• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Navy fires officer in charge of captured sailors

A commander isn't responsible for the conduct of the men under his charge? Is that the new standard, or is that pro-Obama partisanship?


I don't know what Army you served under, but we try to handle things at the lowest level first. I'm not going to barge into the BDE CO's office just to say that my team leader isn't showing up to PT.
 
I don't know what Army you served under, but we try to handle things at the lowest level first. I'm not going to barge into the BDE CO's office just to say that my team leader isn't showing up to PT.

I'm starting think you've never served a day in the service of you don't understand what I'm saying.
 
The chicken in the mes hall is a tad dry.

Thanks Obama!
 
I'm starting think you've never served a day in the service of you don't understand what I'm saying.


A commander can only be held as responsible as he realistically can influence the aspects of day to day operations. You're not honestly telling me a Colonel or above as more influence on a soldiers normal schedule than a platoon leader or company commander.
 
Who's the commander in chief of The United States armed forces?

Yeahright. An officer screws the pooch so the Commander in Chief has to be held responsible.
This isn't the invasion of Normandy ferchrisakes.
 
So you've immediately changed course with the mere mention of a Republican president.

Interesting that isn't it.

SRf0B3n.gif
 
The Libbo stupidity is overflowing in this thread...lol

Not in this post. This is a different sort of stupidity.
 
Navy fires officer in charge of sailors detained in Iran - CNNPolitics.com

A nice little rebuttal to those who claim that Obama's distain, disregard and mismanagement of the military has not harmed us. This is crazy bad execution in one of the most important theaters we are operating in.

Errr....I'm currently wearing the uniform, and have for a good while now. Leadership screws **** up all the time and it has nothing to do with the President. When I went to NTC our brigade commander was a tanker and he got out-tanked, badly.

We also had to cancel our actual war exercise, in the middle of the first night, because somehow there were live rounds mixed in with the blanks. This was also something that had nothing to do with Obama. I don't like having him as my CiC but this type of stuff isn't on him. This is on dumb**** officers.
 
A commander can only be held as responsible as he realistically can influence the aspects of day to day operations. You're not honestly telling me a Colonel or above as more influence on a soldiers normal schedule than a platoon leader or company commander.

A battalion, brigade, or division commander absolutely influences a soldier's normal schedule.

If a commander says his echelon is going on a field problem at 0400 hrs on 14 May 16, what's going to happen?
 
Yeahright. An officer screws the pooch so the Commander in Chief has to be held responsible.
This isn't the invasion of Normandy ferchrisakes.

It's always the invasion of Normandy.
 
So you've immediately changed course with the mere mention of a Republican president.

Interesting that isn't it.

Are you concurring that Obama as CIC is responsible for the conduct of the men under his command?
 
A battalion, brigade, or division commander absolutely influences a soldier's normal schedule.

If a commander says his echelon is going on a field problem at 0400 hrs on 14 May 16, what's going to happen?

Then they're going to be there at 0400 hours on the 14th of May. No ****.

But who's going to tell a platoon where to assemble, what gear to have, what order to be in, which squad will have which responsibilities once they get to the field? Who's going to tell the company where to assemble, what gear to have, what order to be in, and which platoon will have which responsibilities once they get to the field?

Orders from higher up on the chain of command are always broad and far reaching in scope. It's basic organization of not just the US Army but any military branch.


You're entire premise that the Commander and Chief is directly responsible for the actions of every subunit and personnel in the US military not only blatantly flies in the face of the very structure of command and control of the military, but is also just fundamentally wrong. Yes commanders are responsible for the personnel under their command. But if a squad ****s up, it's the immediate leadership that gets their ass chewed out first. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.
 
Are you concurring that Obama as CIC is responsible for the conduct of the men under his command?

Am I concurring at this point you are being completely and totally obtuse with comments like this?

It's always the invasion of Normandy.

Yeah.

You're offering nothing of value or substance here.

But that is nothing new.
 
Then they're going to be there at 0400 hours on the 14th of May. No ****.

But who's going to tell a platoon where to assemble, what gear to have, what order to be in, which squad will have which responsibilities once they get to the field? Who's going to tell the company where to assemble, what gear to have, what order to be in, and which platoon will have which responsibilities once they get to the field?

Orders from higher up on the chain of command are always broad and far reaching in scope. It's basic organization of not just the US Army but any military branch.


You're entire premise that the Commander and Chief is directly responsible for the actions of every subunit and personnel in the US military not only blatantly flies in the face of the very structure of command and control of the military, but is also just fundamentally wrong. Yes commanders are responsible for the personnel under their command. But if a squad ****s up, it's the immediate leadership that gets their ass chewed out first. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

So, you're saying that if a company, battalion, brigade, division, corps, or army isn't properly trained and disciplined, those commanders don't have **** to do with it?
 
Navy fires officer in charge of sailors detained in Iran - CNNPolitics.com

A nice little rebuttal to those who claim that Obama's distain, disregard and mismanagement of the military has not harmed us. This is crazy bad execution in one of the most important theaters we are operating in.

Another waste of electrons. As has been pointed out - this sort of military error has happened throughout history. And the OP made no attempt to make any sort of linkage to the Commander of the Navy, or the Joint Chiefs... let along the C in C. Seems the comment about the OP having never served is apt. My eldest served in the Navy also. Before Obama was elected. Based in Japan. A relatively 'quiet' posting. And he can tell you stories that will curl your toes and make you wonder why we aren't all just a heap of glowing molten slag at the moment.

I guess some people will leap upon any hint of anything that besmirches one they don't approve of - factual or not. Rational or not. Fair or not.
 
Last edited:
Am I concurring at this point you are being completely and totally obtuse with comments like this?



Yeah.

You're offering nothing of value or substance here.

But that is nothing new.

You need to go read the communist manifesto and educate yourself.
 
It's always the invasion of Normandy.

Its always Obama's fault. Recognize the mantra. You have no idea of how the Military works. None.
 
Its always Obama's fault. Recognize the mantra. You have no idea of how the Military works. None.

Educate me. Explain how a commander isn't responsible for the indoctrination of his troops. I can't wait. This is going to be good. Get after it...
 
So, you're saying that if a company, battalion, brigade, division, corps, or army isn't properly trained and disciplined, those commanders don't have **** to do with it?

The **** kind of loaded question is that?

You started out by implying that the Commander in Chief was directly responsible for the actions of a single Commander in the Navy. Only in the absolute broadest, most generalized sense is this an even somewhat accurate statement, which completely negates the implications that it was the President's fault that this happened.

If you wanna just ignore the massive width in chain of command between a single officer and the Commander and Chief, then that's your misguided prerogative.
 
The **** kind of loaded question is that?

You started out by implying that the Commander in Chief was directly responsible for the actions of a single Commander in the Navy. Only in the absolute broadest, most generalized sense is this an even somewhat accurate statement, which completely negates the implications that it was the President's fault that this happened.

If you wanna just ignore the massive width in chain of command between a single officer and the Commander and Chief, then that's your misguided prerogative.

Is the CIC responsible for the training and discipline of the men under his charge. He sets the time for the entire armed forces. Does he not?
 
Back
Top Bottom