Former top General in Iraq blast Bush admin 4 creating Iraq Nightmare

[trobinett]

You can learn far more about practical psychology by studying the realities of military life than in a dozen academic courses.

Well put, and quite right..........

 

[trobinett]

My opening post clearly spoke of internet chickenhawks as being the subject of my ire. I would NEVER suggest that active duty flag officers who disagree with Sanchez were Bush bootlickers. I would suggest that they were doing their job and owning the mission as delineated by their CinC.

If anyone misread my opening post to infer that that was calling active duty career military officers Bush bootlickers, I want to disabuse them of that interpretation. I never meant that and certainly retract any suggestion to the contrary.

I do, however, think that YOU are a butt licker for Bush...and that you don't truly understand the code of ethics in play for career military officers - regardless of any classroom training you may have had.

Amazing, and YOU were an officer?

 

[maineman]

I was indeed. still am. (retired)

 

[Gunny]

if that is the case, then why, pray tell, does RGS have such a difficult time understanding that ownership of mission is an integral part of being a good officer?

Ownership? I think doing everything one possibly can to ensure that the mission is accomplished in the most efficient manner is integral to being a officer. Claiming "personal ownership" is not necessarily required.

I can quite easily professionally support and carry out a mission while personally disagreeing with it or thinking it's retarded, and have done so on more than a few occasions, as I am sure we all have. But would never claim ownership of it. Only the responsibility of carrying it out.

 

[Doug]

I know that MoveOn does not speak for all liberals. And the MoveOn leadership who placed the "Betray-Us" ad probably does not even speak for all MoveOn members.

But, I was still surprised at it, because I would think that if there is anything that liberalism as such can contribute to the legitimate military effectiveness of the United States' Armed Forces, it is the kind of sensibility that General Petreus brought to his command, regarding the issue of moral legitimacy in a war.

Napoleon said that in war, the moral is to the material, as three to one. And the belief that "we are the good guys" has always animated Americans in their wars, even where our causes had some alloy in them.

It is also what motivated most of the Communist armies, although this is probably hard for Americans to accept.

At the same time, anyone who is not suffering from Williams' Syndrome knows that being Right and Good is not enough, if the other side shoots first.

Morality through Superior Firepower, to borrow a phrase.

And we have had superior firepower. And in all of our wars up to Vietnam, that was enough, combined with dauntless courage.

We were nice, or otherwise, to the civilian populations over whose land we fought, but winning their support or at least their neutrality was not really mission-critical.

Vietnam was different. Right from the beginning, "winning hearts and minds" was seen by at least some of our leaders as an important factor. Of course, the cynical response was, "Get 'em by the balls and the hearts and minds will follow." This is understandable: the personalities of professional military men are seldom a good match with the pesonalities of missionaries or social workers. And nice theories worked out in California or Washington about being nice to Vietnamese villagers looked different to men in Vietnam who knew that some of these villagers were yearning for their deaths.

And in fact it took us a while to learn how to do the hearts and minds thing ... one of the tragedies of our withdrawal from Vietnam is that there is evidence, at least, that by 1970 we were starting to get it right in that department.

Nonetheless, the war in Iraq, and probably a lot of our future wars, requires that we get as good as possible at the hearts and minds thing.

This requires a certain amount of sympathy for downtrodden poor people with brown skin and alien religions, and empathy with their feelings.

Not quite the kind of thing that they worry a lot about teaching to the recruits in Marine boot camp, I suspect (although I am willing to be set straight here if I am wrong).

In fact, this sort of sentiment is a liberal thing more than a conservative thing. If only we had had liberals in charge of the post-invasion reconstruction work, and overseeing prisoner treatment at Abu Ghraib. (I am talking sensible liberals here, not moonbats who would have opened the cells.)

Which is why, when General Petreus is trying to re-orient the military in this direction, it is so puzzling to see some liberals denouncing him. It is as if they believe our military can only do the shoot-and-bomb thing, and they want it to stay that way.

 

[maineman]

Ownership? I think doing everything one possibly can to ensure that the mission is accomplished in the most efficient manner is integral to being a officer. Claiming "personal ownership" is not necessarily required.

I can quite easily professionally support and carry out a mission while personally disagreeing with it or thinking it's retarded, and have done so on more than a few occasions, as I am sure we all have. But would never claim ownership of it. Only the responsibility of carrying it out.

not required? how motivated will any group of individuals be to tackle some life threatening task if they have an inkling that the person sending them to accomplish that task does not think it is wise?

 

[CSM]

not required? how motivated will any group of individuals be to tackle some life threatening task if they have an inkling that the person sending them to accomplish that task does not think it is wise?

Strangely, it happens all the time at the tactical level.

I cannot speak for the Navy folks but I KNOW that in the Army, there have been many, many many occassions where those charged with executing the task (yes, even life threatening tasks) perform in a stellar manner even though they believe with great certainty that those sending them on the mission are not only unwise but absolute and complete idiots.

The point is that motivation comes from many places and not just from the person sending them to do a task.

 

[maineman]

Strangely, it happens all the time at the tactical level.

I cannot speak for the Navy folks but I KNOW that in the Army, there have been many, many many occassions where those charged with executing the task (yes, even life threatening tasks) perform in a stellar manner even though they believe with great certainty that those sending them on the mission are not only unwise but absolute and complete idiots.

The point is that motivation comes from many places and not just from the person sending them to do a task.

we are not talking about the tactical level, however.... this really boils down to the upper stratosphere of the strategic level. Do you honestly think that any flag officer is going to inspire confidence if he does not, himself, think the battle ought to be fought?

Do you think that Robert E. Lee or Patton or Montgomery or Kingston or Petraeus, for that matter, did not take ownership in their missions?

 

[Doug]

In the greatest American war novel ever written, [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Killer-Angels-Novel-Modern-Library/dp/0679643249/ref=sr_1_1/103-9655811-7155832?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192452067&sr=8-1]The Killer Angels[/ame], set at the Battle of Gettysburg, there is a scene where it appears that the Union Army's leaders have set it up for yet another defeat by Lee. And one of the enlisted men mutters, "Our goddamned generals, won't they ever learn."

And I think this was not an uncommon sentiment in the Union Army. And not unjustified, either. But the Union won anyway.

 

[CSM]

we are not talking about the tactical level, however.... this really boils down to the upper stratosphere of the strategic level. Do you honestly think that any flag officer is going to inspire confidence if he does not, himself, think the battle ought to be fought?

Do you think that Robert E. Lee or Patton or Montgomery or Kingston or Petraeus, for that matter, did not take ownership in their missions?

I know what you are trying to say but I am not certain that "ownership" is the right term (which may be causing some of the confusion) for it. I have seen many field grade officers (Army equivalent of Navy flag officers) inspire confidence, provide motivation and even foster enthusiasm for the mission without procaliming "ownership". Maybe the Navy is different but we were never taught that we had to have "ownership" of a decision to execute it.

In answer to your question in the first paragraph above....yes, I do. Apparently, I am correct given the crop of generals being trotted out currently who now proclaim that the strategy for Iraq was/is flawed and that they executed knowing this. Apparently they were able to inspire confidence despite their lack of "onwership" of the mission....something they are very quick to point out. Either that, or they are not only liars but damned liars!

 

[maineman]

I know what you are trying to say but I am not certain that "ownership" is the right term (which may be causing some of the confusion) for it. I have seen many field grade officers (Army equivalent of Navy flag officers) inspire confidence, provide motivation and even foster enthusiasm for the mission without procaliming "ownership". Maybe the Navy is different but we were never taught that we had to have "ownership" of a decision to execute it.

In answer to your question in the first paragraph above....yes, I do. Apparently, I am correct given the crop of generals being trotted out currently who now proclaim that the strategy for Iraq was/is flawed and that they executed knowing this. Apparently they were able to inspire confidence despite their lack of "onwership" of the mission....something they are very quick to point out. Either that, or they are not only liars but damned liars!

isn't field grade in the Army O-4 (major)? Flag officers for all services start at O-7, I believe!

and in answer to your point about the retired generals.... I think we are actually saying the same thing in different ways. While on active duty, you never heard Batiste, or Swannack or Eaton or Odom or Sanchez ever say anything less than 100% supportive of the stated objectives of their CinC - to their subordinates or their peers.. They would not express doubts or misgivings about the judgment of the CinC - EVEN IF CONGRESS ASKED THEM FOR THEIR OPINION. Now, you can say that they all are - or were - liars, but I say they were just doing what the ethics of their profession required of them.

 

[CSM]

isn't field grade in the Army O-4 (major)? Flag officers for all services start at O-7, I believe!

OK...not sure of Navy terminology. Field grade in the Army starts at O-4 and can mean any rank from O-4 on up. The point is, regardless of rank...

and in answer to your point about the retired generals.... I think we are actually saying the same thing in different ways. While on active duty, you never heard Batiste, or Swannack or Eaton or Odom or Sanchez ever say anything less than 100% supportive of the stated objectives of their CinC - to their subordinates or their peers.. They would not express doubts or misgivings about the judgment of the CinC - EVEN IF CONGRESS ASKED THEM FOR THEIR OPINION. Now, you can say that they all are - or were - liars, but I say they were just doing what the ethics of their profession required of them. Exactly my point. Supporting a course of action in the military does not necessarily imply "ownership". In my mind, they are two very distinct things.

I guess I am trying to say that a leader can motivate subordinates to accomplish the mission regardless of that leader's personal feelings on the wisdom of executing that mission.

As minor point, the newest FM 6-22 (Army leadership manual) says that it is a leaders obligation to express misgivings in the decision making process....if they do not, then they are derilict in their duty. I can only assume that those generals now speaking out did exactly that. If they did so and the decision was made to execute anyway, then they should (and apparently did) support that decision.

If however, they felt such orders were ILLEGAL then they should have refused to obey them. I have not heard any of these generals say they felt the orders/directives given them were illegal.

As a senior enlisted man, I would never expect any officer (field grade/flag rank...whatever) to express "ownership" of a mission unless it were actually true. I would however, expect that if they had disagreement with the mission that such disagreement had been expressed. If it was not, then that officer was remiss in his duty. I would also expect that when presented with the mission, I, as a senior leader would be expected to express MY agreement/disagreement but also support to the best of my ability whatever the final decision happens to be (presuming it is a legal order).

 

[CSM]

isn't field grade in the Army O-4 (major)? Flag officers for all services start at O-7, I believe!

and in answer to your point about the retired generals.... I think we are actually saying the same thing in different ways. While on active duty, you never heard Batiste, or Swannack or Eaton or Odom or Sanchez ever say anything less than 100% supportive of the stated objectives of their CinC - to their subordinates or their peers.. They would not express doubts or misgivings about the judgment of the CinC - EVEN IF CONGRESS ASKED THEM FOR THEIR OPINION. Now, you can say that they all are - or were - liars, but I say they were just doing what the ethics of their profession required of them.

Did some checking and the "official" definition of a field grade officer is one above company grade (O-4, O5, or O-6) but below brigadier. Brigadier and above are called general officers. It's been a while since I had to worry about such things.

 

[maineman]

As minor point, the newest FM 6-22 (Army leadership manual) says that it is a leaders obligation to express misgivings in the decision making process....if they do not, then they are derilict in their duty. I can only assume that those generals now speaking out did exactly that. If they did so and the decision was made to execute anyway, then they should (and apparently did) support that decision.


exactly! We are all taught to speak our minds before the decision is final... and we are all taught to walk out of the decision making meeting and execute the decision as if it were our own (hence, "ownership"). We were to NEVER let on to anyone that we had EVER had any misgivings, but we were certainly free - and expected - to express our misgivings before the fact. I have no doubt that Batiste and Odom and Sanchez and all the rest of the flag officers now retired expressed their misgivings. I have no doubt that Casey did and Petraeus did as well, but since they both are still on active duty, we won't ever get a chance to find out until they retire - and maybe not even then. They may chose to hold their tongues even though they are free, ethically, at that point, from having to do so.

 

[SR_fullpolitics]

Isnt there a difference in the acceptance of strategic decisions made in the stratosphere of the chain of command, and the tactical responsibilities of officers to implement that strategy.

Meaning, it isnt up to Sanchez to decide if stabilizing Iraq or democratizing it is a good idea, his job is to implement that on a tactical level. Doesnt that make his responsibilities directly tied to the end results. Doesnt he "own" the outcome of the tactical decisions and has no responsibility towards the strategic ones?

It seems to me that we have had a steady stream of upset generals who in their capacity of command spoke very little truth to power if their estimations of what THEIR OWN TACTICAL PLANS were not working or they needed more in order to provided success, WHILE IN COMMAND.

In the past i have attacked Maineman for being an idiot for disagreeing with me, ive attacked his patriotism as well. Thats nonsense, not because he is a former officer but because I am a better man than to do that now. But i disagree with his assessment that officers own strategic policy decisions. And I whole heartedly agree that they SHOULD OWN their tactical decisions to implement those policies.

We can see very clearly that Gen. Sanchez OWNS what happened under his watch. I do not remember him showing the leadership or courage that Shinsecki showed in being honest in order to accomplish the strategic aims of his civilian leadership.

And this is important, because we should not trust a man who did not own up to the responsibility entrusted in HIM by his soldiers and others under his chain of command. If he felt that he needed more, or some other direction should have been taken, he should used his command spot at the time to make it clear what was necessary to achieve success. One can only hope that such responsibilities are not taken so cavalier by those with whom the responsibility lies that they would rather protect their position or career in the place of true duty to the mission.

With that being said I feel like General Sanchez's comments are more strategic now, as a civilian, and less tactical and should be taken as such. Other posters are correct in that this General has not been in Iraq, has not even been in the military for a few years now. His comments while educated on his own failings during his command term cannot be denied, they also cannot be used as any sort of platform for debating his stance. I feel like its listening to the guy who formulated "new Coke", and after no one liked it came out and said "Coke never should have changed". Well no shit sherlock, the RESULTS OF YOUR CREATION WERE SHIT!!

General Sanchez is in no way being unpatriotic in his actions, unpatriotic isnt really the word for it. In my opinion its more unbelievable than anything. Looking at ones success or failure when charged with a task must not see failure and then blame the people who tasked them to do the job in the first place, ESPECIALLY if that person DID NOT do everything he thought was right in order to accomplish the mission at hand.

It is clear that Gen. Sanchez was not at the time disputing his own tactical decisions, nor was he asking for more resources, nor was he adamant about specific changes that he was denied the ability to make. It is only now that he disagree's with the strategy, but for some reason has also transferred the fruits of his own labor onto somebody else, particularly his failures. This is something that boggles the mind. He was in command. The situation got worse under his command. Who else should own that than the man making the tactical decisions on the day to day basis?

SR

 

[CSM]

As minor point, the newest FM 6-22 (Army leadership manual) says that it is a leaders obligation to express misgivings in the decision making process....if they do not, then they are derilict in their duty. I can only assume that those generals now speaking out did exactly that. If they did so and the decision was made to execute anyway, then they should (and apparently did) support that decision.


exactly! We are all taught to speak our minds before the decision is final... and we are all taught to walk out of the decision making meeting and execute the decision as if it were our own (hence, "ownership"). We were to NEVER let on to anyone that we had EVER had any misgivings, but we were certainly free - and expected - to express our misgivings before the fact. I have no doubt that Batiste and Odom and Sanchez and all the rest of the flag officers now retired expressed their misgivings. I have no doubt that Casey did and Petraeus did as well, but since they both are still on active duty, we won't ever get a chance to find out until they retire - and maybe not even then. They may chose to hold their tongues even though they are free, ethically, at that point, from having to do so.

I guess where I disagree is the idea that we are taught to execute the mission as if it were our own....I was never taught that. I was always taught that I was to execute the mission to the best of my ability. I was never told to express the idea that the mission was "my own".

 

[maineman]

The first day of my plebe year intro to naval leadership class. The parable of "The damned Exec"

The captain tells the executive officer right before the ship pulls into port, that the motor whale boat's paint job is unsatisfactory and the boatswain's mates must not go ashore on liberty until it is chipped and repainted. The executive officer argues that the men have been at sea for a long time and that they could easily paint it the next day...The captain is adamant. The exec turns...leaves...goes and looks at the motor whale boat, and then goes to the weapons officer and tells him that the paint job is unsatisfactory and that the BM's are to stay on board until it is repainted. The weapons officer complains to the exec but he is adamant. The weaps boss goes to the First Lieutenant and tells him "the damned exec says your BM's can't go ashore until the MWB is repainted. The First Lieutenant goes to his chief and tell him that the damned exec is keeping the BM's onboard until the boat is repainted...and on down the line...everyone blaming the damned exec. The moral of the parable was: the only person in that scenario that did it RIGHT was.... the damned exec.

 

[SR_fullpolitics]

The captain tells the executive officer right before the ship pulls into port, that the motor whale boat's paint job is unsatisfactory and the boatswain's mates must not go ashore on liberty until it is chipped and repainted. The executive officer argues that the men have been at sea for a long time and that they could easily paint it the next day...The captain is adamant...... The exec turns...leaves...goes and looks at the motor whale boat, and then goes to the weapons officer and tells him that the paint job is unsatisfactory and that the BM's are to stay on board and use a rocket launcher to chip the paint off and then repaint it, then once it is satisfactory they can leave. The weapons officer complains to the exec but he is adamant. The weaps boss goes to the First Lieutenant and tells him "the damned exec says your BM's can't go ashore until the MWB is repainted and to use a rocket launcher to chip the paint off. The First Lieutenant goes to his chief and tell him that the damned exec is keeping the BM's onboard until the boat is repainted...and on down the line...everyone blaming the damned exec. The boat naturally is nothing but sawdust now. The exec rails on the captain that the boat should never have been repainted in the first place after he's dismissed.

The moral of the parable was: the only person in that scenario that did it RIGHT was......?



SR

 

[Gunny]

The captain tells the executive officer right before the ship pulls into port, that the motor whale boat's paint job is unsatisfactory and the boatswain's mates must not go ashore on liberty until it is chipped and repainted. The executive officer argues that the men have been at sea for a long time and that they could easily paint it the next day...The captain is adamant...... The exec turns...leaves...goes and looks at the motor whale boat, and then goes to the weapons officer and tells him that the paint job is unsatisfactory and that the BM's are to stay on board and use a rocket launcher to chip the paint off and then repaint it, then once it is satisfactory they can leave. The weapons officer complains to the exec but he is adamant. The weaps boss goes to the First Lieutenant and tells him "the damned exec says your BM's can't go ashore until the MWB is repainted and to use a rocket launcher to chip the paint off. The First Lieutenant goes to his chief and tell him that the damned exec is keeping the BM's onboard until the boat is repainted...and on down the line...everyone blaming the damned exec. The boat naturally is nothing but sawdust now. The exec rails on the captain that the boat should never have been repainted in the first place after he's dismissed.

The moral of the parable was: the only person in that scenario that did it RIGHT was......?



SR

How'd the Weapons Officer get put in charge of BM's?

1stLt's in the Navy are Ensigns, not 1stLts.

On the surface, I would say you believe the XO did it right because he did not blame the order on the Capt. He also did not claim the idea as his own. He gave an order without assigning ownership of the idea.

I would also say that the XO is probably a pilot if he thinks a rocket launcher can be used to remove just the paint.

 

[Gunny]

not required? how motivated will any group of individuals be to tackle some life threatening task if they have an inkling that the person sending them to accomplish that task does not think it is wise?

Therein lies one of the problems of leadership. Carrying out/having carried out orders that suck. A good Marine can do so without letting his subordiantes know he disagrees.

Bitches go UP the chain, not down.