Radical Islam Will Not Go Away Unless Crushed

[trobinett]

I've already said so privately to GunnyL but let me do so here publicly.



I could NOT agree more with his comments as they are completely aligned with my own. Arrogance is a poor way to make friends and influence people. We should delete it from our national toolbox.

Same comment for pegwinn.

Isn't it amazing how when we stop shouting at each other, we find we are not so very far apart on many things?

I am a suspicious bastard and tend to have paranoid thoughts, but divide and conquer is about as OLD a strategy as there is. Is it POSSIBLE that there are those in our society who would like to see us bicker among ourselves so as to not notice what is going on behind the scenes? And if so, who would these people be and what would their agenda be once their conquest is complete?

Just asking. Maybe I am paranoid. But maybe, just maybe, there is something to make me that way.

In any event, I will say flatly that I am opposed to using American soldiers as pawns to arrogant jerks, be they diplomats, presidents, presidential advisors, senior fellows at some think tank or other or private individuals. Making them cannon fodder to some ideology or other is NOT the way to support or respect our troops.

Thanks again to GunnyL for laying it out so clearly.

Our leaders set up a system of civilian control over the military to prevent things like military coup d'etats, as happen frequently throughout history. But one could conclude that civilian control by non-professionals over professionals may not be such a great idea either. If I were a senior commander who was ordered to do something that I thought placed the soldiers under my command in needless jeopardy, I would find it very, very hard to execute that order. It is perhaps counterproductive that the members of the military are not allowed to express those concernes without sacrificing their careers. We need to be more receptive to the advice of the professionals if we want professional results.

Yes, what a tangled web we weave, and none more tangled than international politics.

I belive the MSM plays a bigger part in the push to "over" manage a war from Washington, than we may realize.

Couple that with "instant" news, and you have what we are looking at today. Professional soldiers trying to do as they been charged with doing, and getting constantly changing orders, from those they are accountable too in the civilian sector.

We found it hard to understand in the 60's, I'm sure they are finding it hard to understand today.

Good to see you "cool your jets" MG, and join the conversation.

 

[dilloduck]

I think you are mixing things up here. Our troops ARE in Iraqi and lives ARE in the balance. BECAUSE we have a religious loony for a leader! As for getting out of what we have gotten ourselves into, I would start by NOT listening to the ideas of the very person who got into this mess in the first place. THAT part should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.


As to what I would do if I were King of the Universe?

I start by saying there IS no good solution. But since Iraq is a "magic" country cobbled together by the British after WW I, I would STOP trying to invest imaginary borders with magical powers. Yugoslavia broke apart into its component parts in a bloody and pitiful way, but so be it. Life in that part of the world goes on. I would allow Iraq to split into its component parts. It will be another bloody and pitiful process, but at least American soldiers will not be getting their asses shot off trying to keep the lid on the pressure cooker.

There may even be an ancillary advantage to The West. If the muslims descend into fight to the fininsh between the Sunnis, the Shi'ites and the Wahabists, at least we will know with whom we are dealing when smoke clears.

You asked my opinion and so I have given it. Do I think it is a GOOD solution? No. Do I think it is a workable solution? Yes I do, though obviously one that has some dire consequences attached to it. Its gonna be painful no matter what. Why not let the contestants inflict the pain on each other and keep OUR soldiers out of it?

Somehow, I suspect there are other opinions out there waiting to be unleashed. Let's hear 'em.

I strongly disagree with your assertion that we are in Iraq because Bush is a religious loony. There were MANY involved in promoting the Iraq invasion and I can't think of any who were of Bushs' religious persuasion. Many were not even Christian. The idea that one "religious" loony could persuade so many that we were to invade Iraq for religious reasons is a pretty far reach, IMHO.

That being said, I think that now the US is now standing aside and watching sunnis and shia massacre each other while the Kurds remain relatively calm in thier enclave (much to the chagrin of Iran and Turkey). If the US left Iraq, there would be nothing to prevent Iran from working with Iraqi shia to usurp at least most of southern Iraq to include the oil fields. The Kurds would be vulnerable to further atrocities.

Pulling out of Iraq would be a devestating blow to the US and the troops that have done so much there. Staying the course doesn't mean using the same tactics over and over. It means that the US will not run away from Islamic agression. Do we really want to leave and give radical islam a victory that would certainly unite them and is bound to be one of the best recruiting tools ever ?

