Posted on May 15, 2017
Why Does America Take War Advice Seriously When It Comes Out of a General's Mouth?
702
7
5
2
2
0
Thought provoking ideas from a veteran - what say you?
Why Does America Take War Advice Seriously When It Comes Out of a General's Mouth?
Posted from alternet.org
GEN
Strategy
Tactics
Geopolitics / International Relations
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
0
0
0
Because (maybe):
(1) It's assumed that POTUS's know nothing about waging and winning wars, and the military does. With a few exceptions such as George Washington and Ike, they are usually close to the truth. That's why the Presidents have the wealth of advice from advisors, NSC, NS Advisor, and SecDef to fill these gaps. These advisors have to be competent though, and the boss needs to know the right questions to ask for this to all work.
(2) It's assumed that the military leaders are all "big picture" guys; meaning they are well-versed in the total impact of wars, and options other than war. Sometimes this is true, but in some cases they just are the duty experts in waging and winning wars. We saw this in Iraq, when after the campaign they were all pointing fingers at each other as to who had planned for actions to stabilize the country after the war. This was likely because civilian leadership assumed the military was planning for it, but since it's traditionally not their responsibility, they were not. When your home is infested with termites, the exterminator eradicates the problem, but knows little about repairs and reconstruction caused by the bugs and the extermination process. You, as the homeowner are responsible for hiring the right contractor once the exterminator is done.
(3) Confidence in the civilian leadership has eroded over the years, while most still hold the military in high regard. The "suits" are considered as baby-kissers and back slappers with an agenda. The military is considered as loyal servants who have dedicated their lives to the safety of the Nation. The military leaders have been in the trenches and seen the effects of war, while warfare to the politicians is elections and polls. It's all about trust, although it's not always well placed or deserved.
Thanks for sharing.
(1) It's assumed that POTUS's know nothing about waging and winning wars, and the military does. With a few exceptions such as George Washington and Ike, they are usually close to the truth. That's why the Presidents have the wealth of advice from advisors, NSC, NS Advisor, and SecDef to fill these gaps. These advisors have to be competent though, and the boss needs to know the right questions to ask for this to all work.
(2) It's assumed that the military leaders are all "big picture" guys; meaning they are well-versed in the total impact of wars, and options other than war. Sometimes this is true, but in some cases they just are the duty experts in waging and winning wars. We saw this in Iraq, when after the campaign they were all pointing fingers at each other as to who had planned for actions to stabilize the country after the war. This was likely because civilian leadership assumed the military was planning for it, but since it's traditionally not their responsibility, they were not. When your home is infested with termites, the exterminator eradicates the problem, but knows little about repairs and reconstruction caused by the bugs and the extermination process. You, as the homeowner are responsible for hiring the right contractor once the exterminator is done.
(3) Confidence in the civilian leadership has eroded over the years, while most still hold the military in high regard. The "suits" are considered as baby-kissers and back slappers with an agenda. The military is considered as loyal servants who have dedicated their lives to the safety of the Nation. The military leaders have been in the trenches and seen the effects of war, while warfare to the politicians is elections and polls. It's all about trust, although it's not always well placed or deserved.
Thanks for sharing.
(0)
(0)
CWO3 (Join to see)
GySgt John Olson - Dead on. We think that because we spend $600 billion a year on Defense, that gives us the right to use it when and where WE feel like it. Look at how that's worked out for us since WWII in terms of blood, treasure and W's on the scoreboard. That's not the fault of the military, but the civilian "leadership". Some we never should have engaged in, some were poorly handled or micromanaged by the suits, some never even had a finish line. All of which falls on the civilians. They are supposed to think before they act and then establish the goals. Then it's the military's job to plot and follow the big blue arrows until the goals are met. As a shooter you know it's hard to hit a moving target, but impossible to keep score when you're not sure what the target even is. We've done a lot of shooting on somebody else's target. Which begs to ask if our goal is sometimes just to use up ammo for political capital. It's hard to say if there would be fewer wars if left to the military, but I'd venture there would be a lot more wins.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
They wouldn't be a general if they didn't know what they were talking about, their words come from years of experience.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google