MGEN Scales: Army Is Broken

NATO AIR

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
4,275
Reaction score
282
Points
48
Location
USS Abraham Lincoln
Looks like the Kool-Aid folks in D.C. have been drinking is not as strong as it once was even 6 months ago:

Here's MGEN Scales just last year:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060501-100012-6202r.htm

His basic message; the ret. generals don't know what they're talking about, we're winning :eusa_clap:

Now, he says the Army is broken:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070329-084334-9363r.htm
:wtf:

Considering the similar about face from another Kool-Aid drinker, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, one must ask are we reaching the point where all the rats start jumping off the sinking ship except the most insa... i mean dedicated?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032701923.html

I mention all this because it returns to a basic truth I've painfully learned to understand since I read paleocon veteran Andrew Bacevich's "The New American Militarism".

He mentions how Bill Clinton politicized the officer corps more than anyone else, and how it has gotten even worse under this president. Under Clinton, officers like Wes Clark were permitted to run amok, and he, most prominently of all, got to fight his own war where he waged political warfare against his fellow 4 stars (who responded in kind) and appealed to Clinton himself to get it done. Colin Powell all but committed mutiny in making all types of threats related to avoiding intervening in Bosnia and preventing gays from openly serving in the military. So on and so forth.

Now under Bush, like stink on feces, all these generals and admirals flocked to the allure of power and prestige even though many of them in their hearts knew that the war planning (now run by Rumsfeld and co., not the generals) was faulty and dangerous. They bowed their heads, lied to the American people and Congress repeatedly ("We're winning, they've been saying for 4 years now"). None of them die or suffer horrific injury, very few of them even face career penalties for their failures. They couldn't even take care of their own troops they were responsible for (Walter Reed, the sickening decay of conditions for outpatient soldiers and others in bases across the country). Now that they begin to finally see the endgame of Iraqi civil war, Iranian sabotage, Pakistani double-dealing and the futility of fighting a war on drugs while trying to win the "hearts and minds" of Afghans who have no other cash crop but opium (all without enough troops and training), they're jumping ship.

Cowards. Traitors. Incompetent, dishonest buffoons. The whole of them.

A last note... this is what we have bought ourselves here.....Is this how troops should be trained in the 21st Century?

Take a brigade with only nine months between trips to Iraq. Upon return, it will lose over half its soldiers due to rotations, school dates and soldiers leaving the service. The first three months back will be devoted to block leave so that soldiers can reunite with their families. The next two months are needed to assimilate new arrivals. At least two months are needed on the other end to prepare the brigade's equipment for the return trip to Iraq. That leaves only four months to train at the local level — too little time for a combat unit to bond and coalesce into a first-class fighting outfit.
Past experience tells us that it takes at least a year to build a first-rate small unit. Like a fine wine, making superb small units cannot be rushed. Commanders stay awake at night worrying that their companies and platoons will go to war as a collection of strangers. Nine months between deployments will guarantee this condition.
The time-between-deployment problem ("dwell time") has become so acute that Army planners, borrowing a phrase from Wal-Mart, are talking about "just-in-time deployment," meaning that units are being rushed through training to arrive in Iraq just in time. In the past, attendance at the Army's superb National Training Centers in California, Germany and Louisiana was supposed to be a finishing exercise where brigades topped off their skills in realistic and demanding maneuvers. Today, these centers are used to do the most basic skill training in order to get units in the best shape possible so as to arrive in combat "just in time."
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070329-084334-9363r.htm
 

Psychoblues

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2003
Messages
2,701
Reaction score
142
Points
48
Location
North Missisippi
Did you get the latest message by General Batiste?


Looks like the Kool-Aid folks in D.C. have been drinking is not as strong as it once was even 6 months ago:

Here's MGEN Scales just last year:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060501-100012-6202r.htm

His basic message; the ret. generals don't know what they're talking about, we're winning :eusa_clap:

Now, he says the Army is broken:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070329-084334-9363r.htm
:wtf:

Considering the similar about face from another Kool-Aid drinker, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, one must ask are we reaching the point where all the rats start jumping off the sinking ship except the most insa... i mean dedicated?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032701923.html

I mention all this because it returns to a basic truth I've painfully learned to understand since I read paleocon veteran Andrew Bacevich's "The New American Militarism".

He mentions how Bill Clinton politicized the officer corps more than anyone else, and how it has gotten even worse under this president. Under Clinton, officers like Wes Clark were permitted to run amok, and he, most prominently of all, got to fight his own war where he waged political warfare against his fellow 4 stars (who responded in kind) and appealed to Clinton himself to get it done. Colin Powell all but committed mutiny in making all types of threats related to avoiding intervening in Bosnia and preventing gays from openly serving in the military. So on and so forth.

Now under Bush, like stink on feces, all these generals and admirals flocked to the allure of power and prestige even though many of them in their hearts knew that the war planning (now run by Rumsfeld and co., not the generals) was faulty and dangerous. They bowed their heads, lied to the American people and Congress repeatedly ("We're winning, they've been saying for 4 years now"). None of them die or suffer horrific injury, very few of them even face career penalties for their failures. They couldn't even take care of their own troops they were responsible for (Walter Reed, the sickening decay of conditions for outpatient soldiers and others in bases across the country). Now that they begin to finally see the endgame of Iraqi civil war, Iranian sabotage, Pakistani double-dealing and the futility of fighting a war on drugs while trying to win the "hearts and minds" of Afghans who have no other cash crop but opium (all without enough troops and training), they're jumping ship.

Cowards. Traitors. Incompetent, dishonest buffoons. The whole of them.

A last note... this is what we have bought ourselves here.....Is this how troops should be trained in the 21st Century?
He doesn't give the pResidents plan much hope.
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
Looks like the Kool-Aid folks in D.C. have been drinking is not as strong as it once was even 6 months ago:

Here's MGEN Scales just last year:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060501-100012-6202r.htm

His basic message; the ret. generals don't know what they're talking about, we're winning :eusa_clap:

Now, he says the Army is broken:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070329-084334-9363r.htm
:wtf:

Considering the similar about face from another Kool-Aid drinker, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, one must ask are we reaching the point where all the rats start jumping off the sinking ship except the most insa... i mean dedicated?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032701923.html

I mention all this because it returns to a basic truth I've painfully learned to understand since I read paleocon veteran Andrew Bacevich's "The New American Militarism".

He mentions how Bill Clinton politicized the officer corps more than anyone else, and how it has gotten even worse under this president. Under Clinton, officers like Wes Clark were permitted to run amok, and he, most prominently of all, got to fight his own war where he waged political warfare against his fellow 4 stars (who responded in kind) and appealed to Clinton himself to get it done. Colin Powell all but committed mutiny in making all types of threats related to avoiding intervening in Bosnia and preventing gays from openly serving in the military. So on and so forth.

Now under Bush, like stink on feces, all these generals and admirals flocked to the allure of power and prestige even though many of them in their hearts knew that the war planning (now run by Rumsfeld and co., not the generals) was faulty and dangerous. They bowed their heads, lied to the American people and Congress repeatedly ("We're winning, they've been saying for 4 years now"). None of them die or suffer horrific injury, very few of them even face career penalties for their failures. They couldn't even take care of their own troops they were responsible for (Walter Reed, the sickening decay of conditions for outpatient soldiers and others in bases across the country). Now that they begin to finally see the endgame of Iraqi civil war, Iranian sabotage, Pakistani double-dealing and the futility of fighting a war on drugs while trying to win the "hearts and minds" of Afghans who have no other cash crop but opium (all without enough troops and training), they're jumping ship.

Cowards. Traitors. Incompetent, dishonest buffoons. The whole of them.

A last note... this is what we have bought ourselves here.....Is this how troops should be trained in the 21st Century?
Just in time...? Just in time for what? To die or be maimed as a salve to Bush's ego?
 

Rosotar

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
422
Reaction score
45
Points
16
Location
New Mexico
Did you get the latest message by General Batiste?




He doesn't give the pResidents plan much hope.
Now Cons are going to have to turn on the spin and find a way to slander another formerly praised veteran.

Just watch. It shouldn't take them long.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Did you get the latest message by General Batiste?




He doesn't give the pResidents plan much hope.
Funny, one really could argue he was one of the architechs of it:

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/008574.html

he only things new about the Democrats using Generals are the specific names. Last year they had a different crew.

Batiste and two other retired officers spoke before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, a rump group with little legislative clout but access to a proper Senate hearing room. And Batiste made up for lost time.

"Donald Rumsfeld is not a competent wartime leader," said Batiste, wearing a pinstripe suit, calling himself a "lifelong Republican" and bearing a slight resemblance to Oliver North. "He surrounds himself with like-minded and compliant subordinates who do not grasp the importance of the principles of war, the complexities of Iraq or the human dimension of warfare. . . . Bottom line: His plan allowed the insurgency to take root and metastasize to where it is today."
<...>
Batiste and his colleagues offered their solution: more troops, more money and more time in Iraq.

"We must mobilize our country for a protracted challenge," Batiste warned.

"We better be planning for at least a minimum of a decade or longer," contributed retired Marine Col. Thomas Hammes.

"We are, conservatively, 60,000 soldiers short," added retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was in charge of building the Iraqi Security Forces.
That call for a surge was why they had to be replaced on the podium, of course.

You probably heard that last year's generals had called for Rumsfeld to be fired - but did you know they had called for a surge?

That, good friends, is message control.

2006 - before shifting strategy: Failed strategy

2007 - after shifting strategy: Failed strategy

That's called sticking to the message.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
56,765
Reaction score
15,164
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
3 years too late, and 10's of thousands of men short still....to do the job properly or according to the general's previous requests and recommendations.
 

TheStripey1

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
548
Reaction score
23
Points
16
Location
Left Coast
Funny, one really could argue he was one of the architechs of it:

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/008574.html
Even so, one could also argue that after seeing how the war was prosecuted by the civilians, the generals said... enough is enough and quit their jobs just so they could tell the american people what is really going on.

Giving your druthers before going to war, would you want to have the planners be civilians with no military experience or generals that had spent their entire life in service to our country?

I prefer the latter.
 

TheStripey1

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
548
Reaction score
23
Points
16
Location
Left Coast
3 years too late, and 10's of thousands of men short still....to do the job properly or according to the general's previous requests and recommendations.

but but but C4A... bush says he listens to the generals... and he probably does... he just doesn't heed their advice... he heeds the advice of his civilian advisors, instead...

real smart...
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
but but but C4A... bush says he listens to the generals... and he probably does... he just doesn't heed their advice... he heeds the advice of his civilian advisors, instead...

real smart...
Nah...Bush's already told us he "listens to the voices". He just neglected to tell they were the voices in his head.
 

Psychoblues

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2003
Messages
2,701
Reaction score
142
Points
48
Location
North Missisippi
He went in and did his duty as any good soldier would.


Funny, one really could argue he was one of the architechs of it:

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/008574.html
He came out and voiced his overview as to what was right and what was wrong in the operation. Do you have a problem with that?

It seems to me that many O-7's (Generals, Admirals) and above keep coming up with the same analyses about gwb and his war strategies. I have a problem with that.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top