America’s Generals Lied, Lost Wars, And Looted The People They Claimed To Serve

[mystery-ak]

 America’s Generals Lied, Lost Wars, And Looted The People They Claimed To Serve

Military leaders failed to properly account for their own efforts, misled the public, and then racked up cushy paychecks after the war. They deserve to be punished.

By Josiah Lippincott
August 6, 2021

Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress in June that he wanted to understand “white rage,” why “thousands of people” tried “to assault this building and … overturn the Constitution of the United States of America.”

If Milley really wants to understand the “rage” of the American people he should start by asking why he and his fellow generals can’t win any wars. As a Marine Corps officer who served at the tail end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I saw firsthand the rapid ideological transformation pervading the military in the wake of these disasters in the Middle East.

Unable to win wars overseas, the military’s leaders went “woke.” Currying ideological favor is easier than trying to end insurgencies. It is also necessary if military leaders want to keep the gravy train of taxpayer funding. Donald Trump’s America First foreign policy and his devastating critique of George Bush and Barack Obama in the run-up to the 2016 election put the military-industrial complex on high alert. Trump was pushing the American right-wing away from the expensive and unending foreign interventions the military-industrial complex needed in order to justify its existence.

more
https://thefederalist.com/2021/08/06/americas-generals-lied-lost-wars-and-looted-the-people-they-pledged-to-serve/

[240B]

I agree that the last few wars, Korea to some extent, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq to the full extent, have been 'pretend' wars. Meaning, these were wars fought without a defined 'end goal'. If there is no definition of what 'victory' is, then how can victory ever be achieved?

Soldiers were routinely punished for being what the bureaucrats defined as 'overly aggressive' (translation: they took the war seriously). Soldiers were endlessly lectured that the war is not about killing the enemy, it is about 'winning hearts and minds' (translation: to make them 'like' us).

The scariest part of this is that the American military is now trained to fight only in pretend wars. That is all they know. So when a real, actual, kill or be killed, no holds barred war breaks out with China, which I believe is coming, the American military will be unprepared. Especially if we have far-Left activists like Milley, and so many more just like him all over D.C., running it. When China acts militarily on a global scale, the very first thing the current 'leaders' controlling the military will do, is to try to figure out how much, and which allies America has to give up to them to "make Peace".

[txradioguy]

I agree that the last few wars, Korea to some extent, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq to the full extent, have been 'pretend' wars. Meaning, these were wars fought without a defined 'end goal'. If there is no definition of what 'victory' is, then how can victory ever be achieved?

Soldiers were routinely punished for being what the bureaucrats defined as 'overly aggressive' (translation: they took the war seriously). Soldiers were endlessly lectured that the war is not about killing the enemy, it is about 'winning hearts and minds' (translation: to make them 'like' us).

The scariest part of this is that the American military is now trained to fight only in pretend wars. That is all they know. So when a real, actual, kill or be killed, no holds barred war breaks out with China, which I believe is coming, the American military will be unprepared. Especially if we have far-Left activists like Milley, and so many more just like him all over D.C., running it. When China acts militarily on a global scale, the very first thing the current 'leaders' controlling the military will do, is to try to figure out how much, and which allies America has to give up to them to "make Peace".

If we'd been allowed to fight the wars you mentioned without political interference they'd have been ended much sooner and in our favor.  Especially Iraq and Afghanistan.

[240B]

If we'd been allowed to fight the wars you mentioned without political interference they'd have been ended much sooner and in our favor.  Especially Iraq and Afghanistan.

I know.
When a war with China starts, they will roll over American forces, bogged down with ridiculous ROEs, like they are not even there. China along with most other nations, does not have ROEs. China is not trying to make the enemy 'like' them. China, like WWII, is going to kill and destroy everything until the enemy is no longer able to fight. This is the historical definition of war throughout all of history until America changed it. America's twisted definition of war is actually what is called 'nation building'. Nation building is supposed to happen after a war is won with finality, not while the war is ongoing.

[mystery-ak]

If we'd been allowed to fight the wars you mentioned without political interference they'd have been ended much sooner and in our favor.  Especially Iraq and Afghanistan.

Exactly!

[Right_in_Virginia]

If we'd been allowed to fight the wars you mentioned without political interference they'd have been ended much sooner and in our favor.  Especially Iraq and Afghanistan.

The military complex has not been invested in victory -- of any kind -- since WWII.

[txradioguy]

I know.
When a war with China starts, they will roll over American forces, bogged down with ridiculous ROEs, like they are not even there. China along with most other nations, does not have ROEs. China is not trying to make the enemy 'like' them. China, like WWII, is going to kill and destroy everything until the enemy is no longer able to fight. This is the historical definition of war throughout all of history until America changed it. America's twisted definition of war is actually what is called 'nation building'. Nation building is supposed to happen after a war is won with finality, not while the war is ongoing.

QFT

No one will ever convince me any different that it was our stupid ROE's in Iraq and Afghanistan that killed more soldiers than the Taliban or al Qaeda ever did.

[txradioguy]

The military complex has not been invested in victory -- of any kind -- since WWII.

The military wants to win...the soldiers on the ground fighting want to win.  Where things get bogged down is politicians and the politics they play with our lives when we're in a combat zone.

[mystery-ak]

The military wants to win...the soldiers on the ground fighting want to win.  Where things get bogged down is politicians and the politics they play with our lives when we're in a combat zone.

Mike says dittos!

[240B]

The military complex has not been invested in victory -- of any kind -- since WWII.

This is why we are hearing so much chatter about a 'draft' lately. Korea and Vietnam were warnings, but Afghanistan and Iraq sealed the deal. America simply cannot or will not 'win' a war. Military leaders know that it will be almost impossible to raise an army for the next 'police action' or 'military conflict' or whatever newspeak word they decide to call it. Today, the American military is passe'.

There are hundreds of nations all over the world just praying that America will 'declare war' on them. They know it will bring them billions of dollars, new infrastructure and buildings, and tons of leftover vehicles and military gear.

[Bigun]

If we'd been allowed to fight the wars you mentioned without political interference they'd have been ended much sooner and in our favor.  Especially Iraq and Afghanistan.

And you can add Vietnam to that list as well!

[txradioguy]

And you can add Vietnam to that list as well!

 

[txradioguy]

This is why we are hearing so much chatter about a 'draft' lately. Korea and Vietnam were warnings, but Afghanistan and Iraq sealed the deal. America simply cannot or will not 'win' a war. Military leaders know that it will be almost impossible to raise an army for the next 'police action' or 'military conflict' or whatever newspeak word they decide to call it. Today, the American military is passe'.

There are hundreds of nations all over the world just praying that America will 'declare war' on them. They know it will bring them billions of dollars, new infrastructure and buildings, and tons of leftover vehicles and military gear.

What we need is a President who recognizes the threats to our left and right and rebuilds our military the way Reagan did. 

""There is a bear in the woods. For some people, the bear is easy to see. Others don't see it at all. Some people say the bear is tame. Others say it's vicious and dangerous. Since no one can really be sure who's right, isn't it smart to be as strong as the bear? If there is a bear."

[Ghost Bear]

The first Gulf War (the one to liberate Kuwait) was the only war in my lifetime (57 years) where our military was allowed to go all out, IMHO. Which tells you something about the priorities of our Washington elite, I think. Win to further the interests and goals of the USA? Not allowed. Win to rescue the asses of some Middle Eastern oil oligarchs? Go for it!

[Right_in_Virginia]

The military wants to win...the soldiers on the ground fighting want to win.  Where things get bogged down is politicians and the politics they play with our lives when we're in a combat zone.

Politicians aren't the only ones playing with the lives of enlisted men and women.   The military brass is just as guilty.  There is no money ito be made in victory.

[berdie]

The first Gulf War (the one to liberate Kuwait) was the only war in my lifetime (57 years) where our military was allowed to go all out, IMHO. Which tells you something about the priorities of our Washington elite, I think. Win to further the interests and goals of the USA? Not allowed. Win to rescue the asses of some Middle Eastern oil oligarchs? Go for it!

As unpopular as Colin Powell is today, I will post this none the less.

The Powell Doctrine said to define a goal...achieve it...and leave. (As I recall)

Somewhere along the line this was discarded. It's a shame that wasn't used in Korea, Viet Nam (yes I know those predate him), Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Absalom]

From our Founding until 1917, 125 years passed during which we were defined by various attitudes and
behaviors, among them, hard work, insularity, thrift, inventiveness, risk taking, simplicity; among many traits.
Then in 1917, our WH Bozo-in-Chief decided that we must 'save the world for democracy' and so we entered
the Great War, which was never any of our dam business.
That fateful event changed us and the world forever; still reverberating across the globe at this very moment.
As a result, our politics shifted from a domestic to an international focus, a characteristic, self-evident daily.
Further, this has easily ensnared our military, a substantial portion of whom see this focus as the key to career advancement.
The cold reality is that West Point and Annapolis produced the Military Leaders required during the years necessary
for us to develop into a self-sustaining nation/state.
Now that entity is the Pentagon which is nothing more an another of the dozens of political bureaucracies which infest DC.
Repeating, we get the rule/system we tolerate.
 
 

[LegalAmerican]

America’s Generals Lied, Lost Wars, And Looted The People They Claimed To Serve

Military leaders failed to properly account for their own efforts, misled the public, and then racked up cushy paychecks after the war. They deserve to be punished.

By Josiah Lippincott
August 6, 2021

Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress in June that he wanted to understand “white rage,” why “thousands of people” tried “to assault this building and … overturn the Constitution of the United States of America.”

If Milley really wants to understand the “rage” of the American people he should start by asking why he and his fellow generals can’t win any wars. As a Marine Corps officer who served at the tail end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I saw firsthand the rapid ideological transformation pervading the military in the wake of these disasters in the Middle East.

Unable to win wars overseas, the military’s leaders went “woke.” Currying ideological favor is easier than trying to end insurgencies. It is also necessary if military leaders want to keep the gravy train of taxpayer funding. Donald Trump’s America First foreign policy and his devastating critique of George Bush and Barack Obama in the run-up to the 2016 election put the military-industrial complex on high alert. Trump was pushing the American right-wing away from the expensive and unending foreign interventions the military-industrial complex needed in order to justify its existence.

more
https://thefederalist.com/2021/08/06/americas-generals-lied-lost-wars-and-looted-the-people-they-pledged-to-serve/

Yes and now SEC. OF DEFENSE...LLOYD AUSTIN..is pushing C.R.T. on military, purging all conservatives and supports BLM and gayness.  He has a mental issue and is 'woke' and I say on the down low.  DEMOCRAT.

[LegalAmerican]

Politicians aren't the only ones playing with the lives of enlisted men and women.   The military brass is just as guilty.  There is no money ito be made in victory.

 

[Fishrrman]

240b wrote:
"So when a real, actual, kill or be killed, no holds barred war breaks out with China, which I believe is coming, the American military will be unprepared. Especially if we have far-Left activists like Milley, and so many more just like him all over D.C., running it."

The Chinese can win a conventional, no-holds-barred ground war.
We can't.

If there ever is a "real war" with China, it will go nuclear -- because there will be no other way for our side to win.

It will either become nuclear very early on... or as a "last resort" when we know we're facing defeat.

Kind of like Hemingway's character's description of bankruptcy:
"First, gradually, then... suddenly."

[Fishrrman]

berdie wrote:
"As unpopular as Colin Powell is today, I will post this none the less.
The Powell Doctrine said to define a goal...achieve it...and leave. (As I recall)"

NO !!!
General Norman Schwarzkopf complained of Powell, "he has no stomach for war".

I believe Schwarzkopf...

[Smokin Joe]

The military wants to win...the soldiers on the ground fighting want to win.  Where things get bogged down is politicians and the politics they play with our lives when we're in a combat zone.

You are right, of course. The Military won virtually every engagement in Vietnam, only to have the media and the politicians lose the war.Had LeMay been allowed to bomb the massed Chinese troops across the Yalu, Korea could have been a definitive victory, and millions spared living and dying under the communist bootheel in the North. Et cetera.

The sacrifices our guys (and gals) made in Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan (and elsewhere) have been treated shabbily by the politicians. The actions of the Flag ranks at the Pentagon only underscore the politicians contempt for those who risk all for this country.

[LegalAmerican]

berdie wrote:
"As unpopular as Colin Powell is today, I will post this none the less.
The Powell Doctrine said to define a goal...achieve it...and leave. (As I recall)"

NO !!!
General Norman Schwarzkopf complained of Powell, "he has no stomach for war".

I believe Schwarzkopf...

Powell PRETENDED to be a republican.  When divisive Obama ran for office, he became demon-rat.  That is the problem with most of those who are black. They support, vote for SKIN...all the time.