 

[MGB]

I appreciate your dissent. And ably put it is. I base my prior statement on some of the books that have emerged by former administration people who speak of Bush's obsession with invading Iraq. He IS the commander in chief, after all.

But I respect your concerns for what would happen if we were to withdraw our forces. Clearly, no one can say with certainty what the result of that would be. Turkey would probably go into hyperdrive about having a potential Kurdish state on its border. Iran could definitely exploit the situation.

I suppose my most important consideration is to protect our troops from needless exposure to potentially deadly situations. I would rather see THEIR guys dying than ours.

But it is a clusterfuck waiting to happen no matter how we proceed. I don't want to see one more American soldier sacrificed than is absolutely necessary. Perhaps I am too concerned with that objective. Time will tell.

Thanks for your response.

 

[trobinett]

I appreciate your dissent. And ably put it is. I base my prior statement on some of the books that have emerged by former administration people who speak of Bush's obsession with invading Iraq. He IS the commander in chief, after all.

But I respect your concerns for what would happen if we were to withdraw our forces. Clearly, no one can say with certainty what the result of that would be. Turkey would probably go into hyperdrive about having a potential Kurdish state on its border. Iran could definitely exploit the situation.

I suppose my most important consideration is to protect our troops from needless exposure to potentially deadly situations. I would rather see THEIR guys dying than ours.

But it is a clusterfuck waiting to happen no matter how we proceed. I don't want to see one more American soldier sacrificed than is absolutely necessary. Perhaps I am too concerned with that objective. Time will tell.

Thanks for your response.

I think you are MG, too concerned, that is.

Soldiers KNOW what they've signed up to do, it ISN'T kept a secret.

If this country hasn't got the stomach to stand behind, what THIS COUNTRY has asked its soldiers to do, then THIS country, and those that feel that way, deserve exactly what they get.

I only feel sorry for our troops, and their wasted effort.

 

[Gunny]

I appreciate your dissent. And ably put it is. I base my prior statement on some of the books that have emerged by former administration people who speak of Bush's obsession with invading Iraq. He IS the commander in chief, after all.

Saddam Hussein became a problem the second he invaded Kuwait and Kuwait came to us for help. Once we ousted him from Kuwait, instead of honoring the terms he agreed to in order bring a ceasefire into effect, he continually thereafter defied UN mandates and the terms of the ceasefire. He was a continuing threat to every nation in the region (he already had invaded two of them), and to US interests in the region.

ANYONE who was going to be President was going to have to address the issue. I don't believe President Bush had some personal obsession with Saddam, and there has been no actual facts presented to prove otherwise. I do think some erroneous conclusions were reached concerning Saddam that tipped the scales in favor of his ouster.

But I respect your concerns for what would happen if we were to withdraw our forces. Clearly, no one can say with certainty what the result of that would be. Turkey would probably go into hyperdrive about having a potential Kurdish state on its border. Iran could definitely exploit the situation.

What would happen is what is already beginning to happen. The military brass predicted it in 91, and it is one of the main reasons we did not pursue Saddam's ouster then.

The Sunni's, Shia and Kurds would engage in Civil War, while Iranians, Saudis and Syrians would do their best to bolster their respective favorite flavors and al Qaeda would be in the background fomenting the hate-n-discontent.

The one thing tyrants like Saddam and Tito can claim as positives is that each managed, by whatever means necessary, to force ethnic/religious differences to the back burner. When each no longer weilded power, those differences exploded.

I suppose my most important consideration is to protect our troops from needless exposure to potentially deadly situations. I would rather see THEIR guys dying than ours.

The troops are and are not needlessly exposed. They are to the extent that politicians are attempting to use them as a police force; something, they are not trained to do.

They are not needlesly exposed in the sense that we are honor-bound to finish what we started.

But it is a clusterfuck waiting to happen no matter how we proceed. I don't want to see one more American soldier sacrificed than is absolutely necessary. Perhaps I am too concerned with that objective. Time will tell.

Thanks for your response.

It is only a clusterfuck in the sense that we need a change in strategy and tactics that leave the political correctness and politics back in the rear with the gear, and place security above kissing Iraqi ass and world opinion's ass.

 

[MGB]

Thanks for that input, GunnyL. Especially the part about the conclusions in '91 that what we have now is pretty much what could be predicted to happen. One could spend a lifetime trying to understand why W.H. stayed out of Baghdad then but W. went in to Baghdad 12 years later with essentially the same political team advising him that advised his father. I have no answer for that.

I also agree with your statement that soldiers are not trained to be policemen. And yet so often they are placed in that position involuntarily. Its like asking Lance Armstrong to suddenly be as brilliant at Alpine skiing as he is at bicycle racing.

It puzzles me why these issues, which seem so clear to us, are NOT given adequate weight by our political leaders. Personally, I would like to see more military people transition into the political arena. Civilian control may be a fine idea, but there's nothing saying a background in military matters would not be a fitting asset for some of those civilians.

I know its an old debate, but the W. ranks of advisers ARE notoriously short of actual military experience and particularly combat experience. THAT has GOT to make the professional soldiers a little anxious, no?

 

[CSM]

Thanks for that input, GunnyL. Especially the part about the conclusions in '91 that what we have now is pretty much what could be predicted to happen. One could spend a lifetime trying to understand why W.H. stayed out of Baghdad then but W. went in to Baghdad 12 years later with essentially the same political team advising him that advised his father. I have no answer for that.

I also agree with your statement that soldiers are not trained to be policemen. And yet so often they are placed in that position involuntarily. Its like asking Lance Armstrong to suddenly be as brilliant at Alpine skiing as he is at bicycle racing.

It puzzles me why these issues, which seem so clear to us, are NOT given adequate weight by our political leaders. Personally, I would like to see more military people transition into the political arena. Civilian control may be a fine idea, but there's nothing saying a background in military matters would not be a fitting asset for some of those civilians.

I know its an old debate, but the W. ranks of advisers ARE notoriously short of actual military experience and particularly combat experience. THAT has GOT to make the professional soldiers a little anxious, no?

As long as being a military member automatically makes you second class citizen, our politicians will shun military service. Lets face it, military service is NOT encouraged by parents as an honorable profession. Our politicians (particularly on the Dem side) are always spouting how the military is exploiting the underpriviliged, less educated and simply lazy members of our population and whether that is true or not, potential recruits are more prone to listen to their parents and the talking heads than they are to anything a recruiter may have to say. High schools and college campuses treat military recruiters like some sort horde of evil incubii coming to lure the innocent into corruption and certain death. The prevalent attitude in this country, despite the rhetoric about supporting the troops, is that military members are somehow "flawed", mere pawns in a political game and used and abused by both ends of the political spectrum.

Current history shows that trying to use the military in tasks for which they are not trained or equipped for always ends in disaster yet our civilian leaders insist on placing soldiers in a position where they will ultimately fail. Then the citizens of this country ensure their failure by opposing military operations after they have started.

IMO, the citizens of this country desrve what they get.

I do not expect that to change anytime soon.

 

[MGB]

A line in an Eagles song says that "Change in this life comes very slowly if it ever comes at all." But, from my perspective, the public attitude toward the military is much improved over what it was when I was in the Army in the 70's. I well remember being villified by my first college roommate and his cohorts because I was enrolled in ROTC. And how the hippie couple upstairs from me in my apartment in San Francisco treated me like dogshit that someone found its way onto their shoes. And, btw, I am pretty well aware of the attitude among senior NCO's toward junior officers (and senior officers as well, for that matter) but hey, what would life be like without officers to make your life miserable?

Anyway, I personally find a lot to like about Shineke and Zinni and some of the other generals who have retired or forced out by this whole Iraq thing. They don't strike ME as uneducated or incompetent. They DO strike me as far better informed and bettter prepared to protect American interests than their civilian masters. Colin Powell may get mixed reviews as Secretary of State, but he certainly understands what it takes to mount a military mission that has a maximum chance of success, to wit: overwhelming force.

I noticed a young man leaving a local high school last week in the uniform of a high school ROTC Air Force cadet. THAT'S a site we haven't seen in America in a long time, at least here in the cheese eating, wine swilling East.

The only solution I see is to encourage more candidates with military experience to join the political fray, although combat operations may look like a day at the beach compared to domestic politics!

 

[CSM]

A line in an Eagles song says that "Change in this life comes very slowly if it ever comes at all." But, from my perspective, the public attitude toward the military is much improved over what it was when I was in the Army in the 70's. I well remember being villified by my first college roommate and his cohorts because I was enrolled in ROTC. And how the hippie couple upstairs from me in my apartment in San Francisco treated me like dogshit that someone found its way onto their shoes. And, btw, I am pretty well aware of the attitude among senior NCO's toward junior officers (and senior officers as well, for that matter) but hey, what would life be like without officers to make your life miserable?

Anyway, I personally find a lot to like about Shineke and Zinni and some of the other generals who have retired or forced out by this whole Iraq thing. They don't strike ME as uneducated or incompetent. They DO strike me as far better informed and bettter prepared to protect American interests than their civilian masters. Colin Powell may get mixed reviews as Secretary of State, but he certainly understands what it takes to mount a military mission that has a maximum chance of success, to wit: overwhelming force.

I noticed a young man leaving a local high school last week in the uniform of a high school ROTC Air Force cadet. THAT'S a site we haven't seen in America in a long time, at least here in the cheese eating, wine swilling East.

The only solution I see is to encourage more candidates with military experience to join the political fray, although combat operations may look like a day at the beach compared to domestic politics!

I liked Shinseki...not a big fan of Zinni. Not sure what you mean about officer/NCO relationships but whatever.

Your memory is flawed if you do not recall the recent bans on military recruiters by various campuses around the nation.

I am not sure I would encourage any military person to enter politics....too dangerous.

 

[pegwinn]

It is interesting that we've come back to the second class military discussion again. One of the ongoing arguments I get into with our more liberal friends is that in my estimation the US Military is superior to the civilian population. They normally go nuts and spout the usual rhetoric about all men are created equal etc etc etc. But, disregarding philosophical positions, the facts are that: In virtually every measurable standard the Military outperforms the civil sector and thus can be said to be literally "better". Fact.

This article Examines the obesity rates in America. This article also specifies the obesity rates for the civilian sector and the military. Short version is that the civilians are 10 percentage points higher than the military. Since obesity directly relates to health and fitness, the indicator is that the Military is healthier and fitter than the civilian sector. The source for the military isn't even pie in the sky either. It estimates 54% of the Military is obese. In all my years on Active Duty I never saw a fourth of any unit to be obese. So I am thinking that number is high or the methodology of computation is different.

The US Military has a 91% HS Graduation rate while the civilian population is at 79.4% according to this. Kinda blows the honorable jfkerry out the water huh? Those figures are for enlisted accessions only. If you factor in 100% of all commissioned officers having a BA (an MA is now required to advance beyond Capt in the Marines) then the overall education average will really jump. Additionally the military figure is actual HS Diplomas without counting GED's. The civilian population is HS Diplomas + GED's.

When it comes to participation in the government process we have already demonstrated that the Military votes in higher percentages. The stats are 79 to 64 percent favoring the military. Why isn't relevant. For a breakdown of civilian stats (which is overall lower than the DOD site, and includes a notation that vets voted in higher percentages than non-vets) go here.

One of the non measurable, but IMO (there's that o-word that invites discussion) very important intangibles is that of ethics and morality within the Military and Civilian sectors. An essay on this can be found here

It really sucks to be subordinate to folks who are not worthy to lead you. Too bad our elected officials don't have to live up to the standards they helped impose.

 

[Gunny]

It is interesting that we've come back to the second class military discussion again. One of the ongoing arguments I get into with our more liberal friends is that in my estimation the US Military is superior to the civilian population. They normally go nuts and spout the usual rhetoric about all men are created equal etc etc etc. But, disregarding philosophical positions, the facts are that: In virtually every measurable standard the Military outperforms the civil sector and thus can be said to be literally "better". Fact.

This article Examines the obesity rates in America. This article also specifies the obesity rates for the civilian sector and the military. Short version is that the civilians are 10 percentage points higher than the military. Since obesity directly relates to health and fitness, the indicator is that the Military is healthier and fitter than the civilian sector. The source for the military isn't even pie in the sky either. It estimates 54% of the Military is obese. In all my years on Active Duty I never saw a fourth of any unit to be obese. So I am thinking that number is high or the methodology of computation is different.

The US Military has a 91% HS Graduation rate while the civilian population is at 79.4% according to this. Kinda blows the honorable jfkerry out the water huh? Those figures are for enlisted accessions only. If you factor in 100% of all commissioned officers having a BA (an MA is now required to advance beyond Capt in the Marines) then the overall education average will really jump. Additionally the military figure is actual HS Diplomas without counting GED's. The civilian population is HS Diplomas + GED's.

When it comes to participation in the government process we have already demonstrated that the Military votes in higher percentages. The stats are 79 to 64 percent favoring the military. Why isn't relevant. For a breakdown of civilian stats (which is overall lower than the DOD site, and includes a notation that vets voted in higher percentages than non-vets) go here.

