I'm not sure I'm in agreement with the military having full autonomy myself. I'm also not sure that is what is happening, but I'm not sure. Have to put it into context. Will the military staff be allowed to develop strategy and implement with a more relaxed political environment? Likely. You have to have some political involvement but maybe not to the extent Obama/Clinton had. At one point, the ROEs were so restrictive under that administration that you had to be in imminent danger and even then it was questionable.
This was basically what that new Brad Pitt Netflix movie was about, though the movie suggested he didn't really have much of a leash on implementation.
Something as literal as troop strength in Afghanistan has been given to Mattis. I was always under the impression that tactical command was always deferred by the WH to the SofD and the Generals and on down the line......but I'm under the impression that more substantial logistical decisions are now being given to commanders in the field. The only thing that makes me not fear control being displaced into the hands of Mattis is the praise his receives from those that served. Although the "mad dog" nickname gives me some concern.
Meh. It's got some good parts. I'm glad I didn't pay $10 to see it in a theater, but it killed 2 hours on a boring Sunday.
BTW - it's not really an adrenaline pumping war movie with big special effects and yada, yada, yada. It's more the behind the scenes politics of his time in Afghanistan. They do not shine a kind light on Karzai which totally caught me off guard.
Uggggg, can we not just see some **** get blown up? I don't want to watch a "think piece"
That **** is nasty.
In him having increased autonomy......AND I did say the praise given to him by those that served does give me confidence in him as well
You should do a little studying up on him. You'd really like him. He's revered not just because he was tenacious, he was a true leader of men. If you've seen "We Were Soldiers", he's a lot like Cool. Hal Moore. Very much a true academic of military and world history. He preached about being smart as well as aggressive. Around the men, he spoke and treated them like men. Think coach Kirlav but really damn smart.
Almost counterintuitive? How about completely counterintuitive? After Desert Storm the Chief of Staff of the Army, Gordon Sullivan, gathered all the generals of the major commands in a room at Fort Leavenworth for a gigantic After Action Review session. The war was over, and it seemed as if peacekeeping and "nation-building" missions were all that lay ahead. Sullivan told them in so many words not to "fall in love with digging wells" because that's not the Army's job. It's the military's job to win the war - if possible - and to provide a stable environment so that the people who have the well-digging mission can do their work. Unfortunately, which 2300 years of history says this might not be in Afghanistan - everybody from Alexander the Great to the British to the Russians have come to grief there, and after 16 years it's not looking good for us either.
Hard to turn a Marine into a peacekeeper, I know that much. It would almost make sense to massively staff up the Peace Corps and arm them and allow them to rebuild. Our job is fvcking **** up.
If I were Trump for a day, I'd require some type of military/civil service (Peace Corps, Civic Works, etc.) for a 2-4 year period, no deferments. After which, all elective requirements for college are gone. Let people going to school be able to focus on their degree requirements.
If high school provided a more thorough and well rounded education, the peace corps was tripled (at least --/ btw this is a Trump positive for me, as he aims to increase the corps funding), and the defense budget was able to be cut as a result....,,I'd be all for this
Not with what I said. Everyone upon turning 18 would be either in the Peace Corps, Civil Works, or Military. That would likely triple personnel numbers in the military.
Salaries and incentives should drop a little for career soldiers though. I mean if there is a massive influx of required recruits. Is the PC budget calculated within the defense budget?
Not sure. Regardless, PC however it's funded would be significantly increased. You could do that by reducing the grants set asides for college as you wouldn't need as much money. Understanding though it's likely not a 1 for 1.
True. I'd want more people going into PC and dishing out hugs, rather than the military dishing out pain......but we know that's because I'm a ***** liberal
I'd support a massive influx of the PC. I think a good many countries could benefit from it. My ex-girlfriend's father spoke to me about his time in the PC. Amazing stories. I personally prefer the blowing **** up aspect, I don't really like people, and I don't really care about the plight of the underdeveloped world, but I respect the work of the PC.
I appreciate the recognizing of my value in the balance....I surely recognize yours.
Not necessarily. First, not everyone is qualified for service in uniform. Second, I doubt that a third of those of service age would choose to try that path. I've long been in favor of a universal service law, but my version of it wouldn't "draft" everyone immediately at age 18 but rather follow Korea's model of a two-year requirement at some point between age 18 and 25. And not all young men go into the military there either - Koreans also get credit if they join the national police or civil service.