Do you care about our military and national security?

[BmorePat87]

(06-11-2020, 10:46 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I go with Trump.  Despite all the logical fallacies that will be thrown at me for saying that, I stand by it.  Trump, despite his his constant braggadocio, has initiated how many military strikes?  He is as anti-war as they come.  He was reinvested into the military, because he believes in peace through show of strength.

This really doesn't track. He's not anti-war as he has enabled Russian and Turkish aggression. He has also threatened extreme military force, has embraced dictators, and has abandoned allies. Peace through military strength isn't anti-war if your peace rests on people being afraid of going to war with you. The biggest kid threatening everyone else on the playground isn't passive just because he hasn't punched too many kids. 

[Dill]

(06-12-2020, 09:51 AM)hollodero Wrote: I do not dispute that, or any of the things you say. My assertion is not an expression of trust in Trump. I just quite distrust some folks on this list. Trump is focused on the economy and possibly is easily persuaded to refrain from war by being told about the negative impact on these data. That is his "plus side" in that regard. Others might be more beholden to the war industry, like quite a lot of past presidents were. Say something nice about Pence, at least he isn't Cheney.

I can not quite avoid the observation that besides all his dangerous blunders, Trump made it through 3,5 years without major militaric conflict, and this is quite exceptional for a republican president as of late. Sure he benefits from the fact that no one wants to play war with the US and there was no 9/11-like or even Kuwait-like incident. Still, quite some of the listed guys might already be in Venezuela or Iran. Tell me that certainly ain't so if you dare :).

Being "beholden to the war industry" is about economics: weapons instead of new schools and roads, but not necessarily war.  All presidents are "beholden" to the lobby and its jobs. 

That 3.5 years without major or war is really just chance though, right?  He at least twice put us on the doorstep of war, increasing rather than lessening the risk,--unnecessarily--and it required the cooperation of our adversaries to make sure we didn't cross the threshold.  Kind of like tossing a coin in the air. 

I cannot think of a single person on Fred's list who would have tossed that coin so unnecessarily and twice--or who would "already" have us in Iran or Venezuela. And I cannot think of one who would have scotched the Iran Deal or pulled us out of the TPP. I cannot imagine any of them canceling military exercises in North Korea for nothing or accepting the Kremlin's "theory" that Ukraine and not Russia interfered in the US election.

We cannot be sure what Pence would do after a 9/11, though I grant that unlike Cheney, he has no plan for an unnecessary war ready to piggyback on a necessary one. Had we such an event, there is still every reason to trust those who know war, logistics, strategy and diplomacy over Trump, from whom we could expect impulsive panic, and a botch of constructing alliances.  We can be sure Trump would not finally "become presidential."

[Dill]

(06-12-2020, 10:09 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This really doesn't track. He's not anti-war as he has enabled Russian and Turkish aggression. He has also threatened extreme military force, has embraced dictators, and has abandoned allies. Peace through military strength isn't anti-war if your peace rests on people being afraid of going to war with you. The biggest kid threatening everyone else on the playground isn't passive just because he hasn't punched too many kids. 

Agreed. And it's not even clear people are "afraid to to go war" with us.

Our adversaries don't waste time trying to stop us from building a new ship or increasing the size of our military by 250,000 souls.

What they seek is strategic opportunity created by disruption of alliances and the vacuums of military and economic control created by trashing treaties. They seek the paralysis or our intel and military resources at the command level.

What counts as "show of strength" to Trump's base--insulting allies, praising dictators, attacking the "deep state" (our own government resources) while withdrawing economic and military commitments abroad--is more cheered by US adversaries, some very much encouraged to help him win re-election.

Many argue that fear doesn't really "keep us safe" they way credibility and the trust of our allies does; but those who insist on "fear" must agree that under Trump we have the wrong kind.  In the Middle East, friend and foe alike fear the US misstep that could exchange thousands of rockets across the Persian Gulf engulfing multiple countries in war. Our allies fear we won't keep our commitments. Serious adversaries like China, NK and Russia see their chances are better under Trump.

[BmorePat87]

(06-12-2020, 11:39 AM)Dill Wrote: It's not even clear people are "afraid to to go war" with us.

Our adversaries don't waste time trying to stop us from building a new ship or increasing the size of our military by 250,000 souls.

What they seek is strategic advantage created by disruption of alliances and the vacuums of military and economic control created by trashing treaties.

Not to mention China and Russian can do far more damage with the internet. Meanwhile, we're focused on more planes while ignoring those threats. 

[hollodero]

(06-12-2020, 11:35 AM)Dill Wrote: Being "beholden to the war industry" is about economics: weapons instead of new schools and roads, but not necessarily war.  All presidents are "beholden" to the lobby and its jobs. 

I think it might be safe to assume that the war industry is not opposed to wars or rather is prone to advocate for it.
Also, that a war does not result in an overall economic boost. I'd wager Trump gets that too.

(06-12-2020, 11:35 AM)Dill Wrote: That 3.5 years without major or war is really just chance though, right? 

Right.
To be fair though, it usually is.

(06-12-2020, 11:35 AM)Dill Wrote: He at least twice put us on the doorstep of war, increasing rather than lessening the risk,--unnecessarily--and it required the cooperation of our adversaries to make sure we didn't cross the threshold.  Kind of like tossing a coin in the air. 

I cannot think of a single person on Fred's list who would have tossed that coin so unnecessarily and twice--or who would "already" have us in Iran or Venezuela.

The cointossing is a fair point. As to the latter, I honestly can start with the very first name on that list. Not that I'd be certain, but there is a fair chance imho. With other names, some of those I'd trust not to be, some others not so much. Admittedly, many I don't really know much about, but I trust no republican general in general, and only a few US politicians really. Not when it comes to peacekeeping at least.

(06-12-2020, 11:35 AM)Dill Wrote: And I cannot think of one who would have scotched the Iran Deal or pulled us out of the TPP.

Mattis a) did not resign after Trump pulled out of the Iran deal and b) blamed aggressive Iranian behaviour for said pulling out. He seemed quite positive about the decision in congressional hearings.
That he might sing some different tunes now doesn't make me trust him again.
Similar story with Kelly.

I concede that you are right on many other points though.

I will throw in that wiki quote though "In characterizing the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he [Mullen] described them as "a fight against a syndicate of Islamic extremists led by al-Qaeda"... aaaand there goes my trust. Btw. Ash Carter supported the Iraq war too and advocated preventative invasions in Iran and North Korea. I should trust that guy?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Who do I trust?

Our nations finest warriors entrusted their lives to McRaven when he was SOCOM Commander.

Contractors can’t trust Trump to pay his bill for services rendered.

Trump has a proven track record as a habitual liar with a complete lack of integrity. I don’t know why anyone would trust Trump with anything.

[fredtoast]

(06-11-2020, 10:46 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote:   He was reinvested into the military, because he believes in peace through show of strength.

The only reason he reinvested in the military was that it is an easy way to artificially inflate the economy with military contracts to private businesses.

When Trump took office the United States Military spending was already GREATER THAN THE NEXT 5 LARGEST COUNTRIES ON EARTH COMBINED.  Increasing military spending was a complete waste of money.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-12-2020, 04:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The only reason he reinvested in the military was that it is an easy way to artificially inflate the economy with military contracts to private businesses.

When Trump took office the United States Military spending was already GREATER THAN THE NEXT 5 LARGEST COUNTRIES ON EARTH COMBINED.  Increasing military spending was a complete waste of money.

Oh, god.  I'm glad you brought this back up because I meant to debunk this lie when I had the chance.  It's a lie Trump likes to repeat and his base which lacks military experience just lap it up without any fact checking.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget

As you can see from the graph defense spending was higher during the Obama administration until the withdrawal from Iraq.  Defense spending should go down when you aren't involved in combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-army-size

You can see troop levels gradually rose after 9/11 until they peaked right before we withdrew from Iraq.  Again, troop numbers should decline when we don't have the need.

So where is the money going?  Space Force and to repay the military for the money taken from their 2019 budget to build a big, beautiful wall that still hasn't been built.  Gimme a f'n break with this reinvesting in the military BS.

[Dill]

(06-12-2020, 12:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: The cointossing is a fair point. As to the latter, I honestly can start with the very first name on that list. Not that I'd be certain, but there is a fair chance imho. With other names, some of those I'd trust not to be, some others not so much. Admittedly, many I don't really know much about, but I trust no republican general in general, and only a few US politicians really. Not when it comes to peacekeeping at least.

