Obama's Military Problem And How The Original Vietnam War Started It

That would be my concern since such problems have plagued all societies that acquire great power.

Bill:

So, in essence, your answer is the Democrats get what they deserve? Think about this from the other side. If Obama lavishes the military with more money than God should he gain the allegiance of what was a neutral institution that carried out orders? My argument is that when a society stops drawing its soldiers from the general population from conscription you create a distinctly military class which is what our Founding Fathers were trying to avoid because of Europe's use of their national militaries to kill public citizens. If you disagree with this, give me a reasoned argument as opposed to hollering "Bullsh*t!" and being done with it.

Bill:

Compare conscript armies around the world today with the US military. No comparison. End of argument.

That's a force argument. I conceded in the article that our military is an efficient machine because it isn't clogged up with people that don't want to be there or aren't skilled at that career. I made the logical conclusion that that transition came with political ramifications that we are only seeing now as the first major war of invasion after Vietnam is being pushed by the public and the politicians it elected to end.

Here's an example. My grandpa is a Korea vet. The army he fought in had very few people that would have agreed that MacArthur, despite his prestige, had the right to disobey the president by publicly towing a different line than his direct commander and did not deserve to be sacked. Would the army take the sacking of Petraeus differently? I suspect it would based solely on the composition of the army today as compared to the Korean War era army.

Bill:

Well Scott I'm glad you finally came out and admitted that your real reason for writing this mess was so you could join the rest of the ignorant and vile mother@!$%#ers slandering General Petraeus

1. I am not a vile mother@!$%#er.

2. I am not slandering Petraeus. He holds a position of as equal of rank as I can think of to compare today to Korea.

general's recommendations which are simply designed to address what he sees as the proper force structure to maintain the gains made in Iraq.

If you were as knowledgeable as you portray yourself to be about Tom Ricks you would know that Ricks' position is that the Surge won no gains. It was a smart tactical decision but the ultimate aim of political conciliation among the tribes in Iraq did not materialize, according to Ricks in his Meet The Press interview. You would also know that Ricks detailed in his new book that Petraeus gave then-candidate Obama a lecture for 90 minutes during Obama's trip to Iraq. It doesn't take a genius to conclude that they apparently are not on the same page.

Your standing in my eyes just went to --- near zero.

That's fine. Based on past experience it should go up again when I write something you agree with or find intuitive. Either way, I like you but I'm not terribly concerned with your plummeting opinion of me or my mental faculties.

Do yourself a favor and read Tom Ricks's excellent series on all of this and his forthcoming book. It's quite enlightening.

Tom Ricks? Oh yes, we covered him earlier.

Bill:

You seem to have forgotten one of the primary reasons I left the Republican Party: I got passed over because I criticized Bush's spending and the incompetent handling of Iraq. Once I became aware of Petraeus' command in Mosul I thought he would be an excellent choice for promotion to control Iraq or at least someone espousing his strategy.

The tragedy and possible legacy of Bush's administration is that he took so long to realize it.

Bill:

Because of my dissension, I got passed over for promotions even though I had worked for them for years. As soon as I switched parties I got a position as campaign manager, which I think speaks to my merits. In a Republican dominated county my candidate increased the Democratic vote count by 60% for his election district. This county, Butler County, is the prime engine of the machine that keeps John Boehner getting re-elected to Congress.

As for Ed, I tend to give a wide berth to people in my column. Tell me what you want him bounced for and I'll happily tell you if I will bounce him.

Bill:

So your opposition is based on personal gain.

If by that you mean my merit was recognized by the Republicans' opponents then, yes, it was based on personal gain. I made no money as the campaign manager... it increased my resume but so do many other things. Are you prepared to argue that moderate Republicans weren't chased out of the party with sticks? Because I distinctly remember being harassed as a RINO (Republican In Name Only) after disagreeing with the president on principle. I'd rather be a conservative Democrat than a marginalized Republican.