One of the non measurable, but IMO (there's that o-word that invites discussion) very important intangibles is that of ethics and morality within the Military and Civilian sectors. An essay on this can be found here

It really sucks to be subordinate to folks who are not worthy to lead you. Too bad our elected officials don't have to live up to the standards they helped impose.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to pegwinn again."

 

[Gunny]

A line in an Eagles song says that "Change in this life comes very slowly if it ever comes at all." But, from my perspective, the public attitude toward the military is much improved over what it was when I was in the Army in the 70's. I well remember being villified by my first college roommate and his cohorts because I was enrolled in ROTC. And how the hippie couple upstairs from me in my apartment in San Francisco treated me like dogshit that someone found its way onto their shoes. And, btw, I am pretty well aware of the attitude among senior NCO's toward junior officers (and senior officers as well, for that matter) but hey, what would life be like without officers to make your life miserable?

Anyway, I personally find a lot to like about Shineke and Zinni and some of the other generals who have retired or forced out by this whole Iraq thing. They don't strike ME as uneducated or incompetent. They DO strike me as far better informed and bettter prepared to protect American interests than their civilian masters. Colin Powell may get mixed reviews as Secretary of State, but he certainly understands what it takes to mount a military mission that has a maximum chance of success, to wit: overwhelming force.

I noticed a young man leaving a local high school last week in the uniform of a high school ROTC Air Force cadet. THAT'S a site we haven't seen in America in a long time, at least here in the cheese eating, wine swilling East.

The only solution I see is to encourage more candidates with military experience to join the political fray, although combat operations may look like a day at the beach compared to domestic politics!

In addition to CSM's and PEGWINN's comments, I would like to add this: You don't see as many former military personnel in the government anymore for the reasons mentioned, and because you average military type is usually disgusted by politicians and the games they play. Politicans have long used the military as their social experimentation ground; regardless, the detrimental affects to the military.

"Don't ask don't tell" comes to mind.

Lowering standards so substandard people can pass is another.

Affirmative action via promotion quotas by race/gender is rampant throughout the service.

This is what politicians bring to the military, and calling a spade a spade, all of the above mentioned are the results of liberal agenda. Point is, why should anyone who has suffered THAT want to become part of the problem?

 

[trobinett]

In addition to CSM's and PEGWINN's comments, I would like to add this: You don't see as many former military personnel in the government anymore for the reasons mentioned, and because you average military type is usually disgusted by politicians and the games they play. Politicans have long used the military as their social experimentation ground; regardless, the detrimental affects to the military.

"Don't ask don't tell" comes to mind.

Lowering standards so substandard people can pass is another.

Affirmative action via promotion quotas by race/gender is rampant throughout the service.

This is what politicians bring to the military, and calling a spade a spade, all of the above mentioned are the results of liberal agenda. Point is, why should anyone who has suffered THAT want to become part of the problem?

Well Gunny, they COULD become part of the solution.

 

[Gunny]

Well Gunny, they COULD become part of the solution.

Think so? Aside from the odd, lucky celebrity, what independent, or person who refused to "play ball" do you know that has held office in recent times?

Don't play ball with the media and you're toast.

Don't play ball with your cronies and they abandon support for your issue.

Don't play ball with the opposition, and they won't support your issue.

One thing Dems and Republicans are as bipartisan as Hell about is a threat from a third party who doesn't want to engage in "politics as usual." Until someone figures out how to crack THAT code, there is no solution.

 

[trobinett]

Think so? Aside from the odd, lucky celebrity, what independent, or person who refused to "play ball" do you know that has held office in recent times?

Don't play ball with the media and you're toast.

Don't play ball with your cronies and they abandon support for your issue.

Don't play ball with the opposition, and they won't support your issue.

One thing Dems and Republicans are as bipartisan as Hell about is a threat from a third party who doesn't want to engage in "politics as usual." Until someone figures out how to crack THAT code, there is no solution.

My family, on my mothers side, was deeply involved in Southern politics a generation ago. This was during the time that the "good old boy" way of getting things done was considered "normal".

For those, that are younger, that's "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" way of "doing business".

Still done, as Gunny points out, but not in the "smokey back rooms", like it use to be done.

It's still a problem, getting things done, if your not willing to "play ball". So of course a retired military person might fine the "rules" a little different, but politics are played in the military as well.