Mattis a) did not resign after Trump pulled out of the Iran deal and b) blamed aggressive Iranian behaviour for said pulling out. He seemed quite positive about the decision in congressional hearings.
That he might sing some different tunes now doesn't make me trust him again.
Similar story with Kelly.

I concede that you are right on many other points though.

I will throw in that wiki quote though "In characterizing the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he [Mullen] described them as "a fight against a syndicate of Islamic extremists led by al-Qaeda"... aaaand there goes my trust. Btw. Ash Carter supported the Iraq war too and advocated preventative invasions in Iran and North Korea. I should trust that guy?

Just a quick couple of points in response:

The "very first" name on the list is the guy who learned war in Vietnam and developed a very reasonable post-Vietnam policy for use of force--e.g., clear metrics and end goal, fixed termination date--all of which the Bush regime violated. You'll say "What about his UN speech pressing for war in Iraq?"  To which I respond 1) he repeatedly warned Bush against the invasion, and 2) did his "duty" at the UN as a serving secretary when Tenet convinced him that unvetted intel about Iraq was actually vetted.  He considers that speech THE stain on his reputation.  Nothing in his character or history as advisor suggests that, were he president, anything short of an Al Qaeda-style direct attack on the US or perhaps a NATO partner could provoke him to war.

As for Mattis,  He talks like a Marine general at times, but last I heard, had no ambitions to run for president. I don't think he has a good strategic vision in the Middle East, and would not be a good president, but still WAY more trustworthy than Trump. Primary reason for that--he recognized that pulling out of the Iran Deal was bad and destabilizing, but hung as long as he could to (as I said above) control Trump. So already MUCH better judgment than the guy who broke the deal. Like many who finally gave up, it is quite plausible to think he assumed he was protecting the nation and past diplomatic achievements from Trump's ongoing vandalism.

Carter advocated striking NK's Taepodong ICBM should they put it on a launch pad to test it. Not quite an invasion. As for Iran, he supported the Iran Deal and predicted the destabilization of the region which followed trashing it.  This guy's (and Mullen's) views might seem hawkish to you, but there is just no reason that they or any of the guys on Fred's list would deliberately undo stabilizing diplomacy and then play chicken with a deadly adversary--all while "knowing more" than the generals.

Finally, your Mullen quote comes from a 2010 JCS speech on the relation of the military to diplomacy and foreign policy which includes this line:

  "U.S. foreign policy is still too dominated by the military, too dependent upon the generals and admirals who lead our major overseas commands.  It’s one thing to be able and willing to serve as emergency responders; quite another to always have to be the fire chief."https://web.archive.org/web/20100310104009/http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?ID=1336

In his advocacy of soft power, criticism of policy "too dependent upon the generals," he seems rather a far cry from Trump.

I don't want to get deeply into it here, but in my view his approach to global strategy was most informed, flexible, and logically consistent of any US military leader in the 21st century. Very attuned to the problem of "unknown unknowns." He is in fact the guy I would trust the most, out of all those listed.

[hollodero]

(06-13-2020, 03:27 AM)Dill Wrote: Just a quick couple of points in response:

The "very first" name on the list is the guy who learned war in Vietnam and developed a very reasonable post-Vietnam policy for use of force--e.g., clear metrics and end goal, fixed termination date--all of which the Bush regime violated. You'll say "What about his UN speech pressing for war in Iraq?"  To which I respond 1) he repeatedly warned Bush against the invasion, and 2) did his "duty" at the UN as a serving secretary when Tenet convinced him that unvetted intel about Iraq was actually vetted.  He considers that speech THE stain on his reputation. 

And rightly so. And yes I was indeed going to mention that.

Trump of course can not be trusted on anything he says. I know that. I know it is a tough sell to say I trust anyone less than him on anything. But when it comes to the Dabblejuh admin, I really have a tough time. This lie about Iraq was the big one, bigger than even the many big Trump ones and the many small ones, or keep your doctor or not having sexual relations or whatever lies there were. None of these folks that were around when this monstrous lie and the following war happened have my trust. I admit Powell isn't Wolfowitz or Rumsfeld, but still, no forgetting on my part here, Dabblejuh and anyone. Doesn't matter how many innocent pictures Bush paints or how sweet he's cuddling with Michelle.
Compared to Trump, they might have my bigger trust on national security in general, Trump lies constantly and lied about Russian interference after all, which is imho borderline treasonous and no general would stand for that probably. It's just when it comes to war, I kinda Trust Trump's impulses not to start one, not to become another Dabblejuh. That's all there is to it.

