• 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!

Who here has disdain for the brass?

T

tempest62

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 28, 2021
Messages
833
Reaction score
147
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
When is the last time these idiots won a war? Aside from the loathsome way these political slimeballs worm their way up the military industrial complex, they get rewarded for their incompetence, when they should have been fired and removed from their uniforms. Idiots.

And as always, the soldier pays for it all in blood and sacrifice.

Respect for the upper brass? My ass. Not yesterday, not today, not ever.
 
tempest62 said:
When is the last time these idiots won a war? Aside from the loathsome way these political slimeballs worm their way up the military industrial complex, they get rewarded for their incompetence, when they should have been fired and removed from their uniforms. Idiots.

And as always, the soldier pays for it all in blood and sacrifice.

Respect for the upper brass? My ass. Not yesterday, not today, not ever.
Click to expand...
you are stereotyping---not a worthy trait.

Depends on the leadership you have. There are good ones out there.
 
tshade said:
you are stereotyping---not a worthy trait.

Depends on the leadership you have. There are good ones out there.
Click to expand...
I wasnt clear. Im not talking about in-theater commanders. I'm talking about the Pentagon where you are sent to die.

Obama thinned the herd....he made sure loyalists remained to infect the future.
 
tempest62 said:
I wasnt clear. Im not talking about in-theater commanders. I'm talking about the Pentagon where you are sent to die.

Obama thinned the herd....he made sure loyalists remained to infect the future.
Click to expand...

Where do you IMAGINE Pentagon generals and admirals come from?

And President Obama has been gone for years.
 
tempest62 said:
When is the last time these idiots won a war? Aside from the loathsome way these political slimeballs worm their way up the military industrial complex, they get rewarded for their incompetence, when they should have been fired and removed from their uniforms. Idiots.

And as always, the soldier pays for it all in blood and sacrifice.

Respect for the upper brass? My ass. Not yesterday, not today, not ever.
Click to expand...
I guarantee the vast majority of senior brass has sacrificed more for this country then you have ever thought about doing.
 
i wouldn't expect any Trump Republican to respect our Military leaders at the moment. they stand between them and overthrowing our democracy.
 
tempest62 said:
When is the last time these idiots won a war? Aside from the loathsome way these political slimeballs worm their way up the military industrial complex, they get rewarded for their incompetence, when they should have been fired and removed from their uniforms. Idiots.

And as always, the soldier pays for it all in blood and sacrifice.

Respect for the upper brass? My ass. Not yesterday, not today, not ever.
Click to expand...
Other than name calling and aimless ranting do you have anything or anyone specific in mind? What failures do you attribute to individual members of the top brass? Who screwed up, how and why? Do you have any examples?

Our military is under civilian command. Do you attribute any of the "incompetence" you're whining about to civilian leadership, or failure to express clear mission objectives, or lapses of our intelligence agencies, or undertaking large-scale interventions without exit strategies?
 
Much like the local police, the military is asked to do things it was never intended to do. Why? Because there is nobody else to call.

Mental illness is a leading cause of crime (using the term "crime" as someone breaking the law by sleeping in a doorway or refusing to leave a store here). Who do you call when someone doesn't leave the store? The cops. Are they equipped to deal with the mental illness that caused the call to them? No. But they can remove the offender which is what the complainant wants.
It doesn't stop the greater issue.

Blaming the military for failed nation building falls under the same criteria. They are woefully ill-equipped to do it. What are they supposed to do...tell the Presidents no? Further; there is no playbook on how to build a nation so it's not as if we could just take a rebuilding plan off the shelf and apply it to whatever nation we conquer. The same would be true for the UN or any other group.

By the same token, however, it should inform future Presidents that any military operation like we had in Afghanistan and the war of choice in Iraq will come with this price tag unless there is overwhelming local support for our presence. At no time in the Middle East will our presence ever be welcomed by the masses given the current defacto theocratic governments that rule there. We can conquer a country but not its people unless we're talking genocide which we will never do.

Will future POTUS learn? Nope.
 
US militarism has been a dirty game for a long time and nearly all of Congress and every president supports it.
 
tempest62 said:
When is the last time these idiots won a war?
Click to expand...
Part of military planning involves not starting a war without clear objectives and an exit strategy. Unfortunately Congress declares war, and then the Pentagon has to deal with what political motives have wrought. Bush-Cheney gave us two of these wars.

The US should not have been involved in a war in Afghanistan in the first place.
 
venice_ca said:
Part of military planning involves not starting a war without clear objectives and an exit strategy. Unfortunately Congress declares war, and then the Pentagon has to deal with what political motives have wrought. Bush-Cheney gave us two of these wars.

The US should not have been involved in a war in Afghanistan in the first place.
Click to expand...

The last time Congress declared war was 1942.
 
Congress went ahead and authorized Bush-Cheney to do whatever they wanted in Afghanistan and Iraq. No formal declaration of war, but little to no difference in the execution.
 
venice_ca said:
Part of military planning involves not starting a war without clear objectives and an exit strategy.
Click to expand...

Exit strategy is a political term, and has no place in military planning. Take Afghanistan, the mission was to go in and remove the Taliban. And that was accomplished.

Everything afterwards is political. If it was up to the Military, they would just select the strongest allied military leader, put them in charge, and go home. But once again, what happens after the mission is not anywhere near their job, that is for diplomats and politicians. Not Generals.
 
Antiwar said:
The last time Congress declared war was 1942.
Click to expand...