Once the rules are learned, I think folks with military backgrounds do BETTER than the "average" political want-a-be.

I think the reason we don't see more aspiring to the political theater, their too damn smart. But, I also think, it may be time, pass time, for more to start stepping forward.

 

[Gunny]

My family, on my mothers side, was deeply involved in Southern politics a generation ago. This was during the time that the "good old boy" way of getting things done was considered "normal".

For those, that are younger, that's "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" way of "doing business".

Still done, as Gunny points out, but not in the "smokey back rooms", like it use to be done.

It's still a problem, getting things done, if your not willing to "play ball". So of course a retired military person might fine the "rules" a little different, but politics are played in the military as well.

Once the rules are learned, I think folks with military backgrounds do BETTER than the "average" political want-a-be.

I think the reason we don't see more aspiring to the political theater, their too damn smart. But, I also think, it may be time, pass time, for more to start stepping forward.

A BIG difference being you CAN be successful in the military WITHOUT playing politics. You cannot be successful in politics without playing ball with the good ol' boys and/or the opposition.

As far as "doing better," that depends on which branch of military you're choosing from. You start putting ground combat folks in politics and they tend to have less tolerance for bullshit and a more direct approach to problem-solving, and they're more than happy to hold people who have loose mouthes accountable for what they say. In other words, a lot of Dems would be getting their asses kicked for false accusations, lies and insults.

 

[trobinett]

A BIG difference being you CAN be successful in the military WITHOUT playing politics. You cannot be successful in politics without playing ball with the good ol' boys and/or the opposition.

As far as "doing better," that depends on which branch of military you're choosing from. You start putting ground combat folks in politics and they tend to have less tolerance for bullshit and a more direct approach to problem-solving, and they're more than happy to hold people who have loose mouthes accountable for what they say. In other words, a lot of Dems would be getting their asses kicked for false accusations, lies and insults.

Couldn't agree more Gunny.

Having LESS tolerance for bullshit, is, in my opinion, a GOOD thing.

I'd say, we've arrived at that time, were some serious "ass kicking" is called for.

 

[Gunny]

Couldn't agree more Gunny.

Having LESS tolerance for bullshit, is, in my opinion, a GOOD thing.

I'd say, we've arrived at that time, were some serious "ass kicking" is called for.

Odd thing. Fighters create a Nation and society, then let pussies legislate them out of even having a say in the direction of the Nation they created.

 

[pegwinn]

Odd thing. Fighters create a Nation and society, then let pussies legislate them out of even having a say in the direction of the Nation they created.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GunnyL again.

Absofuckinglutely.

Imagine a White House and Cabinet run like a rifle battalion.

"Alright, pipe down. I need a plan [ fill in the need ] that is at least fifty percent effective by 1630 Friday. Then, smooth it out, and by the following Friday get the other fifty percent online. Keep quiet about this until the first verified success. After action review the following Friday so we can adjust if needed.

Questions? XO, its your meeting now."

Co (President) gets up and leaves. XO (VP) asks a few generic questions and leaves. S3 (Chief of Staff) hands out operation order and begins briefing.

Since it's Thursday, no one gets any sleep.

On Friday, a reporter who popped off in the daily briefing finds himself out on his ass in the wet with a grinning Marine. The Marine mentions casually that the reporter is now on the "shit list" and laughs as the reporter asks him to spell it. "Sure Buddy", the Marine replies, "G E T O U T"

 

[Gunny]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GunnyL again.

Absofuckinglutely.

Imagine a White House and Cabinet run like a rifle battalion.

"Alright, pipe down. I need a plan [ fill in the need ] that is at least fifty percent effective by 1630 Friday. Then, smooth it out, and by the following Friday get the other fifty percent online. Keep quiet about this until the first verified success. After action review the following Friday so we can adjust if needed.

Questions? XO, its your meeting now."

Co (President) gets up and leaves. XO (VP) asks a few generic questions and leaves. S3 (Chief of Staff) hands out operation order and begins briefing.

Since it's Thursday, no one gets any sleep.

On Friday, a reporter who popped off in the daily briefing finds himself out on his ass in the wet with a grinning Marine. The Marine mentions casually that the reporter is now on the "shit list" and laughs as the reporter asks him to spell it. "Sure Buddy", the Marine replies, "G E T O U T"

I'd absolutely LOVE it. I'm sure we'd make the weenie-ass libs cry though. That of course included in the career bio as a highlight!!!