Troops in Mosul speak with Sean Hannity.

[ieatcrayonz]

So to review: The ultra Conservative military is failing at the ultra liberal mission of making Iraq a nation state. Hannity, who admits to an agenda is no different than the for profit media that simply wants to make a buck, you served in the military which means no one else can point out things about said military.

 

Interesting

 

BTW, do you see our giant Cold War military as a part of this liberal monster that is stealing our money? Lord knows they waste enough money and function as an over bloated bureaucracy

866374[/snapback]

Jim-MAY!!!!!

[Alaska Darin]

So to review: The ultra Conservative military is failing at the ultra liberal mission of making Iraq a nation state.

Which is pretty much destiny.

Hannity, who admits to an agenda is no different than the for profit media that simply wants to make a buck,

Correct.

you served in the military which means no one else can point out things about said military.

Wrong. You feel free to keep the gems coming. I'll keep slamming them for the garbage they are.

BTW, do you see our giant Cold War military as a part of this liberal monster that is stealing our money? Lord knows they waste enough money and function as an over bloated bureaucracy

866374[/snapback]

Absolutely.

[RkFast]

BTW, do you see our giant Cold War military as a part of this liberal monster that is stealing our money? Lord knows they waste enough money and function as an over bloated bureaucracy

 

While our military can still be considered such, one thing the Government has been proactive on and done RIGHT is realizing this and re-sizing the military as needed, away from that of a Cold War mentality. Its no longer about biggestest, mostest and stongerest, but about efficiency, speed and agility. Sure, most of that is cost-driven and NOT borne out of realization of a changing threat matrix. But IMO, this transformation (or at least work towards it) is one thing the Govt. has actually hit the mark on.

 

Except for the phase out of the F-14 and its replacement by that POS F/A-18 "bug".

 

Darin/Tom....am I close here?

[Bungee Jumper]

While our military can still be considered such, one thing the Government has been proactive on and done RIGHT is realizing this and re-sizing the military as needed, away from that of a Cold War mentality. Its no longer about biggestest, mostest and stongerest, but about efficiency, speed and agility. Sure, most of that is cost-driven and NOT borne out of realization of a changing threat matrix. But IMO, this transformation (or at least work towards it) is one thing the Govt. has actually hit the mark on.

 

Except for the phase out of the F-14 and its replacement by that POS F/A-18 "bug". 

 

Darin/Tom....am I close here?

866926[/snapback]

 

Sort of, kind of, maybe. Certainly, the Army's no longer tailored to the massive stand-up tank clash at Fulda, neither has it "transformed" into the strategically agile force the powers-that-be would like. I have doubts that it really will...and if it does, I have doubts that it's the right direction to go in (both largely because "transformation" in the Army is centered around the ridiculous FCS program, and I seriously doubt the viability of most of the FCS systems on most likely battlefields). Fact is, "transformation" is hardly proactive; it's largely reactive, seeing as the Army's current definition of "transformation" designed around fighting the current war (i.e. war on terrorism, limited combat against "failed states") rather than the "next" war.

 

As for the other three branches...honestly, I only think the Marines are doing things right (they're no longer designed to fight from the beaches inland and let the Army take over; OIF demonstrated they're becoming a force that can fight from the littoral inland and take part in heavy maneuver engagements). The Air Force is still stuck in their failed "We can win wars from the air all by ourselves if we get better technology, we don't need anyone else" paradigm (and is taking "flexibility" to an unhealthy level with the F/A-22 and JSF). The Navy...your immature focus on the Tomcat vs. Rhino issue aside (The F/A-18E/F is more cost-effective, is easier to use and maintain, is a younger airframe, has better avionics, has better low-observable technology, and has better all-around performance. The Tomcat has Phoenix. So shut up already. ), the Navy is trying to "transform" itself into a brown-water force, with one of the silliest force structures I've ever heard of (what kind of !@#$ing moron is going to screen major fleet units with a destroyer that costs $4 billion dollars? Why does the littoral require a dedicated warship design?)...and I'm a strict Mahanist, who believes in blue-water ops.

