Seven retired US generals on Iraq

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-12-06 07:19am

Link

Interesting commentary from people who used to be in the loop, or who should be experienced enough to know.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2004-12-06 07:39am

And Colin Powell gets the boot while Rumsfeld stays. What a strange world we live in. Also, why did the Pentagon handle the reconstruction efforts and not the State Department? The latter has a large outfit of non millitary personel with experience in supervising peacekeeping operations in volatile areas (from Yugoslavia for instance).

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-12-06 07:57am

Lord Zentei wrote:And Colin Powell gets the boot while Rumsfeld stays.

Colin Powell retired though. Not that I disagree with your overall sentiment. Rumsfeld looks like such a pointdexter. Powell at least looks like he kicked arse. Rumsfeld looks like a typical number crunching bean counting yuppie.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-12-06 05:19pm

Stofsk wrote:
Lord Zentei wrote:And Colin Powell gets the boot while Rumsfeld stays.
Colin Powell retired though. Not that I disagree with your overall sentiment. Rumsfeld looks like such a pointdexter. Powell at least looks like he kicked arse. Rumsfeld looks like a typical number crunching bean counting yuppie.

Don't kid yourself, he's not that at all. The man is a Cold War strategist to the core and that hasn't changed since the Berlin Wall came down.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-12-06 05:44pm

Vympel wrote:Interesting commentary from people who used to be in the loop, or who should be experienced enough to know.

LOL, McPeak is one of the seven! Everyone hated the guy when he
was Chief of Staff in the Air Force.

And Zinni's in there too. He went screaming off the deep end a while
ago with his Vietnam flashbacks in an articul.

Wes Clark, the man who almost started WW3 with the Russians

Claudia Kennedy, a woman who came out after her retirement with a
4-year-old sexual harassment accusation against another three-star
general...

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-12-06 05:55pm

Wow Shep, this sounds suspiciously like citing the fact the W liked to snort coke and pickle his brain in ethanol when he was younger when one does not like his policies, wouldn't you say?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-12-06 05:58pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Wow Shep, this sounds suspiciously like citing the fact the W liked to snort coke and pickle his brain in ethanol when he was younger when one does not like his policies, wouldn't you say?

McPeak was a very unpopular guy. THink of him as the Air Force's Shinkenski.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-12-06 06:00pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:Wow Shep, this sounds suspiciously like citing the fact the W liked to snort coke and pickle his brain in ethanol when he was younger when one does not like his policies, wouldn't you say?
McPeak was a very unpopular guy. THink of him as the Air Force's Shinkenski.

Which has what to do with the incompetence with which the invasion was carried out and a group of very high-ranking generals' authority on military tactics and strategy?

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-12-06 06:00pm

Whether it was a delibierate choice, or an accidental consequence of a planning blunder, but Iraq is drawing the insurgents from all over the Middle East. It has become our battleground with Islamofascism. We can now fight the "insurgents" without invading their home countries. We should stay and fight in Iraq. But we must do it intelligently, and here the Bush administration has failed.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-12-06 06:03pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Which has what to do with the incompetence with which the invasion was carried out

Incompetence? Our forces completely owned the country in under a month. Too bad the post-invasion planning consisted of pretty much of a scrabble on
the back of white house napkins.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-12-06 06:06pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:Which has what to do with the incompetence with which the invasion was carried out
Incompetence? Our forces completely owned the country in under a month. Too bad the post-invasion planning consisted of pretty much of a scrabble on
the back of white house napkins.

The invasion of Iraq comprehended the goals of actually controlling the country after destroying Saddaam. We didn't have enough troops, and therefore the planning was incompetant.

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2004-12-06 06:07pm

Shep, does weeks of rioting and lawlessness in the capital city count as "owning the country"?

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2004-12-06 08:14pm

The pre-GW2 Iraqi armed forces were, of course, a fantastic behemoth, a military machine worthy of combat with the 'most powerful country in the world' 1917-2005. Right? RIGHT?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-12-06 09:21pm

MKSheppard wrote:Incompetence? Our forces completely owned the country in under a month..

You defeated a hollow shell of a military with outdated equipment and complete air dominance from the word 'Go'. Given the forces on either side of the engagement, the only way to lose would be to employ a named character from Star Trek to command the US forces.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-12-07 02:59am

Anyone see The Daily Show tonight? They had a clip of, I think, Wolfowitz from 2003 saying how requiring more troops to occupy Iraq than they were already sending to secure a military victory was "pretty unimaginable."

Cut back to Stewart. "And yet, it happened! Must be Christmas miracle!"

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2004-12-07 06:56pm

It was interesting to read. It seemed almost none of the commanders wanted to blame Bush. They stopped just short of that, and quickly laid all the blame on his staff. Is it because of their respect for the office of the President? Or what?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-07 06:58pm

Trytostaydead wrote:It was interesting to read. It seemed almost none of the commanders wanted to blame Bush. They stopped just short of that, and quickly laid all the blame on his staff. Is it because of their respect for the office of the President? Or what?

Disrepecting your Commander in Chief is a good way to torpedo your career.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-12-07 07:17pm

I just gonna reply in one and not spam the thread, so here goes:

Vympel wrote:Interesting commentary from people who used to be in the loop, or who should be experienced enough to know.

Of all the retired general and flag officers out there, you could easily find eight who would say the opposite of what these seven said. But I guess that's not really that big a deal sinse we already know that planning for the occupation was piss poor/non existant

Lord Zentei wrote:And Colin Powell gets the boot while Rumsfeld stays.

I think Colin seriousily wanted out. He probably fell for the 'compassionate conservatism' bullshit four years ago, and realized his mistake too late. Like a lot of moderates he wants to bolt but is smart enough to not burn bridges.

MKSheppard wrote:LOL, McPeak is one of the seven! Everyone hated the guy when he
was Chief of Staff in the Air Force.

And Zinni's in there too. He went screaming off the deep end a while
ago with his Vietnam flashbacks in an articul.

Wes Clark, the man who almost started WW3 with the Russians

Claudia Kennedy, a woman who came out after her retirement with a
4-year-old sexual harassment accusation against another three-star
general...

They are all experience and knowledgable, a lot more so that you for sure. And your Clark/WW3 statement is extremely exagerated and getting very old.

Imperial Overlord wrote:Shep, does weeks of rioting and lawlessness in the capital city count as "owning the country"?

That's just a stupid word game and you know it. We spanked the Iraqi military like a cheap whore. Minus a short delay for a sand storm, the invasion was by all means a success.

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2004-12-07 07:50pm

Bullshit. We spanked their military, big surprise. We had no plan that was remotely realistic about what to do with what we kept. Some people in the military had an idea, there was a plan to have 5,000 MPs ready to go right into Bahgdad the moment we took it. You are playing semantics games if you think the only part of invasion planning that counts is beating their military.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-12-07 08:22pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:They are all experience and knowledgable, a lot more so that you for sure.

If so, then why is it that McPeak is the most depised USAF CoS in recent
memory? The guy is the USAF's Shinkenski.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-07 08:37pm

MKSheppard wrote:
If so, then why is it that McPeak is the most depised USAF CoS in recent
memory? The guy is the USAF's Shinkenski.

Despised by whom? The rank and file? If so than why was he despised, did he institute draconin policies?

Shinkenski was hated because he brought the Stryker and similar progams to pass, he emasculated the US Army. Whats McPeaks claim to fame?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-12-07 08:46pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:Whats McPeaks claim to fame?

He changed the USAF's uniform from something that looked like
service dress to an airline pilot's uniform. They've never forgiven
him for that.

Linka

Shortly after the end of Gulf War I, then Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Merrill A. McPeak announced the testing of a new service dress blue uniform that sparked widespread criticism within the service.

Now it is happening all over again.

Critics of the McPeak uniform said the new design created a less-military appearance, noting it replaced the traditional epaulets and traditional rank insignia with the naval style of a sleeve braid for showing the rank on the jacket cuffs. To many of us, the final version had senior officers looking like a cross between Coast Guard officers and American Airlines pilots -- unflattering and not very military.

Ultimately, less "trendy" heads prevailed; the officer's uniform reacquired epaulets with traditional metal rank insignia and the ugly, dull metallic cuff braid went away. In the last year, the Air Force brass has also realized having nameplates, just like the other services helps folks know to whom they are speaking. Most helpful when one party doesn't know the other.

Pcm979 · Post by **Pcm979** » 2004-12-07 08:48pm

So, he has bad dress sense. What does that have to do with his tactical knowledge?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-12-07 08:50pm

Don't forget about the "Quality Air Force" program McPeak pushed, treating
the USAF like a corporation.

He even fucked with the USAF's rank structure; it's telling that the majority
of his changes were reversed the moment he retired.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-12-07 08:53pm

Imperial Overlord wrote:Bullshit. We spanked their military, big surprise. We had no plan that was remotely realistic about what to do with what we kept.

What are you argueing about? As I said, we wiped asside those who put up a defense, thus the invasion was a success. It was/is the occupation that's a big charlie foxtrot. The reason being is most accurately blamed on unrealistic expections of the Iraqi people and not enough troops. Thank the civilian leadership for that one.

MKSheppard wrote:If so, then why is it that McPeak is the most depised USAF CoS in recent memory? The guy is the USAF's Shinkenski.

I've had commanders that I didn't like, that doesn't mean they were unqualified.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Seven retired US generals on Iraq

Seven retired US generals on Iraq

Re: Seven retired US generals on Iraq