That explains a lot.

How so?

As for deleting Ed's posts, it's not against the CoH to be wrong. If he otherwise harassed you while doing so, I would delete it. As it is he is having a rational discussion with you and apparently losing.

Ed:

I'm discussing it from Bill's point of view. I'm not going to choose sides between the two of you.

Ed;

Which is precisely the point I was making: why should I delete you if Bill is winning the argument?

A roll call vote is an up or down vote on a bill where every member of Congress' vote is recorded and attributed to them.

lisa:

Controlling? Certainly not. Trying to avoid doing something they don't want to do by stalling and considering appealing to the American public? Yes. And I also don't think it's unreasonable for them to do that based on how we set up our military after Vietnam.

lisaed:

Not over, I said around. There's a difference in circumventing someone and going over their head.

How would I do it if I were someone higher on the food chain in the military and didn't want a withdrawal? I would talk to veterans' groups that were sympathetic to my cause and drop the hint that if the public didn't withdraw its support that we could win in Iraq. They would pick up on it and use private means as private citizens (which they are because they are veterans no longer subject to the chain of command) like lobbyists and Madison Avenue type firms to start working the American public. If the wish for withdrawal goes away, the withdrawal can go away too. I have therefore broken no rules whatsoever and neither has anyone else acting on the behalf of this. I have gone around Obama to try to remove the upward pressure on him to order a full withdrawal. To go over his head connotes a confrontation of some kind. In fact, I can rationalize that I have done Obama a favor by eliminating the need for him to give an order that he now sees as President would be counterproductive over the long term.

Are you suggesting the means to fix this for our new commander-in-chief is conscription?

No, I'm openly saying that the public needs to wake the f*ck up and the most direct route to that is to draw your soldiers from the citizenry at random. The war for most of the public has been sanitized in the same way the national debt clock has been: when it enters their consciousness at all it is by way of numbers, primarily the number of casualties. In the same way the public at large ignores the national debt they ignore the war in Iraq: there is no immediate reason for them to care because they are not directly affected. Take their brother or their cousin over there and then they'll have an opinion and make it known. They will stay plugged into the war over the long haul because it's now a blood vengeance. I'm almost certain the public would have accepted conscription after 9/11. Why didn't Bush or Congress legislate it? Because they wanted the expediency of being able to go to war in a different country they thought was important without the public going Vietnam on them again. There's no threat of that when most of the public doesn't perceive us at war.

Also, I hear over and over again from some on the right (not you or Bill) an appeal that the Founding Fathers would have wanted this or that. I know something they were abundantly clear on not wanting: the current process by which we go to war. We have a military that isn't drawn from the public at random coupled with a President that can direct that military to go to war without a formal declaration of war from the Congress. Article I, Section 8, clause 11 specifically gives Congress the right to declare war. To go to Iraq, Congress passed a resolution. That is not a declaration of war. A strict constructionist would argue that the Iraq War was unconstitutional, in fact, any war conducted without a formal declaration was unconstitutional. The Founding Fathers never wanted the military's interests and general welfare to be uncoupled from the public's and right now they are in a state of being uncoupled. Their interests are diverging over Iraq. It's not a good thing, that I can assure you.

lisa:

Scott---if the media is not on the military's side (let's face it we know whose side they're on) then you shouldn't lose any sleep about the military being able to change public opinion about the war.

This conclusion comes from a fundamental disagreement between you and I on how the major media (mostly the cable news channels) operate. You think they have a partisan political agenda and I think that they cater to partisan political agendas to make a profit. To you they are about politics, to me they are like any other business: seeking to make money.

You're just upset because now that Obama the anti-war candidate has won the oval office and has assumed commander-in-chief responsibilities---he understands what we republicans already knew---he can't just leave Iraq because it's the popular thing to do and according to some election rhetoric timetable.

I'm not anti war... I'm anti bad management. Iraq could have worked well if planned and staffed properly. The problem is that we have jumped into the deep end of the pool with weights attached to our ankles. Either we expand the size of the military exponentially (which the "courageous" Republicans steadfastly refused to do when they ran Washington hook, line and sinker until 2006) or we face the proposition of having to withdraw from Iraq in hopes that it will not turn into a haven for terrorists or standing pat and being bled dry economically and, if the war heats up again, casualty wise. All three options were not pleasant to contemplate and are even less pleasant now that our economy is tanking.

Furthermore, Obama never intended to withdraw all troops from Iraq. He left himself a centrist back door by which he explicitly stated that American forces would be left in Iraq to combat Al Qaeda and he never attached a number to those forces. People that are fully and completely antiwar may have thought that he was promising to withdraw every single troop from Iraq but they were deluding themselves and when they look at the tape from the campaign they will see that they were believing what they wanted to believe.

George W. Bush to his credit understood that and his entire party now bares the political wounds for that courage.

The Republican Party is sleeping in the bed they made for themselves. They came to Congressional power to replace corrupt Democrats and then turned into even more corrupt versions of the people they replaced. As for the damage Bush caused to his own party, he turned many conservatives off by spending like the "tax and spend liberals" that Republicans railed against except he used a credit card instead of raising taxes. The party is also bearing his stubborn (or stupid) mistake to leave Rumsfeld in command of the Pentagon and suppress commanders like David Petraeus until after the Republican Party had its entire clock cleaned in the 2006 election losing seats in what had been safe Republican districts for a long time. Bush came around to a tenable strategy, but he did so almost four years after we invaded Iraq. When you react that slowly and incompetently, you deserve the results at the ballot box.

The batting around of violating neutrality by trying to contravene orders is disturbing to me above all because the military was meant to implement policy, not dictate it. It is an unstated rule of America's checks and balances.

Fair enough.

Bill:

Can you name a general that was sacked instead of "retired" after MacArthur?

Yes, I was shooting for formal reliefs of command.

cp:

But, could you please define for me your meaning and usage behind the term Vietnamization?

The domestic effect that the Vietnam War had on shaping political opinions and political battles for 30+ years after the war ended.

If that were so, then why has Michelle Obama been so active with military families - that are understandably distressed and affected by multiple deployments?

I think she genuinely feels for them and also knows that Democrats who do not counter the argument that they are "anti military" from the word "go" are counterproductive Democrats that get nothing done and get voted out of office generally. Also I think that she is a throwback to Eleanor Roosevelt and takes her cue from Eleanor.

And as far as I can tell, conscription hasn't necessarily gone away, if it had well then why is the Selective Service System still tracking 18 to 25 year olds? Doesn't Congress enact orders for conscription?

They do keep track of us in the case that we need to reinstate conscription. As for Congress, conscription is like all other legislation: the President has to sign it as well. The problem is that there was no political will or courage after 9/11 to institute it and the public has gone back to its complacency regarding its safety.

Quite frankly, it would seem that the armed services isn't retaining enough volunteer service members because well...we treat them with reckless abandon and leave members to be their own advocates and lobbyists. The number one issue right now for veterans isn't this semantic tussle between the Commander in Chief on strategic planning, but the spike in suicides among armed services members.

We treat our military quite badly now that it is an all volunteer force. It seems that the rationalization for that among politicians is that they chose to be there, they know the risks, we don't owe them anything more than what they get now. I vehemently disagree with this practice and even moreso with the rationalization.

And, by the way: Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America has launched a new legislative campaign that's "Storming the Hill" in the nation's capitol - for anyone who's interested. Without IAVA's diligent work (and the cooperation of Senators like Jim Webb) the GI Bill passed last year would probably still be languishing in some backwater legislative committee.