And sure it's stupid to let fighters start and then call them back last minute, or it was a deliberate threat and Trump lied about that too, but I would not guarantee that every one of these Bush people would have done the same. Calling them back, i mean.

(06-13-2020, 03:27 AM)Dill Wrote: As for Mattis,  He talks like a Marine general at times, but last I heard, had no ambitions to run for president.

Yeah I did assume comparing Trump to these folks implies they have the same kind of power. Of course I trust everyone to not start a war who won't come in a position to decide that in the first place.

Mattis and Kelly were part of the Trump system. And for me that does not come without some lasting scrutiny, especially since they backed his lies and indecencies and have quite some comments on the record doing so, especially Kelly. But ok, I trust them probably more than Trump still, even when it comes to conflict, but only just. Sitting in the Trump admin imho is a character flaw and this whole narrative of "I had to stay to hold him back" seems semi-persuasive at best. They supported his back while doing so, hence being complicit in bad developments.

(06-13-2020, 03:27 AM)Dill Wrote: Carter advocated striking NK's Taepodong ICBM should they put it on a launch pad to test it. Not quite an invasion.

Yes. Wikipedia misled me there. Admittedly, I did really sloppy research to find anything on guys I know little to nothing about. Just to keep my stance going for a little before it breaks down due to it being completely unsustainable.
I know it is unsustainbale, don't get me wrong :)

(06-13-2020, 03:27 AM)Dill Wrote: Finally, your Mullen quote comes from a 2010 JCS speech on the relation of the military to diplomacy and foreign policy which includes this line:

  "U.S. foreign policy is still too dominated by the military, too dependent upon the generals and admirals who lead our major overseas commands.  It’s one thing to be able and willing to serve as emergency responders; quite another to always have to be the fire chief."https://web.archive.org/web/20100310104009/http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?ID=1336

In his advocacy of soft power, criticism of policy "too dependent upon the generals," he seems rather a far cry from Trump.

He did also say that Al Qaeda in Iraq thing though. But nice quotes. I always considered the US tendency of making generals politicians quite strange. Defense secretary, ok, but aside from that, why not keep them in their field of expertise, advising the president or doing their thing when it comes to war (which is not always condemnable, eg. Afghanistan, imho). I do have a hard time trusting their peacekeeping after being concerned with war for so long. I always fear it might dull the sense for the horrors of war.

[Dill]

(06-13-2020, 04:06 PM)hollodero Wrote: Trump of course can not be trusted on anything he says. I know that. I know it is a tough sell to say I trust anyone less than him on anything. But when it comes to the Dabblejuh admin, I really have a tough time. This lie about Iraq was the big one, bigger than even the many big Trump ones and the many small ones, or keep your doctor or not having sexual relations or whatever lies there were. None of these folks that were around when this monstrous lie and the following war happened have my trust. I admit Powell isn't Wolfowitz or Rumsfeld, but still, no forgetting on my part here, Dabblejuh and anyone. Doesn't matter how many innocent pictures Bush paints or how sweet he's cuddling with Michelle.
Compared to Trump, they might have my bigger trust on national security in general, Trump lies constantly and lied about Russian interference after all, which is imho borderline treasonous and no general would stand for that probably. It's just when it comes to war, I kinda Trust Trump's impulses not to start one, not to become another Dabblejuh. That's all there is to it.

And sure it's stupid to let fighters start and then call them back last minute, or it was a deliberate threat and Trump lied about that too, but I would not guarantee that every one of these Bush people would have done the same. Calling them back, i mean.

The consequences of the Iraq war lie are certainly far greater than any of Trump's so far. Both sides had to treat that as an "understandable mistake" or admit the US was guilty of Bosnia-level war crime.  That said, I still don't see anything in Powell which suggests he would pursue and unnecessary war--less so now, after he has participated in two of them. 

There is one thing you remembered in an earlier post which I will remind you of here--9/11.  Bush would never and could never have invaded Iraq except on condition of that devastating attack on civilians, to which he and our NATO partners had to respond. What steered the US away from Afghanistan was, as you know, the PNAC folks, whom Bush collected and appointed within his administration, and who eventually constituted an "extra" intel service, a stovepipe mixing unvetted with vetted intel for Congress. 

So you are comparing W's actions in the context of a necessary war with the erratic Trump, who undid a treaty creating stability and brought us to the brink of unnecessary war twice.  Is there any reason to suppose Bush would have gotten us into ANY war had not Al Qaeda attacked the US? I don't think there is. 

[Dill]

(06-13-2020, 04:06 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah I did assume comparing Trump to these folks implies they have the same kind of power. Of course I trust everyone to not start a war who won't come in a position to decide that in the first place.

Mattis and Kelly were part of the Trump system. And for me that does not come without some lasting scrutiny, especially since they backed his lies and indecencies and have quite some comments on the record doing so, especially Kelly. But ok, I trust them probably more than Trump still, even when it comes to conflict, but only just. Sitting in the Trump admin imho is a character flaw and this whole narrative of "I had to stay to hold him back" seems semi-persuasive at best. They supported his back while doing so, hence being complicit in bad developments.

[Mullen] did also say that Al Qaeda in Iraq thing though. But nice quotes. I always considered the US tendency of making generals politicians quite strange. Defense secretary, ok, but aside from that, why not keep them in their field of expertise, advising the president or doing their thing when it comes to war (which is not always condemnable, eg. Afghanistan, imho). I do have a hard time trusting their peacekeeping after being concerned with war for so long. I always fear it might dull the sense for the horrors of war.

 Eisenhower made a decent president. Some feel Washington did an ok job too.  Grant so so at best.
Mullen's quote, by the way, was made in 2010, and not a wildly inaccurate characterization of whom the US had identified as its primary enemy. I suspect his view of the causes of insurgency in both Iraq and A-stan are not as narrow as you suppose.

As a rule, we don't make generals politicians. We do use them for secretaries and advisors. And in that role, their job is often to shut up and do what  they are told. Which they do until they just can't.  Administrations--the US Government--would be unable to function if these advisors quit every time they did not agree with the boss. One may totally disagree with Trump about Korea, but repeat administration talking points because that is part of the job. The same guy may also stay on because he feels he is making a difference somewhere else, like with China and the ME. POTUS is listening maybe, so there, not Korea, lies his legacy.

Agree with you that joining Trump's administration did not show good judgment.  Many would NOT come aboard that ship, recognizing the danger to reputations, not to mention the country. But some of these guys really define their lives via concepts of "duty" and "service" that simply don't operate in the civilian world.  Mattis, Kelly, Flynn--all generals, but very different. Flynn seems the most "trump-like" of all, ready to promote conspiracies, work for other governments, and other unstable behavior (Fired by Obama).  He was as unstable as Trump, but not on Fred's list. I find it doubtful that Mattis would have initiated a war in the ME on his own. Kelly might have, with provocation, but following protocol for escalation.

Based on their own opinions and actions, where these can be accessed in writing and speeches, neither Mattis nor Kelly nor George W. Bush would have undone a treaty with Russia, China, Iran, UK, France, Iran and the whole EU, disrupting their economies and shattering our credibility, and then marched us into hostile "coin-toss" situations again and again, had any one of them become president in 2017. Hard to imagine what Trump would have done after 9/11--gone for the nuclear option? at least tactical nukes? Invaded Iraq AND Libya? Shot off tomahawk missiles and a battery of tweets--then done nothing?

Sorry for going on about this, but I get worried when someone as discerning as yourself starts going "tomato/tomahto" with Trump and men who have viewed the effects of war first hand, trained as managers, learned to take orders, and read books.  Many books. About war, diplomacy, history--and failed, nationally embarrassing, career killing military adventures.

[hollodero]

(06-14-2020, 02:48 AM)Dill Wrote: There is one thing you remembered in an earlier post which I will remind you of here--9/11.  Bush would never and could never have invaded Iraq except on condition of that devastating attack on civilians, to which he and our NATO partners had to respond. What steered the US away from Afghanistan was, as you know, were PNAC folks, whom Bush collected and appointed within his administration, and who eventually constituted an "extra" intel service, a stovepipe mixing unvetted with vetted intel for Congress. 