 

Which is not to say there's anything wrong with "transformation"...transformation is good, IF you can dictate the nature of the battle to your enemy (e.g. the Meuse, 1940, Desert Storm, Gkolki, Jena-Auerstadt, Malaysa/Singapore). If you can't (e.g. Moscow in 1941, the later Korean War, the Battle of the River Plate, Midway), you usually end up getting your ass kicked.

[RkFast]

Sort of, kind of, maybe.  Certainly, the Army's no longer tailored to the massive stand-up tank clash at Fulda, neither has it "transformed" into the strategically agile force the powers-that-be would like.  I have doubts that it really will...and if it does, I have doubts that it's the right direction to go in (both largely because "transformation" in the Army is centered around the ridiculous FCS program, and I seriously doubt the viability of most of the FCS systems on most likely battlefields).  Fact is, "transformation" is hardly proactive; it's largely reactive, seeing as the Army's current definition of "transformation" designed around fighting the current war (i.e. war on terrorism, limited combat against "failed states") rather than the "next" war. 

 

As for the other three branches...honestly, I only think the Marines are doing things right (they're no longer designed to fight from the beaches inland and let the Army take over; OIF demonstrated they're becoming a force that can fight from the littoral inland and take part in heavy maneuver engagements).  The Air Force is still stuck in their failed "We can win wars from the air all by ourselves if we get better technology, we don't need anyone else" paradigm (and is taking "flexibility" to an unhealthy level with the F/A-22 and JSF).  The Navy...your immature focus on the Tomcat vs. Rhino issue aside (The F/A-18E/F is more cost-effective, is easier to use and maintain, is a younger airframe, has better avionics, has better low-observable technology, and has better all-around performance.  The Tomcat has Phoenix.  So shut up already.  ), the Navy is trying to "transform" itself into a brown-water force, with one of the silliest force structures I've ever heard of (what kind of !@#$ing moron is going to screen major fleet units with a destroyer that costs $4 billion dollars?  Why does the littoral require a dedicated warship design?)...and I'm a strict Mahanist, who believes in blue-water ops.   

 

Which is not to say there's anything wrong with "transformation"...transformation is good, IF you can dictate the nature of the battle to your enemy (e.g. the Meuse, 1940, Desert Storm, Gkolki, Jena-Auerstadt, Malaysa/Singapore).  If you can't (e.g. Moscow in 1941, the later Korean War, the Battle of the River Plate, Midway), you usually end up getting your ass kicked.

866972[/snapback]

 

Damn...okay, youre a bit over my head here...Im just a novice with this stuff but I get what youre saying, for the most part. Thanks. So my next question is, why not both? With the emergence of the truly organized terrorist threat and the very real possibility of a Cold War II with the likes of China, North Korea and Iran, cant the military have both kinds of a forc and the ability to fight both wars? Or is it not possible to do that?

 

And sorry about the F-14 stuff. Im a Long Island Grumman boy who grew up watching brand new E2s, A6s and F14s scream overhead, along with A-10s from Republic-Fairchild, too. And FWIW, I dont dispute what youre saying about the Super Hornet. But all I know is, not ONE jock who flew both both the Rhino and the 'Cat that I have spoken to (about five now) say the Rhino is truly better where it really matters...wheels up. The 'Cat, especially the "D", was a muscle car. Hard to work on, hard to keep nice, but once you close the hood and turn the key....oooohhh boy. The Rhino is nice, feels new, is easy to keep nice, but it feels (and flies) like a new Honda Accord. Im truly concerned that the Navy will get its ass kicked if it does find itself going against superior Russian technology in air to air combat during some confict in the future. Im reading an interesting book by Admiral Gilchrist about the Tomcat program. What a cluster!@#$ that was, from Day One! Sad state of affairs when the new premier air superiority fighter needs to be "saved" by the Shah of Iran. And then when it is, is stuck with inferior powerplants and confusing avionics. And when they finally got the damn thing right, Cheney goes and kills the whole program.

[Bungee Jumper]

Damn...okay, youre a bit over my head here...Im just a novice with this stuff but I get what youre saying, for the most part. Thanks. So my next question is, why not both? With the emergence of the truly organized terrorist threat and the very real possibility of a Cold War II with the likes of China, North Korea and Iran, cant the military have both kinds of a forc and the ability to fight both wars? Or is it not possible to do that?

 

$$$$$

 

And sorry about the F-14 stuff. Im a Long Island Grumman boy who grew up watching brand new E2s, A6s and F14s scream overhead, along with A-10s from Republic-Fairchild, too. And FWIW, I dont dispute what youre saying about the Super Hornet. But all I know is, not ONE jock who flew both both the Rhino and the 'Cat that I have spoken to (about five now) say the Rhino is truly better where it really matters...wheels up. The 'Cat, especially the "D", was a muscle car. Hard to work on, hard to keep nice, but once you close the hood and turn the key....oooohhh boy. The Rhino is nice, feels new, is easy to keep nice, but it feels (and flies) like a new Honda Accord. Im truly concerned that the Navy will get its ass kicked if it does find itself going against superior Russian technology in air to air combat during some confict in the future. Im reading an interesting book by Admiral Gilchrist about the Tomcat program. What a cluster!@#$ that was, from Day One! Sad state of affairs when the new premier air superiority fighter needs to be "saved" by the Shah of Iran. And then when it is, is stuck with inferior powerplants and confusing avionics. And when they finally got the damn thing right, Cheney goes and kills the whole program. 

867004[/snapback]

 

The D was unquestionably a sweet plane...but don't kid yourself: the earlier versions were underpowered and somewhat (somewhat) lacking in maneuverability because of it. The Tomcat excelled in what it was designed for: winning the outer air battle of a CVBG with a big radar with lots of processing power and big-ass AAMs.

 

It was also a one-trick pony (despite the Bombcats) and a maintenance hog (even early airframes, never mind the aged ones). And again: don't kid yourself. When you're in the middle of the Indian Ocean in the middle of a 12-month deployment flying support for NATO troops in Afghanistan 24-7, keeping planes flying is what matters. The greatest aircraft in the world doesn't do sh-- for you if it's breasts-up 60% of the time (typical for a Tomcat). The Rhino, on the other hand: you know it can be maintained, you know it'll fly, it'll use less fuel per mission, it'll take a wider variety of ordnance than the Tomcat (including buddy stores), it's got better low observability traits, it can (i.e. it's already been shown to be capable of) self-defend on strike missions (which means it's basically doing the job of two planes)...the Tomcat may be a better weapon than the F/A-18E...but a carrier battlegroup is a better weapon armed with F/A-18E's than with Tomcats.

[RkFast]

The D was unquestionably a sweet plane...but don't kid yourself: the earlier versions were underpowered and somewhat (somewhat) lacking in maneuverability because of it.  The Tomcat excelled in what it was designed for: winning the outer air battle of a CVBG with a big radar with lots of processing power and big-ass AAMs. 

 

Somewhat lacking? Lacking by a lot. From what Im reading, the term was "fly the engines, not the plane." Those old TF-30s had massive problems when fitted to the Tomcats and pilots had to be extremelty careful with their throttle decisions. Pilots literally could only use certain pwoer settings during certain maneuvers, which took a huge chunk out of the aircraft's ability.

