Skip to comments.Rumsfeld and the Generals
Posted on 05/04/2006 9:33:14 PM PDT by smoothsailing
The World War II generation would have understood the revolt of the six generals right off. Coming through a five-year conflict that involved the whole of American society, that generation found military behavior, organization, and language second nature. "KP." "Double-time." Most important, terms like "battalion" and "regiment."
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
["The World War II generation would have understood the revolt of the six generals right off."]
This isn't WWII. Times have changed....Sigh.
yep, broke their ricebowls....self-interest
Thanks for another good post. This Lawrence Henry knows what he's talking about.
There hasn't been a lot written about Special Ops in the Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq. They came into their own in Afghanistan to the dismay of much of the top brass and to the credit of Rumsfeld. When he brought General Schoomaker back, it was the straw that broke the Camels back with many of the big guys and they're coming out of the woodwork now to try to get satisfaction. I think they'll lose. :-)
In my years in the Army I worked around a very large number or senior officers (LTC and above). I just could not figure out what most of them actually did. It was very easy to get the strong impression that most of them were there merely to stroke each other's egos and to make their superiors feel superior. The Army, IMO, is way too top-heavy, and changing that would solve alot of problems.
I gather that the number of flag officers was pumped up for Korea and though Ridgeway lost his fith for a million man army, the numbr of generals was kept high in case of future expansion. Drawdown in their numbers has never been proportionate to the drawn down of troops. In short, too many chiefs for the number of indians.
We need both Divisions and Special Ops. The minute you abandon one, that will be the weak point our enemies will attack.
C'mon, you big spenders in Washington - we can afford both. This is an artificial debate.
When predators attack their prey, do they care whether their prey has wandered away from the center of a large herd or from the center of a small herd?
It seems to me, that larger herds mean more calves and stragglers and, thus, more meals for more lions.
Isn't Powell the same man who advised us not to go into Iraq during the Gulf War?
This isn't war. It's a criminal justice matter. All the US has to do is apologize for existing and Muslims won't hate us anymore. (Er, not that it's a hate crime. Goodness no. Not at all.)