Full Version: Follow the Leader
Are the battle field experts and leaders of our armed forces so committed to following the orders of our "Commander in Chief" that they silence their own reservations about war?
I haven't seen any recent comments made by General "Stormin' Norman" Schwarzkopf, but I remember his stark opposition to our war in Iraq. He admitted that he didn't have the same intelligence that the President and his advisors would have, but he said that the case we'd laid out in public and to the U.N. failed, in his mind, to justify immediate action in Iraq.
WashingtonPost: Desert Caution
warblogging.com
General Wesley K. Clark, former NATO commander, is less critical, but remains unconvinced that a war with Iraq is currently necessary, that the steps being taken are the right ones, and that we have our priorites in order (he sees Osama and terrorist cells as more pressing than Saddam).
WashingtonPost: General Doubts
The general idea seems to be that a war is not yet necessary... and this is the opinion of formerly high ranking officers in our military who served their country with distinction. As opposed to the (as I've heard them called) "chickenhawks" ultimately running the show -- who, with the exception of Powell, have not seen combat.
And, I'm not sure how many other people noticed, but before the U.N. showing in February, Colin Powell was calling for more patience in the roll to war. But, still serving his country under the command of Bush, he hopped on the war machine... whether he truly believed it imperative that we take action now.
Should the combat leaders of our armed forces be given more of a forum to speak about their own concerns for war?
Schwarzkopf showed appreciation in his comments for Cheney staying back in the first Gulf War and detests Rumsfeld's seemingly Napoleonic approach to running the army. And from other articles I've read, many of the advisors from the Pentagon really have no first hand experience with war, but are merely students of warfare working with second hand strategy.
And, while getting your opinions on this...
Do you think a president with first hand combat experience would be nearly as quick to engage in warfare or how do you think they might approach it differently? Do you think there is any danger in having people so removed from combat calling such brazen moves for our men and women in service?
I haven't seen any recent comments made by General "Stormin' Norman" Schwarzkopf, but I remember his stark opposition to our war in Iraq. He admitted that he didn't have the same intelligence that the President and his advisors would have, but he said that the case we'd laid out in public and to the U.N. failed, in his mind, to justify immediate action in Iraq.
WashingtonPost: Desert Caution
warblogging.com
General Wesley K. Clark, former NATO commander, is less critical, but remains unconvinced that a war with Iraq is currently necessary, that the steps being taken are the right ones, and that we have our priorites in order (he sees Osama and terrorist cells as more pressing than Saddam).
WashingtonPost: General Doubts
The general idea seems to be that a war is not yet necessary... and this is the opinion of formerly high ranking officers in our military who served their country with distinction. As opposed to the (as I've heard them called) "chickenhawks" ultimately running the show -- who, with the exception of Powell, have not seen combat.
And, I'm not sure how many other people noticed, but before the U.N. showing in February, Colin Powell was calling for more patience in the roll to war. But, still serving his country under the command of Bush, he hopped on the war machine... whether he truly believed it imperative that we take action now.
Should the combat leaders of our armed forces be given more of a forum to speak about their own concerns for war?
Schwarzkopf showed appreciation in his comments for Cheney staying back in the first Gulf War and detests Rumsfeld's seemingly Napoleonic approach to running the army. And from other articles I've read, many of the advisors from the Pentagon really have no first hand experience with war, but are merely students of warfare working with second hand strategy.
And, while getting your opinions on this...
Do you think a president with first hand combat experience would be nearly as quick to engage in warfare or how do you think they might approach it differently? Do you think there is any danger in having people so removed from combat calling such brazen moves for our men and women in service?
Norman said
That pretty much sums it up. He is retired, he isn't in the loop anymore. He would like to have better information, all of us would. Matter of fact, it would be nice if every dictator in the world kept a hand website showing their current violations of UN resolutions so we could feel better about cleaning them out of their rats nest. That isn't going to happen.
