Obama vs. the Generals

[BMT (RIP)]

Alluding to Carl von Clausewitz’s famous maxim, another recently retired senior general voiced similar frustration. “If war is ‘the continuation of policy,’ I’d like to know what that policy is—so I can avoid screwing it up, or wasting lives for no purpose.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/obama-vs-the-generals-99379.html#ixzz2kiYsZFc6


BMT

[Javadrinker]

sort of like the attitudes between Hitler and his generals ...

[Oldrotorhead]

Policy! Looks to me like Ben and Jerry's flavor of the month. Decisions at the policy level seem to be reactions to events. Maybe if someone played less golf, hoops and cards there would be time to make a coherant policy. This President could be a love child of Little dickey Nixon and Jimmy Carter.:eek:

[Box]

I think Americans are far more ambivalent about our government than they are about "war". Am I the only one that finds it odd that a president would think we are “ambivalent” about war? So what subset of Americans is ambivalent? Is it the group watching their mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters fly off to die? Is it the elitist who has his children safe and secure in a high priced college, drinking, partying, and doing keg stands for ACA advertisements? Clearly they are not ambivalent; they don’t even call it ‘war’ they call it a contingency operation. They also don’t recognize terrorism, only man-made disasters. Do we really have positive feelings about war? It seems like you are either with it or against it. I cannot believe that Americans are ambivalent about war. Once more for the cheap seats…
…I cannot believe that Americans are ambivalent about war.

Americans rarely want to go to war to solve a problem and when Americans are ready to go to war, we are normally full-on ready to go and stomp a mud hole in someone’s ass. However, Americans don't want to send their children to fight and die because of FAILed diplomacy.

Let me describe that again...
...failed diplomacy.

We go to war because our politicians have FAILed to find a solution and they ran out of peaceful ideas. When diplomats FAIL to offer a peaceful solution, we have a contest to see who can stomach the most death. War isn't about body counts; war is about which civilization can accept the most amount of loss before they concede. Some folks will roll over and give up at the sight of a parade rifle, others will not give up until a bayonet blade drains away their last breath.
…but neither of those two extremes are ‘ambivalent’

On the other hand, when politicians fail at diplomacy, they usually trump up the amount of attention given to economic problems so the masses don’t realize that our politicians have gotten us mired down in a war that we didn’t want. “Lower my taxes” and “Pay for my health care” takes the place of “2 Ft Bragg based Soldiers were killed when an IED exploded” and “4000 people in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen killed in drone strikes”
…old news is boring

However, for the few people that keep the pressure on the war, the blame can be shifted to military leaders for failing to prosecute the war according to foreign policy. Americans don’t know any better; why else would we fire generals?
It must be because they fucked up the war!!!!
Most civilians seem to think that civilians are only in charge when it comes to discussing mandating 10 days of uncharged leave for gay military couples, or putting Tridents on female SEALs, so why not just run with it? Everything else can be blamed on the flag officers!!!
THAT is the stuff ambivalence is made of.

Afghanistan takes a bad turn? The Arab spring gets out of hand? Syria crosses the Rubicon and employs WMD against civilians?
Shit guys, we’re in trouble again; leak a story to shift the news cycle.
Presto change-O, the economy is in the news:
-“Obamacare sucks, but the ACA is going to pay for my birth control”
-“Obamacare sucks, but if I get hurt in a drunken fraternity stunt doing keg stands at the dorm, the ACA will cover my bills”
THAT is the stuff ambivalence is made of.

When the economy crashes, or the god damned web site won’t work, politicians go after some random social cause so the news cycle can be redirected agaijn. That we won’t see how badly their failed diplomacy and poor math skills have fucked up the economy as well as the war effort…
“Stay out of my bedroom”, “Stop listening to my cell phone”, and “Stay away from my guns” can easily take the place of “Lower my taxes” and “Pay for my health care”
THAT is the stuff ambivalence is made of.

But to say “Americans are deeply ambivalent about war” is just plain silly.
…put one of those dope smoking hippy motherfuckers on a C-17 bound for OEF and see if they are still ambivalent about war when the thin layer of Kevlar replaces the tailored Brooks Brothers suit




Rant mode deactivated; we now return you to our regularly scheduled programing

[Sigaba]

MOO, the statement that Americans are ambivalent about war is historiographically sustainable and, IME, often a teaching point in classes on America's military experience.

Broadly speaking, the ambivalence manifests itself in the centuries' old practice of wartime mobilization, a general indifference (if not outright hostility) among civlilians and elected political leaders to the professions of arms--especially the army, the constant gap between strategic culture and political culture when it comes to talking about warfare--especially since America's "rise to globalism" in the 1890s, and the militarization of American mass popular culture in which conventions of armed service are appropriated rather than appreciated.

My $0.02.

[Box]

You are entitled to your opinion but I dont share your opinion.

Your example sounds more like the ambivalence shown towards the military and not so much like ambivalence to warfare. I have grown accustomed to ambivalence and hostility from politicians, the media, and members of academia because they generally think they are better than everyone else.

The reason people are ambivalent or even hostile towards the military is EXACTLY because they are NOT ambivalent to war. They are hostile and ambivalent towards the Soldier because of what the Soldier represents in war:
loss
tragedy
violence
oppression
death
destruction

People are hardly ambivalent to these things regardless of what may or may not be historically sustainable.

Dope smoking hippies during the 60's were ambivalent to the military because those same dope smoking hippies OPPOSED the war. Media whores, liberal politicians, progressive activists and theoretical academics that know war only from what they read watch on MSNBC may be ambivalent and hostile to our current military force, but they are almost unanimously opposed to armed intervention in any location if it means that they must swap their student ID or press-badge for body armor and a MICH.
Opposed and Ambivalent mean different things to me.

Ambivalence towards the player is not the same thing as ambivalence towards the game. I am ambivalent towards the Red Sox. I'm not ambivalent towards baseball.

Again, you are welcome to your opinion.

[The Reaper]

You are entitled to your opinion but I dont share your opinion.

Your example sounds more like the ambivalence shown towards the military and not so much like ambivalence to warfare. I have grown accustomed to ambivalence and hostility from politicians, the media, and members of academia because they generally think they are better than everyone else.

The reason people are ambivalent or even hostile towards the military is EXACTLY because they are NOT ambivalent to war. They are hostile and ambivalent towards the Soldier because of what the Soldier represents in war:
loss
tragedy
violence
oppression
death
destruction

People are hardly ambivalent to these things regardless of what may or may not be historically sustainable.

Dope smoking hippies during the 60's were ambivalent to the military because those same dope smoking hippies OPPOSED the war. Media whores, liberal politicians, progressive activists and theoretical academics that know war only from what they read watch on MSNBC may be ambivalent and hostile to our current military force, but they are almost unanimously opposed to armed intervention in any location if it means that they must swap their student ID or press-badge for body armor and a MICH.
Opposed and Ambivalent mean different things to me.

Ambivalence towards the player is not the same thing as ambivalence towards the game. I am ambivalent towards the Red Sox. I'm not ambivalent towards baseball.

Again, you are welcome to your opinion.

Wow.

That was really good, brother.

Thanks.

TR

[Richard]

Definition of AMBIVALENCE -

1: simultaneous and contradictory attitudes or feelings (as attraction and repulsion) toward an object, person, or action

2 a: continual fluctuation (as between one thing and its opposite)
b: uncertainty as to which approach to follow

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ambivalence

I'm not sure, but might one consider an argument that Americans have, indeed, shown an "ambivalence" towards war - the event itself, the practicioners, the ralliers, the decriers, the failed or deceptive politics - until they, themselves, are directly involved in it as participants at some personal emotional level from experiencing it as a service member; a parent; through personal, familial, or community loss; with a test of faith to one's core philosophical beliefs; from forcefully applied constituent pressure; etc?

Were it not so, why would America have to "sell" its march to war as some form of major advertising campaign to get John Q Public, at large, to "buy it" and continue its renewal until our political leaders determine it's over?

I'm trying to recall where I've seen this comment before: "The military is at war while America is at the mall." :confused:

Personally, I think the definition of "ambivalence" fits the argument.

Richard

[afchic]

I personally think the thing that is getting lost in this argument, is in this case, the military isn't special. This article was run by Politico Magazine on Wednesday or Thursday. The following da, there was a followup article about POTUS's relationship with his cabinet. Essentially, there is none. Obama has cloistered himself within a very small group of syncophants. They make the decisions. Those decisions are never based on what is good policy, but what is good politics.

Additionally, there was an article in Foreign Policy Magazine a couple of weeks ago entitled "The Unattending Gardner" that speaks.to POTUS lack of any personal, close relationship with any world leader, and how that is effecting things around the world. No one knows how to gage this man, and what hus decisions may be on a given subject, other than the decision is not a policy decision, it is a political one. Sensing a trend here.

This POTUS is truly the campaigner in chief. He has no.wish to govern, only to campaign. I believe he will go down as one of the worst President's in history. But it will not be because he doesn't appreciate or care for the military, although that is a part. It will be because he is just incapable.of developing relationships with ANYONE who is not a syncophant of his.

With Obamacare, the democrats are just now starting to see that lightbulb go on. Mark my words, he is now a lame duck President that does not have the backing of enough red state democrats, due to re-election issues. There will be no more serious legislation from this President; immigration, environmental, to name a couple.

[Trapper John]

What concerns me after reading this article is the apparent degree to which O has isolated himself for all the reasons that afchic has mentioned. The reason that this concerns me so much is that once an ego-maniacal, narcissistic personality type becomes marginalized like O is becoming - temper tantrums are the usual result. In a child, or civilian adult that can be managed if recognized soon enough. But the POTUS? Well that is potentially a very, very dangerous set of circumstances and there are many triggers and opportunities for really disastrous outcomes. O is like any petty tyrant and the outcomes from his behaviors are predicable - unfortunately none of them are good.

[Badger52]

Rant mode deactivated; ...That's a very eloquent 'switch' you have there sir. A nice shiny mirror, thanks.