2008 Military Times poll: Wary about Obama

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by whoshotJR
reply to post by Mirthful Me

 

Do the same poll about any candidate that was running and I wouldn't be surprised you get close to the same percentage. Ask them this same question about their current president and I'm betting they felt even worse.


My question is what purpose does an article like this serve for the American public?

I'm betting that your assumption that the troops would feel the same about any incoming president is wrong. The troops listen to what these candidates say and it does color their viewpoints. The troops all saw the dissing of them (ion Germany) and the symbols of this country (flag) that Obama did during his campaign.

If you are saying our troops or the U.S. in general were "dissed", by Obama during the campaign I have to disagree. If you mean he dissed our troops in, Germany, how? He said the Iraq war was just plain stupid and nothing was said that I heard , though I did not hear everything he said, while he was in Germany, but Obama has way to much class. ( I think to Bush "class" is dependent on how much money one makes, an idiot). Only by saying the policy Bushie has applied has killed a hell of a lot of our people, God knows how many in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Then we have mabey $1 trillon, 200billion at least if we are lucky. And we did pay for it. We need to tell the arrogant pricks (I met one of them, and the son of a bitch LAUGHED at the number of Americans who died), to save their pathetic sorry ass. Forget the money we spent. Iraq has hundreds of billions of US $$ its very simple we cover them and do what we have to. But they need to clean their own toilet, do you get my drift?

I will suggest to the Obama people after /1/20/2008 we will tell Iraq to fork their own treasury reseves to us to pay the bill to wipe your own butts. Open media reports state they (Iraq) has about $200 billion in "published" reserves They have a lot more. But we do not reveal how much they have, that would violate the holy of holies of intelligence, sources and methods.

We have penetrated the entire Iraq'i government at a very high level. Now we have to put this to work. We have put up long enough with the Irqi government B.S. and is why is Bush so frightend to tell us the truth, what does he have to hide on this on subject? Bush, (who so claims to love the USA?) Maybey our beloved pres Bush he just can't know any better. You tell me. I pitty the good of who up to now for some beyond me have put up with this clown for so long.

If I were active duty, I wouldn't be so concerned about our incoming President as I would our current commanding Generals.

Since 1947 and the creation of the Joint Chiefs, we haven't won the first damned war.

Political role-playing, pristine performance reports, political crease smootching, conflict avoidance, and working the Washington cocktail circuit are not any criteria to accomplish a generalship.

Our generals can't fight, can't lead, and are more like administrators, far removed from the battlefields, and thus, victory.

They learn by rote, teach the same, don't know what they're doing wrong, won't find out, and won't change.

We need blistering, counterintuitive combat leaders who have fought, and know how to lead a fight.

Give me a proven combat Captain over an unproven, non-combat general any time, any day.

And you can bet that any advice they give will be honest, thoughtful, and productive.

reply to post by dooper


The last good General we had was Shwartskoff. He got sick of the crap in Washington and the BS from Daddy Bush and Powel. He resigned rather than knuckle under. He was right, just like Patton and McArthur. They should have gone into Iraq the first time and taken out Sadam then. Not spend 200 bill on a second war and end up like it is now!

Zindo

Schwartzwartz was so bad at his job that Cheney and Co actually improved on his plan. He wanted to go hey-diddle-diddle right up the middle at the Iraqis- if memory serves, one of the first reactions to his plan from one Marine general was "My God, it'll be another Tarawa".

The Gulf War was one of the most propagandized and generally least understood military actions in US History.

Iraq had many small technical disadvantages (like steel penetrator tank rounds with insufficient propellant charges, not modern tungsten or DU penetrators, not being equipped for night fighting and not being trained in heat and light discipline) but all in all were a capable force.

If they had come at us instead of waiting 8 months, or if we'd gone with Stormin' Norman's original plan, the Iraqis would have made a very good account of themselves- to the tune of several thousand casualties in the first few days.

The bad ideas are winning in the Pentagon and there are growing problems with our officer corps. That's exactly why Obama's choices bother me. He needs to bring back experts who have been driven out of the military by the current status quo and set them to work fixing things. He believes his leadership and common sense will be sufficient to reign in the existing structure- he doesn't seem to understand that these people are going to lie to him, undermine him, and hang their failures around his neck when they inevitably go down.

reply to post by The Vagabond

Vagabond, you're absolutely correct. Swartzkopf originally wanted to punch up the middle.

If my memory serves me right, I think it was Colonel John Boyd who criticized his "hey diddle, right up the middle" initial plan. Then it was finessed on a variation of Patton's "hold 'em by the nose while we kick them in the ass" version of a flanking sweep.

Our generals are as predictable as the sunrise. They follow anticipated lines of expectation, and thus, our lack of brilliant battlefield success.

In military leadership, we have somehow substituted appearance for substance. What kind of criteria is that? Military careers based on conflict avoidance? Very soon, we may have the finest, most refined, technologically advanced, professional army that ever got its ass kicked in the history of the world.

"A turd in a fine silk sock, at the end of the day, is still a turd." Michael C. Riggs

As long as we look good and talk good. So these generals have served honorably for decades? So?

"Frederick the Great's horse was on seven separate campaigns with him. In the end, he was still a dumb horse." Unknown

A successful general, a successful LEADER, eats the same food his troops eat, with the exact same frequency, at the same temperature, in the same amounts. He sleeps in the same conditions his absolute front line troops sleep in, he allows himself the identical same sleep interruptions, to the hour. He marches the same line, exposed to the same threats. He drinks the same amount of water, spits the same amount of dust, and swipes his pucker with the same wad of 400-grit ration paper.

A leader does not seek comfort in his tent, command post, or headquarters while his men bleed, die, and fight in the field. A leader doesn't eat while his men go hungry, or when they are forced to do with half-rations, nor does a leader enjoy hot food while his men eat cold. A leader does not demand his men's respect and obedience, but earns it through his own leadership of suffering and sacrifice. A leader rises first, and sits last. A leader only eats after his men have eaten. A leader requires nothing of those he leads, but instead, provides service to those he commands. It is the leader who is there to serve his men - not be served.

If a general falls victim to the premise that his potential loss is too important to the war effort, that general is truly a fool. Generals are a dime a dozen. Good Sergeants on the other hand are much more difficult to come by, and on the battlefield where things require positive action, ten-fold more valuable.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I didn't know anything about that until a few minutes ago, so I really don't know enough to have any business talking about it. Best if we just go back to the thread topic I think.

Sounds ominous, and yet much more interesting.

No need to off topic remove again there Big Guy. Nobody can read it anyway.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by Article11]

I have always thought that if a servicemember had a reasonable reason to doubt the legitimacy of his orders, he was duty bound not to follow them. This dark cloud about Obamas being born in Kenya and thus not being qualified to serve as the commander in chief would seem a justifiable reason to refuse one's orders and a good defense at his/her court martial. Something for JAG to be concerned about. What if your an officer? What if your enlisted or a non-com? Doesn't the oath a soldier takes when joining the service say something about enemies within? Obamas refusal to produce his birth certificate creates a real dilemma for the armed forces. No soldier should have any doubt about whether or not to follow his orders!

reply to post by Mirthful Me


I'm not a picky person when it comes to reading, but whoever gave that quote was certainly very bias and put his own opinions in with the results.

I do believe people are wary, but saying that the guy will be a crappy leader? Don't know that yet, wait until he gets on the stand to judge.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch.


Cm

Originally posted by dominicus

I always viewed joining the military as something done by the extremely desperate (no money no family) or the extremely stupid, or people who like to be ordered around like some pawns.

Well the military has a higher average of degrees compared to the normal population...also you need to take skill tests that the general population doesn't need to do, and you are weeded out rather fast if any hidden mental issues just happen to exist that were not seen during your recruitment. Lastly you need to be profisent in your job or your gone.

I joined the military out of high school, and now I have three degrees and I'm worried that I will be one of Obama's "rich". I think I have done better than 95% of the population has.

You think too highly of the general population to hold the views you do.

There were 10 million pet rocks sold in the U.S. so you do the math. Surrounded by idiots!!!!!

Never known a military member to own a pet rock...

[

[edit on 3-1-2009 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by ConMi27


What about picking the right breed of chicken before it hatches?

I was proud to have served while we won the cold war. To not have lost millions in a nuclear war, due to the actions of thousands of people ordered into secret actions. I had faith in Regan and G.H. Bush and their cabinets, they restored the military after Carter had gutted us.

Clinton was seen as another Carter and he also gutted the military, launched half-committed missions, didn't authorize cover.

The majority of the military voted against Obama, they are skeptical of his plans, his inexperience. There's nothing worse than an inexperienced leader promising and planning huge changes, for 'the people'. That's a recipe to screw things up huge, and the effort to clean things up is bigger than to do things right. The military hates to do things that are not core, to act as the global police, to fall under UN control, to deploy with their hands tied with political rules of engagement. That's what happens when leaders want to change the world. Obama is not good news for the military.

I would not expect the military loyalty meter to be high for Obama, I would hope they be distant and ready to protect the constitution if necessary.

[edit on 3-1-2009 by Dbriefed]

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
reply to post by Article11

 

Ahhhh, the sheep come bleating in. The graphic break down does indeed tell the story. The "Messiah" (or Barack Hussein Obama, take your pick) hasn't fooled our military, [edit on 2/1/2009 by Mirthful Me]

In the movie Syriana Christopher Plummer says “"At my firm, I have a flock of sheep who think they’re lions”
You might carry the obviously miss-awarded title of “Super Moderator”, but your need to rely on political baiting and name calling expose you as the sheep you are.

You blindly carry the water for the now all but defunct faction of the GOP that right now is wondering why their bitter attack campaign and steady stream of propaganda did not deliver them the white house. The faction of the GOP that is wondering what became of Karl Rove’s plan for a “permanent majority”. Why they once again lost more critical seats in the Senate and House of Representatives.

Could it be that the American people are better than what the GOP leaders appealed to? Intolerance of race and religion? The politics of fear?....No..of course the American people are just lizard brained folks easily manipulated by appeals to their most base emotions…right?...Quick to abandon principles for prejudice..right?

* Above you responded to a posting from Article11, I could not find that posting on this thread. Did it “mistakenly get deleted” ?

“Super Moderator”?? What has become of ATS?

As one who seems to come to ' The Rescue' everytime someone seems to insult the 'Chosen One' your right on one point. Many have changed their mind initialy when they voted. The proof of his policies ,as they say, is in the small print. With all the problems in this country His Highness wilbe judged on what he does first and how the houses react to his direction. If , in fact he starts out trying to take more controll of the citizens and undermine the Constitution further, rather than fix the economy and get us out of the majoe problem we all face, I may change my mind about him. I am alsosure that if he does not takecare of the economy firast and chooses to attack the freedoms we still have, you will see a Titanic shift in his creds. Time will tell whether he deserves the adoring masses. I believe he will fall flat on his face!
Zindo

The survey itself comes with the caveat that the group polled "under-represents minorities, women and junior enlisted service members, and over-represents soldiers." And acknowledges it is “unscientific”….translation…a hit piece.

Try these statistics for some balance….
During the campaign, troops deployed overseas donated to Obama's campaign Over John McCain by a 6 to 1 margin!

According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Republican John McCain

www.opensecrets.org...

Military votes represent 15% of total Presidential votes of which 44% of them voted for Obama.

Obama had countless endorsements of over 25 Generals and high-ranking Military Personnel.

The American Conservative: "The shifting Military Vote"
www.amconmag.com...
Perhaps Dec. 8, 2004 was the day – the point where the “military vote” started peeling off from the Republican Party, for which it had been steadfastly true in majority numbers for at least 25 years. It was the day Army Spc.Thomas Wilson asked then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: “Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?”

To which Rumsfeld replied, “As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want …”You can have all the armor in the world on a tank, and it can [still] be blown up.”

Since then, we’ve heard about moldy walls and neglect at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the systematic flaws in veterans’ mental health care, the enormous backlogs at the VA, the resistance by the Pentagon to pay disability to injured service members, the 15-month deployments, the abuse by contractors putting troops in the field at risk, the petty way soldiers are treated by the military when they return (like having to pay for their damaged clothes and equipment!) and the (unsuccessful) refusal of the Bush Administration — and John McCain — to pass a veteran-supported GI Bill package, leaving Democrats like Sen. Jim Webb to take the credit when it was finally approved.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

The bad ideas are winning in the Pentagon and there are growing problems with our officer corps. That's exactly why Obama's choices bother me. He needs to bring back experts who have been driven out of the military by the current status quo and set them to work fixing things. He believes his leadership and common sense will be sufficient to reign in the existing structure- he doesn't seem to understand that these people are going to lie to him, undermine him, and hang their failures around his neck when they inevitably go down.

Agreed to a point. Is it possible that the President-Elect is looking to not institute a dramatic overhaul of the Pentagon during a time of war? Even if the changes are for the better...dramatic changes would most certainly result in a period of dis-array and chaos during a time when our military can ill afford it.

I believe it was Alexander first, and then Tallyrand who said something to the effect of, "I rather have an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep."

Gentlemen, my biggest fear is the advice our new President will get from his generals. Their sole solution to military difficulties is more and bigger numbers.

Large numbers conceal poor Generalship. Large enough numbers conceal gross incompetence.

Ask our senior commanders how many personal combat kills they have made. Then ask how many combat kills they've personally made over the last years of war.

If the answer is "none" then they should never be given a combat command. This means he isn't a leader, he isn't hungry enough to pursue victory, and lacks the guts, desire, drive, and isn't hungry enough to win.

A tennis coach who has never scored a single point of a tennis court is NOT a tennis coach. He just likes being around short skirts.

Martial artist Bruce Lee said, "When I punch, I am expressing myself." The actions of a man is an expression of who he is. A man is not his training, upbringing, desires, or verbal expressions.

A man is the summations of his actions.

A "pseudo-warrior" that can't kill is combat is not a warrior. A leader of warriors must be a warrior first, and then a leader.

reply to post by Dbriefed


Obama doesn't really have any plans for the military. His plan is to leave the Republican plan in place and hope that he can fix it with some occasional micro-managing but no distinct changes.
Republicans and Democrats would do well to remember that when it fails miserably. Neither side will be vindicated. There is an overwhelming bipartisan consensus in favor of ruining American defense policy.

That's why the Cold War is still going on. Not to criticize your contribution- I'm sure you did your best, and we did start to pull ahead at the end.

But Bush 41 and Clinton together pulled the team off the field and let it go into overtime. In 1988, America basically stopped working on defense issues.
We started pulling back from Africa. The Janjaweed of Darfur was formed that year- a loose end we didn't bother to tie up after our side won the Toyota War. We walked away from Siad Barre in Somalia only to come running back a few years later when he was finally ousted, and Clinton saw to it we didn't get in it to win it when we did go back. It goes on and on and on.

If it weren't for all that nonsense, there would be no war on terror, nobody would give a rip what the Russians are doing, and the Chinese sphere of influence would not be growing nearly as fast as it is.

But that stuff is good for the Military Industrial Complex, which thrives on needlessly complex tech-centric strategic solutions which have been cost-maximized at the expense of utility. They need new long-term threats which demand retooling of the military.

Obama may still do well for us on some issues- time will tell. But on defense, he's just the latest in a long line of MIC pawns who will abandon and betray our allies when they need us the most, disregard the safety of our servicemen without cause, and lack the imagination to see impending threats until it's far too late, all because getting taxpayer dollars into the hands of defense contractors in rapidly accelerating volume is job one.

Originally posted by dooper
I believe it was Alexander first, and then Tallyrand who said something to the effect of, "I rather have an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep."

Gentlemen, my biggest fear is the advice our new President will get from his generals. Their sole solution to military difficulties is more and bigger numbers.

I think that was about the most honest answer he could have given. Would you like to hear....Son, we have a quick fix to that....or some other push over answer. One of the big problems was adapting to the ever changing enemy at that time.

Yes, things could have been done better, but on the fly changes is hard to retool a whole army.

Though it was a ringer question, it was good to put a much higher focus on the issue. My question is who is to blame, the President or the Generals in the Army? My vote would be put the blame on the leaders who had direct control over the situations.

Originally posted by maybereal11
Try these statistics for some balance….
During the campaign, troops deployed overseas donated to Obama's campaign Over John McCain by a 6 to 1 margin!

Mirth is as interested in that fact as what I have to say.

Try again.

I think the American people and the rest of the western world have a clear duty to very closely scrutinize anyone who will be their future president that has:
1. a prooven Islamic background and name and the worrying fact that every Muslim leader in the world publically states that he is a Muslim and cant wait to do "business" with him, 2. is associated with the Rev. Wright and his Church so closely (20 years) and the Nazi Farrakan himself, 3. has very dubious eligibility to even stand as a presidential candidate, considering his own half sister swears that she was there at his birth in Kenya and that no Hawaiian birth certificate has been forthcoming.

On the above basis alone and considering all the slavish MSM hype and worship that led to his election, I would think any right-minded independant thinking person (and I'm no Dem or Rep) would have every reason to be concerned for the future of his presidency and the implications for the Western world as a whole.