 

It was also a one-trick pony (despite the Bombcats) and a maintenance hog (even early airframes, never mind the aged ones).  And again: don't kid yourself.  When you're in the middle of the Indian Ocean in the middle of a 12-month deployment flying support for NATO troops in Afghanistan 24-7, keeping planes flying is what matters.  The greatest aircraft in the world doesn't do sh-- for you if it's breasts-up 60% of the time (typical for a Tomcat).  The Rhino, on the other hand: you know it can be maintained, you know it'll fly, it'll use less fuel per mission, it'll take a wider variety of ordnance than the Tomcat (including buddy stores), it's got better low observability traits, it can (i.e. it's already been shown to be capable of) self-defend on strike missions (which means it's basically doing the job of two planes)...the Tomcat may be a better weapon than the F/A-18E...but a carrier battlegroup is a better weapon armed with F/A-18E's than with Tomcats.

 

I definitely hear you about maintainence and need to keep the fleet ready to fly. Also, the Super Hornat's ability for future expansion and upgrades is a terrific feature. One thing Im learning from this book is like you said...that the Tomcat was a maintainence hog and a very complex aircraft from the get go. Way too much, so. But as an old Grummanite recently told me, they had the utmost confidence they would fix all those problems if the D program wasnt killed and if the planned "Tomcat 21" program got off the ground. I wouldnt expect a different comment from him.

 

If you get a chance, check it out..its called 'Tomcat!' by Paul T. Gillchrist who is a retired Rear Admiral. I think youll like it becuase a lot of it is about the not just the aircraft, but about the whole Program and all the decisions that went into it.

[jimmy_from_north_buffalo]

Sort of, kind of, maybe.  Certainly, the Army's no longer tailored to the massive stand-up tank clash at Fulda, neither has it "transformed" into the strategically agile force the powers-that-be would like.  I have doubts that it really will...and if it does, I have doubts that it's the right direction to go in (both largely because "transformation" in the Army is centered around the ridiculous FCS program, and I seriously doubt the viability of most of the FCS systems on most likely battlefields).  Fact is, "transformation" is hardly proactive; it's largely reactive, seeing as the Army's current definition of "transformation" designed around fighting the current war (i.e. war on terrorism, limited combat against "failed states") rather than the "next" war. 

 

Which is not to say there's anything wrong with "transformation"...transformation is good, IF you can dictate the nature of the battle to your enemy (e.g. the Meuse, 1940, Desert Storm, Gkolki, Jena-Auerstadt, Malaysa/Singapore).  If you can't (e.g. Moscow in 1941, the later Korean War, the Battle of the River Plate, Midway), you usually end up getting your ass kicked.

866972[/snapback]

What will the next war look like? No one knows. The military is not structured correctly for the Iraq occupation, that's for sure. Don't know that they should have been prepared for that type of mission, but if this is what the military is going to be doing in the future better get them prepared for it. I would hope we will see no more major wars ever again and that the 21st century sees the end of war period. We shall see.

 

I would like to ask you about this "dictating the nature of the battle" thing. You listed the battles, most of which I am familure with, but you did not say who was dictating the nature: "(e.g. the Meuse, 1940, If you can't (e.g. Moscow in 1941, the later Korean War, the Battle of the River Plate, Midway)"

[Bungee Jumper]

I would like to ask you about this "dictating the nature of the battle" thing. You listed the battles, most of which I am familure with, but you did not say who was dictating the nature: "(e.g. the Meuse, 1940,    If you can't (e.g. Moscow in 1941, the later Korean War, the Battle of the River Plate, Midway)"

867682[/snapback]

 

Well...okay then. I'll give the short version now, just who dictated the nature of the battle without going into the how and why of it; the long version will have to wait until later, because I work for idiots

 

The Meuse, 1940: the Germans

Desert Storm: the "Coalition" (really the US)

Gkolki: Shaka. You probably haven't heard of Gkolki; it's the first major battle of the Zulu Civil War, which Shaka won. He won it in large part because he revolutionized Zulu doctrine.

Jena-Auerstadt: Napoleon

Malaysa/Singapore: the Japanese

 

Moscow in 1941: the Germans

The later Korean War: the Chinese

The Battle of the River Plate (Graf Spee vs. Exeter et. al.): The Germans (though that's not quite accurate; the battle itself was just the culmination of a series of events that themselves demonstrated flaws in the German "crusier" doctrine)

Midway: the Japanese

 

I could go into detail...but like I said, I work for idiots, and don't have the time now.

[jimmy_from_north_buffalo]

Well...okay then.  I'll give the short version now, just who dictated the nature of the battle without going into the how and why of it; the long version will have to wait until later, because I work for idiots 

 

The Meuse, 1940: the Germans

Desert Storm: the "Coalition" (really the US)

Gkolki: Shaka.  You probably haven't heard of Gkolki; it's the first major battle of the Zulu Civil War, which Shaka won.  He won it in large part because he revolutionized Zulu doctrine.

Jena-Auerstadt: Napoleon

Malaysa/Singapore: the Japanese

 

Moscow in 1941: the Germans

The later Korean War: the Chinese

The Battle of the River Plate (Graf Spee vs. Exeter et. al.): The Germans (though that's not quite accurate; the battle itself was just the culmination of a series of events that themselves demonstrated flaws in the German "crusier" doctrine)

Midway: the Japanese

 

I could go into detail...but like I said, I work for idiots, and don't have the time now.

867695[/snapback]

 

Yes, I would hope you could go into more detail even if I can't get back to you till monday. But some of those who were dictating the battles in fact got their asses kicked. AQnd the Graf Spee was really lost to the Germans because of good British false information, spreading the report British reinforcements were on the way when they were not.

[Bungee Jumper]

Yes, I would hope you could go into more detail even if I can't get back to you till monday. But some of those who were dictating the battles in fact got their asses kicked. AQnd the Graf Spee was really lost to the Germans because of good British false information, spreading the report British reinforcements were on the way when they were not.

867721[/snapback]

 

No, some of those who were aggressors got their asses kicked. I'm talking in regards to doctrine (including, to a degree, C3I); in general, if you have better command, communications, intelligence, and can maintain a higher operational pace, you're fighting battles on your terms and not the enemy's, and you win. That's true on the offensive (Lee's "Seven Days" in the Peninsular Campaign in the Civil War - he actually lost every battle during the Seven Days, but greatly out-commanded and out-maneuvered McClellan, and won the campaign) as it is on the defensive (the Germans at Kharkov, 1942).

 

Which is why I included the Graf Spee: German doctrine as represented by the pocket battleship, while transformational (though it was just a rehash of Napoleonic commerce raiding, it was transformational in that by 1915 the world navies had gotten away from commerce raiding in favor of the big fleet actions), could not ultimately dictate terms of battle to the British at an operational level. The disinformation that finally convinced Langsdorff to scuttle was - aside from a perfect example illustrating my point (the Germans couldn't dictate battle at the operational level in part because the commerce raiding doctrine left the raiders unsupported by such things as proper intelligence) - was just the final nail in the coffin that had been slowly nailed shut over the previous six weeks.

[jimmy_from_north_buffalo]

No, some of those who were aggressors got their asses kicked.  I'm talking in regards to doctrine (including, to a degree, C3I); in general, if you have better command, communications, intelligence, and can maintain a higher operational pace, you're fighting battles on your terms and not the enemy's, and you win.  That's true on the offensive (Lee's "Seven Days" in the Peninsular Campaign in the Civil War - he actually lost every battle during the Seven Days, but greatly out-commanded and out-maneuvered McClellan, and won the campaign) as it is on the defensive (the Germans at Kharkov, 1942).

 

Which is why I included the Graf Spee: German doctrine as represented by the pocket battleship, while transformational (though it was just a rehash of Napoleonic commerce raiding, it was transformational in that by 1915 the world navies had gotten away from commerce raiding in favor of the big fleet actions), could not ultimately dictate terms of battle to the British at an operational level.  The disinformation that finally convinced Langsdorff to scuttle was - aside from a perfect example illustrating my point (the Germans couldn't dictate battle at the operational level in part because the commerce raiding doctrine left the raiders unsupported by such things as proper intelligence) - was just the final nail in the coffin that had been slowly nailed shut over the previous six weeks.

867744[/snapback]

 

I like your first example better than your second one. The nam 'McClellan' still gives me an upset stomach. There was a Buffalo regiment on the Peninsula actually. Before the 'Seven Days' they fought at Fair Oaks/Seven Pines and the grandson of the builder of Buffalo Harbor was killed their, John Wilkeson. He served in the 100th New York Regiment.

 

http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/historic/reghi...00thInfMain.htm

 

His father followed him as a civilian and tramped all over the peninsula looking for him. He actually caught up to the regiment and his son John was angry saying, 'When a father sends his son off to the army he should never expect to see him alive again.' His uncle, another Wilkeson, a writer for the New York Tribune and later New York Times, found his maggot eaten body later and had it returned to Buffalo for burial in Forest Lawn. The Wilkeson who was the writer later sent the first written report of the Gettysburg battle to the papers. He was also the person who started the rumor that William T. Sherman was insane. Anyway, McClellan was a bad field general for sure.

 

As to the Germans and their pocket battleships, I think the failure of any doctrine on their part can be attributed to resources. They just couldn't afford to build enough ships with all the other demands they had on their industry.

[Zulu Cthulhu]

Scroll down, on the right, click the video for "Troops in Mosul speak with Sean Hannity"

Sounds like they're sick of the media too. And, stupid Politicians.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/hannityandcolmes/

 

God Bless those Hero's.

864216[/snapback]

 

It is always good to hear from soldiers themselves but what i don't get is if they're sick of the media and politicians, why do they seem so down with Hannity, who is just a twisted amalgamation of the worst elements of both? He is on radio and TV hours everyday spewing tired ass talking points that he gets from...politicians! Instead of speaking about the war on a regular basis on his show, there are umpteen features on Natalie Holloway and the poor lacrosse boys from Duke. I'm glad he actually went over there but come on Hannity is a giant toolbox

[NavyBillsFan]

I don’t know any conservative military people... Enlisted that is!

 

I would not call US service members dumb... We are given orders and we follow them... I’ve been to Af and Iraq three times the past five years. I can tell you that the problem is we have one arm tied behind our backs because we just can't go into a house and blow the $%^ out of these people.... The US media bows to the biggest problem this country has.... FEEDING THE AMERICAN DRAMA QUEEN.... The second problem is the weak ass anti Bush Dems... I thank God every day Bush was in office for the 9-11 attacks.... This is Clinton's 8 year mess that man has to clean up (minus Iraq). If pimp boy Bill had half a sac he would of went after Bin when the USS Cole was bombed...

 

This is not a battlefield war like WWI and II. We are fighting a breed of people who blow themselves up for the glory of God. This crap is spreading like wildfire across Africa and Russia, Europe is busting up plotted attacks daily... So how do you stop it? You cant win the hearts and minds of people who are educated to hate us or their religion is based on there is only one God and that’s Allah, all others are Satan....

 

This is the beginning of this new World War.... The war of religion.... And we will lose unless the Christian world wakes up to this problem and fights an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth... What and how will that happen? Who knows... I figure the day one of these nuts gets a nuke and we lose a city... But hey, we can all just blame Bush because this is all his fault...

[PromoTheRobot]

I'm sure those US fighting forces are proud to be risking their lives so out-of-control Shiites can lynch Saddam Hussein and throw the country into civil war. The Iraq War is the biggest clusterf**k in history. Those who got us in there owe the fighting men and their families a huge apology.

 

PTR

[Alaska Darin]

The Iraq War is the biggest clusterf**k in history.

 

PTR

You should actually know something about history before you make such statements. Love the passion, though.