More Bush Administration Idiocy

[WalterM140]

From the NYT:


It's hard to imagine what the Pentagon was thinking when it told the American
Army and Marine replacement divisions bound for Iraq earlier this year to leave
their tanks and other heavily armored vehicles behind. American military
planners seem to have ignored evidence that armed resistance to the occupation
was far from suppressed. As a result, they failed to anticipate the kinds of
ambushes and urban firefights these troops are now caught up in and against
which tanks and armored personnel carriers afford the best protection.

That costly miscalculation has left American soldiers in their thin-skinned
Humvees nearly defenseless against the rocket-propelled grenades, roadside
bombs and AK-47 rifle fire they face almost daily. While political spokesmen
have played down the seriousness of the fighting that has killed 126 Americans
just this month, field commanders have been pleading desperately for more
armor.

This week, the Pentagon finally ordered that thousands of armored vehicles be
sent to Iraq, from 70-ton Abrams tanks to lighter and faster Bradley and
Stryker combat vehicles, plus an armored version of the Humvee, whose
production is now being accelerated. Every effort must be made to speed the
movement of this badly needed equipment to minimize future American casualties.

The Defense Department now tries to justify its earlier mistake of leaving the
heavy armor behind by arguing that tankbound soldiers are poorly suited to
engaging with the Iraqi civilian population and winning hearts and minds. True
enough, but having the tanks on hand would not have prevented such efforts in
more secure areas, and would have saved lives in battle zones like Falluja and
Najaf.

More than American troop reinforcements and heavier armor will be needed to
resolve the underlying political problems in Iraq. That will take, at a
minimum, a credible transfer of sovereignty to a representative Iraqi governing
body backed by the legitimacy of full United Nations involvement. Meanwhile,
for as long as American troops are needed, they must be properly equipped.

This latest military planning fiasco seems yet another example of the
Pentagon's damaging insistence that American ground forces make do with fewer
troops and lighter equipment than they really need to carry out the mission
they have been assigned in Iraq. This page shares the long-term goal of
transforming the Army into a more mobile and agile fighting force, but not at
the expense of American soldiers' lives.

From the first days of the Iraqi conflict, the Pentagon's stubborn refusal to
face up to the realities of the battlefield there has compounded the political
and military problems of occupation and needlessly endangered American
soldiers. It is past time for those lessons to be digested and for American
forces to be given the reinforcements and equipment they sorely need.

[Jarg]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> From the NYT:
>
>
> It's hard to imagine what the Pentagon was thinking when it told the
American
> Army and Marine replacement divisions bound for Iraq earlier this year to
leave
> their tanks and other heavily armored vehicles behind. American military
> planners seem to have ignored evidence that armed resistance to the
occupation
> was far from suppressed. As a result, they failed to anticipate the kinds
of
>

In case you did not know, Bush is smart enough to leave the operational
decisions in the hands of the military. So if you are going to start
pointing fingers you should start there.

Jarg

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"Jarg" > wrote in message
...
> "WalterM140" > wrote in message
> ...
> > From the NYT:
> >
> >
> > It's hard to imagine what the Pentagon was thinking when it told the
> American
> > Army and Marine replacement divisions bound for Iraq earlier this year
to
> leave
> > their tanks and other heavily armored vehicles behind. American military
> > planners seem to have ignored evidence that armed resistance to the
> occupation
> > was far from suppressed. As a result, they failed to anticipate the
kinds
> of
> >
>
> In case you did not know, Bush is smart enough to leave the operational
> decisions in the hands of the military. So if you are going to start
> pointing fingers you should start there.

No, no, no.... don't you get it yet?

Anything bad that happens anywhere in the world at any time is the fault of
Bush. Even stuff that happened before he was president.

Anything good that happens anywhere in the world at any time has got nothing
to do with Bush, ever, even if he was personally involved. Bush can do no
good.

Didn't you take left-wing-logic 101?

;)

[Denyav]

>In case you did not know, Bush is smart enough to leave the operational
>decisions in the hands of the military. So if you are going to start
>pointing fingers you should start there.

Actually Iraq war was a small part of a very ambitious plan,if I use corporate
terms,hostile take over part of the plan (Iraq) cannot go well without
succesful friendly take over of another key country in the region.Unfortunately
friendly take over part of the plan collapsed even before Iraq war began.
So,administration should not try to realize hostile take over part of the plan
with failed friendly take over part.
The administrations failure in friendly take over part is the main reason of
current problems.

[Nemo l'Ancien]

Denyav wrote:

>>In case you did not know, Bush is smart enough to leave the operational
>>decisions in the hands of the military.
>
That's a stupid position...
War is to serious a matter to be left only to military people
(Clemenceau, French stateman, 1914...)

[Anonymoose NoSpam]

Nemo l'Ancien wrote:
> Denyav wrote:
>>> In case you did not know, Bush is smart enough to leave the operational
>>> decisions in the hands of the military.
>>
> That's a stupid position...
> War is to serious a matter to be left only to military people
> (Clemenceau, French stateman, 1914...)

Yes, and we see exactly how well that worked for the French in both
World Wars.

I believe the statement was Bush left the "operational decisions" in the
hands of the military, as is appropriate.

One of the reasons many wars go badly is the politicos try to
micro-manage the war. Just as bad as any CEO trying to micro-manage
their entire organization.

Instead, the proper division of labour is for the politicos to set the
strategic goals, and the military to implement plans to achieve them.

[Jarg]

"Nemo l'Ancien" > wrote in message
...
> Denyav wrote:
>
> >>In case you did not know, Bush is smart enough to leave the operational
> >>decisions in the hands of the military.
> >
> That's a stupid position...
> War is to serious a matter to be left only to military people
> (Clemenceau, French stateman, 1914...)


You are joking, right? You only need to look at LBJ's role in Vietnam to
see the hazards of having a political leader micromanaging a war. Do you
think the president of France was issuing orders to the troops in the recent
Ivory Coast action?

Jarg

[WalterM140]

>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.

>So if you are going to start
>pointing fingers you should start there.

See above.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>Anything good that happens anywhere in the world at any time has got nothing
>to do with Bush, ever, even if he was personally involved. Bush can do no
>good.

I can't think of any good thing he can take credit for.

Walt

[Jarg]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> >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.
>

Yes, you are right. President Bush is ultimately responsible for the war in
Iraq. And your point is? A reasonable person will understand that mistakes
are going to occur, and make judgements of the President based on his
overall perfomance. For example, Roosevelt was president when hundreds of
thousands of Americans died, quite a few as the result of mistakes, and yet
few consider him a terrrible leader. A reasonable person will understand
that subordinates are also imperfect people (unlike you, no doubt) and react
accordingly. On the other hand, someone with an agenda will not react
reasonable and will make unfair criticisms. I have good reason to believe
the alternative to President Bush is even less perfect in judgement in deed
and in fact. I think the American electorate will reach the same
conclusion.

Jarg

[WalterM140]

>> >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.

>Yes, you are right. President Bush is ultimately responsible for the war in
>Iraq. And your point is?

He ****ed it up.

Walt

[Jarg]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> I can't think

Obviously.

Jarg

[Jarg]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> >> >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.
>
> >Yes, you are right. President Bush is ultimately responsible for the war
in
> >Iraq. And your point is?
>
> He ****ed it up.
>
> Walt

Gosh, what a clear and consise analysis. Perhaps we should elect you as
leader of the free world. Or even better, John "I threw my ribbons away"
Kerry!

Jarg

[WalterM140]

>And your point is?
>>
>> He ****ed it up.
>>
>> Walt
>
>Gosh, what a clear and consise analysis.

And dead on, too.

Walt

[Jarg]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
Walt
> >
> >Gosh, what a clear and consise analysis.
>
> And dead on, too.
>
> Walt

More of the same. You have nothing meaningful to contribute so you throw
out shallow and simplistic statements. I doubt you could throw together a
meaningful analysis of any of this if your life depended on it.

Jarg

[BUFDRVR]

>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......


BUFDRVR

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

[BUFDRVR]

>>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.


BUFDRVR

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

[ArVa]

"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

[WalterM140]

>>>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.

Walt

[George Z. Bush]

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. (^-^)))

George Z.
>
> Walt

[WalterM140]

>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

[Kevin Brooks]

"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
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"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
>
>

[WalterM140]

>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

[WalterM140]

>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

[George Z. Bush]

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

[Alan Minyard]

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

[BUFDRVR]

>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"

[BUFDRVR]

>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"

[BUFDRVR]

>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"

[BUFDRVR]

>>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.

You're kidding right? What if you had no reason to; "keep a better eye on that
person"? I won't even go as far as rape. Using your logic, if my navigator goes
out on Friday night and gets pulled over for a DUI, my rear end should be
reprimanded as well. And I guess since the buck doesn't stop with me, my flight
commander....then Ops Officer....then Sq/CC....then OG/CC...then WG/CC....then
NAF/CC....then MAJCOM/CC....then AF CoS....then the CJCS and finally the
President should all be held accountable for my navigator, who got a DUI. If
you truely believe this I think you need to step away from the computer for a
while and reintroduce yourself to reality.


BUFDRVR

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

[ArVa]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...

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


I know that story, I own my own copy of Griffin's translation of the
'Art of War'.

"O tempora, O mores". Although some of Sun Tzu's principles are still
appropriate, you must admit the societies we live in have somewhat
evolved since 500 BC and progresses such as democracy make some of Sun
Tzu's statements sound pretty outdated. In the "concubine story", I
find the part about the deliberate disobedience to the "ruler" who has
given an order very disturbing.

The military doesn't set political goals, it's not its job and it
often lacks data on every aspects of the situation; it merely tries to
reach those set by the people's representatives, *at the time and
pace* set by those representatives. The politicians must always keep
an eye on the military's handling of the situation. Sometimes for the
best (Mac Arthur's intention to use nuclear devices in Korea or the
failed coup in Algeria come to mind), sometimes for the worst (as in
the case of the battle of Verdun in BUFDRVR'example, or the US
military efficiency in North Vietnam hampered by political
considerations). At least, that how it should work in a democracy and
everybody knows that it is "the worst form of government except for
all those others that have been tried".

