Posted on Mar 20, 2019
America’s Generals Have Learned Nothing From Our Failed Wars
5.38K
60
16
26
26
0
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 13
Thank you, my friend COL Charles Williams for posting. I concur with this authors thoughts about Gen. David Petraeus and General Mark Milley. As far as General Ray Odierno I will take a wait and see.
To be honest I think my friends General Vincent Brooks [USFK], General Joe Votel [CENTCOM and earlier SOCOM] and General Raymond Tony Thomas [SOCOM] have certainly have learned quite a lot about the GWOT wars and operations - both overt and covert.
FYI LTC Stephen C. LTC (Join to see) Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen Lt Col Charlie Brown Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. Maj William W. "Bill" Price Maj Marty Hogan SCPO Morris Ramsey SFC William Farrell SGT Mark Halmrast Sgt Randy Wilber Sgt John H.
To be honest I think my friends General Vincent Brooks [USFK], General Joe Votel [CENTCOM and earlier SOCOM] and General Raymond Tony Thomas [SOCOM] have certainly have learned quite a lot about the GWOT wars and operations - both overt and covert.
FYI LTC Stephen C. LTC (Join to see) Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen Lt Col Charlie Brown Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. Maj William W. "Bill" Price Maj Marty Hogan SCPO Morris Ramsey SFC William Farrell SGT Mark Halmrast Sgt Randy Wilber Sgt John H.
(10)
(0)
It Kind-a Makes You wonder what they are Being Taught In Schools And The Academy's… And Under It All How Politics Are Playing In The Background...
(8)
(0)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
It didn't feel like we were going very "deep" into such issues when I was there-Bear in mind most of military instructors were O-3's, perhaps O-4's. Beyond our technical courses for degrees (which probably mirror most other high-end institutions), it seemed the primary focus of our "ethics" courses was admitting when you screwed up (and realizing you inevitably would)... I don't really recall being given a great deal of overt (useful) training in tactics and strategy, but it was there, embedded in other studies. Mostly, it felt like they were trying to teach us to appreciate the "greats" of the past, while realizing that no one had even the slightest clue what was going to work in the future. If I had to sum it up in a single sentence; the Service Academies are teaching Cadets and Midshipmen that they are an anachronism whose only real value will come in preventing the abuse or unnecessary loss of human life. I could be wrong, and naturally my experiences will differ greatly from those who graduated in the '60s or '70s...but I think "risk aversion" is being touted far more than "risk calculation".
(0)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Military conflict is diplomacy through military means and the military is a natural extension of diplomacy. So, we cannot separate politics from either our education (public and military academies) or our military. The academies teach military history, science, engineering and the technology (industrial complex) required to start and maintain a career, not how to fight and win wars.
(0)
(0)
As a former subordinate of Patreaus and Milley, I can attest to the mentality of 'forever war.' For General Patreaus, it is an acknowledgment that the US remains the global military force, promised by our civilian leaders (often for dubious reasons) to political and corporate leaders around the world to eliminate unrest, provide internal defense, stabilize foreign countries and enable countries and corporations to access resources (people, money, natural resources, etc.). And this is not new. We have been in this business since the 'Banana Republics' of the early 1900s, when our civilian leaders sent us to the far stretches of the globe, to secure resources for American corporations.
As for General Milley, he is a politician, dressed in military uniform. His instincts are for self, then country and he has done very well for himself over the years. As a Colonel (and my boss) all he wanted was to make General (and he would step over anyone to get it). As a General, he followed the political winds and called the Fort Hood shooting 'workplace violence' instead of raising the possibility that we have terrorists in our ranks. He followed that up by delaying Beau Bergdahl's Article 32 recommendations until after Obama was re-elected. The same Obama, who praised Bergdahl as an an American hero on the steps of the Whitehouse.
The generational wars are a symptom of what Eisenhower called the military industrial complex. We are warned by politicians (who are funded by corporations and special interests), military leaders (who routinely serve a lifetime in the military) and corporate leaders (who are motivated by money), that if we failed to keep the industrial complex primed (for war), we will suffer the 'First Battle' loses of old; That our military advantage will be lost, as rivals continue to fund military R&D (using the same companies as the US military); and that we will be ill-prepared to ramp-up for a confrontation. Generational war keep the industrial pump primed, keeps the military deployed everywhere (except the US), and has the US responsible for guarding borders and providing for the internal defense of nearly every region and country, except our own.
Having suggested to then SecDef Rumsfeld that the greatest threat to the US was our southern border and that we should deploy our former German border forces and current Korean border forces to our border with Mexico, to defend our country from invasion, I was reminded that that option was not politically supported. Granted, our history with conflicts with Mexico (1848 and 1916) as well as immigration, create a logical conclusion that defending the border is necessary. However, doing so would both reduce our global military footprint, while solving a problem our politicians don't want solved.
Prolonged conflicts achieve the goals of everyone except those civilians killed (collateral damage) while our politicians keep us distracted from internal challenges, while we support global objectives, while some individuals can use the experience to gain military rank and glory and while our corporations and politicians use our treasure to enrich themselves. Greed and a lust for power are the wet nurses of too many of our military and political leaders.
As for General Milley, he is a politician, dressed in military uniform. His instincts are for self, then country and he has done very well for himself over the years. As a Colonel (and my boss) all he wanted was to make General (and he would step over anyone to get it). As a General, he followed the political winds and called the Fort Hood shooting 'workplace violence' instead of raising the possibility that we have terrorists in our ranks. He followed that up by delaying Beau Bergdahl's Article 32 recommendations until after Obama was re-elected. The same Obama, who praised Bergdahl as an an American hero on the steps of the Whitehouse.
The generational wars are a symptom of what Eisenhower called the military industrial complex. We are warned by politicians (who are funded by corporations and special interests), military leaders (who routinely serve a lifetime in the military) and corporate leaders (who are motivated by money), that if we failed to keep the industrial complex primed (for war), we will suffer the 'First Battle' loses of old; That our military advantage will be lost, as rivals continue to fund military R&D (using the same companies as the US military); and that we will be ill-prepared to ramp-up for a confrontation. Generational war keep the industrial pump primed, keeps the military deployed everywhere (except the US), and has the US responsible for guarding borders and providing for the internal defense of nearly every region and country, except our own.
Having suggested to then SecDef Rumsfeld that the greatest threat to the US was our southern border and that we should deploy our former German border forces and current Korean border forces to our border with Mexico, to defend our country from invasion, I was reminded that that option was not politically supported. Granted, our history with conflicts with Mexico (1848 and 1916) as well as immigration, create a logical conclusion that defending the border is necessary. However, doing so would both reduce our global military footprint, while solving a problem our politicians don't want solved.
Prolonged conflicts achieve the goals of everyone except those civilians killed (collateral damage) while our politicians keep us distracted from internal challenges, while we support global objectives, while some individuals can use the experience to gain military rank and glory and while our corporations and politicians use our treasure to enrich themselves. Greed and a lust for power are the wet nurses of too many of our military and political leaders.
(6)
(0)
Read This Next