How Do You Solve A Problem Like McCrystal?

[OCinBuffalo]

Except for Genghis Khan and his "kill everything" approach to peaceful coexistence.

Don't forget Alexander.

[OCinBuffalo]

Yeah. Something was amiss. Either that writer went off the unwritten rules or McChrystal didn't give a ****. Sounds like the former. If true, I feel sorry for him that he got caught up in it but the result (relieved of duty) is 100% right.

 

We're all human: We know people question and bash their bosses all the time. But the general in charge of Afghanistan needs to be a lot smarter than that...and also shouldn't create an atmosphere that encourages it. It's one thing to complain about lack of support. It's one thing to B word with your fellow generals over some beers.

 

It's another to insult the president in front of your subordinates and a reporter.

Generals, by definition, don't get to use that "human" excuse. The training and the job is simply different. And you are right: the attitude and the environment come from the top. Setting a bad example for your troops is inexcusable. He had to go, military skill or not, you simply don't break rule #1. Now, if only we can get our President to stop setting a bad example...if not, he has to go in the next election.

And get out of Afghanistan and Iraq ASAP.

 

How's the troop drawdown going?

No friggin way. We cannot dishonor our dead and wounded by simply running away.

 

Listen, you may not care about that, but I guarantee military people do. You sleep safe and sound at night because of them, and not because of "the law". "The law" only gets to be the law because they create the conditions for it to exist.

 

Dishonoring them because you don't want to spend the money? That would weaken our military in ways I doubt you can imagine. Put it this way: all I ever heard about was the "Army of 70s" and how we weren't gonna be them. It took us ALL of the 80s, and all of that spending, just to get back to where our military wasn't a joke.

 

Please, don't support Vietnam-ing the military all over again. That is folly. WRT your $$$ concerns? It will cost us 5x the $$ to re-recover from running away, than it will to win.

[John Adams]

Listen, you may not care about that, but I guarantee military people do. You sleep safe and sound at night because of them, and not because of "the law". "The law" only gets to be the law because they create the conditions for it to exist.

 

Dishonoring them because you don't want to spend the money? That would weaken our military in ways I doubt you can imagine. Put it this way: all I ever heard about was the "Army of 70s" and how we weren't gonna be them. It took us ALL of the 80s, and all of that spending, just to get back to where our military wasn't a joke.

 

Please, don't support Vietnam-ing the military all over again. That is folly. WRT your $$$ concerns? It will cost us 5x the $$ to re-recover from running away, than it will to win.

 

I don't dishonor the dead by wanting the living back home. I honor the living by not wanting them dead. There is no "win" in Afghanistan because there is no country of Afghanistan. It's a mapmaker's invention, not a nation you can conquer and change. Maybe we could make up a way to "win" in Iraq but also highly unlikely. If you think there is a way to win (not that anyone has bothered to define win in the first place), you're naive.

 

Vietnam is a bad comparison by any measure, but in particular loss of life. Still, getting out of Vietnam was 100% correct and happened far to late for the thousands who died unnecessarily. Do you think another 30 years would have left Vietnam appreciably better than it was today? And if so, would it have been worth it to the tens of thousands more who died? No way.

 

And with respect to money concerns, you're head is buried (to quote my pal Magox) if you are willing to overlook the trillion we uselessly spent in Iraq/Afghanistan so far. Right now we're a trillion down and more trillions to go with no end or value in sight for all that money wasted except that our military is better-trained in urban and mountain warfare.

[IDBillzFan]

Right now we're a trillion down and more trillions to go with no end or value in sight for all that money wasted except that our military is better-trained in urban and mountain warfare.

Which is gonna come in handy when we have to fight them Mexicans in the hills of Arizona and push them south.

[OCinBuffalo]

I don't dishonor the dead by wanting the living back home. I honor the living by not wanting them dead. There is no "win" in Afghanistan because there is no country of Afghanistan. It's a mapmaker's invention, not a nation you can conquer and change. Maybe we could make up a way to "win" in Iraq but also highly unlikely. If you think there is a way to win (not that anyone has bothered to define win in the first place), you're naive.

 

Vietnam is a bad comparison by any measure, but in particular loss of life. Still, getting out of Vietnam was 100% correct and happened far to late for the thousands who died unnecessarily. Do you think another 30 years would have left Vietnam appreciably better than it was today? And if so, would it have been worth it to the tens of thousands more who died? No way.

 

And with respect to money concerns, you're head is buried (to quote my pal Magox) if you are willing to overlook the trillion we uselessly spent in Iraq/Afghanistan so far. Right now we're a trillion down and more trillions to go with no end or value in sight for all that money wasted except that our military is better-trained in urban and mountain warfare.

It's clear you simply don't understand the military, military policy, or much to do with how to build an army that can win, and once you finally get there, how to keep it there. This is fine, not everybody does, and the understanding is certainly not for everyone, because you have to look at things in terms that most people don't find "comfortable".

 

But, keep in mind, there is a giant difference between having an opinion, and having an informed opinion. Perhaps you think its easy to build a winning football team that will stay together for 10 years, and win every game you send them to play, with no losses, ever? Now take that team and make the free agent market 20 times more competitive, and, make the endorsement deals 20 times more lucrative, to the point that your best players can make a hell of a lot more money just doing that, and not ever playing football again....and you might come close to understanding. But, I still doubt you will.

 

You don't understand what happened in Viet Nam either, so, again, for the sake of your comfort, if for no other reason, it's probably best for you to move on from talking about this.

[John Adams]

It's clear you simply don't understand the military, military policy, or much to do with how to build an army that can win, and once you finally get there, how to keep it there. This is fine, not everybody does, and the understanding is certainly not for everyone, because you have to look at things in terms that most people don't find "comfortable".

 

But, keep in mind, there is a giant difference between having an opinion, and having an informed opinion. Perhaps you think its easy to build a winning football team that will stay together for 10 years, and win every game you send them to play, with no losses, ever? Now take that team and make the free agent market 20 times more competitive, and, make the endorsement deals 20 times more lucrative, to the point that your best players can make a hell of a lot more money just doing that, and not ever playing football again....and you might come close to understanding. But, I still doubt you will.

 

You don't understand what happened in Viet Nam either, so, again, for the sake of your comfort, if for no other reason, it's probably best for you to move on from talking about this.

 

Summed up, you say "You're wrong," in your usual verbose manner. And provide no cogent argument.

 

Tell me: How do we win in Afghanistan and honor all the dead there? Show your work. I'll leave out Iraq for the sake of simplicity.

[Alaska Darin]

It's clear you simply don't understand the military, military policy, or much to do with how to build an army that can win, and once you finally get there, how to keep it there. This is fine, not everybody does, and the understanding is certainly not for everyone, because you have to look at things in terms that most people don't find "comfortable".

 

But, keep in mind, there is a giant difference between having an opinion, and having an informed opinion. Perhaps you think its easy to build a winning football team that will stay together for 10 years, and win every game you send them to play, with no losses, ever? Now take that team and make the free agent market 20 times more competitive, and, make the endorsement deals 20 times more lucrative, to the point that your best players can make a hell of a lot more money just doing that, and not ever playing football again....and you might come close to understanding. But, I still doubt you will.

 

You don't understand what happened in Viet Nam either, so, again, for the sake of your comfort, if for no other reason, it's probably best for you to move on from talking about this.

That's an absolutely ridiculous post that completely ignores reality. Go ahead and tell me I don't understand the military or military policy.

[Dan]

Summed up, you say "You're wrong." And provide no cogent argument.

 

Tell me boy wonder: How do we win in Afghanistan. What are we supposed to do so we can "win" and honor all the dead there? I'll leave out Iraq because it's a different place.

I must admit... that's it for me. With both of these wars, no one has ever been able to say what the "goal" is. What is the definition of victory? And no matter when we leave, whether it be tomorrow or 20 years from now; the mess just starts all back up again. It has for thousands of years and to think we can fix it; is highly narsicistic thinking to say the least.

 

The problem as I see it, you can't just force a few people out, have an election, and magically you have stability in the country/region. The people have never had stability and don't really want stability. They want to completely eliminate anyone that doesn't agree with them. They turn everything into a holy war. And you can't win a holy war unless you exterminate or completely and entirely demoralize them.

 

And therein lies the problem. To "win" in Afghanistan we have to roll through Afghan, Pakistan, Iran, and probably half a dozen other countries; go village to village and kill everyone we find until you completely stamp out their will to fight in the name of some god that's not there anymore. Or drop a bunch of nukes. But that's it.

 

Does anyone think if we fought Japan with today's rules that we would have ever won that war? Japan was not surrendering. The idea was not even available to them, until we went island to island and killed every one we found. And started dropping nukes on the mainland. At that point, and only at that point, did they realized life with the shame of defeat was better than extermination from the planet.

 

So the real question for me is... do we really want to "win" over there? Or do we just want to keep the problems there and not have them make their way to our shores again? If it's the former, start dropping nukes. If it's the latter, get our troops home and develop an entirely new strategy for an entirely new type of warfare.

 

IMO, we should have dropped the nukes after 9/11. We had the justification and it would have ended this mess much quicker. Plan the bombing so the fallout takes care of half of Pakistan. Of course, the world would have been pissed; but if you don't drop them after that; when do you use a nuke?

[OCinBuffalo]

That's an absolutely ridiculous post that completely ignores reality. Go ahead and tell me I don't understand the military or military policy.

You ever been in charge? Ever try to keep people in your command, instead of taking the private sector job that pays 4x as much? What do we have to work with? We can't talk $$$, we can't talk security, especially in war time, we can't talk about stability, especially when we are sure to be uprooting people every other year. That private sector job has every benefit we have, and no BS on the weekends.

 

So what do we have? Confidence, appreciation for a job well done, and that feeling that you are on a winning team, the feeling that you are doing something right, and that everyone in your chain of command is committed to success... That's about it. Running away from a war that has seen people in your unit die kills all of those things...and now that company commander has exactly jack squat to work with.

 

Why don't you go ahead and tell me I don't know what I am talking about.

[OCinBuffalo]

Summed up, you say "You're wrong," in your usual verbose manner. And provide no cogent argument.

 

Tell me: How do we win in Afghanistan and honor all the dead there? Show your work. I'll leave out Iraq for the sake of simplicity.

Well, I am not sure I can do that without being "verbose", so, it's up to you. If you want me to do my strategic planning thing, I will. If you want to cry about it being a long post, spare me.

[Adam]

Too bad he's right.

The military isn't about being right. From what I understand, McCrystal is a highly decorated and very competent person- he had a brain fart, but he made a critical mistake and did it publicly. Our society doesn't accept that. Our society is wrong about many, many things.

[John Adams]

Well, I am not sure I can do that without being "verbose", so, it's up to you. If you want me to do my strategic planning thing, I will. If you want to cry about it being a long post, spare me.

 

By all means, don't answer the question.

 

Your answer to Darin is absurd but I'll let him play whack-a-mole on you.

[OCinBuffalo]

By all means, don't answer the question.

 

Your answer to Darin is absurd but I'll let him play whack-a-mole on you.

Then don't pretend like I don't know the answer. I feel I had a better plan on how to do Iraq. I feel the same way about Afghanistan. In both cases my plans were based on who the enemy was, culturally, but, were dependent on not trying to do this "on the cheap". We have spent 5x what we would have if we didn't start out trying to get away with this cheaply.

 

I am sure it seems absurd, to somebody who has never been in that position. I can't imagine how hard it is now, with 2 full scale wars going on. That only makes my point. The Army anyway, will take 10 years to recover from "cut and run".

 

Perhaps I should put it in terms of a law firm? Imagine your managing partner suddenly stops taking an interest in your firm's cases, and worse, refers your major ones to another firm. Word gets out that s/he's lost her edge, and isn't willing to do the big work anymore. Suddenly your junior lawyers start thinking they picked the wrong firm, and don't want to show up just to do the same old little disputes for crap fees, never mind make partner. So they start looking elsewhere. Meanwhile, your paralegals know that there's no way all of the education/advancement opportunities are dependent on you doing the big cases, and they see the same writing on the wall. The clerks and everybody else does whatever their boss is doing.

 

You lose 60% of your potential new partners, and 80% of your paralegals in the first 2 years. How long and what kind of spending would it take, to restore your firm to its state just before your managing partner decided to have his/her nutty?

 

Wouldn't it be better to get him/her to fight through it? Recommit? Spend some cash on your existing people and tell them that you are going to get through this and finish those big cases? Wouldn't that cost significantly less?

 

Just trying to put things in your perspective...as best I can.

[Adam]

Generals, by definition, don't get to use that "human" excuse. The training and the job is simply different. And you are right: the attitude and the environment come from the top. Setting a bad example for your troops is inexcusable. He had to go, military skill or not, you simply don't break rule #1. Now, if only we can get our President to stop setting a bad example...if not, he has to go in the next election.

 

No friggin way. We cannot dishonor our dead and wounded by simply running away.

 

Listen, you may not care about that, but I guarantee military people do. You sleep safe and sound at night because of them, and not because of "the law". "The law" only gets to be the law because they create the conditions for it to exist.

 

Dishonoring them because you don't want to spend the money? That would weaken our military in ways I doubt you can imagine. Put it this way: all I ever heard about was the "Army of 70s" and how we weren't gonna be them. It took us ALL of the 80s, and all of that spending, just to get back to where our military wasn't a joke.

 

Please, don't support Vietnam-ing the military all over again. That is folly. WRT your $$$ concerns? It will cost us 5x the $$ to re-recover from running away, than it will to win.

Yeah, we are dishonoring the dead if we don't set up a faux democracy, like we did in Iraq. In order to win a war, their has to be a goal. Sorry bud this isn't being played on your XBOX 360 and your statements are VERY disrepectful to the dead and to those who are still living.

[John Adams]

Then don't pretend like I don't know the answer. I feel I had a better plan on how to do Iraq. I feel the same way about Afghanistan. In both cases my plans were based on who the enemy was, culturally, but, were dependent on not trying to do this "on the cheap". We have spend 5x what we would have if we didn't start out trying to get away with this cheaply.

 

I am sure it seems absurd, to somebody who has never been in that position. I can't imagine how hard it is now, with 2 full scale wars going on. That only makes my point. The Army anyway, will take 10 years to recover from "cut and run".

 

Perhaps I should put it in terms of a law firm? Imagine your managing partner suddenly stops taking an interest in your firm's cases, and worse, refers your major ones to another firm. Word gets out that s/he's lost her edge, and isn't willing to do the big work anymore. Suddenly your junior lawyers start thinking they picked the wrong firm, and don't want to show up just to do the same old little disputes for crap fees, never mind make partner. So they start looking elsewhere. Meanwhile, your paralegals know that there's no way all of the education/advancement opportunities are dependent on you doing the big cases, and they see the same writing on the wall. The clerks and everybody else does whatever their boss is doing.

 

You lose 60% of your potential new partners, and 80% of your paralegals in the first 2 years. How long and what kind of spending would it take, to restore your firm to its state just before your managing partner decided to have his/her nutty?

 

Wouldn't it be better to get him/her to fight through it? Recommit? Spend some cash on your existing people and tell them that you are going to get through this and finish those big cases? Wouldn't that cost significantly less?

 

Just trying to put things in your perspective...as best I can.

 

You just compared fighting a war to managing a law firm? Your analogy is so stupid it doesn't deserve considered response and your argument that "You didn't serve so STFU" is nearly as juvenile. You'll do anything to avoid answering the question.

[OCinBuffalo]

Yeah, we are dishonoring the dead if we don't set up a faux democracy, like we did in Iraq. In order to win a war, their has to be a goal. Sorry bud this isn't being played on your XBOX 360 and your statements are VERY disrepectful to the dead and to those who are still living.

Since I have really done this, and never done it on an XBOX? Your comments are disrespectful and ignorant. Now go back to your XBOX. This is about real life and real people trying to do a difficult job for very little reward. It is also about officers trying to keep their command populated with at least some people who know what they are doing.

 

But go ahead and keep talking down to me...as if...

 

Oh, and setting up faux democracies is the State Departments job, sometimes the CIAs, so please just stop. You might see some Special Forces to set up some initial relationships, but that's about it.

[OCinBuffalo]

You just compared fighting a war to managing a law firm? Your analogy is so stupid it doesn't deserve considered response and your argument that "You didn't serve so STFU" is nearly as juvenile. You'll do anything to avoid answering the question.

I only did it as an attempt at giving you half a clue. Certainly they aren't the same. Now come on, don't tell me you don't get that. I assume you are relatively smart. You didn't serve. You don't know, and that's that.

 

Which question am I avoiding?

 

EDIT: Oh, and I notice Darin hasn't auto-replied as you expected. Perhaps that's because he has served and knows a little something about unit effectiveness being based in part on unit cohesion?

[DC Tom]

You just compared fighting a war to managing a law firm? Your analogy is so stupid it doesn't deserve considered response and your argument that "You didn't serve so STFU" is nearly as juvenile. You'll do anything to avoid answering the question.

 

Not quite as ludicrous as it seems. There is a decent amount of overlap between business management and military campaign management. General staff officers usually have MBAs, because the resource management skills learned getting the degree turn out to be very valuable in managing military campaigns.

 

Of course, I'm not defending any sort of "I manage a law firm, so I have a better plan for Iraq and Afghanistan". That's just silly. There's overlap, not perfect congruence.

[DC Tom]

Since I have really done this, and never done it on an XBOX?

 

You've planned the occupation of a foreign country?

[John Adams]

I only did it as an attempt at giving you half a clue. Certainly they aren't the same. Now come on, don't tell me you don't get that. I assume you are relatively smart. You didn't serve. You don't know, and that's that.

 

Which question am I avoiding?

 

That's a weak argument. I value the opinions of the service on military matters more than others but that doesn't mean others can't be right. If your POV was right, we'd all be slave to only giving input on matters in which we are expert.

 

Back a bit more on topic, I know LOTS of people who have served who want us to get the eff out of both these dumb wars because they think we're sending these kids out to die with no way to "win," whatever winning even is. And I agree with them. Or they with me.

 

The question I put to you is "How do you win in Afghanistan to honor the fallen?"