Posted on Sep 3, 2022
Op-Ed: Heads Ought to Roll at the Pentagon for What Happened in Background of Biden Speech
1.23K
18
13
4
4
0
"Of course, both Austin and Milley know it is illegal for uniformed personnel to support crass political events, and Biden’s performance in Philadelphia was pure political theater on steroids."
"Certainly, Milley knows political theater from experience. He expressed regret for accompanying Trump on a walk from the White House to St. John’s Church following the dispersal of “peaceful protesters” outside the White House in June 2020."
"Subsequently, Milley said his appearance with Trump “created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics.” Is Milley going to issue yet another mea culpa?"
"Certainly, Milley knows political theater from experience. He expressed regret for accompanying Trump on a walk from the White House to St. John’s Church following the dispersal of “peaceful protesters” outside the White House in June 2020."
"Subsequently, Milley said his appearance with Trump “created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics.” Is Milley going to issue yet another mea culpa?"
Op-Ed: Heads Ought to Roll at the Pentagon for What Happened in Background of Biden Speech
Posted from westernjournal.com
DoD
Joe Biden
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
SGT (Join to see)
Why didn’t they prevent this? Are they in on it?
You guys crack me up
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/2020-video-of-trump-calling-democrats-fascists-resurfaces-after-republicans-slammed-president-biden-for-saying-maga-ideology-was-semi-fascism/ar-AA11rr4N?li=BBnb7Kz
You guys crack me up
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/2020-video-of-trump-calling-democrats-fascists-resurfaces-after-republicans-slammed-president-biden-for-saying-maga-ideology-was-semi-fascism/ar-AA11rr4N?li=BBnb7Kz
(1)
(0)
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibitsone or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibitsone or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Facts is facts. And the fact is that this a minor blip on the RADAR, compared to the colossal fuckup that was the Afghanistan withdrawal. If they were neither punished nor apologized for THAT, then THIS isn't even worth discussing.
(2)
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
This is side tracking the OP, but I must ask. What would you have done to get us out of that war?
(1)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
MSG Stan Hutchison There are three ways to achieve "success." In any given war.
1) Kick the ever loving crap out of the enemy. Completely and totally devastate their military capacity. Kill the majority of mitary aged males. Reduce the entire nation to subsistence level, so that they are too busy surviving to wage war.
And then get the heck out of there.
2) Occupy and control the territory. Install either military governance, complete with martial law, or other governance, backed by the full force of military, coached by (or composed of) diplomats from state. These governors should have a VERY short leash and should be yanked at the first sign of malfeasance. Continue this occupation for DECADES as not one, but THREE generations (initial governing generation, plus two more) become accustomed to your rules, laws, and methods, which will give a high likelihood of this governance surviving your withdrawal.
3) Occupy the territory and claim it through right of conquest.
We chose option 4). Kick the nation in the nuts, but don't actually cripple it. Then install a government with no actual oversight, while failing to fully back. Allowing corruption and graft, while actually incentivizing conspiring with "the enemy." And then leaving abruptly knowing they would fail.
What would I do differently? Choose one of the three actual options for winning. My choice is actually option 1 for EVERY war we fight. I understand why politicians and diplomats don't prefer that option. But the military's mission is to fight and win wars. I will go with the option that actually falls within our mission statement.
All that being said, we did not choose one of the three options for success. So, given that we had decided to pull out, I would have done it much more orderly. Step down of troop numbers that was slower. And make it tied to mission parameters, not dates. And one of the parameters for final troop withdrawal would have been all American assets - to include American citizens who wanted to go home, US Allies (like local nationals with a SAV either in hand or in process) are either in US or evacuated to a safe third party nation, and equipment - are out of country. Maintain a US military airfid that we and only we, control to enable and assure the ability to do this removal. If necessary, leave behind a strong but small force to secure our ambassadors - or evacuate the embassy, as well.
The biggest mistake, IMHO, was tying withdrawal to dates, not parameters. And then PUBLISHING THE DATES.
"Dear, Mr. Taliban. We would like to advise you that on date X, which is rapidly approaching, we will no longer oppose anything you do. If you would kindly begin battle planning, gathering, and equipping your forces in preparation for this date, it will greatly enable your ability to overrun the nation. Signed, Joe B."
1) Kick the ever loving crap out of the enemy. Completely and totally devastate their military capacity. Kill the majority of mitary aged males. Reduce the entire nation to subsistence level, so that they are too busy surviving to wage war.
And then get the heck out of there.
2) Occupy and control the territory. Install either military governance, complete with martial law, or other governance, backed by the full force of military, coached by (or composed of) diplomats from state. These governors should have a VERY short leash and should be yanked at the first sign of malfeasance. Continue this occupation for DECADES as not one, but THREE generations (initial governing generation, plus two more) become accustomed to your rules, laws, and methods, which will give a high likelihood of this governance surviving your withdrawal.
3) Occupy the territory and claim it through right of conquest.
We chose option 4). Kick the nation in the nuts, but don't actually cripple it. Then install a government with no actual oversight, while failing to fully back. Allowing corruption and graft, while actually incentivizing conspiring with "the enemy." And then leaving abruptly knowing they would fail.
What would I do differently? Choose one of the three actual options for winning. My choice is actually option 1 for EVERY war we fight. I understand why politicians and diplomats don't prefer that option. But the military's mission is to fight and win wars. I will go with the option that actually falls within our mission statement.
All that being said, we did not choose one of the three options for success. So, given that we had decided to pull out, I would have done it much more orderly. Step down of troop numbers that was slower. And make it tied to mission parameters, not dates. And one of the parameters for final troop withdrawal would have been all American assets - to include American citizens who wanted to go home, US Allies (like local nationals with a SAV either in hand or in process) are either in US or evacuated to a safe third party nation, and equipment - are out of country. Maintain a US military airfid that we and only we, control to enable and assure the ability to do this removal. If necessary, leave behind a strong but small force to secure our ambassadors - or evacuate the embassy, as well.
The biggest mistake, IMHO, was tying withdrawal to dates, not parameters. And then PUBLISHING THE DATES.
"Dear, Mr. Taliban. We would like to advise you that on date X, which is rapidly approaching, we will no longer oppose anything you do. If you would kindly begin battle planning, gathering, and equipping your forces in preparation for this date, it will greatly enable your ability to overrun the nation. Signed, Joe B."
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google