Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Albert
Trapper John,
Do you actually think that the outcome in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan is the desired end product? Is this the result of the "military industrial complex"or "chrony capitalism" feeding itself?
I think that politicians have a different yardstick they live by. For them to throw thousands of solders' lives away for the same outcome is sick and or criminal. If the outcome that we are getting is the same then the fault lays at the feet of the appointed generals and elected politicians. The emphasis is on "appointed and elected". Being appointed doesn't insure the general is technically proficient just political acceptable to whatever administration in power. An election is a beauty contest for lying scumbags. When you mix the two, any decisions they make together will assuredly be flawed over and over again.
Have you ever noticed when a war starts there's a purge of senior generals. These are the politically appointees who are incompetent and incapable of doing what their office requires. At the end of the war, politician again promotes/appoint politically desirable officers as a payback and the circular firing squad continues.
In the 1980's, I remember the process of appointing a new AG here. I knew all of the contenders well enough to know who were competent and who were not. The democrat governor appointed the only democrat and least militarily competent. The remaining contender were later forced to retire. I've been bitter toward the process of appointed officers since then.
|
Your thinking too narrowly. Think of the outcome in terms of economic cost - increasing national debt, or in terms of the societal effect - division and polarization. These are the much broader effects of policy. Maybe these are the desired outcomes?
Follow the money.