So you are comparing W's actions in the context of a necessary war with the erratic Trump, who undid a treaty creating stability and brought us to the brink of unnecessary war twice.  Is there any reason to suppose Bush would have gotten us into ANY war had not Al Qaeda attacked the US? I don't think there is. 

I see some reasons to believe that. First, the whole weapons of mass destruction narrative was not inherently based on 9/11 (or say could have been followed regardless of 9/11). Sure there also was the "al qaeda is in iraq" narrative, but I don't know if people in the US believed that. Most NATO members did not.
Also, Bush had picked Cheney as his VP. If you initially intend to be all peaceful, you do not choose the devil as your running mate. Also he went with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, who already had advocated violent regime change in Iraq back when Clinton was president.

Of course, I don't know what would have happened if 9/11 hadn't occurred, but imho these are some hints that the Iraq invasion would have happened anyway.

[hollodero]

(06-14-2020, 03:01 AM)Dill Wrote:  Eisenhower made a decent president. Some feel Washington did an ok job too.  Grant so so at best.

Well... I don't know if this guy missed a star or two, but I find it odd not to mention Old Hickory in that list. He was a general alright. There'd also be Harrison, Taylor, Garfield, Hayes and Taft. Not to mention Brigadier generals, of which I find four, namely Pierce, Arthur, Johnson and Harrison. This is a proud list of generals turned presidents. I have a hard time finding generals turned politicians, especially for more recent times (the historical context might not matter too much), but I remember some, like Wesley Clark or the three you mentioned. I guess without proof there are others.

(06-14-2020, 03:01 AM)Dill Wrote: Based on their own opinions and actions, where these can be accessed in writing and speeches, neither Mattis nor Kelly nor George W. Bush would have undone a treaty with Russia, China, Iran, UK, France, Iran and the whole EU, disrupting their economies and shattering our credibility, and then marched us into hostile "coin-toss" situations again and again, had any one of them become president in 2017. Hard to imagine what Trump would have done after 9/11--gone for the nuclear option? at least tactical nukes? Invaded Iraq AND Libya? Shot off tomahawk missiles and a battery of tweets--then done nothing?

I can't possibly say. I think there's a chance he would have done the latter, though the Afghan war probably was unavoidable as a reaction.
This is what I honestly believe, all devil's advocacy aside, that Trump is not eager to go to war. Not as eager as Cheney Rumsfeld Wolfowitz etc. were. Of course he does a lot of stupid things that amount to unnecessary escalations, but he has not pulled the trigger yet and I guess a president Wolfowitz would have. Maybe even a president McCain. Or someone on fred's list even, thinking about the Bush appointees.

(06-14-2020, 03:01 AM)Dill Wrote: Sorry for going on about this, but I get worried when someone as discerning as yourself starts going "tomato/tomahto" with Trump and men who have viewed the effects of war first hand, trained as managers, learned to take orders, and read books.  Many books. About war, diplomacy, history--and failed, nationally embarrassing, career killing military adventures.

Well, as indicated I find it boring to always just be anti-Trump; though of course I am always just that. At times I feel some sight is lost on the fact that other people can be awful at times as well. Eg. Kelly, in my view, does not get his reputation back just because he says something negative about Trump now that he got fired. I also can hardly give him credit for sticking around to reign Trump in. Not only did that not work out so splendidly, but he also was responsible for the hard line immigration policy, where he separated families and whatnot, for which he was rewarded with a promotion. If all he did was hindering Trump, should we see the separated families as some kind of acceptable collateral damage for this greater purpose? As chief of staff, he found it necessary to smear a congresswoman in defense of Trump, he called Robert Lee a noble man, I mean he said a lot of nasty stuff. Hard to just explain it with "duty" and "service" for me really.

[Dill]

(06-14-2020, 10:35 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well... I don't know if this guy missed a star or two, but I find it odd not to mention Old Hickory in that list. He was a general alright. There'd also be Harrison, Taylor, Garfield, Hayes and Taft. Not to mention Brigadier generals, of which I find four, namely Pierce, Arthur, Johnson and Harrison. This is a proud list of generals turned presidents. I have a hard time finding generals turned politicians, especially for more recent times (the historical context might not matter too much), but I remember some, like Wesley Clark or the three you mentioned. I guess without proof there are others.

