That is reasoning backward: If you have the best of everything else, it must mean you have the worst of leadership. (I don't spare the civilian leadership, either.)
There is also overwhelming evidence of the reasoning-forward type.
Here is a fine example, just out:
The Pentagon raised no objections with The Times before the article was published, and no senior American official had complained publicly about it until now. Some officials expressed hope at the time that some of the details in the article would sow fear in the ranks of the Islamic State by demonstrating that the United States could penetrate the group’s secrecy.And another, also just out. This one is a broadcast (on National Public Radio), so I cannot copy the ridiculous assertion, but if you listen at around the 8:40 mark you'll hear Andrew Exum, a junior Army officer with combat experience and now an academic (and formerly assistant deputy secretary of defense for policy), casually claim that "we" "defeated" "al Queda" in Iraq in 2007-8.
We lost that war. So badly that the world's most expensive, most powerful army was afraid to drive from the Baghdad airport to its fortress a few miles away.
It's like the American officer corps is personified by the Black Knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail."
So much wrong here.
ReplyDeleteThe United States hasn't won a war since 1945 despite always having more money and bigger guns.
Korea. Stopped the Red Chinese invading Formosa. The Cold War. The Balkans War. Desert Storm. Operation Iraqi Freedom.
but if you listen at around the 8:40 mark you'll hear Andrew Exum, a junior Army officer with combat experience and now an academic (and formerly assistant deputy secretary of defense for policy), casually claim that "we" "defeated" "al Queda" in Iraq in 2007-8.
What you fail to comprehend is that the US won the war, and the Iraqis lost the peace.
We handed them a chance to build themselves a civil society. They decided they'd rather murder each other instead.
Of all the subjects of which you are certain you know everything, but are completely unaware of the facts that can't get through your hate screen, this is the paramount.
'Stopped the Red Chinese invading Formosa.'
ReplyDeleteThat's really funny. According to the rightwingers of the time, what we stopped was Chiang reconquering China.
A good sample of the rank idiocy of the American military establishment
A good sample of the rank idiocy of the American military establishment
ReplyDeleteThis is a perfectly good example of your rank hatred.
This isn't about the "rightwingers", this is about results.
The US military stopped Red China invading Formosa. Now, unless you prefer even more people to be subject to the murdering caress of communism, that must be counted as a win.
Right?
Of course, you could well disagree. And by that we would see that you prefer totalitarian murder to US military success.
Bookmarked accordingly.
I don't prefer to have my taxes spent on incompetent, corrupt military officers.
ReplyDeleteIn the reality-based community, we recognize when we have been eaten and ask, why.
The United States hasn't won a war since 1945 despite always having more money and bigger guns.
ReplyDeleteThat is astonishingly wrong. I provided you with examples showing it wrong.
In the reality based community, of which you are not a member, because you are to busy spewing your unreasoning hatred to actually deal with any facts.
BTW, speaking of facts, have you figured out that decision to grant cert yet?
ReplyDelete'The US military stopped Red China invading Formosa.'
ReplyDeleteI am old enough to remember who stopped whom; the Navy was there to stop Chiang from toppling Red China, at least if you believed the rightwing crazies who wanted to 'unleash Chaing Kai-Shek.'
As I have reminded you more than once, we lost that war. The Us attempted to start a civil war in China, and in Russia, too. It's hard to imagine a more cruel and irresponsible course of action.
I notice, as well, that the United States was not disturbed by allowing the horrible Japanese to oppress the native Formosans.
I am old enough to remember who stopped whom; the Navy was there to stop Chiang from toppling Red China, at least if you believed the rightwing crazies who wanted to 'unleash Chaing Kai-Shek.'
ReplyDeleteBollocks, Harry. And all the rest of it, too. You keep trotting out that Russia thing, and keep coming up empty when pressed for evidence that it is anything other than a figment of your imagination.
But let's go to more something more recent.
It's like the American officer corps is personified by the Black Knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail."
Desert Storm. You are such an expert on military affairs and the US military officer corps, I am sure you can explain exactly its complete incompetence in very precise detail.
Actually, the exact opposite of that. I am quite certain your reasoning and knowledge goes no further than covering your monitor in hate spittle.
But, by all means, prove me wrong.
You have a short memory. As I have noted many times, Desert Storm was a failure for lack of infantry.
ReplyDeleteThe result of the partial drive (as in Korea) left a vulnerable population to be destroyed.
No wonder that when we came back the southern Shia wanted nothing to do with us or anyone associated with us.
You have a short memory. As I have noted many times, Desert Storm was a failure for lack of infantry.
ReplyDeleteWrong. Dead wrong. No matter how many times you note it.
The civilian leadership decided that Saddam would be deposed after the war; there was no reason to kill someone committing suicide.
And there is the problem that you have still to explain how such a thorough success up to that point resulted from incompetence.
No wonder that when we came back the southern Shia wanted nothing to do with us or anyone associated with us.
Just like a progressive to defend murderous Islam.
After Operation Iraqi Freedom -- another success -- the Iraqis had the perfect opportunity to build a civil society. They didn't. They preferred to slaughter each other.
So, as I anticipated, you are just showering spittle on your monitor.
Well, let's see who's a murderer. This happens to be from a letter to the editor of the London Review of Books last week. The same information is available elsewhere, and was available to you:
ReplyDeleteThe statistics on infant mortality in Iraq published by the UN Population Division showed a fall from 150 per thousand in 1950-53 to 60 per thousand in 1980-85, but a dramatic increase to 73 per thousand in 1990-95 and 94 per thousand in the ten years beginning in 1995, with under-five mortality at 124 per thousand. A Child and Maternal Mortality Survey conducted in 1999 showed a rise in under-five mortality from 63 per thousand in 1989 to 108 in 1991 and 111 in 1998, with infant mortality rising from 48 per thousand in 1989 to 94 per thousand in 1991 and 101 per thousand in 1998. Maternal mortality more than doubled, rising from 117 per thousand to 310 per thousand in 1994. Sanctions were only one of the causes of the increases, and should be regarded as a multiplier of the effects produced by the bombing of Iraqi infrastructure. With power stations destroyed, water and sewage systems ceased to operate. Rivers provided the only source of water, but were also carrying away sewage. ‘If the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s,’ Carol Bellamy, the executive director of Unicef, reported, ‘there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under five’ between 1991 and 1998.
Well, let's see who's a murderer.
ReplyDeleteYou rarely source your bloviations. On the exceedingly rare occasion that you actually do so, you promptly whinge when I criticize the cite.
This is by way of short circuiting that whingeing.
This is the lead in your Ranting the Odious post:
I have long contended that American military commanders are incompetents and have been since at least 1950. The United States hasn't won a war since 1945 despite always having more money and bigger guns.
Your cite is so completely off topic, so wide of the mark, as to make me wonder if someone else wrote it, and you never read it.
The horror of Iraq is undeniable. But this parade of statistics is without context. If it is at all relevant to your post, then there must have been some way of pursuing Desert Storm that would have achieved the political objectives, but with less damage to infrastructure.
Well, is there? Even with 20-20 hindsight?
If there isn't, and I'm going with that option, then your charge that US military commanders are incompetents stands as a perfect example of your rabid thought-slobbering.
DS was, in fact, a US victory.
Moreover, since it followed the precepts of Col John Warden's The Air Campaign, it achieved the political goals at a cost to both Iraqis and US forces at an astonishingly low cost to both sides.
Beyond that, it is obvious enough that progs have a crush on totalitarians — you have said as much many times at RtO. But it more than flabbers my gast that neither you, nor that commenter, could be fussed to perhaps, maybe, possibly, noted that Saddam's actions might have had some impact on those numbers.
Indeed he did, because he was still in control, and that was -- or should have been -- our choice. The US could have removed him, had we had a rational force structure and competent leadership.
ReplyDeleteI doubt the Iraqi conscripts who were killed in uncounted numbers in the air war would have concurred about the low casualties.
Mauldi had a caroon during the last war we won. A Tommy tells the GIs, 'You blokes leave a messy battlefield.'
Your response is completely unresponsive, while being completely stupid:
ReplyDeleteI doubt the Iraqi conscripts who were killed in uncounted numbers in the air war would have concurred about the low casualties.
Pro-tip: Iraqi conscripts aren't all of Iraq. Next pro-tip: The overarching US strategy for DS was to achieve the political goals of the war at the lowest over all cost.
Next pro-tip: Because I have extensive first hand knowledge on this point, I know exactly what I am talking about.
And the final pro-tip: You will not find a war that achieved its goals at lower overall cost to the defeated nation than DS.
And one more final pro-tip: No one who is not terminally syphilitic thinks the US didn't win DS. What is your excuse?
Mauldi had a caroon during the last war we won. A Tommy tells the GIs, 'You blokes leave a messy battlefield.'
A: Is there any such thing as a clean battlefield?
B: Were you drunk when you wrote that line?
It did not achieve its overall goals, since when it was "over" the US felt it had to continue offensive actions. Actions you have repeatedly said were unsustainable.
ReplyDeleteYou should read your own comments.
It did not achieve its overall goals, since when it was "over" the US felt it had to continue offensive actions.
ReplyDeleteThe military achieved the goals which the civilian leadership set, and which were entirely consistent with the war aims the entire coalition agreed upon.
I must ask again, are you drunk when you write these responses?
Actions you have repeatedly said were unsustainable.
You should read your own comments.
Your reading comprehension is, as usual, abysmal.
Goals imposed by the force structure, which was ridiculous -- nothing but armored divisions, because of fantasies about Russian invasions of Germany. And the incompetent fools didn't learn anything,since 12 years later when it was decided to invade Iraq there still wasn't any infantry, leading to an ignominious defeat
ReplyDeleteGoals imposed by the force structure, which was ridiculous ...
ReplyDeleteThat's as wrong as wrong can be.
I'll bet your next responses are all whingeing in the service of avoiding the fact that you will not be able to back that up with anything like a reliable source.
And the rest is just as nonsensical, but one thing at a time.
7 armored divisions
ReplyDeleteAnd?
ReplyDeleteDemonstrate how those armored divisions were incapable of meeting the Coalition's political goals for Desert Storm. Further, demonstrate how the US military failed to meet those political goals.
But before you do that, you need to outline exactly what those goals were.
Because otherwise you risk restating the obvious: you are an incompetent fool.
ReplyDelete(Speaking of: have you figured out the decision to grant cert yet?)
(Silence speaks volumes.)
ReplyDeleteNo infantry. Therefore no pursuit, no imposition of Coalition's goals on state foe.
ReplyDeleteIt used to be doctrine of the Army the the goal of military force was to impose one's will on the enemy. You ridiculed this, but it used to be doctrine.
Probably it isn't any more. It doesn't look like it.
The Coalition did not impose its will on Iraq, which, unsurprisingly, had extremely high costs in the long term.
No infantry. Therefore no pursuit, no imposition of Coalition's goals on state foe.
ReplyDeleteTwo fouls here: first, you have completely avoided explaining exactly what the Coalitions goals were.
Second: you have a great deal of explaining to do as to how armored divisions and air power cannot pursue and destroy in detail.
So, Harry, what were the Coalitions goals in DS?
If you can't figure that out, I'll be more than happy to help.
You ridiculed this, but it used to be doctrine.
Liar.
Sorry, left off some words:
ReplyDelete... cannot pursue and destroy in detail in the open desert.
You weren't there, you have absolutely no first hand knowledge of DS.
ReplyDeleteThat means either you have sources for your assessment, or you don't, and you are are claiming knowledge you can't possibly have.
I'm betting on the latter.
You are out of your depth. Pursuing a conscript army that was never going to fight accomplishes nothing except 1) killing helpless conscripts; 2) building up undying resentment among their tribes. Funny how that came back to bite us, aint it.
ReplyDeleteThe Republican Guard wasn't in the open desert, wasn't in flight and wasn't engaged.
The Republican Guard wasn't in the open desert, wasn't in flight and wasn't engaged.
ReplyDeleteBollocks, Harry.
No wait. More bollocks. And yet more bollocks.
Don't you ever get tired of being epically wrong?
Oh, by the way, ... you have completely avoided explaining exactly what the Coalitions goals were.
Do you need help with that, or will you be able to find out on your own?
Silence is speaking volumes.
ReplyDelete