he knew the chain of command were inept, incapable of criticism because of fragile egos and strategically and tactically retarded.
It appears to have gotten considerably worse.

Blogger Valley Forge Patriot January 18, 2020 5:17 PM  

@20 JG: OT but, it was great for Panama! Once we (USA) left, then Panama really started to improve. Many websites tout the low cost of living vs. the modern infrastructure. Here is a sample: https://www.escapeartist.com/blog/the-panama-retirement-visaretirement-heaven

Blogger DeFo January 18, 2020 5:22 PM  

The Afghan war was carried out according to plan, made to appear like a series of blunders but ultimately served the decades long purpose of geo-political maneuvering. Of which the recent Afghanistan Papers served as an apologetic for military and financial gaffs. With the ultimate conclusion being "mistakes were made according to cost" rather than "the cost of life wasn't worth it."

Nevertheless it served its purpose. See Mackinder's Heartland Theory and Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard.

Blogger Ransom Smith January 18, 2020 5:29 PM  

One of my least favorite maps in Battlefield 1942 is Market Garden. Especially as the allies. The spawn points are a pain to hold and armor is so far to the rear that when you need it you're already being swarmed by several panzers.

Blogger Akulkis January 18, 2020 6:01 PM  

Actual war has no spawn points.

Blogger Scott January 18, 2020 6:17 PM  

@70 Never forget that a young Colin Powell was the first officer sent to investigate the My Lai massacre. His report was a brilliant piece of whitewashing. The very best work he ever did.

Blogger Ransom Smith January 18, 2020 6:25 PM  

Actual war has no spawn points.
Sure it does.
They're called recruiting offices.

Blogger Akulkis January 18, 2020 7:04 PM  

Yeah, but THOSE spawn points are way behind the front lines, and require the spawnee to first negotiate weeks or even months of training, before being mass-moved to the front

Blogger James Dixon January 18, 2020 7:32 PM  

> True Story. Panama province was given arms to secede from Columbia in exchange for an agreement to let us build the canal.

I thought everyone knew that. Oh well.

Blogger Rough Carrigan January 18, 2020 8:32 PM  

#19. You forgot the desire to control Afghanistan's poppy fields and the income derived therefrom.

Blogger Peter January 18, 2020 9:33 PM  

Iraq : 4000 US killed, 600,000 Iraqi killed.
Afgan: 3000 US killed, 150,000 Afgans.

Rough numbers.

WW2

US lost 400,000

So by what measures are the current forces less qualified than the those of the past. The US has the most advanced fighting forces on the planet by a large margin. The problwm is not the generals; its the civilian political leaders trying to use military force to solve problems it cant .. there are limits to military power.

Blogger John Rockwell January 18, 2020 10:01 PM  

The failure of strategy dooms even the best of militaries.

America have lost many good men and money because of them.

Blogger CF Neal January 18, 2020 10:02 PM  

@80 -- Peter, body count is an important metric, even THE most important. But there are others.

Blogger Akulkis January 18, 2020 10:03 PM  

It's still the flag officer's JOB to tell the civilian leadership that MILITARY FORCES can't do those things.

There is no John Locke and Thomas Jefferson of Afghanistan. Nor of Iraq, or anywhere else in the Arab world, or Moslem world.

Blogger John Rockwell January 18, 2020 10:14 PM  

@James Dixon

Sure after firing they are going to agitate for their own version of the Bolshevik revolution. They are going to become activists as well.

Blogger John Rockwell January 18, 2020 10:16 PM  

@Johnny

In World War 1 the allies actually sabotaged the whites in their war against Bolsheviks. They didnt actually help at all.

Blogger John Rockwell January 18, 2020 10:16 PM  

@Johnny

Actually I mean the Russian Civil War.

Blogger John Rockwell January 18, 2020 10:32 PM  

@Gen Kong

The mongols are the only ones that properly dealt with afghanistan

Blogger Tars Tarkas January 18, 2020 10:33 PM  

@57 @69 The rot started at the close of WW2 when they failed to disarm and basically made all the new departments into permanent bureaucracies and a large standing military. A new normal set in and that is when the rot really starting the damage.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if we were to find personal writing and diaries written around the end of the 60s from WW2 era officers lamenting the rot that had set in and the failures in Vietnam as proof.

Blogger Akulkis January 18, 2020 10:44 PM  

"So by what measures are the current forces less qualified than the those of the past."

The flag officers have failed to tell the civilian leadership that any further American lives lost will be nothing as tragic, as there is nothing more that American troops can accomplish (ESPECIALLY in Afghanistan) with our continued presence, and additionally, the skills and mindset being learned and reinforced to continue these missions DEGRADE preparedness in the case of having to fight a real war.

Note that at the opening phase of the Korean war, American army of occupation troops sent from Japan were utterly worthless, and the tide was not reverse until draftees and reservists, led by WW2 vets (with no experience at being an army of occupation) started arriving.

There is nothing more that American military UNITS can do for Iraq. Either the Iraqi Army fights for their national sovereignty, or it won't. We can no more preserve Iraqi units' will to preserve their sovereignty than what were were to preserve South Vietnamese units' will to preserve sovereignty.

The largest role that U.S. troops should have at this point is that of military advisors, meaning a handful of officers and senior NCOs at a base, not company and battalion sized formations, as they are nothing but targets.

At this point, the Iraqi Army is self-sufficient on training. Whatever equipment they want, we give them. But THEY have to be willing to man it, and maintain it if they want to preserve Iraq's sovereignty apart from the Iranian mullahs.

