A group of 26 former senior diplomats and military officials

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
You defer to him because of his experience and because you know him.

I just turned on my computer and suddenly my ears started to burn so I thought I'd figure out the source. I thought I might add my 2 pfennigs on this. Acually NDD and I have never met but I think I can say with some level of confidence that I know him from a professional standpoint based on what he represents to me as a Special Forces soldier with exceptional skills. I know that I could depend on him and I know that I would do everything I could to ensure that I met my responsibilities to ensure that we accomplished whatever task we might have should I ever have the priviledge of serving with him. But actually, I never have been hung up on titles or rank because I know full well, that at least in terms of officers, titles and rank are never acheived alone but as a result of a lot of folks that worked with you or in spite of you to accomplish the mission. Let me put it another way, no officer ever accomplished anything by himself so when you see titles and rank you are seeing the end result of efforts by a lot of folks and the measure of that man's success is really a measure of the company he keeps-at least in Special Forces. Now I am not saying that we do not have our shitbirds, nor am I saying that folks don't get carried along thru politics or who they know vice what they do, but all in all, in our business I would like to think that is rarer than in the conventional army. You see, SF soldiers just will not tolerate incompetence and they will weed them out and send them packing. I have seen it done.
So unless you really know the person in question you are drawing your conclusions based on perceptions of what you think that title should represent based on your understanding of what that means to you. I think that might fall into the arena you legal guys like to call circumstantial evidence. So let me recommend a course of action here. While you can judge to some degree the level of success a person might have achieved by his rank or title you really can't judge the person, nor can you judge his credibility in subjects or skill sets unless you know specifically what he did or did not do. This may surprise you but I only take pride in the fact that I was able to work with and for SF soldiers and the fact that I finished my career as a colonel has a lot more to do with them then it does me. You see I always considered myself a soldier that just happened to be an officer and that leverage allowed me to use whatever power I could for one purpose and one purpose only-enable my soldiers to succeed. It was there success that allowed me to achieve whatever I wore on my collar or chest. IMHO real credibility is accorded to a person only by those who know him and not by his title or rank. The long and the short of it around this house is that rank/title has no effect, I still have to take out my own garbage.


Jack Moroney

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by Jack Moroney
But actually, I never have been hung up on titles or rank because I know full well, that at least in terms of officers, titles and rank are never acheived alone but as a result of a lot of folks that worked with you or in spite of you to accomplish the mission. Let me put it another way, no officer ever accomplished anything by himself so when you see titles and rank you are seeing the end result of efforts by a lot of folks and the measure of that man's success is really a measure of the company he keeps-at least in Special Forces. Now I am not saying that we do not have our shitbirds, nor am I saying that folks don't get carried along thru politics or who they know vice what they do, but all in all, in our business I would like to think that is rarer than in the conventional army. You see, SF soldiers just will not tolerate incompetence and they will weed them out and send them packing. I have seen it done.
So unless you really know the person in question you are drawing your conclusions based on perceptions of what you think that title should represent based on your understanding of what that means to you. I think that might fall into the arena you legal guys like to call circumstantial evidence. So let me recommend a course of action here. While you can judge to some degree the level of success a person might have achieved by his rank or title you really can't judge the person, nor can you judge his credibility in subjects or skill sets unless you know specifically what he did or did not do. This may surprise you but I only take pride in the fact that I was able to work with and for SF soldiers and the fact that I finished my career as a colonel has a lot more to do with them then it does me. You see I always considered myself a soldier that just happened to be an officer and that leverage allowed me to use whatever power I could for one purpose and one purpose only-enable my soldiers to succeed. It was there success that allowed me to achieve whatever I wore on my collar or chest. IMHO real credibility is accorded to a person only by those who know him and not by his title or rank. The long and the short of it around this house is that rank/title has no effect, I still have to take out my own garbage.


Jack Moroney

I agree with everything you've said, sir. My point is only that I find it helpful to know something about the background of someone expressing a political point of view. A mere "former" title is incomplete information, but it is at least some indication of whether the person's prior experience uniquely qualifies them to speak on a particular subject.

As I indicated in my first post above, I could care less what most former employees of the State Department have to say, at least as to most topics.

NDD, if you ever call me a lib again, I'll call you a Yankee college boy. I mean it. LOL

[Sacamuelas]

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer

NDD, if you ever call me a lib again, I'll call you a Yankee college boy. I mean it. LOL

OMG!!! LOL Must resist childish temptations....
That post is more tempting to most of the regulars on this site than it was for you to put that Bush flyer out in your yard in the land of libs. LOL

Maybe just a little hijack won't hurt.

"RL IS A LIB... RL IS A LIB.... RL IS A LIB... "

[NousDefionsDoc]

NDD, if you ever call me a lib again, I'll call you a Yankee college boy. I mean it. LOL

Lib

So I'm the only one that has a problem with this? Fine. Just to be clear once more, it is not partisanship. I don't like it when it comes from either side. It is not a call for censorship. I object not to their voicing their opinion, but to their use of titles to place their opinions above others and the allowing the use of their titles for political partisanship and political attacks.

I object to the implication that because someone is a retired diplomat or general, they are automatically experts. I object to the same in the use of "experts" on Fox and other channels.

I object to the sudden discovery of literally thousands of SMEs on terrorism and guerrilla warfare overnight now that there is a buck to made in it.

I object to Air Force Generals mentioning the word "guerrilla" when all they have is theory in a classroom. I object to the use of the word by ANYBODY who has never attending a class at the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and Home for Wayward Boys and then gone out and put it into practice in the jungle or the desert.

There are very few what I would call SMEs on terrorism and guerrilla warfare and some of them I know, most of the others I know of. There is more knowledge about these two subjects on a good A Team than in all the talking heads combined.

And I object to them acting like the pathetic man who's one shining and greatest moment was scoring the winning touchdown ina high school football game and then does nothing with the rest of his miserable life, yet has the unmitigated gall to call himself a FORMER athelete and criticize the players on the field.

So, to the Al Bundy Coalition for Change, I say STFU or put your helmet on and get back in the game.

Of course, that's just me, I could be wrong.

Colonel, that was one of the finest posts I have seen on the internet in a long time.

[Airbornelawyer]

It looks like all of the Ambassadors on that list are professional foreign service officers. The news reports seem to be trying to give these guys extra legitimacy by connecting them to the Reagan and Bush I administrations (imagine the same AP story citing instead of Matlock, "Amb. McHenry, who served as UN ambassador under Pres. Carter").

But what really seems to be the main theme is that they represent the foreign policy establishment. As noted in my post above, this is at best a "status quo" establishment (at worst a bunch of self-important wine-swilling cheeseheads who think navigating the cocktail and canape circuit is more important than advancing America's interests and who seem to view the role of ambassador as apologizing to foreigners for the actions of crass declassé Americans not fit for the august ranks of the Foreign Service).

I only know three of them personally - McHenry, Newsom and Oakley - though none very well. The Ambassadors Oakley have been pains in the ass to me and quite a few colleagues of mine for a long time in places ranging from Afghanistan to Somalia.

Of course, my low opinion of ambassadors long predated my first day of class at the School of Foreign Service, and goes back to the original Star Trek, where pretty much every ambassador was a pain in the ass.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Know what's really funny?

If you believe, as I do, that "War is a continuation of politics with the addition of other means." Or that conflict is the almost inevitable result of a failure at diplomacy:

When do soldiers have to do our jobs?

When the diplomats fail at theirs.

So what they're really saying is "We failed, but we don't like the way you are resolving our failure."

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Know what's really funny?

If you believe, as I do, that "War is a continuation of politics with the addition of other means." Or that conflict is the almost inevitable result of a failure at diplomacy:

When do soldiers have to do our jobs?

When the diplomats fail at theirs.

So what they're really saying is "We failed, but we don't like the way you are resolving our failure."

Good point, Yankee college boy.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Good point, Yankee college boy.

LOL - At least I'm not a lawyer.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
LOL - At least I'm not a lawyer.

OK, you win. LMAO

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer

NDD, if you ever call me a lib again, I'll call you a Yankee college boy. I mean it. LOL

F**king Lib...

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by Greenhat
F**king Lib...

...ertarian.

[myclearcreek]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Colonel, that was one of the finest posts I have seen on the internet in a long time.

...and the very best example of why I keep reading threads here.

Thank you, Sir.

Rhonda

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
...ertarian.

Libertarian? Who thinks Abraham Lincoln was our greatest President?

RL, you are certainly not a libertarian.

[QRQ 30]

Why the surprise? This is election year and that is a political move -- period.

DNC = Da National Communists!!

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by Greenhat
Libertarian? Who thinks Abraham Lincoln was our greatest President?

RL, you are certainly not a libertarian.

Not in the pure sense like you, that's true. But on many issues.