ArVa

[WalterM140]

>>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.

We'll see on election day.

Now, can the president ensure that every government employee, or
serviceman/woman is doing their full duty 100% of the time? No.

But he's in charge, and he is responsible.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>>>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.
>
>You're kidding right?

No I am not kidding at all.

If you're in charge, you are responsible. That's what I heard over and over in
the Marine Corps. Maybe you heard something different in the Air Force.

Walt

[BUFDRVR]

>Now, can the president ensure that every government employee, or
>serviceman/woman is doing their full duty 100% of the time? No.
>
>But he's in charge, and he is responsible.

You can't be held responsible for things outside your ability to control. Your
two statements above are contradictory.


BUFDRVR

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

[BUFDRVR]

>No I am not kidding at all.
>
>If you're in charge, you are responsible.

Nice snippage of my DUI example.

>That's what I heard over and over in
>the Marine Corps.

I'm willing to bet they didn't teach you in the Marine Corps; "and don't screw
this up or there will be hell to pay from the Prseident since he's ultimately
responsible".

>Maybe you heard something different in the Air Force.

In the Air Force they teach you that you are responsible for the direction and
supervision of those below your chain of command. However, that does not mean
you are accountable for their off-duty behavior since we are all expected to be
professionals. Additionally, you are not responsible if someone under your
command decides to violate the UCMJ, military regulations or the Geneva
convention unless you were in a position stop that behavior and didn't or if
you command influance somehow built an atmosphere where this behavior was
acceptable.

Your attacks on the President are a joke. You expect me to believe that the
Marine Corps Commandant gets grief from the CNO or the CJCS for every
infraction of every Marine. That's absurd, and so are you.


BUFDRVR

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

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArVa" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
>
> <snip>
> >
> > Sorry for the paraphrasing, but I can't find my copy of Griffin's
> > translation of Sun Tzu at the moment...
> >
>
>
> I know that story, I own my own copy of Griffin's translation of the
> 'Art of War'.
>
> "O tempora, O mores". Although some of Sun Tzu's principles are still
> appropriate, you must admit the societies we live in have somewhat
> evolved since 500 BC and progresses such as democracy make some of Sun
> Tzu's statements sound pretty outdated. In the "concubine story", I
> find the part about the deliberate disobedience to the "ruler" who has
> given an order very disturbing.

You are ignoring his point--once the rulers have decided to wage war, they
should let the warriors plan and execute the campaigns without undue
interference. History is rife with cases where this did not occur--take a
gander at Hitler's continual meddling. Or LBJ's (and his SecDef, McNamara)
micromanagement of operations in Vietnam. More recently, the restrictions
placed upon the NATO leadership during the Balkan operations, with each
nation's leadership feeling they had to approve each and every target. After
the civilian leader establishes the strategic goals, his role should be to
ensure that the other startegic components (diplomacy, economic support,
public support, etc.) support the obtaining of those goals and let the
military leaders handle the "how" of the campaigning.

And I find Sun Tzu still to be rather appropriate, despite the lapse of time
since he constructed his tenets. IIRC he described the theory behind
"blitzkreig" well before the German's formulated that operational/tactical
system, for example. From what I recall of reading Mao's "On Guerrella War"
a couple of decades ago, it owed heavily to the writings of Sun Tzu as well.
I have about three different translations of his work, but find Griffin's to
remain the best in terms of applicability to military matters.

>
> The military doesn't set political goals, it's not its job and it
> often lacks data on every aspects of the situation; it merely tries to
> reach those set by the people's representatives, *at the time and
> pace* set by those representatives. The politicians must always keep
> an eye on the military's handling of the situation.

Of course. But that is a far stretch from involving themselves in
operational and tactical planning, IMO. Clemenceau's statement was much too
broad, or it has been taken that way incorrectly by most who have quoted it
over the decades since he made it.

Sometimes for the
> best (Mac Arthur's intention to use nuclear devices in Korea or the
> failed coup in Algeria come to mind), sometimes for the worst (as in
> the case of the battle of Verdun in BUFDRVR'example, or the US
> military efficiency in North Vietnam hampered by political
> considerations). At least, that how it should work in a democracy and
> everybody knows that it is "the worst form of government except for
> all those others that have been tried".

We may be on the same sheet of paper but making our points in different
ways. IMO, the civilian leadership has to remain engaged with the strategic
components--not the operational or tactical components. MacArthur's
posturing regarding use of nuclear weapons, albeit in a supposed "tactical"
manner, crossed the line into strategic considerations, hence the wise
decision to reign in that talk by the civilian leadership. Nothing
inappropriate there, IMO.

Brooks

>
> ArVa

[Kevin Brooks]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >No I am not kidding at all.
> >
> >If you're in charge, you are responsible.
>
> Nice snippage of my DUI example.

Who is this guy? Obviously one of those I previously killfiled--perhaps a
guy by the name of Case? Whoever it is, BUFDRVR, you are dead on target
here, and obviously this guy has his head so deep in the sand that he has no
idea of which way is up, much less how to define the limits of command
responsibility.

Brooks

>
> >That's what I heard over and over in
> >the Marine Corps.
>
> I'm willing to bet they didn't teach you in the Marine Corps; "and don't
screw
> this up or there will be hell to pay from the Prseident since he's
ultimately
> responsible".
>
> >Maybe you heard something different in the Air Force.
>
> In the Air Force they teach you that you are responsible for the direction
and
> supervision of those below your chain of command. However, that does not
mean
> you are accountable for their off-duty behavior since we are all expected
to be
> professionals. Additionally, you are not responsible if someone under your
> command decides to violate the UCMJ, military regulations or the Geneva
> convention unless you were in a position stop that behavior and didn't or
if
> you command influance somehow built an atmosphere where this behavior was
> acceptable.
>
> Your attacks on the President are a joke. You expect me to believe that
the
> Marine Corps Commandant gets grief from the CNO or the CJCS for every
> infraction of every Marine. That's absurd, and so are you.
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[WalterM140]

>I'm willing to bet they didn't teach you in the Marine Corps; "and don't
>screw
>this up or there will be hell to pay from the Prseident since he's ultimately
>responsible".

Isn't that sort of silly?

I had a deep and abiding understanding that there were many people in the chain
of command well below the president who could make my life pretty miserable.

>In the Air Force they teach you that you are responsible for the direction
>and
>supervision of those below your chain of command. However, that does not mean
>you are accountable for their off-duty behavior since we are all expected to
>be
>professionals.

Well, that is not what they teach in the Marine Corps.

"When you pass along some of your duties down the chain of command to more
junior non-commissioned leaders, you hold the latter responsible for producing.
At the same time, you delegate to each subordinate the authority he needs to
carry out his duty. In this way, each level of the chain of command, from
division or air wing down to fire team, receives authority equal to its
responsibilities; and each level carries out its missions under directiion and
supervision of the next higher level.

Although you can delegate authority to your subordinates, you always carry the
ultimate responsibility for all that your unit does or leaves undone."

--"Handbook For Marine NCO's; Second Edition" p. 301 by Col. Robert Debs Heinl,
Jr.


I will also say that my experience with the Air Force during my time in the
Marine Corps was not extensive, but I was not overly impressed. I think you
are showing me why.

Walt

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, BUFDRVR
> writes
>In the Air Force they teach you that you are responsible for the direction and
>supervision of those below your chain of command. However, that does not mean
>you are accountable for their off-duty behavior since we are all expected to be
>professionals.

Though egregiously illegal conduct (desertion, for example) by
subordinates may draw attention regardless. (Here in the UK we get
occasional cases of soldiers who claim 'they didn't sign up for this'
when they're asked to go to war: that's a significant leadership failure
as well as an individual problem)

>Additionally, you are not responsible if someone under your
>command decides to violate the UCMJ, military regulations or the Geneva
>convention unless you were in a position stop that behavior and didn't or if
>you command influance somehow built an atmosphere where this behavior was
>acceptable.

Basically, yes, but it's not a casual issue to deny that you knew
nothing about what your subordinates were doing. And there's an argument
that it's a leader's job to know what his/her/its men are up to and to
ensure it remains acceptable.

Then again, this is less of an issue for aircrew and support staff, than
for troops on the ground: airpower has strengths and weaknesses, but
very few would claim that B-52s bring back large hauls of enemy PoWs to
be processed.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[WalterM140]

> And there's an argument
>that it's a leader's job to know what his/her/its men are up to and to
>ensure it remains acceptable.
>

Apparently not in the U.S. Ar Force.

Walt

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, WalterM140
> writes
>> And there's an argument
>>that it's a leader's job to know what his/her/its men are up to and to
>>ensure it remains acceptable.
>
>Apparently not in the U.S. Ar Force.

I wasn't aware that the Iraq prison photographs involved any USAF
personnel.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Guy Alcala]

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

> In message >, BUFDRVR
> > writes
> >In the Air Force they teach you that you are responsible for the direction and
> >supervision of those below your chain of command. However, that does not mean
> >you are accountable for their off-duty behavior since we are all expected to be
> >professionals.
>
> Though egregiously illegal conduct (desertion, for example) by
> subordinates may draw attention regardless. (Here in the UK we get
> occasional cases of soldiers who claim 'they didn't sign up for this'
> when they're asked to go to war: that's a significant leadership failure
> as well as an individual problem)

One wonders what the ad campaigns are like now - is real life just a Monty Python
sketch?
------------------------------------------------------------------

(Cut to colonel's office. Colonel is seated at desk).

Colonel: Come in, what do you want?

(Private Watkins enters and salutes).

Watkins: I'd like to leave the army please, sir.

Colonel: Good heavens man, why?

Watkins: It's dangerous.

Colonel: What?

Watkins: There are people with guns out there, sir.

Colonel: What?