And Afghanistan is a basket case. Even when it has a named leader, it is leaderless (Gamergate in real life). Our situation there is no more solid than that of German soldiers in Yugoslavia -- that is, the only territory they control is that which is directly beneath their own boots.... in the daytime. Everything else is contestable, at all times.

In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the law of diminishing returns is the primary governing principle.

Trump is pissed off at the flag officers because NOT ONE OF THEM has suggested that there is no point in continuing to waste both American and Afghani or Iraqi lives for zero benefit to the United States, and that the best thing to do is to figure out how to wrap it up, and bring the remaining troops home, and then lay in a timetable for doing exactly that.

Blogger Akulkis January 18, 2020 11:09 PM  

Afghanistan should have been nothing more than a "Punative Expedition"

Go in, destroy the regime which refused to give up Bin Laden when requested (as a lesson to the world as to what happens when you refuse to give up bad actors using "hospitality towards guests" as an excuse for not acting like civilized people), and created enough death and destruction in the process, so that even the most illiterate of Afghanis would understand the lesson for the next 1000 years to never, EVER, cross the U.S. over such a simple request ever again.

And then leave.

"Nation-Building" is the kind of benefit-the-Well-off-at-the-expense-of-the-public government-by-and-for-the-rich that made me oppose a second Bush EVER getting the Republican nomination. The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) was never once mentioned when Bush campaigned, neither in the 1996 primaries, or all through the 2000 election cycle. And yet suddenly, it came out, complete with bows and gift-wrapping, once he was in office.
NOBODY with the Bush surname should ever be trusted in this country ever, for the next 200 years, without first executing visible, and effective strikes against the types of malignant cronies that family runs with.

What's really insane is that the left could have made any number of arguments against the younger Bush's actions and policies, and instead, always chose the most inane objections and proposed the most insane alternatives for policies and actions.

And if Karl Rove is never quoted in written or broadcast media again, it will be to soon. He is the anti-Qanon.

Blogger Akulkis January 18, 2020 11:37 PM  

@88

"It wouldn't surprise me in the least if we were to find personal writing and diaries written around the end of the 60s from WW2 era officers lamenting the rot that had set in and the failures in Vietnam as proof."

Read Hackworth's book "About Face"
You're right on the mark.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd January 19, 2020 12:15 AM  

Peter wrote:Iraq : 4000 US killed, 600,000 Iraqi killed.

Afgan: 3000 US killed, 150,000 Afgans.

Rough numbers.

WW2

US lost 400,000

So by what measures are the current forces less qualified than the those of the past.

Did we win, Peter?

Blogger Paul M January 19, 2020 12:49 AM  

Bernard Korzeniewicz wrote:If USArmy is to grow in real strength it has to be by fighting for survival with a near peer.
The USA does not need an army. It needs a border patrol, a coastguard, and the nukes - which are mainly to maintain the status quo.

Blogger gunner451 January 19, 2020 12:50 AM  

I don't think that the leadership problem is unique to the modern military. Look at military history in general and you'll see blazing incompetence in the higher ranks is the norm not the exception. Its just the nature of the beast in that large bureaucratic organizations tend to promote people that are exceptional at using the system to advance. It is rare to have someone competent become a top general in these kind of organizations and when you do get someone good as the head of the military they can do amazing things (Alexander the Great for example).

A good example is the US civil war where the Union generals at the start were nothing but incompetent boobs, it took a while for US Grant to be recognized by Lincoln as someone that should be heading up the war effort rather than those that had risen in the ranks during peace time. Also at the start of WWII Eisenhower was an O6 but was recognized as being good at managing the war effort and rapidly promoted to 5 star general. And that really is the key to the US success in past wars, they started out typically with incompetent boobs but quickly advanced the ones that could get the job done. Unfortunately since WWII we have not been doing that, mostly because there really was no direct threat to the US so it has been acceptable to let the boobs play around with the lives of those under them while not really accomplishing anything. Much of this can be laid at the feet of the political leadership that has failed to really do anything about it, this includes Trump.

Blogger Paul M January 19, 2020 1:15 AM  

Hammerli 280 wrote:The Chinese are building a massive navy, and appear determined to make east Asia their dominion.
Why not let 'em have it, and good riddance?

Blogger Scott January 19, 2020 4:23 AM  

The solution to the 9/11 attacks would have been to introduce generation 1 warfare to Afghanistan. Use international law to declare the Afghan government illegitimate. Strip the country of all international legal protections. Arm their neighbors and bribe them to expand into the territory.

But, of course, we never wanted to win.

Blogger Storm Rhode January 19, 2020 9:55 AM  

The 911 hijackers were Saudi Nationals. Remind me again why we invaded Afghanistan.

Blogger Akulkis January 19, 2020 11:59 AM  

We invaded Afghanistan because the planning was supposedly done by bin Laden, who was living in Afghanistan, and when we asked the Afghan government to hand over bin Laden, they refused, on the basis of "that's not being a good host" without the slightest bit of consideration as to whether using Afghanistan as an planning center for terrorist attacks against the world's lone superpower is consistent with "being a good guest."

We should have gone in, destroyed/killed everything and everyone having to do with the government in Kabul, and then left. That would be what used to be called a "Punitive Expedition" -- the goal isn't to capture territory, it's to perform lasting and memorable punishment for uncivilized behavior.

Blogger Crew January 19, 2020 11:37 PM  

Don Surber has an interesting take on this:

https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2020/01/wapo-shocked-to-learn-trump-is.html

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts