Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
OOOOOOOOOOOO, You just know we're D-O-O-M-ED - DDDOOOOOOMMMMEDDD, I TELL YA - iff our future
"No war-thru-2050-iff-not-2100" OWG-NWO = SPACE GOVT-ORDER DISCOVERS THAT "E.T."s ARMAMENT WAS NOT BASED ON CHOCOLATE M&M'S AS PRESENTLY BELIEVED!
* TOPIX, FREEREPUBLIC > MILITARY WOMEN IN NO RUSH TO JOIN INFANTRY.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2013-01-07 00:37||
#2 The managers took over.
They kept the peacetime career box checking system over battlefield performance. We have more generals per soldier today than we had in WWII.
They became political commissars who at most grudgingly, and more often gleefully to fulfill that promotion box, implemented PC over military culture that had worked effectively for generations. It's not a Tea Society, it a brutal killing machine (see Sherman - war is hell).
There's a reason that in the Constitution the writers make a declaration of a separate law governing land and naval forces. It's not civil society.
Posted by Procopius2k 2013-01-07 08:43||
#3 When the military [like the educational system] became a government 'petri dish' for fairness and equality of outcomes, the outcome was entirely predictable. Proofs can be found in the now long standing Department of the Army Centralized Promotion System and the grooming of legions of senior enlisted to serve in positions within the so-called "enlisted chain of command" as virtual union stewards and diviners. The loss of authority from these two now widely accepted measures, has been devastating to leaders and the good order and discipline of the Army. Following Vietnam and troubles within the ranks [mainly within US Forces Germany] we came to a fork in the road and took it. Unfortunately, I doubt there is any going back.
Posted by Besoeker 2013-01-07 09:29||
#4 Unrelated, but with my good ear I am listening to Fox and the Chuck Hagel SECDEF nomination discussions. The argument repeated time and time again is Hagel's voting against Iranian sanctions. Someone please inform me of the success of Iranian sanctions to date ?
The other frequent heard argument against Hagel's nomination is his comment regarding the so-called "Jewish Lobby" in Washington. Am I then to understand there is no large Jewish political influence in Washington, lobby or otherwise ?
Could it be that the Washington power elites are not comfortable with someone so unlike themselves, a warrior leader who clearly speaks his mind ?
Posted by Besoeker 2013-01-07 09:40||
#5 Someone please inform me of the success of Iranian sanctions to date ?
The success is determined by those who hold power and that is to avoid doing anything real for as long as possible till its way too late or incredibly costly.
Posted by Procopius2k 2013-01-07 10:52||
#6 Spot on P2k. Also noted are Al-Qaeda defeated and on the run, and the Assad regime falling in 36 hours.
Posted by Besoeker 2013-01-07 10:56||
#7 Signs we are in deep trouble:
When lawyers in Washington have to be called to determine the acceptability of the ROEs on the battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan. When you cannot get a decision out of Washington in a timely manner because everyone is weighing the public relations and political correctness consequences. When "hearts and minds" replaces "winning" as the goal of war effort. When the warriors are leaving the military early. When ticket-punching becomes the path to promotion rather than performance on the battlefield. Military budgets are the first budgets to be considered for cutting.
Posted by JohnQC 2013-01-07 11:43||
#8 Someone please inform me of the success of Iranian sanctions to date ?
Overall, about 50-60 percent effective. The major problem is a) the number of waivers granted to foreign nations by Washington and b) the number of nations who are willing to ignore or break sanctions. Not exactly a sterling display of American leadership or power.
Am I then to understand there is no large Jewish political influence in Washington, lobby or otherwise ?
No monolithic one, if I understand correctly. Then again it could just be a matter of echoing the Secretary of State's "vast right wing conspiracy". Not accurate, but not exactly endearing to those it's applied to, either.
Could it be that the Washington power elites are not comfortable with someone so unlike themselves, a warrior leader who clearly speaks his mind?
Yes, it's quite an accomplishment to alienate both sides of the Senate aisle, plus a significant portion of the House, plus your supposedly-erstwhile political party (the affiliation to which is being touted by the White House as a display of 'bipartisanship'.)
The pejorative supposedly applied to Senator McCain during his Hanoi Hotel days may not be applicable here. However, it's my experience that one doesn't anger fire-support or the corspmen and expect prompt assistance later.
Posted by Pappy 2013-01-07 17:29||
#9 Beoserker: More-honorable-than-everyone-else unafraid-to-speak-their-minds Warrior-types with chests full of medals were always at the forefront of the sales push for the honorable decision to sell out to the Soviets at the 'end' of the Vietnam War what eventually amounted to three whole countries with a combined population of... if I'm reading this right, about 29 million people.
Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2013-01-07 18:26||
#10 Thing nails it.
Posted by lotp 2013-01-07 19:30||
#11 The thing is, the Israel Lobby is the one that sticks up for Israel, which is what the honourable former Senator claims to object to... but the Israel Lobby has a strong non-Jewish contingent.
The Jewish Lobby spends at least as much time fighting for Progressive issues as it does for Israel, and some Jewish groups, like those J Street asses, lobby hard against Israel.
Dear Mr. Hagel is more than a bit disingenuous when he argues against the Jewish Lobby, given I haven't heard him being described as any kind of conservative. The wonder is that he hasn't gone off about those slimy Neocons *wink, wink*.
But in the end none of that political stuff matters as much as the facts that
1) the gentleman has managed to annoy a large number of his former colleagues in the Senate, by all accounts, and
2) he has a history of poor office management practices. How is he to manage the entire Department of Defence when he couldn't even handle a bunch of political aides and interns?
Posted by trailing wife 2013-01-07 22:13||