Watkins: Real guns, sir. Not toy ones, sir. Proper ones, sir. They've all got
'em. All of 'em, sir. And some of 'em have got tanks.

Colonel: Watkins, they are on our side.

Watkins: And grenades, sir. And machine guns, sir. So I'd like to leave, sir,
before I get killed, please.

Colonel: Watkins, you've only been in the army a day.

Watkins: I know sir but people get killed, properly dead, sir, no barley cross
fingers, sir. A bloke was telling me, if you're in the army and there's a war you
have to go and fight.

Colonel: That's true.

Watkins: Well I mean, blimey, I mean if it was a big war somebody could be hurt.

Colonel: Watkins, why did you join the army?

Watkins: For the water-skiing and for the travel, sir. And not for the killing,
sir. I asked them to put it on my form, sir - no killing.

Colonel: Watkins are you a pacifist?

Watkins: No sir, I'm not a pacifist, sir. I'm a coward.

Colonel: That's a very silly line. Sit down.

Watkins: Yes sir. Silly, sir. (sits in corner)

Colonel: Awfully bad.
------------------------------------------------------------

Guy

[ArVa]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
>
> You are ignoring his point--once the rulers have decided to wage war, they
> should let the warriors plan and execute the campaigns without undue
> interference.

No, I understand his point but I disagree with his total refusal of
interference. I guess the real matter is the one you've defined
farther in your post : the drawing of the line between the tactic and
strategic parts of military operations (Clemenceau's statement,
refering to "War" in general, was undoubtedly about the later). IMO,
only the politicians, the civilian authorities, have the global view
and knowledge to draw that line, a very moving line that changes all
the time. Especially nowadays in our democracies with free, inquiring
and "embedded" media, lobbies, national and foreign public opinions
weighing on foreign and domestic policies, military operations taking
place among civilian populations, etc... It's no longer a chess play
and a single individual's acts can have tremendous repercussions. The
military members must accept that a civilian authority be on their
neck almost constantly to tell them on what side of the line they
stand. Now the difficulty is to draw that line so that neither party's
feelings and efficiency get hurt.

<snip>

> And I find Sun Tzu still to be rather appropriate, despite the lapse of
time
> since he constructed his tenets. IIRC he described the theory behind
> "blitzkreig" well before the German's formulated that operational/tactical
> system, for example. From what I recall of reading Mao's "On Guerrella
War"
> a couple of decades ago, it owed heavily to the writings of Sun Tzu as
well.
> I have about three different translations of his work, but find Griffin's
to
> remain the best in terms of applicability to military matters.

Like I said, most of his strictly military theories may still be
accurate but some others are sometimes too... theoretical and
disregard way too much today's political and social environments (but
I guess we can't blame him for that :-))

<snip>

ArVa

[[email protected]]

Hello. Go to www.sonshi.com if you want to know more about Sun Tzu
and read The Art of War.


> > And I find Sun Tzu still to be rather appropriate, despite the lapse of
> time
> > since he constructed his tenets. IIRC he described the theory behind
> > "blitzkreig" well before the German's formulated that operational/tactical
> > system, for example. From what I recall of reading Mao's "On Guerrella
> War"
> > a couple of decades ago, it owed heavily to the writings of Sun Tzu as
> well.
> > I have about three different translations of his work, but find Griffin's
> to
> > remain the best in terms of applicability to military matters.
>
> Like I said, most of his strictly military theories may still be
> accurate but some others are sometimes too... theoretical and
> disregard way too much today's political and social environments (but
> I guess we can't blame him for that :-))
>
> <snip>
>
> ArVa

[BUFDRVR]

>Basically, yes, but it's not a casual issue to deny that you knew
>nothing about what your subordinates were doing.

Absolutely and that's not really the issue here. If people under your direct
supervision are consistantly performing illegal acts over a lengthy period of
time, the commander should face disciplinary action as well because either you
condoned such action or did not peoperly supervise those under your
supervision. What "Walt" is arguing is that if I'm the commander of I MEF (I'll
keep this a USMC example for the sake of "Walt") and a pair of E-2s from 1st
Battalion, 4th Marines get drunk on leave in Bahrain and get arrested, I (the I
MEF commander) am responsible for that activity and should be held accountable.
This is ridiculous.


BUFDRVR

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

[BUFDRVR]

>> And there's an argument
>>that it's a leader's job to know what his/her/its men are up to and to
>>ensure it remains acceptable.
>>
>
>Apparently not in the U.S. Ar Force.
>
>Walt

You'll have to point out where I said a direct supervisor doesn't need to know;
"what his/her/its men are up to".

What you're arguing here is that the term "leaders" involves everybody from a
squad leader up to the SecDef and President. Now I realize you're a left wing
zelot, but surely you don't even believe Kerry has the ability to keep up with
the daily activity of over 1 million personnel?


BUFDRVR

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

[BUFDRVR]

>>I'm willing to bet they didn't teach you in the Marine Corps; "and don't
>>screw
>>this up or there will be hell to pay from the Prseident since he's
>ultimately
>>responsible".
>
>Isn't that sort of silly?

I'm glad you've finally realized what you arguing for is silly.

>>In the Air Force they teach you that you are responsible for the direction
>>and
>>supervision of those below your chain of command. However, that does not
>mean
>>you are accountable for their off-duty behavior since we are all expected to
>>be
>>professionals.
>
>Well, that is not what they teach in the Marine Corps.

Interesting, but I know quite a few Marines and every now and again their young
bucks get into trouble (as most of us at 18 years old did) and the disciplinary
action is focused directly on the 18-year old and not the NCO or officer above
them. In fact, usually the person handing out the punishment is the officer
charged with their supervision. According to you, there would be hell to pay
for the NCO and every officer up to the 4-star general level (and beyond..) for
the actions of an 18-year old Marine. I find it hard to believe the USMC *ever*
worked that way.

>Although you can delegate authority to your subordinates, you always carry
>the
>ultimate responsibility for all that your unit does or leaves undone."
>

I've never argued anything different. The key word in the above paragraph is
*ultimate*. You'll notice it does not say that you carry personal
responsibility or even specific responsibility for the actions of everyone
below you in the chain of command. You have ultimate responsibility for the
general performance of that unit. The same holds true for the President, he is
ultimately responsible for the general conduct of the U.S. military as a whole,
not for the individual acts of all 1 million plus men.

>I will also say that my experience with the Air Force during my time in the
>Marine Corps was not extensive, but I was not overly impressed.

Some how I think the feeling is probably mutual amongst the blue suiters who
were unfortnate enough to meet you.

>I think you
>are showing me why.

If being unbiased and explaining logically how the chain of command works
offends you, I suggest you stear clear of any newsgroups with "military" in the
title.


BUFDRVR

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

[WalterM140]

BUFDRVR:


>>>I'm willing to bet they didn't teach you in the Marine Corps; "and don't
>>>screw
>>>this up or there will be hell to pay from the Prseident since he's
>>ultimately
>>>responsible".
>>
>>Isn't that sort of silly?

>I'm glad you've finally realized what you arguing for is silly.
>

Your comment was silly. It remans silly.

>>>In the Air Force they teach you that you are responsible for the direction
>>>and
>>>supervision of those below your chain of command. However, that does not
>>mean
>>>you are accountable for their off-duty behavior since we are all expected
>to
>>>be
>>>professionals.

Military personnel are never off duty when it comes to behavior prejudicial to
good order and discipline. Funny UCMJ you have in the Air Force.


>>
>>Well, that is not what they teach in the Marine Corps.
>
>Interesting, but I know quite a few Marines and every now and again their
>young
>bucks get into trouble (as most of us at 18 years old did) and the
>disciplinary
>action is focused directly on the 18-year old and not the NCO or officer
>above
>them.

Funny, I remember a very unhappy second lieutenant, one of whose sentries
decided to fire all his shot gun rounds into the New River one dark night. You
don't think that incident wasn't reflected in his FITREP? I bet it was.


In fact, usually the person handing out the punishment is the officer
>charged with their supervision.

Not many second or first lieuitenants have Article 15 power, and of course
cannot direct that any sort of court martial be convened.

You were in the military, is that right? You're claiming to have been in the
military?


According to you, there would be hell to pay
>for the NCO and every officer up to the 4-star general level (and beyond..)

I never said anything even remotely like that.


>for
>the actions of an 18-year old Marine. I find it hard to believe the USMC
>*ever*
>worked that way.

Well, there's a saying: "To err is human, to forgive divine. Neither is
Marine Corps policy."


>
>>Although you can delegate authority to your subordinates, you always carry
>>the
>>ultimate responsibility for all that your unit does or leaves undone."
>>
>
>I've never argued anything different.

You did in this very note to which I respond.

Above:

>>>In the Air Force they teach you that you are responsible for the direction
>>>and
>>>supervision of those below your chain of command. However, that does not
>>mean
>>>you are accountable for their off-duty behavior since we are all expected
>to
>>>be
>>>professionals.

Well, that's enough.

I don't even think you were in the military.

Walt

[BUFDRVR]

>>I'm glad you've finally realized what you arguing for is silly.
>>
>
>Your comment was silly. It remans silly.

My comment was simply reiterating your position. Damn you're thick.

>>>>In the Air Force they teach you that you are responsible for the direction
>>>>and
>>>>supervision of those below your chain of command. However, that does not
>>>mean
>>>>you are accountable for their off-duty behavior since we are all
>expected
>>to
>>>>be
>>>>professionals.

>Military personnel are never off duty when it comes to behavior prejudicial
>to
>good order and discipline.

Exactly, you are making my point genius. Your above statement is well
understood by everyone in the USAF and repeatedly stated at every opportunity
by everyone from the COS down to squadron commanders. Because it is well
understood, when an airman goes out and gets pulled over for a DUI, the only
person held accountable is the young airman. His NCO, supervising officer,
squadron commander and on up are not held to task for the individual action of
one airman. That airman knows the rules, he understands the issues and its no
ones fault but his own if he chooses to break them. After talking with one of
my fraternity brothers at Camp Lejune last week, it works the same in the USMC.
If one of his PFCs gets a DUI, unless it was a repeated offense for the person
or reflected continuing behavior of the company as a whole, he is not blamed or
held accountable. Seems your "I was in the USMC" story is suffering some set
backs huh?