Good. I hope Obama emulates FDR in military matters in the same way he is emulating him on this economic crisis... get serious about fighting the war and provide veterans with every advantage for education and employment when they return stateside. They have more than earned it. The G.I. Bill of FDR's day is a primary stimulant of the postwar economy. Improving the G.I. Bill now would be a similar stimulant, IMO.

I'll have to show this article to someone, now retired, who chanted the mantra "The Few, the Chosen" way back when, somewhere between 1969 and 1971 - as he meandered the jungles in SE Asia in a poncho for 18 months, while Nixon was crafting "Vietnamization". I do know, when I pressed for this retired person's opinion in 2002-03, the response expressly did not support OIF or OEF, and in the person's second breath on the subject, deliberately recognized that the president doesn't ask the grunts for their opinions. ;-)

That is the issue I'm highlighting. After Vietnam and the changes it brought to the military, that attitude isn't as prevalent as it once was.

cp:

I don’t think you’re using the term correctly. I don’t ever recall the word used in that context.

Likely because I coined it as a term to describe how the war transformed our country.

You threw me for a loop over your reference to Eleanor Roosevelt: So are you saying modeling a "leadership by example" approach in behavior based upon another exceptional First Lady - the likes of Eleanor Roosevelt, who travelled our great nation during the Great Depression to understand the problems facing the destitute - is not a “good thing”?

She didn't just travel the country during the Depression. She traveled abroad during WWII to visit our troops. She is the best example I can think of when it comes to a pro-military First Lady. It's not a bad thing either. I'm not sure where you got the notion I was saying it was.

But it’s okay for Obama to be a throwback to Great Depression leaders? Huh?

Not only okay, but preferable. FDR is the second greatest president in our history to Abraham Lincoln. Obama is doing well to emulate him.

Vietnam altered America greatly and not for the better.

AWM:

An interesting take. I wont jump down on a side of you're right or you're wrong, as I see this as your opinion based on your analysis of the facts. I tend to agree with most of what you said, but I think you might need to consider another factor as well. And I would say let's go back a little further in history.

That's precisely what it is: my conclusions based on changes the military has gone through.

During World War II, our two theatres of operation, Europe and the Pacific were prosecuted by a Supreme Allied Commander. Eisenhower in Europe, and MacArthur in the Pacific. Both men were given great latitude in the execution of the war. While keeping the War Department and the Sec of War, and ultimately the President up to date (as best as could be done given the communications capabilities at the time), there was more emphasis in execution from the front, than from the conference rooms in the White house. While politics did not run the war, there was still politics involved, I will grant you that. A good example would be the halt of Patton's drive to allow for Operation Market Garden. A political choice, but ultimately a failure.

Also true.

Fast forward to Korea. Again, Macarthur in charge, and allowed to execute to an extent. But Truman keeped him on a short leash, and ultimately relieved him. Good decision? Well, that's really not the argument of this article.

Exactly. The mention of MacArthur has more to do with policy flowing up to the CinC instead of down and the resultant removal of MacArthur.

But compare that to Vietnam. Many of the senior military officers had combat experience as junior officers from WWII and Korea. But this was a political war, run by politicians. Bombing targets were designated by the White house. Field maneuver orders came from the White house. Recommendations from the boots on the ground were ignored. I remember watching a TLC program on the Air war, and they had interviews from many of the pilots, including McCain who blasted the Johnson administration for the way it controlled a war from half way around the world, with no clue of what was really happening.

Nixon was bad about it and Johnson was the worst, period, in this regard. Rumsfeld was terrible about this during OIF when he circumvented the TPFDL and made all deployments of troops go through his office. The military knew how to do its job and Rumsfeld had the audacity to think he could micromanage it better.

My point is this. Your senior officers now, were the junior officers of Vietnam. They have seen what happens when the politicians ignore the boots on the ground, and attempt to run a military campaign from a conference room in the White house. They didn't have that during Desert Storm, or OIF. But they may feel that is what is about to happen again, with this administration.

That is entirely possible.