Has anybody else been getting tired of all these armchair generals (and colonels, majors, captains, even sergeants) monday morning quarterbacking on various TV channels? 95% of them sound about as stupid as dennis miller did trying to be funny and sound knowledgeable on football. Now how many years of active duty service does anybody think this retired sergeant really had? 3-5 years maybe? And how many battles, wars or even just skirmishes did that sergeant plan, let alone study or debrief on? Probably zero, zip, nada. I' m not saying the sergeant or any of these other morons can' t have or express their own opinion BUT, and this is a huge BUT, I do not believe these morons should be trotted out as experts when it' s quite obvious they don' t even know shinola about the subject matter.
I' ve mainly watched Fox News with a little bit of MSNBC, CNN and ABC thrown in. Fox has a couple of good retired military analysts but the rest on fox are too stupid to even listen to. Pretty much all of the ex-military types on the other networks are beyond stupid. One network has been putting on this guy who runs a global security company of all things and then asking him about military tactics and WMD' s. He' s a friggin bodyguard for crying out loud & doesn' t know jack about the military. Then he opens his mouth and proves it.
Many of the reporters are not much better either. I watch the news to see footage that I cannot get while staying here in the U.S. I also want to hear what the troops have to say, how the war is going and things like that. In the first gulf war, we saw a whole lot of footage with the combat sounds left in and only enough commentary to properly identify whatever building or area we were looking at. In this war, the actual combat sound is turned off and we get to hear some idiot talking head or armchair general trying to tell us how they think the war should be run. Give me the facts you morons, not your worthless opinions.
Has anybody truly thought about the apparent strategy many armchair generals and reporters think we should have adopted? You know. the strategy in which we should have stopped our forward momentum (this means our attack) for every single little city, town, group of tents, etc. where any fedayeen, suicide idiots or other misguided morons decides they want to attack our troops and commit suicide. After all, according to these so-called experts, we cannot conduct an attack when we have anybody hostile running around our rear lines. first, we must counterattack, suppress and defeat these hostiles in our rear areas. Only then can we continue to attack. This is pure and unadulterated Bull$***.
If our generals were stupid enough to use this idiotic thought process, we would have never won any skirmishes, battles or wars. Yes, you want to protect your supply lines. You need those supplies to fight a war. However, you cannot stop your forward attack to root out all enemy opposition in your rear supply area before continuing the attack. If we had done that, we would have never made D-Day cause we would have been too busy tracking down and sinking every last german sub operating in the Atlantic and sinking our cargo ships. We would have never attacked the ***anese, Italians or any other nations in WWI or II since there are always some enemy trying to cause havoc in your rear supply area. Just think about how our prosecution of the Vietnam war would have been even more messed up if we insisted on such an idiotic strategy.
Fox has a special forces captain who provides some interesting insights into special forces tactics, capabilities and missions. This guy is one of their better military experts, however, the guy quickly gets out of his league when he tries discussing theater size operations. It' s not his fault for not having the training that goes with a higher rank but it is his fault for opening his dumb mouth about things he obviously doesn' t know about or understand.
Many of these armchair generals and newsmedia idiots also think this war is " bogging down," not progressing quickly enough or somehow not successful enough. WTF!!!!! I' ve studied quite a bit of military history and cannot honestly recall any country or coalition making this much progress in such a short amount of time. Do these idiots even realize what we have accomplished militarily in less than 2 weeks? Have they even bothered to compare it to Gulf War 1 accurately? Obviously not.
We spent weeks just bombing Iraq in gulf War 1 before we even began ground operations. We spent a few days in Gulf War II and eliminated the Iraqis anti-air defense capability to the point where they have not been able to shoot down our aircraft or missiles. Our ground forces spent a few days in Gulf War I mainly accepoting Iraqi troops surrender. In Gulf War II, we have driven a hundred miles into Iraq while defeating regular troops who are actively fighting us. In less than 2 weeks, we have driven almost 200 miles into Iraq, surrounded her capital and are invading the capital as we speak. So far, I believe we have less than 100 KIA and the # may even be under 50. That is simply unheard of in ANY war. No matter which means you use to assess this war, it is quite simply one of the most successfully prosecuted wars in history so far.
Just look at the apparent coalition strategy that all of these so-called experts are bashing. Anybody who sits back and analyzes what apparent battle plans the coalition military leaders have used can quickly piece together a fairly coherent and accurate plan. i' ve listed 10 apparent components that can easily be noted while watching coverage on just about any of the networks if you sift thru their BS opinions and just look at the facts.
1. Prebomb any targets with command and control, communications, anti-aircraft, radar, missile or artillery capability. In other words, try to cut off the head of the snake and eliminate the leaders BEFORE you start the ground attack.
2. Drive fast and hard with your ground campaign. It draws out the opposing troops so your air power can help destroy them and enables you to cause havoc with your armor.
3. Military leaders since before Ghengis Khan have traditionally bypassed large & hostile cities since it' s easier to conquer the countryside first and then starve or lay siege to a city.
4. Historically, many cities capitulate before a heavy siege is laid.
5. Iraq is a special case since most Iraqis fighting will only do so while saddam is alive. Capture or kill saddam and you eliminate a majority of the remaining opposition.
6. The more Iraqi troops and military equipment that can be destroyed while outside of cities, the less chance of having to fight in the cities. In other words, it' s far easier to destroy them outside of the cities.
7. By dropping millions of leaflets to Iraqi citizens telling them you only want to eliminate their sadistic leader and render saddam' s military ineffective, you encourage the support of all of the oppressed people who want something better for their people and make allies of them instead of enemies who are defending their homeland. We absolutely HAVE to follow thru with this in helping the Iraqis choose their own freely elected government so they can rule themselves.
8. Root out saddam' s goon squads from within the cities WITH Iraqis help. this will be a 100 times easier if we bypass these pockets of resistance, keep them loosely cordoned off and wait till we capture or kill saddam before enlisting the help of Iraqis to weed out these scumbags.
9. Provide medical care for a population that desperately needs it from long mistreatment and the war. Restore electricity, power and other infrastructure that saddam' s goons so stupidly destroyed.
10. Help create an infrastructure where Iraqis can create and have jobs to provide for their families. Give a man dignity so he can be proud of his existence and see a brighter future for his family.
These things are not my opinion. Anybody watching the news and reading between the hyperbole and hype of the idiot newscasters can see this basic plan and its' elements. I' m sure the coalition leaders have alittle more to their plan but this seems to be what is in place and being used so far.
In My Humble Opinion, I think this is definitely the way to go. It not only reduces the # of Iraqi civilian casualties but also reduces the # of coalition casualties. We are fighting smarter and will end up with the Iraqis finishing their own liberation which is as it should be. In essence, this type of military plan speeds up the war and concludes it much quicker with less destruction and loss of life. It' s a win-win for everybody but saddam and his whores france, germany and russia. So how come I can figure this basic stuff out and all these overpaid armchair generals and savant idiot newscasters can' t??? Hmmmmmm.........
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
I agree Calhunter, during one report on TV, I didn' t actually see it but heard it just the same. Sounded like the football analysts do before a superbowl game, I couldn' t believe what I was hearing, ran into the room to check the TV, just in case, Mad TV was on or something.
I agree Cal, most of the retired goons are anywhere from capt. to 1 or 2 star Generals. I' m pretty sure Tommy Franks has 4 stars. That makes him a little more qualified in my book.
2) Like you said anything these guys think up,I' m pretty sure the DoD has already went over those senarios @ least once.
3) The best quote I' ve seen from the war was on Fox where they interviewed an unnamed Sargent.He said(not exact words) that anyone second guessing what we' re doing," I' ve got a seat and weapon for them in the back of my L.A.V.,come on over and show us how to do it."
P.S. Is everyone getting tired of the little computer board they keep pointing to?
There is a reason for these people being " Retired" as O5 to O8, they weren' t good enough to make the grade beyond for whatever reason.
Have you noticed the lack of appearences by Generals like Schwartzkopf (sp) or any of the other leaders that really made a difference?
I was in the Coast Guard. All my time was an active duty, Yeoman First Class (E-6). I served from 1979 - 1996. I took the new early retirement package that Congress approved back in ' 96 to help alleviate the " top heavy" feel to the services. A serviceman could do 15 years and retire. After desperately trying to make E-7, I saw the writing on the wall and after 17 years, I took the early retirement.
As a retired veteran of the USCG, do I know about WMD? Heck no. I was a Yeoman. I handled military payroll and personnel records! Heck, the last time I fired the M-16 was 1979 in bootcamp!!! Do I spout off about military affairs? No. I keep my mouth shut and my ears open, so I can learn about what our troops are doing. They all have my full support!!
I think it is too much news and to many " experts" that all want to say or get paid to say" something" .
I' ve been out of the military for 30 plus years and I certainly don' t know what they can do and only imagine what things they have developed for the basic figthing solider. As fast as things change, 2 or 3 years changes the picture.
Some of these guys know what they are talking about and the others are just talking.
I e-mailed a board member the other day because I saw some things being done that shocked me as poor training or application of what should or could have been taught. I did not discuss it on the forum because I thought it would be seen as critical of the troops.
Since I don' t know what trianing these Troops have and don' t know if the things Im seeing are in accord with the proper training proceedures, it is best to limit my opinion to a small audience that can relate to my thinking.
These " experts" are being paid to evaluate and help us understand. Some do it well others are very poor at the job. Unfortunately I thnk the majority are not as well informed as they would have us believe.
I think the Breifings are an excellent way to keep up with whats going on with the troops and progress. Not too much escapes the jaws of the press.
__________________
Now you have to picture a combination of PeeWEE Herman and Wally Cox but with less muscle tone, trying to be intimidating None of this is funny! Message edited by Cougar Mag -- 1/7/2005 1:16:42 AM >/b]
I have to say though, that I took heart in the fact that even on CNN some of our previous military people spoke up and flatly contradicted the obviously leading questions that were thrown at them in an attempt to color America as evil.
Jet blast,I was NAVY during Gulf War,so I' ve served my country and do have the right as we all do to our opinions,not to say that I degrade those prior military for there commentary,but like most in the military we do as ordered and know that the higher rank means they been through more than I so They usually know what they' re talking about.
What I see when I listen to these retirees is actually complete awe. They are having a terrible time predicting what will happen or how we will do things because we have come so far in a short amount of time. I spent 3 years as a senior line medic in an infantry battalion ( I was a Spc/e-4, which meant I was senior only to the 3 medics I had under me in a particular company- in other words I was just a basic peon!!!!!). We were just starting to train on the new tactics and equipment that our soldiers are using now. In fact we were one of the test batalions for the new computers and software they are using now. It was only 3 years ago- and seeing the actions on TV now- it' s amazing!!! They have now mastered what we just started training on 3 years ago[] It' s absolutely amazing and incredible!!!!! I was watching Fox and CNN the night we took the airport and when we ran through Bagdad- and the look I saw in these Retirees eyes were truly " SHOCK AND AWE" !!!!!!! Things that were mearly ideas and " plans" when they retireed are now common standard and " mastered" . To me it is basically like the air war during Desert Storm- if you remember the retired Airfoce generals were just as amazed at the capability of our air forces then- and at how far they had developed since they were last used. It' s the same with our ground forces now!!!!!! It' s simply amazing. I also sence a little jeolosy now from some of the retirees that we are in fact better now than when they were leading-and we also have the opportunity to fully use our ground forces now- something the army hasn' t been allowed to do in a long time!!!!
__________________
If you can read this- thank a teacher; if your reading it in English- thank a soldier..." Unknown
"We dedicate our training so that our enemy may have the chance to die for his country." John Baxley
Armchair Generals
] It' s absolutely amazing and incredible!!!!! I was watching Fox and CNN the night we took the airport and when we ran through Bagdad- and the look I saw in these Retirees eyes were truly " SHOCK AND AWE" !!!!!!! Things that were mearly ideas and " plans" when they retireed are now common standard and " mastered" . To me it is basically like the air war during Desert Storm- if you remember the retired Airfoce generals were just as amazed at the capability of our air forces then- and at how far they had developed since they were last used. It' s the same with our ground forces now!!!!!! It' s simply amazing. I also sence a little jeolosy now from some of the retirees that we are in fact better now than when they were leading-and we also have the opportunity to fully use our ground forces now- something the army hasn' t been allowed to do in a long time!!!!