And there is a damned good reason why that is so. Because if a Declaration of War is formally made, a great deal of power is directly handed to the President. That includes the power to take over huge amounts of the US industrial infrastructure, freeze wages and prices, enact rationing, institute a draft and all enlistments automatically extended for the duration of the conflict. Much of the rights of privacy are thrown out, the Coast Guard is folded into the Navy, borders sealed off and deadly force can be authorized against illegals who are in or enter the country, and a great many other things.

In essence, the President almost becomes a Dictator, not unlike what that office really was under the Roman Republic (and not the modern usage of the word).

That is why under President Jefferson, Congress decided to follow another path, in the event that hostilities were needed, but without giving the President such wide powers.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Exit strategy is a political term, and has no place in military planning.
Click to expand...
Where'd you get that idea?
Oozlefinch said:
Take Afghanistan, the mission was to go in and remove the Taliban. And that was accomplished.

Everything afterwards is political. If it was up to the Military, they would just select the strongest allied military leader, put them in charge, and go home. But once again, what happens after the mission is not anywhere near their job, that is for diplomats and politicians. Not Generals.
Click to expand...
 
Oozlefinch said:
Exit strategy is a political term, and has no place in military planning. Take Afghanistan, the mission was to go in and remove the Taliban. And that was accomplished.

Everything afterwards is political. If it was up to the Military, they would just select the strongest allied military leader, put them in charge, and go home. But once again, what happens after the mission is not anywhere near their job, that is for diplomats and politicians. Not Generals.
Click to expand...

That is wrong.

Exit strategy is taught at the Army War College and a very important part of any conflict.

EXIT STRATEGY: RULE OF LAW AND THE U.S. ARMY on JSTOR

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary sources.
www.jstor.org www.jstor.org

0.webp
 
tempest62 said:
I wasnt clear. Im not talking about in-theater commanders. I'm talking about the Pentagon where you are sent to die.

Obama thinned the herd....he made sure loyalists remained to infect the future.
Click to expand...
What herd? The Pentagon? Who did Obama get rid of that weakened the Pentagon? What are you talking about?
 
I don't agree with the OP's entire premise, but when I see failed Generals (and many of them) going from boots to suits appearing on television as network military advisors and taking political stances, it makes me want to puke.

What's next? Will we have the USS Bonhomme Richard C.O. giving advice on shipboard firefighting in the future?.
 
RetiredUSN said:
That is wrong.

Exit strategy is taught at the Army War College and a very important part of any conflict.

EXIT STRATEGY: RULE OF LAW AND THE U.S. ARMY on JSTOR

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary sources.
www.jstor.org www.jstor.org

View attachment 67347922
Click to expand...

To start with, read Page V. That there is a great start of that document.

And I have actually read through that before, but I just skimmed it again. And it pretty much just says over and over again "Help the new government assume power, hand over the security and law enforcement authority back to the national government, and prepare to leave". Not a damned thing about how that government would actually be formed, or who would do it. Once again, that is entirely the job of the politicians and diplomats, not the military.

But hey, if you think that is an "exit strategy", then knock yourself out. It can be said then that was done way back by 2004 in Iraq. Because by then the new government was in place, and their new military and law enforcement was starting to take charge. But obviously it did not go like that, so either this is yet another of those idealistic pamphlets made to justify a salary, or it has little to nothing to do with what you all seem to think it really means.
 
Oozlefinch said:
To start with, read Page V. That there is a great start of that document.

And I have actually read through that before, but I just skimmed it again. And it pretty much just says over and over again "Help the new government assume power, hand over the security and law enforcement authority back to the national government, and prepare to leave". Not a damned thing about how that government would actually be formed, or who would do it. Once again, that is entirely the job of the politicians and diplomats, not the military.

But hey, if you think that is an "exit strategy", then knock yourself out. It can be said then that was done way back by 2004 in Iraq. Because by then the new government was in place, and their new military and law enforcement was starting to take charge. But obviously it did not go like that, so either this is yet another of those idealistic pamphlets made to justify a salary, or it has little to nothing to do with what you all seem to think it really means.
Click to expand...
Nope. You're just wrong.
 
tempest62 said:
I wasnt clear. Im not talking about in-theater commanders. I'm talking about the Pentagon where you are sent to die.

Obama thinned the herd....he made sure loyalists remained to infect the future.
Click to expand...
Yes it's obama's fault we couldnt beat a bunch of rice farmers in SE Asia. Face reality......the $800 billion a year in your tax dollars is being flushed down the toilet every year just to make weak people like yourself feel safe. Wake up and demand an actual return on your tax dollar.
 
Oozlefinch said:
To start with, read Page V. That there is a great start of that document.

And I have actually read through that before, but I just skimmed it again. And it pretty much just says over and over again "Help the new government assume power, hand over the security and law enforcement authority back to the national government, and prepare to leave". Not a damned thing about how that government would actually be formed, or who would do it. Once again, that is entirely the job of the politicians and diplomats, not the military.

But hey, if you think that is an "exit strategy", then knock yourself out. It can be said then that was done way back by 2004 in Iraq. Because by then the new government was in place, and their new military and law enforcement was starting to take charge. But obviously it did not go like that, so either this is yet another of those idealistic pamphlets made to justify a salary, or it has little to nothing to do with what you all seem to think it really means.
Click to expand...

It has every bit to do with what is happening.

Our security........Failed.

Our intelligence....................Failed

Our loyalty to those who helped us.............Nonexistent.

Our generals refused to recognize the Afghani Army being filled up with loyalist members of the Islamic and National Revolution Movement of Afghanistan, Islamic Dawah Organization of Afghanistan, Islamic Movement of Afghanistan, Islamic Union of the Northern Provinces, Islamic Unity of Afghanistan Mujahideen.

These loyalists couldn't give a shit about a central government. But hey......they played the US well, and got a paycheck to boot!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom