Posted on Jul 16, 2014
General Amos has a message for POTUS: Get in the Fight
4.92K
41
20
6
6
0
The Commandant's message.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-marine-obama-fight-191600744.html
I don't know your opinion of the Commandant, but for those that have worked with/around him probably share the same opinion as I do, he is a brilliant and fearless leader!
Looking at history (and what we've done in other theaters - Germany/Korea)...is he really saying that we've given up? Any thoughts?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-marine-obama-fight-191600744.html
I don't know your opinion of the Commandant, but for those that have worked with/around him probably share the same opinion as I do, he is a brilliant and fearless leader!
Looking at history (and what we've done in other theaters - Germany/Korea)...is he really saying that we've given up? Any thoughts?
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 8
3
3
0
2
2
0
Okay so two points I would like to raise up. First, I believe Gen. Amos is speaking as a commander who is frustrated by what he is seeing in Iraq now. As the article stated, over 800 Marines were killed securing the Anbar Province. He probably looks back and is wondering if it was worth those lives. He's the top commanding officer in the Marines so I'm sure he feels some responsibility and doesn't want to see more lives lost for something we are just going to throw away.
Secondly, with his retirement coming up, I'm sure he might have his eyes on what is next for him. I wouldn't be surprised if we see him on a ballot sometime soon.
Secondly, with his retirement coming up, I'm sure he might have his eyes on what is next for him. I wouldn't be surprised if we see him on a ballot sometime soon.
(2)
(0)
I think Iraq was an epic failure from the beginning. I have been there twice and I am what he is referring to as the "disillusioned Soldier." We pulled out falsely claiming that the Iraqi military was ready. We left Syria spill over into Iraq by not be positioned to counter any run off of terrorists. We made mistakes at the start of the war. We got it on track to only derail again. The only hope they have is the Shi ate militia's, like the Mahdi Army. We should have kept a presence there instead of making a talking point for a political legacy.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) The thing people seem to be forgetting is that we were TOLD to leave by al-Maliki. Obama wanted to keep troops in place, but we had a previous agreement for a withdrawal date and al-Maliki enforced it.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I think Al Maliki was pressured by others in the country. But then they don't even want him in power anymore. He was making a power play that failed. I know that most of Iraqi political figures want us back so we can stabilize the country.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
So on the original question raised, the Commandant's comments were appropriate, but I recognize the sensitivity in having a top US General criticizing the President, in public.
Gen James Amos is a patriot, has had a front seat in military / foreign policy leaderhship for the past 6+ years as a top General in DC, and likely has had his voice heard behind closed doors in private. I don't think his comments point to a toxic dissension in the ranks, and don't really embolden our enemies anymore than they were already.
I also don't believe his comments were motivated by any future political ambitions he may have, which I don't think he's given us any evidence that he has any after serving 30+ years on active duty. As a patriot and service head, he realizes that downside of a rapid, deep withdrawal and more than saying "I told you so" with Iraq, he is sounding the warning bells for Afghanistan.
The Taliban ain't much nicer than ISIS, and it borders Iran and Pakistan, more importantly.
Gen James Amos is a patriot, has had a front seat in military / foreign policy leaderhship for the past 6+ years as a top General in DC, and likely has had his voice heard behind closed doors in private. I don't think his comments point to a toxic dissension in the ranks, and don't really embolden our enemies anymore than they were already.
I also don't believe his comments were motivated by any future political ambitions he may have, which I don't think he's given us any evidence that he has any after serving 30+ years on active duty. As a patriot and service head, he realizes that downside of a rapid, deep withdrawal and more than saying "I told you so" with Iraq, he is sounding the warning bells for Afghanistan.
The Taliban ain't much nicer than ISIS, and it borders Iran and Pakistan, more importantly.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
...Yes CSM, Gen. MacChrystal certainly comes into the picture here. We have been told right from Basic Training that we don't challenge or say anything that could be construed to be offensive and disrespectful to the President of the United States because he is the Commander-in-Chief. In the same way, we are to obey the orders of the officers appointed over us. That was supposed to be simple but it seems it is not. History always seem to repeat itself .
When General McArthur wanted to play hardball with President Truman, many thought the General was doing the right thing until the President relieved of his duties and all of a sudden, that fearless top-gun of a General became powerless.
As a top-notch General, you have the right to your opinion but to challenge your boss, who happens to be the Commander in Chief in such a public manner is tantamount to being disrespectful and way out of line for that matter. The General may have political ambitions so I guess he used that forum as a launching pad. Other than that, top officers must leave some of these rants to the politicians.
He may be a fine officer and a gentleman rolled in one but I do not think that was the right forum to air such a rant. It was a partisan political forum and our Generals are better than that!
When General McArthur wanted to play hardball with President Truman, many thought the General was doing the right thing until the President relieved of his duties and all of a sudden, that fearless top-gun of a General became powerless.
As a top-notch General, you have the right to your opinion but to challenge your boss, who happens to be the Commander in Chief in such a public manner is tantamount to being disrespectful and way out of line for that matter. The General may have political ambitions so I guess he used that forum as a launching pad. Other than that, top officers must leave some of these rants to the politicians.
He may be a fine officer and a gentleman rolled in one but I do not think that was the right forum to air such a rant. It was a partisan political forum and our Generals are better than that!
(1)
(0)
SSG Joshua Locke
i agree, great response and taken with a grain of salt, but at what point do we as service members need to step in on OUR OWN behalf, because on more than one occasion, the politicians didnt exactly have our best interest at heart. Call him a martyr, but sometimes we need someoneto jump on that grenade. Just my opinion, but hey what do I know? I joined the Army ;) hahaha
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
...hahahaha...SSG Locke, I perfectly understand your point Big Serge...yep...I must say it sucks that we seem so helpless sometimes. This occurs when it becomes apparent that our elected civilian bosses do not ....in our estimation...have our interest at heart.
The Constitution is not perfect...it was written by mortal men who believed that service members should not get involved in these partisan politics but rather leave the running of the nation in the hands of elected civilians.
Some of their decisions are very very regrettable but that is our bane therefore leaving us helplessly 'chilling' on the fence because that is what the Constitution says. As I said it sucks because we are not allowed to do anything. The best we as service members as well as the general populace can do is VOTE in elections. I always encourage folks to vote. It might seem a long shot but we need to vote. That is our voice in the situation you mentioned.
In some other countries, things are done differently but in our case, our duties are to the Nation and we are to obey and execute the orders of the civilians appointed and elected over us. It sucks sometimes but that is our reality Serge.
The Constitution is not perfect...it was written by mortal men who believed that service members should not get involved in these partisan politics but rather leave the running of the nation in the hands of elected civilians.
Some of their decisions are very very regrettable but that is our bane therefore leaving us helplessly 'chilling' on the fence because that is what the Constitution says. As I said it sucks because we are not allowed to do anything. The best we as service members as well as the general populace can do is VOTE in elections. I always encourage folks to vote. It might seem a long shot but we need to vote. That is our voice in the situation you mentioned.
In some other countries, things are done differently but in our case, our duties are to the Nation and we are to obey and execute the orders of the civilians appointed and elected over us. It sucks sometimes but that is our reality Serge.
(0)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
SGT (Join to see) , Leaving my opinions out, I need to correct one factual error. Our constitution does not say ANYTHING about the role of the military in politics. Nor did the founders have much to say on the topic. They were mostly just opposed to a strong standing Army, but that's a different area. Several were opposed to the idea of partisan politics, also different. In any case, neither of those views made it into the constitution.
Our prohibitions on serving members being partisan come from a number of sources, including:
1. Federal Law
2. UCMJ
3. DOD Policy
4. Philosophy (I can dig out some of the relevant classics later, if interested)
5. Custom (which, if you study history, is most definitely not consistent or uniform)
6. Common Sense (which isn't all that common)
Background for this post - I taught Civil-Military affairs as an ILE instructor, and this belief ("constitution prohibits") seems to be commonly held.
Again, I am not attacking your thesis, it's just the particular support I have issue with. I'm not offering my own opinion - because I have to go to work soon!
Our prohibitions on serving members being partisan come from a number of sources, including:
1. Federal Law
2. UCMJ
3. DOD Policy
4. Philosophy (I can dig out some of the relevant classics later, if interested)
5. Custom (which, if you study history, is most definitely not consistent or uniform)
6. Common Sense (which isn't all that common)
Background for this post - I taught Civil-Military affairs as an ILE instructor, and this belief ("constitution prohibits") seems to be commonly held.
Again, I am not attacking your thesis, it's just the particular support I have issue with. I'm not offering my own opinion - because I have to go to work soon!
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Thanks so much Sir. I really do appreciate the education.I am grateful for that correction. I will keep that in my knowledge box for future references. Thanks once again Sir....Hooah!!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I appreciate the sentiment. I am not certain that I agree that he is specifically speaking to ISIS/Iraq as much as he is potentially addressing the inactivity that we have become mired in. Think about all of the redlines in Syria and Ukraine that were moved beyond without so much as political or military action. Speaking against something does little stop people unless they understand the consequences will be enforced. It also seems as though General Amos may not agree with the fact that options that can help leverage political and diplomatic tools, such as military action or at least the threat of military action, were pulled of the table prior to the situation even developing.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I just posted the same topic about the same question.. Should be an interesting discusssion
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google