TomSuperpatriot
- 25 comments
- 0 likes given
- 5 likes received
Bio not provided
@oldtanker @23rdInf69n70 What's wrong with tank destroyers?
@Gibbon @JPWREL @PaulJenkins1 Because we supplied them.
If not, then presumably we should have either ignored both problems, or applied some manner of soft-power and/or black arts special forces.
If COIN is flawed and doesn't work, even with the benefit of hind-sight, why do we need a standing conventional army at all?
If we went back in time and applied all our COIN knowledge to creating and executing a COIN focused plan from the beginning in Iraq and Afghanistan, would we all be looking back at our victories there?
Will we have forgotten all these lessons by the time the next COIN war rolls around?
@majrod My first BDE commander told me that he'd heard lots of officers complain to him that they weren't "mentored" enough by their boss, he said that was crap. It's a commander's job to "train" their subordinates, not mentor. He said a mentor is someone you find outside your chain of command/concern who can freely offer outside advice, and that everyone should try and find one.
To support CPT Franks I am currently a company XO and I've found I can better relate to the new LTs, having only very recently left PL positions and they all seem scared of CPTs and higher.
@JPWREL @AndyWisniewski1 @huitweet @Tyrtaios Strategic Defensive, you include Kursk in that?
@Lieber Unfortunately in my little bit of time in the Army in and around other support units, I have seen, heard rumors of, and personally been appointed to investigate, many cases male/female sexual misconduct. This includes home station and deployed as part of a battalion made up of companies from different posts, they've all had the issues.
I've also had the privilege of working with some truly excellent female NCOs and dirt bag males. I wonder what the UCMJ rate was like in the all-male support unit Army of yore, compared to the mixed gender units of today. Would the lower standards needed to have only males result in more discipline problems of a different type?
The Army, just like any large bureaucracy, has always been about staying in the middle of the flock. My old public admin professor (who flew hueys with 7th Cav in Vietnam and eventually retired a full bird), said the Army was a pyramid, lots of LTs and few Generals, and again the key to getting to the top was staying in the middle.
@shadowcloud88061 I'm almost as distraught as when I got my first negative counseling statement.
@WinterIsComing @TomSuperpatriot ...and I'd respond that restricting profits will lead to better outcomes is equally farcical.
@shadowcloud88061 Please note my moniker is mostly tongue in cheek and also derived from my college mascot.
1. Taxes and government were minuscule before the start of the war. Taxes were raised to more modern levels to pay for the war, but they were never lowered after the war. Could you increase taxes to pay for it, sure, but there's no were near the percentage of the economy available to government procurement as FDR had.
2. War bonds are debt... just like T-Bills, really very little difference other than people seem to have fond memories of the USO shows and rah-rah patriotism.
3. Strategy and tactics usually can't afford to wait for the finances to catch up, yes some would argue that we had our "wars of choice" in GWOT but that's more theory.
Question for everyone, would you have been happy to pay a cross the board 5% federal sales tax to pay for Afghanistan? How long would you have paid it for? If the answer is not long is that a good thing for US security or a bad thing?
@WinterIsComing Obviously yes. I assume your point is that they weren't profit mongering pigs but devoted patriots, which I'm sure is true.
Yet not every government contract is the space race is it? Also I'd be curious to know how much of their equipment was designed and built by private firm engineers?
@wdsrco Because I want the smartest most motivated people giving me the edge on Russia and China, many of whom will probably go to a different industry if they are paid better there.
Romney 1: Why don't you actually frame this properly? 2 Trillion in a year? In a decade? Is it an increase in spending or is it simply regularly budgeted yearly increases? Both sides frame these budget issues the same way and it completely kills any chance of actually compromising on anything or any layman actually understanding anything.
Romney 2: Personal attack with no policy relevance. Would you ask FDR if it was easier for him to commit to a policy of sacrificing hundreds of thousands of American lives to fight Germany? Why not ask Obama why he didn't serve? Do you want a president that is incapable of sending the military in harms way because he cares too much about their safety? Apparently it hasn't bothered Obama too much.
Romney 3: Not really sure what you are referring to here, if you can link me to the offending comments I'll respond.
Obama 1: How is it a strategic failure? What were the goals? I'd say defeating Al Qaeda and preventing Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven in the future for international terrorists and a possible long-term pie in the sky goal of spreading democracy and the American way (maybe that is the failure you are talking about?). Could you argue that we could have accomplished all those things with a lot less risk to lives and cost of money, sure, but that to me is an efficiency critique, not a strategic failure.
Obama 2: Agreed, I don't think this is as easy as everyone pretends it is to fix though.
Obama 3: Sorry, this is like throwing red-meat to a free-market believe like me. I'll support common sense simple regulations (don't let health insurance companies defraud clients, don't let defense industry sell secrets to China type stuff), but regulating max profits for any industry is the height of stupidity.
Peace.
@kris_alexander A really phenomenally great book in my humble opinion.
Spot on. Only ever been at the company level and TRADOC and it is nauseating how no-one trusts anyone and the people that get promoted are the ones that CYA the best and take the fewest risks.
@loquerer Depends where you are, big FOBs have everything. The case I dealt with didn't involve anything a rape kit would be able to solve. I think a lot of people outside the military don't really understand how quickly the wheels of justice or injustice are cranked up based on the say so of anyone. It doesn't matter if it is sexual assault, fraternization, misuse of government property whatever, as soon as a commander gets any word of any bad juju going on they will immediately launch a full investigation because they are terrified these rumors will make it up the chain.
I've had direct experience, once as an investigating officer, with multiple sexual assault/harassment incidents/accusations while deployed and all I can say is that my anecdotal experience is the complete opposite of this. Granted im in a POG logistics unit but I have to say the Army system I've experienced is a lot closer to what _B_ portrays it as than the article. The burden of proof is a lot less and he-said/she-said has been enough to ruin careers out here, some of them apparently well deserved but that is besides the point. Commanders and 1SGs are absolutely terrified of being accused of anything like what the article suggests is standard practice, and the reaction now is to immediately call in CID or an outside investigator and CYA based on the word of one malcontent specialist.
Also in my experience the situation is ALWAYS much more complicated than the article suggests, not suggesting that every accused guy is 100% innocent but there are 3 sides to every story between two people.
@tonyframe Not Armenians.