Army Officer: Generals Failing Us In Iraq

#26
#26
CSpindizzy said:
Replacing also can appear as weak. Saying the message you've been driving home for years wasn't right afterall and the players you've sworn up and down were the right ones now having to leave shows weakness as well. Essentially it comes down to image vs. reality.
Click to expand...

Screw image. Swallow some pride and get new direction immediately. We're talking about a war and American lives! Not the time/place for protecting an image. Besides, the media is second guessing every move he makes anyway. Why not take bold steps and unleash the full strength of the military?
 
#27
#27
Tenn_Vol_Authority said:
Screw image. Swallow some pride and get new direction immediately. We're talking about a war and American lives! Not the time/place for protecting an image. Besides, the media is second guessing every move he makes anyway. Why not take bold steps and unleash the full strength of the military?
Click to expand...

Agreed. The only way to eliminate the Fanatical Islamists is with brute, deliberate force. The Foreign Legion had success in Algeria by burying the dead radicals in graves along with freshly slaughtered pigs. Brutal, Mean-Spirited, but it worked quite well til the government gave up on them.
 
#28
#28
JTrainDavis said:
Agreed. The only way to eliminate the Fanatical Islamists is with brute, deliberate force. The Foreign Legion had success in Algeria by burying the dead radicals in graves along with freshly slaughtered pigs. Brutal, Mean-Spirited, but it worked quite well til the government gave up on them.
Click to expand...


The Russians did something similar a couple of years back when terrorists gained access to that elementary school.

They buried the terrorists in burlap sacks.
 
#29
#29
One grand indictment in LTC Yingling's article is his reference to the lack of General Officers who speak even one foreign language, fluently (only 25% of the current GOs speak at least 1 foreign language.)
 
#31
#31
As too the article, Yingling needs to focus on his Battalion or Brigade responsibilities, of training and leading our Nation's soldiers, and not critcizing the Army's senior leadership.

Rumsfield was the driving force behind troop levels.
 
#32
#32
Regiment is very likely to be Yingling's highest level of command.

Wonder how many languages Napoleon and Alexander spoke?
 
#33
#33
vol_in_ar said:
As too the article, Yingling needs to focus on his Battalion or Brigade responsibilities, of training and leading our Nation's soldiers, and not critcizing the Army's senior leadership.

Rumsfield was the driving force behind troop levels.
Click to expand...
I am quite sure that the 3 ACR is pretty well trained.

Also, you should read Yingling's article, not just the Washington Post article, for more insight.
 
#34
#34
BigPapaVol said:
Regiment is very likely to be Yingling's highest level of command.

Wonder how many languages Napoleon and Alexander spoke?
Click to expand...
Italian (his mother tongue), French, German, and English.

He also learned Latin from the Jesuits.
 
#35
#35
Tenn_Vol_Authority said:
Screw image. Swallow some pride and get new direction immediately. We're talking about a war and American lives! Not the time/place for protecting an image. Besides, the media is second guessing every move he makes anyway. Why not take bold steps and unleash the full strength of the military?
Click to expand...

This may or may not be an actual quote:

"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers! In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late. Accordingly, I'm readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I'll, in turn, do my best for the cause by writing editorials - after the fact."

Robert E. Lee in 1863
 
#38
#38
therealUT said:
No. It did provide Napoleon with a deeper understanding of the enemy, though.
Click to expand...
speaking their frickin' language leads to deeper understanding that might help on the battlefield? really? so the Russians bested Napoleon because he didn't speak their language - ditto for the Brits
 
#39
#39
I'm pretty sure it was more than just knowledge of the language. It's being in the mindset of your enemy. You have to anticipate the factors that come into their thinking. If you just treat the enemy like another warm body on the other side of the battlefield, you lose.

As mentioned on another thread, look at Sherman. He spent a few years in Georgia. He knew the mindset of the South. He knew that in order to bring a quick end to the war he had to destroy their ability to produce BUT ALSO break the spirit of the people themselves. What his troops did helped break that spirit. He drove to the ocean on census data and knowledge of production levels of farm goods. He knew he could lead his forces through GA and survive off of the land.

It's a complete study of your enemy. In the case of Iraq, it would help to know the history of Islam and Iraq, the history of the divisions of Sunni and Shia, and knowledge of Arab nationalism. I've wondered from the beginning if ANY of these were even known by those up top.
 
#40
#40
CSpindizzy said:
Replacing also can appear as weak. Saying the message you've been driving home for years wasn't right afterall and the players you've sworn up and down were the right ones now having to leave shows weakness as well. Essentially it comes down to image vs. reality.
Click to expand...

No one in history criticizes Lincoln as a weak leader when he replaced the commander of the potomac a half a dozen times before he found the right man. That war lasted 4 yrs, how many years have we been in Iraq?
 
#42
#42
therealUT said:
I am quite sure that the 3 ACR is pretty well trained.

Also, you should read Yingling's article, not just the Washington Post article, for more insight.
Click to expand...

I'll be sure and read Army Times for the 0-6 list..I'm sure after this he'll be on it.
 
#44
#44
BigPapaVol said:
how on earth did we ever defeat the Japanese or Germans with neither CINC speaking the other language?
Click to expand...
I am not exactly sure. However, Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander, spoke German. So too did Spaatz and "Monty".

Also, I would be willing to wager that with MacArthur's extensive time spent in Asia, he had a pretty solid grasp of the culture there...
 
#45
#45
therealUT said:
I am not exactly sure. However, Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander, spoke German. So too did Spaatz and "Monty".

Also, I would be willing to wager that with MacArthur's extensive time spent in Asia, he had a pretty solid grasp of the culture there...
Click to expand...
grasping the culture has nothing to do with speaking the language. Eisenhower's ability in German, which was, at the very best, minimal, had nothing to do with winning a total war. One might argue, albeit weakly, that speaking the enemy's language could help in the instance of an occupation wherein we're winning hearts and minds (though I think that a silly use of our force). One can grasp culture without speaking the language. Occupying another's space without speaking his language, could be difficult.

Abizaid spoke the heck out of the language and is a Middle East scholar. How'd that help him?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top