No, we don't pay combat leaders to give speeches about policy. Their job is to win wars for us, not to pontificate on the virtues of going to war or not. We have plenty of elected officials who are glad to pontificate on that subject.
I don't think you can make a correlation between someone going to war once and being more cautious about going to war again. It really depends on the individuals experiences in war and how they view the results of going to war. For example, someone who was in the Vietnam war might have a very different outlook from someone who was in the Korean war.
And the "brazen moves" portion of your post is very much a matter of opinion. A lot of people would say that waiting around 12 years for Saddam to disarm is not so brazen.
QUOTE
"Now, having said that, I don't know what intelligence the U.S. government has. And before I can just stand up and say, 'Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we need to invade Iraq,' I guess I would like to have better information."
That pretty much sums it up. He is retired, he isn't in the loop anymore. He would like to have better information, all of us would. Matter of fact, it would be nice if every dictator in the world kept a hand website showing their current violations of UN resolutions so we could feel better about cleaning them out of their rats nest. That isn't going to happen.
QUOTE
Should the combat leaders of our armed forces be given more of a forum to speak about their own concerns for war?
No, we don't pay combat leaders to give speeches about policy. Their job is to win wars for us, not to pontificate on the virtues of going to war or not. We have plenty of elected officials who are glad to pontificate on that subject.
QUOTE
Do you think a president with first hand combat experience would be nearly as quick to engage in warfare or how do you think they might approach it differently? Do you think there is any danger in having people so removed from combat calling such brazen moves for our men and women in service?
I don't think you can make a correlation between someone going to war once and being more cautious about going to war again. It really depends on the individuals experiences in war and how they view the results of going to war. For example, someone who was in the Vietnam war might have a very different outlook from someone who was in the Korean war.
And the "brazen moves" portion of your post is very much a matter of opinion. A lot of people would say that waiting around 12 years for Saddam to disarm is not so brazen.
QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ Mar 17 2003, 08:26 PM)
[Should the combat leaders of our armed forces be given more of a forum to speak about their own concerns for war?
And, while getting your opinions on this...
Do you think a president with first hand combat experience would be nearly as quick to engage in warfare or how do you think they might approach it differently? Do you think there is any danger in having people so removed from combat calling such brazen moves for our men and women in service?
And, while getting your opinions on this...
Do you think a president with first hand combat experience would be nearly as quick to engage in warfare or how do you think they might approach it differently? Do you think there is any danger in having people so removed from combat calling such brazen moves for our men and women in service?
QUOTE
To the first point, let's remember that every soldier was born a civilian. I've been out of the military for over 20 years, but we would sit around in the barracks and discuss politics and where we might be sent off to fight.
Soldiers have opinons just like everyone else does about whether or not this war is necessary (and I assure you there are many whom have their doubts).
However, when you raise your right hand and take that oath you supress those doubts about the mission or the men that are sending you off to fight and possibly die. Soldiers are not robots. They get scared, they have their misgivings and the vast majority just want to come home in one piece. Everyone of them will salute and go do the job supremely well, but don't kid yourself that they all like it!
The last two Presidents have never been battle-tested and that may give us pause when they send young men off to die for their political principles.
The soldiers go in when the civilians screw up the diplomatic process. As the saying goes, war is just a continuation of diplomacy by other means.
That doesn't mean the officers and soldiers don't think they being used for some really dumb reasons. They're trained to do a job and they will get the job done in Iraq---make no mistake about that!
Just don't think they're ALL as "gung-ho" for the coming hostilities as the armchair generals safe at home.
It's the U.S. Armed Forces that are about to become embroiled in a very different kind of "March Madness."
Hey nighttimer, welcome to the forum.
I have no doubt that there are some misgivings and a lot of worried soldiers in the middle east right now. However, aren't soldiers trained to follow orders?
Public argument by a General, against war with Iraq, could be seen as insubordination. Military personel past or present, please correct me if I'm wrong.
I have faith that all the Generalswith serious concerns, have met with or talked to Bush about them. I would hope so at least. But will they, or should they, come forward and publically argue against Bush? No...they shouldn't
--cheers
I have no doubt that there are some misgivings and a lot of worried soldiers in the middle east right now. However, aren't soldiers trained to follow orders?
Public argument by a General, against war with Iraq, could be seen as insubordination. Military personel past or present, please correct me if I'm wrong.
I have faith that all the Generalswith serious concerns, have met with or talked to Bush about them. I would hope so at least. But will they, or should they, come forward and publically argue against Bush? No...they shouldn't
--cheers
Any high ranking commander in our armed forces who spoke out publicly against the war would be sacked.
The Chiefs of Staff and other Generals and Admirals have to speak with a united voice for many reasons. The military is not a democracy, it wouldn't be effective if that were the case. There has to be a clear united vision that instills confidence in the troops and the public.
Retired personnel are entitled to speak thier opinions, but one has to remember, they may not be aware of the most up to date intelligence.
The Chiefs of Staff and other Generals and Admirals have to speak with a united voice for many reasons. The military is not a democracy, it wouldn't be effective if that were the case. There has to be a clear united vision that instills confidence in the troops and the public.
Retired personnel are entitled to speak thier opinions, but one has to remember, they may not be aware of the most up to date intelligence.
I understand they don't have the most up-to-date intelligence, and it was even stated as much in the original post. However, we were supposed to have made our case for war to the world, and that's where they feel we haven't succeeded... all the while claiming that we put forth the evidence and the world just didn't like it.
And as far as speaking out publicly against the president, I'm not suggesting that a general or other combat leader should get on the television and scream for peace, but rather express strategic concerns, like going in without more international support, unlike the first time around. I suppose many of these people have conferred with administration official on their concerns, but it was my impression that many of those with concerns and advice were advisors from the Pentagon, who also hadn't seen any military combat.
Oh well. I don't imagine this topic will matter anymore in about 48 - 72 hours, anyway...
And as far as speaking out publicly against the president, I'm not suggesting that a general or other combat leader should get on the television and scream for peace, but rather express strategic concerns, like going in without more international support, unlike the first time around. I suppose many of these people have conferred with administration official on their concerns, but it was my impression that many of those with concerns and advice were advisors from the Pentagon, who also hadn't seen any military combat.
Oh well. I don't imagine this topic will matter anymore in about 48 - 72 hours, anyway...
Abs, do you really think ANY member of the US armed forces is saying..."Wow, I really wish France was sending troops...how can we pull this off without them."
From a military standpoint, we don't need support from other nations. Now, from a logistical standpoint (post-war for the most part) we could use that help.
A general's job is to win wars. They may express reservations behind the scenes...we don't have this, we should wait for that...etc. Their job is certainly not to give speeches or sound off with what their reservations are. It would undermine their command.
As to this...I don't think its relevant. I see that Bush has reservations about committing our troops. He has taken precautions, I am sure. He is not rushing to war (although many would argue this ad nauseum). He sees a real threat, and is doing what he can to deal with it.
From a military standpoint, we don't need support from other nations. Now, from a logistical standpoint (post-war for the most part) we could use that help.
A general's job is to win wars. They may express reservations behind the scenes...we don't have this, we should wait for that...etc. Their job is certainly not to give speeches or sound off with what their reservations are. It would undermine their command.
QUOTE
Do you think a president with first hand combat experience would be nearly as quick to engage in warfare or how do you think they might approach it differently? Do you think there is any danger in having people so removed from combat calling such brazen moves for our men and women in service?
As to this...I don't think its relevant. I see that Bush has reservations about committing our troops. He has taken precautions, I am sure. He is not rushing to war (although many would argue this ad nauseum). He sees a real threat, and is doing what he can to deal with it.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.