>Funny UCMJ you have in the Air Force.

Same UCMJ you *supposedly* had in the Marine Corps.

>Funny, I remember a very unhappy second lieutenant, one of whose sentries
>decided to fire all his shot gun rounds into the New River one dark night.
>You
>don't think that incident wasn't reflected in his FITREP? I bet it was.

Unless it was a repeated occurance, I bet it wasn't. Why hold the butter bars
responsible for the single act of one individual? If this was the second
occurance, by the same guy or even another guy, I agree the 2 LT has a
leadership issue that needs to be documented.

>>In fact, usually the person handing out the punishment is the officer
>>charged with their supervision.
>

>Not many second or first lieuitenants have Article 15 power

Now I'm really doubting your claim to be a vet. Is an Article 15 the only
punshiment that can be handed out? As a Captain I handed out a few LORs and
LOCs. As far as Article 15s go, who do you think makes that recommendation to
the officer with commanders orders? One of my worst weeks in the USAF was when
I had to recommend an Article 15 for one of my life support airmen. Now
granted, the Article 15 was not my idea, it was the senior NCOs, but when the
time came, I was the one recommending it to the commander.

>You were in the military, is that right?

Still am genius.

>You're claiming to have been in the
>military?

What a coincidence, I was just beginning to doubt your claim.

>According to you, there would be hell to pay
>>for the NCO and every officer up to the 4-star general level (and beyond..)
>
>I never said anything even remotely like that.

Thats exactly what you said, that President Bush should be held accountable for
the behavior of several National Guard NCO and enlisted.

>>>Although you can delegate authority to your subordinates, you always carry
>>>the
>>>ultimate responsibility for all that your unit does or leaves undone."
>>>
>>
>>I've never argued anything different.

> You did in this very note to which I respond.

>>>In the Air Force they teach you that you are responsible for the direction
>>>and
>>>supervision of those below your chain of command. However, that does not
>>mean
>>>you are accountable for their off-duty behavior since we are all expected
>to
>>>be
>>>professionals.

You must have a reading comprehension problem huh? My above statement says
nothing about not having ultimate responsibility (in fact I reiterate you do
have ultimate responsibility), it deals with accountability. Your initial
premis was that President Bush should be held accountable for the prisoner
abuse case. I have pointed out time and time again that while he is ultimately
responsible for the *overall conduct* of the U.S. military, he is not
accountable (or even personally responsible) for the individual actions of U.S.
service members. You have swapped back and forth (a Kerry man huh?) between
agreeing with me and disagreeing with me. You are either very confused or
suffering mental illness.

>I don't even think you were in the military.
>
>Walt
>

Oh goody, I love quiz games. Do yourself a favor zealot, try not to hang around
boards that deal with the military since you have no idea how it works.


BUFDRVR

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

[Kevin Brooks]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...

<snip>

>
> Thats exactly what you said, that President Bush should be held
accountable for
> the behavior of several National Guard NCO and enlisted.

Wasn't the MP battalion in question a USAR formation?

Brooks

<snip>

[BUFDRVR]

>> Thats exactly what you said, that President Bush should be held
>accountable for
>> the behavior of several National Guard NCO and enlisted.
>
>Wasn't the MP battalion in question a USAR formation?
>
>Brooks

Was it Reserves or Guard? I thought it was a Maryland National Guard Unit?


BUFDRVR

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

[B2431]

>From: (WalterM140)

<snip>

>Funny, I remember a very unhappy second lieutenant, one of whose sentries
>decided to fire all his shot gun rounds into the New River one dark night.
>You
>don't think that incident wasn't reflected in his FITREP? I bet it was.

Why would it? If the 2Lt were present, fired the shots himself and/or
encouraged the act it might.Other than that I can see no reason.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[BUFDRVR]

>>Funny, I remember a very unhappy second lieutenant, one of whose sentries
>>decided to fire all his shot gun rounds into the New River one dark night.
>>You
>>don't think that incident wasn't reflected in his FITREP? I bet it was.
>
>Why would it? If the 2Lt were present, fired the shots himself and/or
>encouraged the act it might.Other than that I can see no reason.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Dan, don't waste your time. The guy will come back and agree with you, then
make some other ridiculous inflamatory statement then, two or threee posts down
the road he'll again claim this 2LT should be held accountable. The guy is a
leftist troll who has no interest in a rational discussion.


BUFDRVR

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

[Kevin Brooks]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >> Thats exactly what you said, that President Bush should be held
> >accountable for
> >> the behavior of several National Guard NCO and enlisted.
> >
> >Wasn't the MP battalion in question a USAR formation?
> >
> >Brooks
>
> Was it Reserves or Guard? I thought it was a Maryland National Guard Unit?

