More Bush Administration Idiocy

Actually, it was that damned Truman's fault. He made deniability difficult
if
not impossible with his "The Buck Stops Here" sign on his desk for all of the
Republican presidents who followed him. It would have been so much easier to
blame someone else when something went wrong and someone screwed up. (^-^)))

George Z.


LOL

As BuffDvr knows, they pound that accountability thing into your head in the
military. If you are in charge, you are responsible. And excuses don't cut
it.

Walt

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
WalterM140 wrote:
In case you did not know, Bush is smart enough to leave the
operational
decisions in the hands of the military.

He's in charge.

He's responsible.

He's responsible for the overall conduct of the operation, not the
actions of
every single US service member. You're letting your politics get in the
way
of
rational thinking.


I know Bush is in charge. I know he's responsible.

Actually, it was that damned Truman's fault. He made deniability
difficult if
not impossible with his "The Buck Stops Here" sign on his desk for all of
the
Republican presidents who followed him. It would have been so much easier
to
blame someone else when something went wrong and someone screwed up.
(^-^)))

So if one of your crewmembers had been guilty of maybe rape, you should be
held accountable? I don't think so, unless you instituted or facilitated an
environment encouraging such action. As we have seen in the recent case
here, where the military initiated criminal actions against those involved
before the press even got wind of the situation, that is hardly the case.
Sometimes the buck actually stops with the individual performing the act.

Brooks


George Z.

Walt

"ArVa" no.arva.spam_at_no_os.fr wrote in message
...

"BUFDRVR" a écrit dans le message de
...
That's a stupid position...
War is too serious a matter to be left only to military people
(Clemenceau, French stateman, 1914...)

Yeah, the French politicians really helped out at Verdun. If not for the
idiot
French politicians, Petain would have been allowed to fall back to the
west
side of the Meuse, or even further. The French would have given ground,
including the town of Verdun, but the casulties inflicted on the Germans
would
have been much greater and the French much less. After the German
advance
ran
out steam (meaning men), the French could *then* have counter attacked.
Instead
the French politicians pressured military to hold the ground at all
cost.
That
"all cost" was nearly 100,000 French KIA. Doesn't sound like the
politicians
involvement at Verdun was very productive......



You may be right about Verdun but don't misjudge Clemenceau, he was
smarter
and more subtle than you seem to think.
His statement referred to "War", with a capital "W", and not to any
specific
military operation. It does not mean that the politicians should elaborate
the tactics on the field, it means that the military commanders must never
forget that they owe their power and prerogatives to the politicians (and
therefore, in a democracy, to the people itself) who must keep them under
control whatever the circumstances.
For Clemenceau, the military is just a tool in the hands of the
politicians.
Actually, it's not very different from Clausewitz's famous statement about
the political nature of war.

But even though war is a furtherance of "policy" by other means, as
Clausewitz said, it is also generally true that once war is embarked upon,
the best choice is to let the military handle it. Long before Clemenceau
made his rather incorrect pronunciation, and long before Clausewitz began
ruminating about the nature of armed conflict, Sun Tzu drew upon the
necessity of the ruler to allow his generals to prosecute war unhindered by
further royal dictates. One translation refers to his performing a
demonstration of military leadership before his monarch, using the ruler's
concubines as his "troops". He got them into a formation and told them to
face to the left, which some did, while others turned the other way and some
remained in place, giggling. He then turned to the ruler and said something
to the effect that, "If a general gives an order and it is not properly
obeyed, it is usually the fault of the general for not making his inentions
clear in his order, so I will again explain what is required to the troops."
This he did, and then again gave the order. Still, some of the concubines
failed to properly perform the maneuver and the master again turned to the
ruler and said something like, "If you give an order, and the order is
understood but not obeyed, it is the fault of the troops, and they must be
punished." At which point he selected a concubine, among the ruler's
favorites, and prepared to execute her as an example. The ruler cried out to
stop, and Sun Tzu replied something to the effect that, "Another thing that
must be understood is that once the ruler has embarked upon war and sent his
army into the field under his generals, he must not interfere with their
execution of the campaign." Scratch one favored concubine.

Sorry for the paraphrasing, but I can't find my copy of Griffin's
translation of Sun Tzu at the moment...

Brooks


ArVa

But even though war is a furtherance of "policy" by other means, as
Clausewitz said, it is also generally true that once war is embarked upon,
the best choice is to let the military handle it.

I don't buy that. Or maybe I don't get the sense in which you mean it.

There's no point to going to/fighting a war unless it serves the purposes of
grand strategy, and that is the province of civilians.

Walt

So if one of your crewmembers had been guilty of maybe rape, you should be
held accountable?

Yes, defintely at some level. The leader should have kept a better eye on that
person.

No excuses.

Walt

WalterM140 wrote:
So if one of your crewmembers had been guilty of maybe rape, you should be
held accountable?

Yes, defintely at some level. The leader should have kept a better eye on that
person.

No excuses.

I'm not sure I can go that far. Certainly, a supervisor ought to be responsible
for the performance of his crew, but isn't it asking a bit too much to expect
him to be cognizant of the off-duty criminal behavior of all his people? Maybe
in those days when everybody lived in the same barracks, it might have been
possible but nowadays, when the sun goes over the yardarm, the guys mostly
scatter.

George Z.

Walt

On Sat, 1 May 2004 16:49:09 +0200, "ArVa" no.arva.spam_at_no_os.fr wrote:


"BUFDRVR" a écrit dans le message de
...
That's a stupid position...
War is too serious a matter to be left only to military people
(Clemenceau, French stateman, 1914...)

Yeah, the French politicians really helped out at Verdun. If not for the
idiot
French politicians, Petain would have been allowed to fall back to the
west
side of the Meuse, or even further. The French would have given ground,
including the town of Verdun, but the casulties inflicted on the Germans
would
have been much greater and the French much less. After the German advance
ran
out steam (meaning men), the French could *then* have counter attacked.
Instead
the French politicians pressured military to hold the ground at all cost.
That
"all cost" was nearly 100,000 French KIA. Doesn't sound like the
politicians
involvement at Verdun was very productive......



You may be right about Verdun but don't misjudge Clemenceau, he was smarter
and more subtle than you seem to think.
His statement referred to "War", with a capital "W", and not to any specific
military operation. It does not mean that the politicians should elaborate
the tactics on the field, it means that the military commanders must never
forget that they owe their power and prerogatives to the politicians (and
therefore, in a democracy, to the people itself) who must keep them under
control whatever the circumstances.
For Clemenceau, the military is just a tool in the hands of the politicians.
Actually, it's not very different from Clausewitz's famous statement about
the political nature of war.

ArVa

It is more like the stupid micro-management of US Forces in Viet Nam
by LBJ.

Al Minyard

It does not mean that the politicians should elaborate
the tactics on the field, it means that the military commanders must never
forget that they owe their power and prerogatives to the politicians

Correct, however in this case we're discussing George Bush's responsibility in
the PW abuse case. I would say that goes under the heading of "tactics on the
field" no?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

I know Bush is in charge. I know he's responsible.

Walt

And now I know you're a partison fool. Too bad, there a dime a dozen around
here.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

As BuffDvr knows, they pound that accountability thing into your head in the
military. If you are in charge, you are responsible. And excuses don't cut
it.

What a partison joke. I've already acknowledged the President is responsible
for the overall conduct of military operations, but to lay blame at his feet
for the individual actions of every service member is a joke. Using that
rationale, your hero Bill Clinton was the worst President ever. During his 8
years in office the U.S. military had its highest sexual harrasment and DUI
rate.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"