Political Crossfire Forums

[The Newb]

Klondikekat wrote: Amen to that. Generals just find the best/most effective/brutal way to execute what politicians tell them to do.

Amen to that. Generals just find the best/most effective way to execute what politicians tell them to do

take out brutal and you got it right

[mr.snruB]

The Newb wrote: Klondikekat wrote: Amen to that. Generals just find the best/most effective/brutal way to execute what politicians tell them to do.

Amen to that. Generals just find the best/most effective way to execute what politicians tell them to do

take out brutal and you got it right

Why do that? Is war not brutal?

[Wizard From Oz]

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor

Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait till their judgement day comes, yeah!

Black Sabbath - War Pigs 1970

Somethings never change

[The Newb]

mr.snruB wrote: The Newb wrote: Klondikekat wrote: Amen to that. Generals just find the best/most effective/brutal way to execute what politicians tell them to do.

Amen to that. Generals just find the best/most effective way to execute what politicians tell them to do

take out brutal and you got it right

Why do that? Is war not brutal?

yes but as a rule the military does not try to find the most brutal way to accomplish it

[mr.snruB]

The Newb wrote: mr.snruB wrote: The Newb wrote: Klondikekat wrote: Amen to that. Generals just find the best/most effective/brutal way to execute what politicians tell them to do.

Amen to that. Generals just find the best/most effective way to execute what politicians tell them to do

take out brutal and you got it right

Why do that? Is war not brutal?

yes but as a rule the military does not try to find the most brutal way to accomplish it

They may not try, but they usually find it anyways

[mr.snruB]

MG1962 wrote: Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor

Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait till their judgement day comes, yeah!

Black Sabbath - War Pigs 1970

Somethings never change

I never really paid attention to those lyrics before. That's great! Who wrote that, Geezer?

[4horseman]

The truth shall set you free. They didn't listen to the Generals, just like to don't listen to the scientist. :(

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/index.htm

[The Newb]

mr.snruB wrote: The Newb wrote: mr.snruB wrote: The Newb wrote: Klondikekat wrote: Amen to that. Generals just find the best/most effective/brutal way to execute what politicians tell them to do.

Amen to that. Generals just find the best/most effective way to execute what politicians tell them to do

take out brutal and you got it right

Why do that? Is war not brutal?

yes but as a rule the military does not try to find the most brutal way to accomplish it

They may not try, but they usually find it anyways

we do not go out of our way to be brutal, some acts in war may seem that way, but we do not try to be brutal. youre a smart man im sure you know that

[Thrilla]

Ameriman wrote: Since the Korean War...Politicians...

It's why we keep getting our asses kicked. one need only to look as far as the NAtional Security Act of 1947 to find the root of many of our problems regarding the military.

[The Newb]

http://www.intelligence.gov/0-natsecact_1947.shtml

because someone will ask - its the national security act of 1947

[Thrilla]

The Newb wrote: http://www.intelligence.gov/0-natsecact_1947.shtml

because someone will ask - its the national security act of 1947 thanks :!oops:

many good things came out of that act... however.. the restucturing of the military under the new Dept of Defense fostered in the era of political control of wars and warfighters.... before this act.. the military hammered out the details among the differnet branches after the go order was given from the CinC... as it stands since its inception... the CinC gives a go-order.. and a civilian in charge of the branches, along with another civilian( undersecretary), both politicians, are charges with telling the military what they are going to do and how they are going to do it... of course the pretense of the Secdef and staff "gaining insight" from the military leaders is upheld... but its hogwash.. and whether or not the counsel of the military leaders is taken to heart is 100% dependent on political ramifications and political expedience

[The Newb]

Thrilla wrote: The Newb wrote: http://www.intelligence.gov/0-natsecact_1947.shtml

because someone will ask - its the national security act of 1947 thanks :!oops:


not a problem i fully understood your point, however some people may not have known the actual implications of the act

[Thrilla]

The Newb wrote: Thrilla wrote: The Newb wrote: http://www.intelligence.gov/0-natsecact_1947.shtml

because someone will ask - its the national security act of 1947 thanks :!oops:


not a problem i fully understood your point, however some people may not have known the actual implications of the act I dont even think the authors knew :lol:

[The Newb]

Thrilla wrote: The Newb wrote: Thrilla wrote: The Newb wrote: http://www.intelligence.gov/0-natsecact_1947.shtml

because someone will ask - its the national security act of 1947 thanks :!oops:


not a problem i fully understood your point, however some people may not have known the actual implications of the act I dont even think the authors knew :lol: :rotf:

being military

"its a hard knock life"

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Thrilla wrote: The Newb wrote: http://www.intelligence.gov/0-natsecact_1947.shtml

because someone will ask - its the national security act of 1947 thanks :!oops:

many good things came out of that act... however.. the restucturing of the military under the new Dept of Defense fostered in the era of political control of wars and warfighters.... before this act.. the military hammered out the details among the differnet branches after the go order was given from the CinC... as it stands since its inception... the CinC gives a go-order.. and a civilian in charge of the branches, along with another civilian( undersecretary), both politicians, are charges with telling the military what they are going to do and how they are going to do it... of course the pretense of the Secdef and staff "gaining insight" from the military leaders is upheld... but its hogwash.. and whether or not the counsel of the military leaders is taken to heart is 100% dependent on political ramifications and political expedience

Then my call for Secretary of Defense to more resemble a Praetor wasn't far off the mark.

I wonder if that is one reason we won World War II and have not won a War since ?

EDIT:
Quote: Prior to the advent of the nuclear / space age, perhaps the most important of these technological developments, certainly with respect to the development and organization of defense, was the introduction of the airplane. In August 1907, an aeronautical division was established in the Office of the Chief Signal Officer of the U.S. Army to "study" the new "flying machine" and the possibility of adapting it to military purposes. After World War I the National Defense Act of 1920 and the consequent Army Reorganization Act of the same year set up the Air Service as a separate branch of the Army. It was redesignated as the Air Corps in 1926. During World War II its fortunes were advanced as the Army Air Force, one of the three autonomous and coequal commands within the still named War Department; the other two were the Army Ground Forces and the Services of Supply. Finally, the National Security Act of 1947 created a separate Department of the Air Force, coequal in status to the two earlier-created Departments of the Army and the Navy. The U.S. now had three military departments, but something happened on the way. The three, in a significant sense, were "less" than the one department of the early Republic and less than the two departments coexisting since 1798.

The National Security Act of 1947

Each of the major wars fought in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries brought about at least temporary concern for the "common defense." The lessons of the war were presumably translated into enacted policy affecting the military departments and the armed forces. As we have seen, from time to time leadership capable of effecting change in policy came from civilians, from the military itself, or from a fortuitous combination of both. The experience during and immediately after World War II proved to be no exception. Out of it there came the most important governmental restructuring for defense and reorganization of the armed forces since the beginnings of the Republic. These changes were instituted in the National Security Act of 1947 (Public Law 253, 80th Congress), signed by President Truman on July 26th of that same year. The act was subsequently amended in 1949, 1953, and 1958 and will again be amended when the present Congress acts, if it does, on the post Watergate issue of the role and structure of what is now referred to as the intelligence community.


"Since the reforms of the 1958 amendments and the extraordinary use of which those reforms were put during the McNamara era, there has been no serious public consideration of the Department of Defense as a whole either by the Chief Executive or the Congress."