More Bush Administration Idiocy

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"

"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Tzu's statements sound pretty outdated.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

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

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

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"

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"

"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

"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"

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

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 MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk