From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

Gary Britt wrote:
> "Adam" <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the
field.near the bridge"> wrote in
> message news:444e8485{at}w3....
>> Gary Britt wrote:
>>
>> WTF? You're seriously bringing party politics into military selection?
>
> Generals are people with political motivations as big as anybody in the
> world.
>

Oh what a lovely massive generalization.

However the people concerned are retired generals so even that vast
generalization does not include them.

However mil leaders really should be chosen on merit.

>
>>> They liked the way Clinton left the military alone and didn't care he
>>> held
>>> them in contempt.
>> & what's wrong with that? Leave them alone to do their job coz they're
>> trained in it?
>
> In this country we believe in elected civilian politicians should control
> the military.  Maybe you believe in military dictatorships, but that's not
> our way.  So to imply that military people must be left alone is to advocate
> AGAINST civilian control of the military.
>

Ex-military. No longer military. Retired. They are civilians.

Bush served in the national guard. So is the Bush administration an example
of miltary control over the civilians?

Or is his role in the US mil too lowly to count?

>>
>>> They got to  do what they wanted.
>> & that's bad? I thought Bush was all about listening to the
generals &
>> giving them what they say they want/need...
>
> Yes it is if you believe in civilian control of the military.  If you
> believe the military is susceptible of bureaucratic fuckups and bad decision
> making then absolutely yes it is.
>

& were the "fuckups and bad decision making" to come from above (in the
"civilan control layer") ?

The fact that Iraq has been such a fuckup is because your mil were poorly directed.

But hey in one way it shows how solid your "civilian control of the
mil" is.

However these former military officers are now private citizens drawing
upon their experience.

>> A number of these served in the Iraq war. They were there day in day out
>> signing
>> messages of condolence for the more unfortunate of their men.
>
>
> They should have resigned their commissions and spoke out then, if they felt
> their men weren't being treated properly.  They didn't because they only
> came to think that AFTER they retired and started mulling over future
> political advisor and TV commentator careers.
>

Bollox. If you are in the field with people killing your men you'd just up
sticks & sod off?

I think the army might make "resigning their commissions" rather
difficult wrt senior officers in the field. If they're sacked &
replaced then fine but "resigning their commissions" would not
really be an option.

"Hey ho boys I know the shells are raining down but I've chosen to
resign my commission & bugger off".

Who'd sign your release from theatre papers?

But hey reality never quite gets into the mind of a commissar.

>>> These generals have all the credibility of a group of
>>> disgruntled ex-employees who were found to be last decades
solution after
>>> a
>>> corporate takeover.
>>>
>> Bollox.
>
>
> Ah, the refrain of a person out of ideas or intelligent responses.
>

Nah it was such a fatuous statement that one word would do.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5