Media on the Military

Colleges & Universities Service Academy Parents
61

<p>Strategic: Of or relating to strategy. Important or essential in relation to a plan of action: a strategic withdrawal. Essential to the effective conduct of war: strategic materials. Highly important to an intended objective: The staff discussed strategic marketing factors. </p>

<p>Tactical: Of, relating to, or using tactics. Of, relating to, used in, or involving military or naval operations that are smaller, closer to base, and of less long-term significance than strategic operations. Carried out in support of military or naval operations: tactical bombing. Characterized by adroitness, ingenuity, or skill. </p>

<p>Strategery:Of or concerning decisions, lack of decisions, lack of long-term planning, failure to implement either a strategy or tactics necessary to carrying out the strategy; typically implemented by Presidents with a knack for mangling the English language.</p>

<p>Fubar: See picture of Iraq.</p>

<p>Okay. . . just kidding, the lack of political discussion on these threads has been encouraging. Give it a break, you are not going to convince anybody that you are correct. Beside, if you think teenagers are not used to seeing or hearing things at least as bad as have been discussed in the past few days . . . well, I don’t know what to say.</p>

62

<p>I think this is a salient discussion since our kids’ lives are directly and profoundly affected by this issue. Furthermore, being informed about local, state, and federal matters is a responsibility of American citizenship.</p>

<p>On your other point (here is my ultra-conservative bias), I deplore vulgarity and I think we all get our fill of that daily. Tipper Gore is my heroine ;).</p>

63

<p>You know I generally agree with you; I, however, have much less hope than you do that Americans in general–and to some degree people cruising this site in particular–possess much sense of responsibility about being informed of the matters to which you refer. You have clearly seen how facts are ignored . . .</p>

<p>You have an “ultra-conservative” bias?! Who would have guessed. I agree that we have become way too much of a vulgar society; people use vulgarity when they can think of nothing else to say. It is particularly repulsive when coming from those that tend to think of themselves as educated. Or, as we used to say in the country: C’LaVie Good Buddy.</p>

64

<p>You kind folks are in for one hell of a ride as military parents…</p>

65

<p>What in the heck is that supposed to mean?</p>

<p>The implication seems to be that I [or we] are some kind of pollyannish, naive adults that seem clueless about, in this case, the military. As usual, you assume too much.
I don’t know about USNAmom, but I have been in plenty of situations that involve “vulgarity,” “crudeness,” “guys being guys” or whatever else it is that you want to call it.<br>
Such behavior, while it may be acceptable in some situations does not make it acceptable in all situations. If you can’t control yourself or how you act then, yes, you should be judged accordingly.</p>

<p>Whatever environment my son may find himself in, I still expect him to conduct himself in a manner that is approrpiate to the situation. Thus, I do not expect him to curse in front of his mother, in front of his grandparents, or, in fact, in front of me. I and the rest of the adults that have gotten him to where he is and, in fact, anybody my age and older is due that much respect. I don’t care if he is in the military or not. </p>

<p>I don’t expect that he will be vulgar–whatever that means–either. I don’t expect him to be overly affectionate with his girlfriend in public; I don’t expet him to be looking at pornography in front of us; I don’t expect him to do lots of things in front of me or my family that he may do in private. Are you suggesting that military personnel somehow get a bye in this regard and that we, as parents of a military man, should just accept that?</p>

<p>So . . . what is it, exactly, that you are implying?</p>

66

<p>I’m not implying anything. I’m saying it loud and clear.</p>

<p>First off, I agree with everything you posted above concerning appropriate behavior in appropriate circumstances. The one assuming here is you.</p>

<p>However, I didn’t suggest to others that their posts here were out of line. If what is in this thread is considered “vulgar” enough to call other adults on it, then I suggest that those offended get their ears ready because, like it or not, life connected to the military involves what I will politely describe as “colorful” language. Doesn’t make it right, but that’s reality.</p>

<p>You should know by now that I rarely imply anything. I say it straight out and let the chips fall where they may.</p>

67

<p>I am sure to your ears it is loud and clear. Unfortunately, as usual, your statement says nothing and a reader must necessarily attempt to interpret it. “You folks are in for one hell of a ride . . .” is not a clear statement. It can be taken either positively or negatively depending upon how you meant it. Hence the question. </p>

<p>I did not assume a thing, [I did not take for granted or accept as true a statement offered without proof. I did not assume, for example, that your statement was either correct or incorrect.] I asked a question: What does your statement mean? Asking a question is not the same as assuming.</p>

<p>I inferred something from your statement. [Which is not the same as assuming.] I stated the inference and asked for clarification. So, no, I don’t think you stated it clearly enough to let the chips fall where they may.</p>

68

<p>Okay, it’s time for the “Laugh of the Day” for everyone on this thread. I’ll repeat what my mid shared with me months ago:</p>

<p>“Foul language is poor leadership!”</p>

<p>That said, foul language has its place, and combat is certainly one of them (driving on Southern California freeways is another). Jarhead is a good example. Every fourth word was the f-word, but it seemed relevant. Great movie by the way–I bought the DVD. </p>

<p>Reminds me of when my daughter came home from kindergarden and told me that kids were using the s-word. What’s that? She said “stupid.”</p>

69

<p>

</p>

<p>Sigh… </p>

<p>Whatever dude. :rolleyes:</p>

70

<p>ABC News Updated 5:34 PM ET April 20, 2006 </p>

<p>There are many uncertainties about the progress made by coalition forces and the future prospects for stability and democracy in Iraq, but there is at least one indisputable fact: The Bush administration vastly underestimated the costs of the Iraq war. Not only in human lives, but in monetary terms as well, the costs of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq far exceed the administration’s initial projection of a $50 billion tab. While the number of American casualties in Iraq has declined this year, the amount of money spent to fight the war and rebuild the country has spiraled upward. The price is expected to almost double after lawmakers return to Capitol Hill next week when the Senate takes up a record $106.5 billion emergency spending bill that includes $72.4 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House passed a $92 billion version of the bill last month that included $68 billion in war funding. That comes on top of $50 billion already allocated for the war this fiscal year.</p>

71

<p>ABC analyst Tony Cordesman, who also holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says the exorbitant costs come down to poor planning. “When the administration submitted its original budget for the Iraq war, it didn’t provide money for continuing the war this year or any other. We could end up spending up to $1 trillion in supplemental budgets for this war.” According to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, the United States spent $48 billion for Iraq in 2003, $59 billion in 2004, and $81 billion in 2005. The center predicts the figure will balloon to $94 billion for 2006. That equates to a $1,205 bill for each of America’s 78 million families, on top of taxes they already pay.</p>

72

<p>Analysts say the increases can be blamed on the rising cost of maintaining military equipment and developing new equipment. As the cost of military equipment escalates, the cost of the war escalates. In fact, developing state-of-the-art weapons to defeat insurgents and their roadside bombs will hit the wallets of American taxpayers for years to come. “The Department of Defense has increased its investment in new equipment from $700 billion to $1.4 trillion in the coming years,” Cordesman said. Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker recently warned lawmakers that the cost of upkeep and replacement of military equipment would continue even after U.S. forces withdrew from Iraq. To fully reequip and upgrade the U.S. Army after the war ends will cost $36 billion over six years, and that figure assumes U.S. forces will start withdrawing from Iraq in July, and be completely out of the country by the end of 2008.</p>

73

<p>You’re right. We screwed up.</p>

<p>We should just leave.</p>

<p>I mean, it worked in Vietnam, right? :rolleyes:</p>

74

<p>“I mean, it worked in Vietnam, right?”</p>

<p>Actually it did. Pulling out of Vietnam stopped any more American’s from dying in a war that we weren’t going to win (especially given the terms on which our government chose to fight it). A pullout years sooner would have saved that many more American lives. In the final analysis, preventing Vietnam from falling into the hands of the communists had no long term strategic benefit for the US. It certainly wasn’t worth the lives of 50,000 American servicemen and women. The “we can’t let them die in vain” argument sounds nice in a political speech, but often times just results in more senseless deaths. We let ourselves become “sucked in” to that mess in Vietnam. That war was a compounded failure of the Kennedy, Johnson, and (for a while) the Nixon administration.</p>

<p>The articles quoted above don’t so much say that we should pull out now simply because it is too expensive as much as they say that the war as been mis-managed and under-estimated NOT by the military but by the civilian leadership and bureaucracy.</p>

<p>In the end it comes down to accountability and competency…we just don’t always get both from the people we elect (regardless of party). This becomes compounded when those we elect appoint others who are not competent either. I have real issues with political appointments of people to vital positions (FEMA comes to mind). It happens under presidents from both party’s, and it is a weakness in our system.</p>

75

<p>Retreat.</p>

<p>Yeah. That’s a plan. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Maybe we should have left Europe in the hands of the Germans. After all, they never attacked us. Would have saved any number of American lives.</p>

76

<p>Poor analogy. The Germans attacked and occupied most of Europe. They were also partners with a nation that did attack us. It is however, possible that our war with Germany might have been delayed by some amount of time. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Congress declared war on Japan, not Germany and Italy. Many American’s are still under the impression that war with Germany would have been “automatic” since Germany and Italy were signers of the Tri-powers Pact with Japan–a real life axis of evil). In actuality, Germany was under no obligation under her treaty with Japan to automatically go to war with Japan’s enemies. Hitler in his undeniable genius ( :slight_smile: ) formally declared war on the U.S. all by himself.</p>

<p>Vietnam was no WW2.</p>

77

<p>In the end, the rationale for the Vietnam war didn’t work out as planned: Containment of communism spreading throughout the world; all of Southeast Asia toppling over like dominos to the North Vietnamese/Chinese communists if we lost the war. The Cold War ended because the Soviet Union went bankrupt due to military spending, not necessarily because our system is better; though I strongly believe our system is much better and communism is evil and corrupt. (I even had the “pleasure” of spending a few weeks in East Germany when Hoeneker was President of the DDR and experiencing communism up close and personal.) </p>

