I'm guessing "oops" doesn't quite cover it this time...

[BlackShanglan]

Actually, they have not only the business to second guess but an obligation. This administration and the military represent this country and are supported by its people (in the case of the military at least). They are employees of the American people, and I know I am at least thankful for the protection provided by our armed forces. But that doesn't mean that I have no right to question the way in which they are used or how they go about doing it.

Agreed. There are many potential ways to fight a war. If the general public takes no interest in such matters as impressment, flogging, napalm, or torture, those tactics will remain on the list of acceptable actions. Only when society as a whole insists that some tactics are morally reprehensible and unacceptable regardless of strategic value will those tactics be discouraged. In this sense, this is not a question of what works militarily, but what a society as a whole is willing to do in order to defeat its opponents. That is a question in which all have a stake.

Shanglan

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I agree that the civilian has an interest in what is being done by the military, I can even agree that the civilian has an investment in what is being done by the military... but based on the contract between them granting the military its right to self-policing, administration, and organization, I can't agree that the civilian has a right to question the military in any meaningful way.

They can, of course, disagree with actions, but I can't see how doing so is anything other than frustration over the agreed manner in which the military would proceed with its job.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Agreed. There are many potential ways to fight a war. If the general public takes no interest in such matters as impressment, flogging, napalm, or torture, those tactics will remain on the list of acceptable actions. Only when society as a whole insists that some tactics are morally reprehensible and unacceptable regardless of strategic value will those tactics be discouraged. In this sense, this is not a question of what works militarily, but what a society as a whole is willing to do in order to defeat its opponents. That is a question in which all have a stake.

Shanglan

But you aren't talking about questioning the military there. You are talking about question doctrine which is at least here formulated by politicians. At least theoretically, the Military operates under guidelines provided by Civilin authority.

Cluster bombs, for instance, get very bad press. They do however work and in certain tactical situations, they are the best solution. People who don't like them, aren't really in a position to question the general who uses them in a tactical situation. They are in position to question the civilian authority that allows them to be in the inventory.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

But you aren't talking about questioning the military there. You are talking about question doctrine which is at least here formulated by politicians. At least theoretically, the Military operates under guidelines provided by Civilin authority.

Cluster bombs, for instance, get very bad press. They do however work and in certain tactical situations, they are the best solution. People who don't like them, aren't really in a position to question the general who uses them in a tactical situation. They are in position to question the civilian authority that allows them to be in the inventory.

But it's all connected. If someone in the U.S. military decided to use a chemical weapon that worked on the enemy but also affected civilians, there would probably be not only an international concern, but it is also something that a lot of Americans probably wouldn't approve of. I know that bombs and chemical weapons have different properties and different concerns, but the ends could wind up very similar. A military hit with civilian casualties. In the latter case, many would say that people would have a right to object to the use of chemical weapons by whomever authorized it, so why not in the case of more traditional munitions?

 

[rgraham666]

but questioning the politics and everything surrounding this has nothing to do with 1 bomb missing its target. J-DAM's are over 95% of the time on target. not calling the airstrike supporting our troops would be negligent...bomb just missed

There are quite a number of guided bombs beside the J-DAM.

And 95% is way overstated.

There is a little thing used in warfare called CEP, Circular Error Probable. This is the circular area within which half of the number of a particular bomb, missle or artillery shell used will fall.

In World War Two, the B-17 with it's advanced (for the time) Norden bombsight had a CEP of 1,000 metres!

By the first Gulf War, modern fire control bought the CEP for unguided bombs to 60 to 70 metres. I don't believe that there has been much improvement since.

This means that if you drop 100 bombs, 50 will fall within 60 to 70 metres of the target you are aiming at. Half do not.

Using laser guided munitions a CEP of 10 metres is the best they've done so far as I know.

The smallest laser guided bomb I know of is the GBU 12, which weighs 500 lbs. Dropping a 500 lb. bomb within 10 metres of the target is just fine. 500 lbs. is a lot of bang.

However, that is most useful for hard stationary targets. Bridges, bunkers, aircraft hangers and runways. In an urban situation, they are much less useful.

If, say, your squad is hung up by a fortified building in a city. You can call in air support, sure. And get the laser dot on the target. The bomb is still only going to land within 10 metres of the target half the time. Even if it falls inside the CEP, a bomb that big does a lot of damage. And inside the CEP means it might land on you.

You're right, I can't properly second guess. But I can learn as much about a subject as I can, and wonder.

Edited to add: In a battle between armies, I want cluster munitions on my side. For some things, like breaking up infantry attacks, counter-battery fire, delivering mines and some of the new stuff like SADARM (Search And Destroy ARMour) cluster munitions are hard to beat.

Cleaning up the duds afterwards is a major pain though. I understand there are parts of Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait and the Falklands where it isn't safe to walk.

And again, they are nearly useless in an urban environment.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

But it's all connected. If someone in the U.S. military decided to use a chemical weapon that worked on the enemy but also affected civilians, there would probably be not only an international concern, but it is also something that a lot of Americans probably wouldn't approve of. I know that bombs and chemical weapons have different properties and different concerns, but the ends could wind up very similar. A military hit with civilian casualties. In the latter case, many would say that people would have a right to object to the use of chemical weapons by whomever authorized it, so why not in the case of more traditional munitions?

My point though, Alpaca, is that you can not fault a ground commander for doing what he can to limit casualties among his men. If he has Sarin gas in his inventory and there are no red flags on it's use, you can't really fault him for deploying it, if the tactical situation is such that its employment would save the lives of his troops.

Should it occur, you can bet there would be outrage, but the outrage should be direted at those who put it in the inventory and didn't put a red flag on its use. Conservation of force is a driving theme in military science since it's inception. Second guesing military commanders on the ground is unfair and rediculous.

I have a good command of military history. As part of that interest I have gathered to myself a good command of tactics. I would not presume to tell a commander how to wage a battle, even with my knowledge. The average citizen is even less informed. You cannot hamstring the commanders by subjecting their decisions on a tactical level to civilain scrutiny and control. In vietnam it was fatal to thousands of soldiers who basically had amatures running the war they were fighting.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

My point though, Alpaca, is that you can not fault a ground commander for doing what he can to limit casualties among his men. If he has Sarin gas in his inventory and there are no red flags on it's use, you can't really fault him for deploying it, if the tactical situation is such that its employment would save the lives of his troops.

Should it occur, you can bet there would be outrage, but the outrage should be direted at those who put it in the inventory and didn't put a red flag on its use. Conservation of force is a driving theme in military science since it's inception. Second guesing military commanders on the ground is unfair and rediculous.

I have a good command of military history. As part of that interest I have gathered to myself a good command of tactics. I would not presume to tell a commander how to wage a battle, even with my knowledge. The average citizen is even less informed. You cannot hamstring the commanders by subjecting their decisions on a tactical level to civilain scrutiny and control. In vietnam it was fatal to thousands of soldiers who basically had amatures running the war they were fighting.

I'm not foolish enough to presume that I could run this (or any) war better than a trained soldier. I'm in the process of reading the Army's O&O, and have a great amount of respect for their versatility and the amount of information they have to use. But I also know enough about human behavior to know that mistakes can be made, which would sensibly include using the wrong munitions or someone in Planning making the wrong call. These people decisions affect lives, and wrong decisions should be criticized (sp?). All that I'm saying is that the American people shouldn't feel ashamed or intimidated against participating in such criticism.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I don't agree that they ought be criticized.

 

[SeaCat]

Agreed. There are many potential ways to fight a war. If the general public takes no interest in such matters as impressment, flogging, napalm, or torture, those tactics will remain on the list of acceptable actions. Only when society as a whole insists that some tactics are morally reprehensible and unacceptable regardless of strategic value will those tactics be discouraged. In this sense, this is not a question of what works militarily, but what a society as a whole is willing to do in order to defeat its opponents. That is a question in which all have a stake.

Shanglan

Shang,
First let me tell you that I agree with what you say here, in these particular cases. However there have been many cases where the civilian oversight of the military has directly led to the deaths of too many soldiers.

I agree that flogging or torture is not acceptable even in time of war. But where do you draw the line? Do you require a prisoner to have a lawyer present? (I'm not trying to be flippant here, it's an honest question.)

I agree with you on the use of Napalm as well as Flamethrowers, Cluster Munitions, scatterable minefields, and most D.P.I.C.M.'s. (Dual Purpose I,proved Conventionable Munitions.) as well as all other non precision or area affect weapons in most cases. (Direct fire and precisions guided weapons are things like Rifles and anti-tank weapons which rely on the skill of their operator to hit and/or destroy theri intended target. When these miss it is not the weapons fault so much as the operators fault. A whole nother argument entirely.)
However there are times when I could justify their use in a limited manner.

The civilian oversight of the miltiary is needed in all cases. However this should be limited to before or after the action. Before the action, be it a war, a peacekeeping mission, or other action the government, (The civilian oversight of our military,) set limits on the military. Things like goals, when and how they can respond to different situations, (called the Rules of Engagement or R.O.E.) and sometimes what types of forces are to be used. These can and often are changed during the action.
After the action the oversight again comes into play. It reviews what was done and why. If it finds that the limits it laced on the military were breached it must then find out why, then take appropriate action. Unfortunately this oversight sometimes is abused. Little things like a White House Staff Member contacting a lower ranking officer during a search and destroy patrol who had just located a weapons stash and telling the officer not to destroy that stash because said staffer was trying to broker a deal with the warlord the weapons stash belonged to. Or the Government allowing the international press to air the battle plans of a general before his operations. Shall I go on? Okay, how about limiting the amount of money the military can pay or personal armor for it's troops. (Thereby farming it out to the lowest bidder.)

Maybe what I'm trying to say here is the fact that while civilain oversight of the military is needed, those doing the oversight need to be watched as well. (This brings to mind the old quote of who watches the watchers?)

Cat
The Marine Feline

 

[oggbashan]

Criticising Military actions in Iraq

The US and Allied forces are now supposed to be supporting the interim Iraqi administration and making a free and fair election possible. They are therefore acting as security or police forces, not as an army facing another army.

What is appropriate in action against armed forces is not appropriate in civilian areas when the war is over.

Supporting the armed forces during war is one thing. Supporting them when they are acting as agents of a foreign government is another. The action in Iraq now has political results not just in Iraq but also in Washington, London and other allied capitals.

The terms/rules of engagement are set by politicians. The interpretation of those rules when in action is ultimately the reponsibility of the individual soldier. Calling an airstrike when your unit at war and is under fire is one thing. Targeting a civilian house in an urban area when there is no opposing fire of any kind is totally different. Such an act could only be possible if there was a political direction and agreed rules of engagement that it could or should be done. Criticising that political decision is not criticism of the ground commander or the troops. They do what they are asked to do. That is their role in a democracy.

A parallel for US citizens: Would you be happy if your parents were killed by the FBI's precision munitions just because your parents lived in the next block to a wanted and dangerous man? That is how this act appears to Iraqis.

The use of bombs saves allied troops' lives at the expense of civilian Iraqi lives who are not resisting the Iraqi administration. It is no way to win votes in the forthcoming election, nor to make friends in the region.

Og

 

[shereads]

the general public has no business second guessing military actions. End of Story

Ha. Somebody needs to third-guess and fourth-guess this fiasco.

 

[cantdog]

And what cost the lives in Vietnam was Nguyen Giap. Well trained insurgents.

Not Jane Fonda. Not me. Not the congress performing its proper oversight, not even Westmoreland. These ROE arguments might have held water in 1966, but the gloves were fucking off by '67. Read your history, this stuff is declassified now. Not only had your blessed ROE problem been taken care of by then, but we were in three neighboring countries and bombing four, without congressional authorization, selecting for civilian targets in order to demoralize. We used chemical weapons and we destroyed sanitary facilities to cause disease, explicitly.

None of these actions are useful or sensible if your struggle is essentially political, to change minds, to convince, to take the starch out of an insurgency. But we did them. Many people see a racist hatred operating, an ideological hatred, too.

We are cheek by jowl with the British here. Did they send bombers to South Boston because the backers of the Irish Republicans were there? Did they flatten whole Irish neighborhoods with artillery and missiles? No. They were engaged in a political battle, much like the mission we are supposed to have right this minute in Iraq and Afghanistan. These kinds of wholesale slaughter tactics do not help.

The muslims see it as evidence of ideological and race hatred. Imagine how surprising that is. This is a town, dude. We're on a mission in it to enable an election. It's an election we have a stake in. This is counter-productive in the extreme.

 

[cantdog]

I agree that the civilian has an interest in what is being done by the military, I can even agree that the civilian has an investment in what is being done by the military... but based on the contract between them granting the military its right to self-policing, administration, and organization, I can't agree that the civilian has a right to question the military in any meaningful way.

They can, of course, disagree with actions, but I can't see how doing so is anything other than frustration over the agreed manner in which the military would proceed with its job.

The Pentagon itself is structured in such a way that the civilians there are in charge of the military, Joe. They not only question it, commission it, pay for it, decide on whether there is a war or not, and so forth, they run its day-to-day operations. It was Rumsfeld who sent them in the way they were sent in, it's a largely civilian staff in charge of interpreting intelligence.

Your objection has no legs under it.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The goals of guerilla fighters is not really military victory over their opponent. As Colleen pointed out, they don’t have much of a chance of doing that. The goal is to provoke such an asymmetric response from your enemy that it polarizes the populace into supporting your cause, and seen in this light almost everything the US has done since the fall of Saddam had played right into their hands.

The preferred use of bombs rather than ground troops against insurgents was a political decision that can be laid directly at Rumsfeld’s feet. It was Rumsfeld’s desire to show that the US could apply military force using a small, high tech army. He wanted to demonstrate that the president could use the military as desired for political ends without arousing the civilian opposition and oversight you’d get from a general mobilization and draft, as we saw in Viet Nam. That’s why they use bombs instead of infantry-- to keep American casualties down -- and why they had to destroy Fallujah in order to save it. That’s also why the adminsitration has steadfastly refused to increase the number of troops on the ground in Iraq, and why we’re deploying reservists rather than having a draft.

Ground forces have recently changed the way they respond to roadside bombs too. Formerly it was policy to just keep on going when a convoy hit a bomb, but now they’re stopping and trying to engage the bombers, who they feel in many cases are still on the scene. You certainly can’t blame the troops for wanting to shoot back and prtect themselves, but in the first example of this new response, Americans killed two Iraqi policemen and three civilians. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050109/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_050109103246) You have to wonder whether, in the confusion and shock that follows the explosion of an IED, the soldiers just aren’t shooting at anything that moves. You have to wonder too whether this isn't another tactical decisison that's going to increase the animosity of the Iraqis towards us, which will just be another voctory for the insurgents.

In any case, I don’t see how anyone can possibly suggest that the military not be subjected to civilian oversight and criticism every step of the way. It may not be the most efficient way to run a military, but no one ever said that a democracy is efficient. As GWB himself said, it’s hard. But all you have to do is look around at the countries who don’t have civilian oversight to see what happens when you give the generals free rein. I can’t believe that Joe is suggesting that German citizenry was in the right by not objecting to the SS camps, or that Truman shouldn’t have refused McCarthy permission to use nukes in Korea, as the Old Soldier wanted.

---dr.M.

 

[cantdog]

In any case, I don’t see how anyone can possibly suggest that the military not be subjected to civilian oversight and criticism every step of the way. It may not be the most efficient way to run a military, but no one ever said that a democracy is efficient. As GWB himself said, it’s hard. But all you have to do is look around at the countries who don’t have civilian oversight to see what happens when you give the generals free rein. I can’t believe that Jow is suggesting that German citizenry was in the right by not objecting to the SS camps, or that Truman shouldn’t have refused McCarthy permission to use nukes in Korea, as they Old Soldier wanted.

---dr.M.

My dad was slightly to the right of Genghis Khan. He always thought Truman should have indulged MacArthur. This despite what the Chinese called The Great Patriotic War To Aid Korea. The Chinese have enough population and natural increase that they could march trained soldiers past a given point ten abreast, indefinitely. Indefinitely, like forever.

Old debates never die, they just fade away.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The idea that the civilian leadership made the army fight in Viet Nam with “one hand tied behind its back” is a myth right up there with the Nazi contention that it was the Jews that stabbed Germany in the back in WWI.

I don’t know what else the military could have wanted in Viet Nam that they didn’t get: saturation bombing, mining the harbors, targeting civilian infrastructure, destruction of supply lines, chemical warfare, we tried it all. Short of an outright D-Day style invasion of North Viet Nam or the permission to “nuke them back to the stone age”, I don’t know what else we could have done.

The fact of the matter was that what we saw as a war to stop communism, the Viet Namese saw as an anti-colonial war to unify their country. The great majority of the South Vietnamese didn’t want us there either, and so the war was simply unwinnable. Short of wiping them all out and recolonizing, there was simply no way to win.

---dr.M.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

My dad was slightly to the right of Genghis Khan. He always thought Truman should have indulged MacArthur. This despite what the Chinese called The Great Patriotic War To Aid Korea. The Chinese have enough population and natural increase that they could march trained soldiers past a given point ten abreast, indefinitely. Indefinitely, like forever.

Old debates never die, they just fade away.

As I recall, McCarthy's plan also involved seeding a several mile-wide "zone of death" with radioactive material so that anyone crossing it would die of radioactive poisoning.

Tell me we don't need civilian oversight!

---dr.M.

 

[rgraham666]

When speaking of limitations on war, I always remember a little commentary on Sun Tzu's Art of War.

War is like fire. Those who do not put aside arms are consumed by them.

Clausewitz's dictum that war should not be limited has caused enormous grief in the last two centuries.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The idea that the civilian leadership made the army fight in Viet Nam with “one hand tied behind its back” is a myth right up there with the Nazi contention that it was the Jews that stabbed Germany in the back in WWI.

I don’t know what else the military could have wanted in Viet Nam that they didn’t get: saturation bombing, mining the harbors, targeting civilian infrastructure, destruction of supply lines, chemical warfare, we tried it all. Short of an outright D-Day style invasion of North Viet Nam or the permission to “nuke them back to the stone age”, I don’t know what else we could have done.

The fact of the matter was that what we saw as a war to stop communism, the Viet Namese saw as an anti-colonial war to unify their country. The great majority of the South Vietnamese didn’t want us there either, and so the war was simply unwinnable. Short of wiping them all out and recolonizing, there was simply no way to win.

---dr.M.

Doc, there are a couple of books on the wild weasles, you might want to check them out. These men flew modified 4-4 fantoms and later Thunderchiefs (I think) to engage North vietnamese Surface to Air missile sites in advance of bombing missions. It's incredibly dangerous work, and their casualty rates were staggering.

They didn't have to be there. Aieril recon showed the NVA building the sites, but the airforce was refused permission to bomb the sites before they went active. The reason?

Washington knew that Soviet "specialists" were helping build the sites and didn't want to risk killing any.

That's one example, there are others. It's no myth that the politics of that era Hamstrung the military. Yes, as the conflict dragged on restrictions were loosened. Yes, under nixxon the most effective measure, Mass B-52 raids on the North's industrial base were approved (the linebacker operations).

Military neccessity at the tactical level, should never ever, be subject to politicans. Fallujah is a prime example of politics trumping tactics. The city could have been reinvested with significantly less death and destruction, had it been carried out when origianlly planned. That however was too close to election time, so it was posponed and the insurgents had nearly six weeks to dig in, get reinforcements, and make it a blood mess retaking the place.

I'mnot an extremist. I don't think the military should have ben able to just use a mass FAE strike rather than engage house to house there, even though it makes the most tactical sense. But at the same time, when a man who has spent a good portion of his life studyingmilitary science cannot use the highest percentage tactics because political considerations block it, then something is wrong. If anything has been showed, Civilians meddling in Military matters at the tactical/strategic level creats far worse situations than those they wished to avoid.

Witness, Hitler's meddling that produced Stalingrad. Chruchill's meddling that lost north africa & crete. The loss of the 51st Highland division, sacrificed to show the French the english weren't abandining them. Lord Clemsford's loss at Scion Kop, The massacre of the British Garrison in Afghanistan, Subluva Bay on the Galipoli Peninsula. Etc. Etc. Ad infinitum.

Nothing is harder on soldiers and civilians, than when Politicians play warlord.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

When speaking of limitations on war, I always remember a little commentary on Sun Tzu's Art of War.



Clausewitz's dictum that war should not be limited has caused enormous grief in the last two centuries.

In On War, Cluswitz didn't call for total war, although it has been read that way. His call is for a change in tactical doctrine away from the move and manuver theories of Jomini. His ditum sounds brutal and excessive, but it isn't a call for total warfare. It's a very sound observation. In a nutshell, he says bring the mass of your army against the smallest portion of the enemies army you can find and utterly annihilate it. If successful enough times, you will reduce the enemy significantly, while taking minimal casualties yourself.

Like any treasties on war, it can be taken anyway a particular person wishes, but that was his point in a nutshell. I don't know if you know this, but Sun Tzu has witnessed a revival. Not in military circles, but he is required reading at many corporations for their lower & middle management teams. Applying Sun Tzu to corporate "wars" is about as large a perversion of the original intent as one can find. People read into these things what they want. Cluswitz, IMHO, gets a bum wrap.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Doc, there are a couple of books on the wild weasles, you might want to check them out. These men flew modified 4-4 fantoms and later Thunderchiefs (I think) to engage North vietnamese Surface to Air missile sites in advance of bombing missions. It's incredibly dangerous work, and their casualty rates were staggering.

They didn't have to be there. Aieril recon showed the NVA building the sites, but the airforce was refused permission to bomb the sites before they went active. The reason?

Washington knew that Soviet "specialists" were helping build the sites and didn't want to risk killing any.

Granted, and no doubt that decision cost American lives. But it hardly effected the outcome of the war, or even denied our bombers full use of the skies. In the calculus of war, those American lives were weighed against the possible involvement of the USSR, and the air crews came up losers. That’s the way war works, and that's why I hate it so much.

In any case, I don’t know that the civilians fuck up any worse than the Generals do on their own. The more I study war, the more I see it as a horrible, disorganized mess. The victors like to say how it was all cleverly planned and executed, but the more I read, the more it seems that once the first gun is fired it’s a battle against chaos as much as it is against the enemy.

I read a lot about WWI. I wonder what it was like to be a soldier waiting to go over the top at the Battle of the Somme, where 60,000 men died in 24 hours. The soldiers knew that it was certain death to charge emplaced machine guns through a quarter mile of concertina wire. The generals knew it too, but they sent the men into it anyway, simply because they hoped it might work.

What do you do if you’re a soldier being asked to throw your life away just because of another man’s poor judgment? In war, it happens all the time, and most of the time it’s not because of civilians’ meddling.

At Verdun, the German general Staff—the finest generals in the world, probably—devised a strategy that consisted of nothing more than trying to “bleed the French white”. There military fortress of Verdun was the nominal objective, but the real strategy was to keep on throwing Germans at them till the French ran out of men, hoping that they’d run out of men before the Germans did. 400,000 men on both sides died over a ten month period. The front moved a total of 500 meters. 40,000 men a month because of the stupidity of guys with brass on their shoulders.

What do you do if you’re a grunt serving under a general like that? Furthermore, what should the French people at home have done? Defer to the French command because they’re the ‘experts’?

Keeping his troops safe is not a Commander’s first priority. Sometimes it’s not even in the top four or five.

An interesting fact about modern war and collateral damage is that in WWI, something like 90% of the casualities occurred among combatants. In WWII, with air power and mobile warfare, 80-90% of casualities were among civilians.

I read a detailed account of Pat Tillman’s death by friendly fire in Afghanistan. We had the best equipment money could by, highly trained people, state-of-the-art communication equipment, and still they shot him dead with rifle fire. Fear, confusion, fog of war.

I don’t know what the stats are on death by friendly fire. I doubt anyone even keeps them, just like we don’t keep stats on innocent Iraqis killed in collateral damage. We just don’t want to know.

---dr.M.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by cantdog
The Pentagon itself is structured in such a way that the civilians there are in charge of the military, Joe. They not only question it, commission it, pay for it, decide on whether there is a war or not, and so forth, they run its day-to-day operations. It was Rumsfeld who sent them in the way they were sent in, it's a largely civilian staff in charge of interpreting intelligence.

Your objection has no legs under it.

I suppose it all depends on what we mean by "civilian"--in my post, I meant it to include "average American, armchair scholar of war". I did not mean for it to include "officials who stand outside the bounds of being strictly civilian due to their government sanctioned authority".

My father was CDI for twenty-two years. The amount of civilian interaction in the military is remarkably low to none (pending where you draw the meaningful line), and designed to be that way. My objection doesn't lack legs, but please continue.

 

[cantdog]

Well then, let us take note that the objections being voiced here, Joe, are not objections to the general staff, but to the civilian Pentagon-- or, "officials who stand outside the bounds of being strictly civilian due to their government sanctioned authority".

The decisions made by those "officials who stand outside the bounds of being strictly civilian due to their government sanctioned authority" have been the bugbear all along. It's one of the prime reasons why, in the last election, it was a good idea to replace the "officials who stand outside the bounds of being strictly civilian due to their government sanctioned authority". Zoot laid one problem at Rumsfeld's feet, I laid another, the half-assed deployment, bypassing the ordinary planning and logistical people in favor of a high-tech small force. As far as we know, the actual honest-to-god military had a better plan.

Then there's the idea of the invasion in the first instance, also because of "officials who stand outside the bounds of being strictly civilian due to their government sanctioned authority."

If I'm civilian, then I get to second guess the other civilians, who despite their official status, have made a mess of this.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by cantdog
Well then, let us take note that the objections being voiced here, Joe, are not objections to the general staff, but to the civilian Pentagon-- or, "officials who stand outside the bounds of being strictly civilian due to their government sanctioned authority".

Not entirely, there are other comments that either question or criticize (hypothetically in one case) the military's decision-making ability and/or foresight, not the suits at the Pentagon, specifically.

The decisions made by those "officials who stand outside the bounds of being strictly civilian due to their government sanctioned authority" have been the bugbear all along. It's one of the prime reasons why, in the last election, it was a good idea to replace the "officials who stand outside the bounds of being strictly civilian due to their government sanctioned authority". Zoot laid one problem at Rumsfeld's feet, I laid another, the half-assed deployment, bypassing the ordinary planning and logistical people in favor of a high-tech small force. As far as we know, the actual honest-to-god military had a better plan.

Then there's the idea of the invasion in the first instance, also because of "officials who stand outside the bounds of being strictly civilian due to their government sanctioned authority."

This is all beside my point.

If I'm civilian, then I get to second guess the other civilians, who despite their official status, have made a mess of this.

Also beside my point.

My point was as literal as I could make it, reading into it more than it says isn't going to give anyone anything accurate--I don't think. I still maintain, and with reason that hasn't really even been disagreed with, that the civilian hasn't and meaningful ground to question or criticize the military in a military decision. And they don't have that meaningful vehicle (whether they ought to or not isn't the point) intentionally--Objective Control is the term, I think.

My objection to people questioning and criticizing the military, as yet, still stands. I still don't see how, strictly speaking and not adding side-points, that objection has "no legs.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Not entirely, there are other comments that either question or criticize (hypothetically in one case) the military's decision-making ability and/or foresight, not the suits at the Pentagon, specifically.



This is all beside my point.



Also beside my point.

My point was as literal as I could make it, reading into it more than it says isn't going to give anyone anything accurate--I don't think. I still maintain, and with reason that hasn't really even been disagreed with, that the civilian hasn't and meaningful ground to question or criticize the military in a military decision. And they don't have that meaningful vehicle (whether they ought to or not isn't the point) intentionally--Objective Control is the term, I think.

My objection to people questioning and criticizing the military, as yet, still stands. I still don't see how, strictly speaking and not adding side-points, that objection has "no legs.

So in other words, all military decisions are, by virtue of being military decisions, exempt from meaningful civilian review?

---dr.M.