Retired General says Obama paralyzed with fear...

reply to post by Sublimecraft


X-box generation?

How cute.

What makes your generation any less clueless? Look at the past 9 years of "total war" in the Middle East.

well if i'm not mistaken they had real time info, in the form of video from the drones flying over the compound.
can't get any more real time than that.
people firing at the embassy are the bad guys, people hunkerd down or firing out are friendly.
kill the ones firing at the embassy, simple enough.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Rezlooper

 

And you're happy charging into a situation with no intelligence?? sounds about right on many levels to me....

Custer anyone??

anyone in the military will tell you the more intelligence the better, and at some point you make a decision to "go" or "not go" based on the intelligence you have, knowing there is more intelligence you can get.

Training officers to realise when this point occurs is a major deal.

There may be times when you think it is necessary to go withotu intelligence - but that should be an exception, not the rule.

Well of course more intelligence is better, but sometimes you gotta make a sacrifice to save your peeps! I know if it was my ass on the line out there I'd be hoping my comrades were coming for me and not waiting around to get a better picture of the whole situation.

reply to post by projectvxn

Its obvious you dont understand the military or how it works.

In fluid situations all you can hope for is to get an update as you leave for the objective or are en route to it. If you sit around waiting for everything to be placed on the table people will die.

Are you speaking from the perspective of strategic command or from a grunt going in on the ground?

And yes, I do care for the well being of soldiers...you don't have to beleive it, I don't mind.

reply to post by Taiyed


Both. Obviously a General is a strategic planner. And from a ground ops point of view, while I would prefer to have every morsel of useful info, the fact is this isnt always possible. Fluid situations are fluid because they are real time and lives are at stake right then. You must operate with as much caution as possible but not going in to help is not an option.

I train for these scenarios constantly. I know how they work.


And no I dont believe you. Because apparently people who wear a uniform are stupid to you.

reply to post by projectvxn


It's true, I have a less than favorable opinion of soldiers intellect.

That doesn't mean I don't care for their safety.

reply to post by Taiyed


I works with soldiers, NCOs, and officers who are a lot brighter, better educated, and have the common sense to put it to practical use than anyone I know outside of the military. We work as if lives are at stake, because they are. We are detail oriented, organized, and thoughtful. But since you bought into the hollywood idea of the dumb grunt none of that matters to you.

reply to post by projectvxn

Both. Obviously a General is a strategic planner. And from a ground ops point of view, while I would prefer to have every morsel of useful info, the fact is this isnt always possible. Fluid situations are fluid because they are real time and lives are at stake right then. You must operate with as much caution as possible but not going in to help is not an option.

I train for these scenarios constantly. I know how they work.


And no I dont believe you. Because apparently people who wear a uniform are stupid to you.

I assume you take SOFA into account as well. What's the SOFA agreement with the provisional government in Libya? Oh, wait, that makes this a matter for State, doesn't it?

reply to post by DJW001


Sure does.

But I guess it makes it all good for you.
Perfectly fine to leave people high and dry.
Because its a State Dept. matter.

reply to post by projectvxn

Sure does.

But I guess it makes it all good for you.
Perfectly fine to leave people high and dry.
Because its a State Dept. matter.

The General questioned the President's military leadership, when the decision to be made was diplomatic. The United States is not occupying Libya, it is wooing it. It's a shame that American lives were lost, but if their deaths helped galvanize Libyan good will, it was as noble a sacrifice as a soldier dying in combat for the good of their country.

reply to post by projectvxn


No offense but the "dumb grunt" stereotype is more pervasive than you think it is.

Not to say that there aren't intelligent soldiers. I had a supervisor that managed to balance work, school and military life in an admirable way and he wasn't the type of person to mess with. Very strict.

reply to post by DJW001


The military protects embassies.

It was not a diplomatic decision.

hey projectvxn. I am not a supporter of these fiat wars. But I gotta tell ya.
You have courteously, intelligently and diligently destroyed every arg presented to you on this subject. Well done!

reply to post by projectvxn

The military protects embassies.

The Marine Guards are under the command of the RSO:

www.state.gov...

It was not a diplomatic decision.

You might not have seen it that way, and if you acted on your impulse and left your post and traveled to the mission and started shooting Libyans, you might find yourself facing charges when the headlines around the world read "US Troops Massacre Libyan Civilians" instead of "Islamist Militants Kill US Ambassador."

reply to post by manna2


Aren't back-patting posts against the TOS?

More discussion of the subject, less brown-nosing.

He questioned the President's leadership....

Here is the entire problem the liberals have with the General's comments. This is a no-no. I seem to recall that MANY Generals have questioned the leadership of a sitting President in times of conflict. That is part of their mandate to complete the mission with minimal loss of life. Many Generals have been relieved of command, mostly by Democratic Presidents; Winfield Scott by JKPolk and D. MacArthur by HSTruman come quickly to mind, despite their "defiance" having led to tactical advantage with minimal loss. Others not overtly relieved, like Westmoreland in Vietnam, stuck with the program set by the politicians causing the finest military on planet earth to "lose" a war they should have won in their sleep.
Personally, I would prefer a fiesty, self confident and aggressive commander who acts in accordance with his training , his mandate and his conscience. I don't want a synchophant wannabe who can't make a snap decision, right or wrong,. under fire. A warrior acts and risks death if he is wrong, a warrior who does not act invites certain death because his enemy is allowed to act first.
When bullets are whizzing by, it is time to act, not study. Arm chair quarterbacking is the province of politicians and pundits, not military leaders.

Originally posted by Rezlooper

Originally posted by Annee
WND

Enough said.

What does the site have to with it? Does that mean the general doesn't exist? The story is more of a commentary written by the general.

Exactly, anytime they don't want a message heard they attack the source, I do believe Obama is terrified, but I think he is more afraid of his handlers.

I caught his speech yesterday eeee gads his eyes.

reply to post by spock51


Great post Spock, well said!

reply to post by Taiyed


Yeah and lots of people are going to star the idiotic point of this post because Taiyed on the internet said so. You have not got a clue about the military or the tried and true reasons for military protocol. Sadly neither does our current CIC and his cabal...

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie
well if i'm not mistaken they had real time info, in the form of video from the drones flying over the compound.
can't get any more real time than that.
people firing at the embassy are the bad guys, people hunkerd down or firing out are friendly.
kill the ones firing at the embassy, simple enough.

True. VERY simple. Even more simple than that. Especially since within the hour they had confirmation from those where were attacking... by the ones who were attacking.. concerning it being an actual terrorist attack. Drones, email, phones, et al were giving real time info.

This has shaken a lot of the active duty we know.... they fear being betrayed, left behind, and having no back up if things get hot. If youll turn your back on an ambassador, you definitely dont give a damn about a few boots on the ground. When the husband was active we did have a comfort that you wouldnt be betrayed like that. Now, they have encouraged a feeling of wariness and distrust in the military personnel. Especially those in the area. Bad idea.