Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I take it you're raising your children and grandchildren to volunteer for that forever war.
My dad just retired from the Navy after over 2 decades of service. He and all of his military friends all agree that we need to stay in---and increase our presence in--Afghanistan and Iraq. The wars must be won because it poses a national security threat to us. If we leave, they will launch terror attacks against us and our allies. It isn't only about protecting innocents there, it's about protecting the USA and its allies.
Obama has had virtually no effect in that regard. Any younger general or a colonel looking forward to making general intends to have a longer career than whatever "short-timer" is in the oval office.
Are you saying that he had no impact on generals retiring or being told to retire?? That they hav voluntarily "retired" to make room for the younger version?
Are you saying that he had no impact on generals retiring or being told to retire?? That they hav voluntarily "retired" to make room for the younger version?
There are about 960 flag officers in the DoD. There are enough admirals in the Navy to put one on nearly every ship--ships are normally commanded by lower ranks. There are enough generals in the Air Force to put one on nearly every base--which the Air Force actually did--when bases were formerly commanded by colonels. The DoD today has the highest flag officer ratio today than it has ever had in its history.
There are 'way too many generals today. There ought to be a major purge anyway just for good management practice.
Supposedly Obama has "purged" the flag officer corps. Supposedly Obama has "fired" up to 200 generals. Well, I got a look at that name-by-name list of those 200 generals Obama "fired,." First, there were several Command Sergeant Majors on the list--whoever compiled it apparently thought a CSM was an officer.
Second, most of the rest of the people on the list were lower-ranking officers all the way down to captain. In fact, there were only 17 flag officers on the list...less than 2%. Of course, that's presuming there was no good reason to fire those officers, but I know there are certainly even flag officers who get DUIs, get caught in bed with the wrong people, get caught with the wrong money in their checking accounts, get caught with the wrong kind of chemicals in their blood, and sometimes just screw up horribly on the job.
Any general officer with reasonably good expectations of making another star is not going to retire early just because he dislikes a president; he's going to put his head down and suck it up until that president leaves office. We did have generals retire prior to the Iraq invasion, btw, but those were already four-star generals from the "school of Vietnam" who were more than ready for retirement.
I served under six presidents, and I certainly didn't like all of them, and the best of them was responsible for the biggest loss of military talent in my career--that would be the elder Bush right after the USSR collapsed and everyone dived for the "peace dividend."
My dad just retired from the Navy after over 2 decades of service. He and all of his military friends all agree that we need to stay in---and increase our presence in--Afghanistan and Iraq. The wars must be won because it poses a national security threat to us. If we leave, they will launch terror attacks against us and our allies. It isn't only about protecting innocents there, it's about protecting the USA and its allies.
I come from a family that was solid military since the Spanish-American war--all the women even married soldiers. I spent 26 years in the Air Force myself. All of my military friends and family say the opposite. We've all been to the Middle East at one point or another in my generation (all of our elder males were in WWII, Korea, and/or Vietnam--and I do mean that and/or).
I've never spoken to anyone in uniform who has spent time in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia who thinks we ought to be there for the decades that we all know would be necessary. We would have to fully occupy those countries for at least two generations--and would be actively in combat for at least the first generation.
You've heard of how in WWII everyone was rationing and buying "war bonds?" That's because America funded the war...the government went into debt to the American people to pay for the war.
Have you heard of any recent war bond drives? That's because other countries--notably China--are funding the war. The US is doing "war on credit." How long do you think that can go on?
And who is the actual threat? Who--who in particular--is likely to "launch terror attacks against us and our allies?"
It's not the Iranians. It's not the Taliban. It's not the Iraqis. It's the Saudis. It's always been the Saudis and people funded and motivated by the Saudis. Virtually all the exported Muslim terrorism in the entire world is spurred and financed by the Saudis--by their particularly radical form of Islam.
The US government knows this, but the Saudis have their hands too deeply into everyone's pockets, so nobody wants to admit it. Instead, the US government spends money and blood on a circular forever war without ever getting to the actual culprits.
If that's the case, he's asking the wrong question.
If you ask a general, "Can we win this war?" a general will always answer, "Yes...with more time and resources." A US general will never, ever say, "We can't win" about a war that's already started.
Now, if you ask a general, "Can we win this war if we start it?" you'll get an honest answer of yes or no. That's what the Powell-Weinberger Doctrine was all about--it was a way to calculate the winnability of a war from the point of view of the military before engaging in the war.
But when we're in the middle of a war, a US general will never, ever say "We can't win." Don't bother asking him that question.
Regarding Afghanistan and Iraq, the answer the generals are consistently giving, though, is "We can win, but it will take decades." That ought to tell you what they really think about it.
The decision to remain in Afghanistan is political, not military.
Probably. Your theory is solid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnum Mike
I'm not in favor of going to war with Iran, I am against any agreements with them.
I am in favor of staying in Afghanistan, and we should have a strong presence in Iraq or other regions in the middle east. ISIS and other radical groups are a cancer and it needs to be stopped before it gets worse. None of us in the civilized world want war, but unfortunately that may be our only choice some day.
Are you going over to Afghanistan and Iraq?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmitri95
My dad just retired from the Navy after over 2 decades of service. He and all of his military friends all agree that we need to stay in---and increase our presence in--Afghanistan and Iraq. The wars must be won because it poses a national security threat to us. If we leave, they will launch terror attacks against us and our allies. It isn't only about protecting innocents there, it's about protecting the USA and its allies.
Since when does the United States care about elected governments? We've overthrown several elected governments in our history, and installed unelected dictatorships.
Odummy was elected by promising to get us out of Afghan in 2008 and he won a Nobel Prize for saying he was going to 'bring the troops home'...what a liar.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