<p>Of course, we would probably all agree that the greatest cost of war is the loss of life. But, as the ABC News article points out this war in Iraq is going to affect the quality of life in the United States for decades. Also, military spending initially stimulates the economy, but in the end it results in inflation. </p>

<p>Four decades ago 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam to defend the world against communism. We pulled out, but the communists didn’t take over the world. Tonight Hu Jintao, President of China, is dining with Mr. Bush in the White House and I think trade preceeds North Korea on the list of table talk.</p>

78

<p>I still maintain we should have instituted a 9/11 tax soon after the attacks once we knew a global war on terror was on the table—American’s would have accepted it almost universally. Congress and the administration avoided that and instead opted for bigger deficits.</p>

79

<p>

</p>

<p>Iraq had already attacked two of its neighbors. Do we have to wait for an enemy to occupy an entire continent before we act?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh. You mean like Iraq and Afghanistan?</p>

<p>And before I get called an apologist, I tend to try and put responsibility where it belongs. </p>

<p>The entire world (including the utterly pathetic UN) believed that Iraq had WMD, and were pushing toward additional development and aggression. American, British, and Russian Intelligence all believed it. Hussein was behaving as if he had them. He had already used them before. Additionally, Iraq was a sanctuary for terrorism. This cannot be debated.</p>

<p>We did how many UN Resolutions? We waited how long before supposedly “rushing” to war? We gave Hussein how many chances to come clean?</p>

<p>Were it up to me, the blood would be waist-deep at CIA. First, they miss the COLE attack. Then they miss 9/11. Then, they basically tell us we’ll be tripping over WMD’s as we advance on Baghdad. Concerning the last point, they either got completely taken to the cleaners and fooled into believing the WMD story (which is pretty damned bad), or they were right but then failed to detect the movement of the weapons out of Iraq (which is worse). While I certainly appreciate the difficulties involved, the fact remains that this is their job, and they have completely bungled it. I would have had a large trailerful of heads outside the White House were I the President.</p>

<p>As to whether the leadership is incompetent, I disagree. Were mistakes made? Sure! Name me a battle that goes perfectly (hint: you can’t). For one thing, I think this obsession we have with winning wars without spilling blood needlessly ties our own hands. The idea that you can have peace without a complete victory is also foolish. I’m one of these weirdos who believes that if you’re going to fight a war, you go in with one and only one goal: WIN. After that, we can afford to sit around worrying about what type of lives the remains of the enemy (if any) will live.</p>

<p>But, reality is reality. We went in, and the intel was FUBAR (either option is equally messed up). We are there, and despite the unceasing drumbeat of negativism from the “impartial” media, the majority of the country is secure and even peaceful, and great strides are being made. Yes, there is a resistance movement led by a bunch of holdovers and terrorists. Are we surprised? No. Might we have done it differently? Maybe. I’m sure this will be studied at West Point for years to come.</p>

<p>But in the meantime, I’m still waiting for a proposed solution that goes beyond “Impeach Bush, fire Rumsfeld, and retreat”, and which actually results in a victory for the United States.</p>

<p>All we hear is “Bush sucks”, “America is the terrorist”, comparisons of our troops to Nazi stormtroopers, and the like. (Not anyone here, but you know who is saying this).</p>

<p>Until they come up with a viable alternative, I will hold their antics and opinions in contempt. I wonder how these people would have responded to the news from Omaha Beach? Would they have Monday-morning quarterbacked from the comfort of their homes, while the troops were still fighting? </p>

<p>We are winning over there. We are losing over here. Remember what happened to America on the world stage the last time that happened? That was against a reasonably predictable and civilized enemy. Now imagine the same thing happening with this bunch of “Allah-u-ackbar”-screaming, AK-47-toting whackjobs who have already killed 2700 Americans on our own soil, and would love to do that a thousand times over.</p>

<p>If we retreat, they win, and we can’t afford that.</p>

80

<p>

</p>

<p>Correct me if I’m wrong, my friend, but I suspect you and I are in agreement on this.</p>

<p>I was expecting a formal declaration of war against all comers on September 12th. Never happened. I remember talk of war bonds. Never happened. I remember talk of nuclear weapons being an option, and the nation cheering.</p>

<p>But of course, the politicians quickly lost interest in anything except their own power and political correctness. We lost a golden opportunity to do it right. We decided to fight what I call a “polite” war, dropping food as well as bombs. Hell, we sold the WTC steel for scrap! I would have had it melted down for bomb casings and delivered them to Afghanistan and anywhere else, postage paid!</p>

<p>I knew we were in trouble when “Operation Infinite Justice” became the emasculated “Operation Enduring Freedom” because we didn’t want to offend anyone. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Am I wrong, or are you and I on the same page, at least in this regard?</p>