We were both a bit confused, apparently. I began checking on this after
making that post and found: The MP Brigade was a USAR unit, as was the MP
Battalion that was involved, IIRC. The company that is the home to those
charged to-date is apparently a MDARNG unit. My guess is the BN was probably
an HHD-type unit (not uncommon in MP, engineer, transportation, etc,
branches; the "headquarters & headquarters detachment", usually numbering
between 35 and 60 personnel, has no permanently assigned units (though it
may have some peacetime attached units under its control) and serves as a
parent HQ for separate companies and smaller detachments as needed). I
should have known better-- I once served in an engineer HHD. Bad on me.

Brooks

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

[BUFDRVR]

>I began checking on this after
>making that post and found: The MP Brigade was a USAR unit, as was the MP
>Battalion that was involved, IIRC. The company that is the home to those
>charged to-date is apparently a MDARNG unit.

Ok, I'm confused. A reserve Battalion, in a reserve Brigade with a National
Guard Company? Is this common in the Army?


BUFDRVR

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

[Brett]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote:
> >I began checking on this after
> >making that post and found: The MP Brigade was a USAR unit, as was the MP
> >Battalion that was involved, IIRC. The company that is the home to those
> >charged to-date is apparently a MDARNG unit.
>
> Ok, I'm confused. A reserve Battalion, in a reserve Brigade with a
National
> Guard Company? Is this common in the Army?

Global Security's web page on the 800th:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/800mp-bde.htm

[Kevin Brooks]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >I began checking on this after
> >making that post and found: The MP Brigade was a USAR unit, as was the MP
> >Battalion that was involved, IIRC. The company that is the home to those
> >charged to-date is apparently a MDARNG unit.
>
> Ok, I'm confused. A reserve Battalion, in a reserve Brigade with a
National
> Guard Company? Is this common in the Army?

Yeah, believe it or not it is. Long ago, when I was newly arrived on active
duty with a combat engineer battalion that had a NATO wartrace, my active
component battalion came under an ARNG engineer group (out of Wisconsin,
IIRC), then subsequently under an ARNG brigade (out of Ohio, IIRC). Later, I
was assigned to a construction support company that during wartime would
have been assigned to an ARNG group that would have reported to a USAR
brigade headquarters, all under a USAR engineer command (ENCOM). After I
left active duty I joined the Guard, and served in a battalion HHD with an
assigned strength of 35 personnel. During peacetime we had C-2 over three
suboridinate local companies, one engineer bridge company and two
transportation companies; but during wartime (per the OPLAN's then in
existance) we had a mix of ARNG and active component separate engineer
companies attached to us, and we could have found ourselves serving under
either an ARNG or USAR higher HQ, depending upon the OPLAN. Separate
companies in the Army are like building blocks, be they engineer, MP,
transportation, etc., and they can find themselves working for HQ's from any
and all of the three different components. Before ODS it was even more
confusing, with many active component divisions having entire combat
brigades (roundout brigades, they were called) from the ARNG forming
one-third of their ground combat power (this became a real point of
contention during and after ODS, with lots of nasty remarks hurled in both
directions after the roundout brigades were not mobilized in time to deploy
with their parent divisions). Once units are mobilized into the active Army
force structure, they can find themselves intermingled beyond belief in
terms of component of origin.

Brooks

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

[BUFDRVR]

"Brett" wrote:

>Global Security's web page on the 800th:
>
>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/800mp-bde.htm
>

Thanks, good site and interesting.


BUFDRVR

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

[BUFDRVR]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

<snip> Good, yet strange (at least from an AF perspective) info.

>Once units are mobilized into the active Army
>force structure, they can find themselves intermingled beyond belief in
>terms of component of origin.

That seems to be the case with our jailors. Pretty strange, but it sounds like
the US Army has been doing this for years.


BUFDRVR

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

[WalterM140]

>>Funny, I remember a very unhappy second lieutenant, one of whose sentries
>>decided to fire all his shot gun rounds into the New River one dark night.
>>You
>>don't think that incident wasn't reflected in his FITREP? I bet it was.
>
>Why would it? If the 2Lt were present, fired the shots himself and/or
>encouraged the act it might.Other than that I can see no reason.
>

Because there were enough 2Lt's whose sentries didn't fire rounds off into the
New River to push this LT to the bottom of the heap when FITREP time came
round.

He was responsble for what that sentry did. Could he have somehow surmised that
Lance Corporal Smuckatella was going to snap just a -wee- bit that night?
Probably not. But he was -still- responsible.

As the editors of the Military Times have recently written, accountability goes
all the way to the top. Lessee, Reagan was the president then. Should he have
been grilled at a news conference because some lance coolie fired 5 shot gun
rounds into the New River? Of course not.

But according to BFFDRVR's interpretation, there was some break, some vacuum of
responsibility (in this case of the POW torture), that didn't touch Bush Jr.
There can't be a break, or a vacuum in the chain of command. Reagan was
ultimately responsible, just as Bush was responsible for the POW torture, and
FDR was ultimately responsible for Pearl Harbor, and on and on.

The people will ultimately decide. If they stop and think, They'll kick
Bush''s butt all the way back to Crawford.

Walt

Walt