Some quick historical notes: there is considerable contrast between generals like Pierce and Arthur and Garfield, who had full civilian lives first and then were tapped for service under emergency conditions. And really didn't run on their military experience. (Taft was a general??)  Today's general/admiral has usually spent over 20 years in the military, his every action tracked and evaluated and filed. He has learned much about logistics, management and obedience, and when in command, he has spent years worrying about that one mistep that kills a career, including PR missteps. The majority are VERY GOOD at offering calibrated military options and explaining what can go wrong.

Since Eisenhower, a few generals and admirals have thrown their hat into the national ring, but proved unfit under public scrutiny. Alexander Haig comes to mind first,  but also Perot's running mate, the disastrous Adm. Stockdale. Clark and Powell might have made decent presidents.

(06-14-2020, 10:35 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, as indicated I find it boring to always just be anti-Trump; though of course I am always just that. At times I feel some sight is lost on the fact that other people can be awful at times as well. Eg. Kelly, in my view, does not get his reputation back just because he says something negative about Trump now that he got fired. I also can hardly give him credit for sticking around to reign Trump in. Not only did that not work out so splendidly, but he also was responsible for the hard line immigration policy, where he separated families and whatnot, for which he was rewarded with a promotion. If all he did was hindering Trump, should we see the separated families as some kind of acceptable collateral damage for this greater purpose? As chief of staff, he found it necessary to smear a congresswoman in defense of Trump, he called Robert Lee a noble man, I mean he said a lot of nasty stuff. Hard to just explain it with "duty" and "service" for me really.

But . . . um . . . well,. . . ok. Guess I pretty much have to agree with everything here.   I think Kelly did slow Trump down at points on Syria and Korea. But so much bad along with that.

[Dill]

(06-14-2020, 10:04 AM)hollodero Wrote: I see some reasons to believe that. First, the whole weapons of mass destruction narrative was not inherently based on 9/11 (or say could have been followed regardless of 9/11). Sure there also was the "al qaeda is in iraq" narrative, but I don't know if people in the US believed that. Most NATO members did not.
Also, Bush had picked Cheney as his VP. If you initially intend to be all peaceful, you do not choose the devil as your running mate. Also he went with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, who already had advocated violent regime change in Iraq back when Clinton was president.

Of course, I don't know what would have happened if 9/11 hadn't occurred, but imho these are some hints that the Iraq invasion would have happened anyway.

Just a very quick clarification here.  I have seen no evidence that Mullen bought into the Cheney claim that Al Qaeda was in Iraq and working with Saddam Hussein in 2001.

However, you know that there was an affiliate of Al Qaeda in Jordan in 2001, led by Zarkawi. AFTER the US invasion this group moved into Iraq and became known to us as Al Qaeda in Iraq, Jama'at to themselves. They spun up the insurgency and eventually became ISIL.  That is the connection to Al Qaeda that Mullen is referring to in his speech. Part of the surge strategy was to get Iraqis themselves to turn against this group. Mullen understood very well that the invasion of Iraq was a gift to Al Qaeda, expanding their recruitment and giving them a "twofer."

One more clarification: About that advocacy for violent regime change in Iraq. The Iraq invasion happened largely because Bush pulled a bunch of guys from the Project for a New American Century into his administration.
https://www.rrojasdatabank.info/pfpc/PNAC---statement%20of%20principles.pdf  AND because of 9/11.

From 1996 onward, the PNAC had publicly groused that H.W. had stopped short of toppling Saddam in the Gulf War, called that a great mistake, but assumed (correctly) they would never get the country and Congress behind them to "finish the job" unless there were, in the words of their 1997 Report, some "catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor."  You know this movement as "neoconservativism"--the Neocons.

Then came 9/11--an OPPORTUNITY to get the job done, if only they could link Saddam to Al Qaeda. Hence all those embarrassing overrides of intel professionals. The creation of the "stovepipe" for funneling their unvetted intel to Congress and eventually the press.  It is EXTREMELY doubtful that Gore would have ever invaded Iraq, or even another Republican NOT so explicitly affiliated with the PNAC. It is doubtful (near impossible, really) that the country could have gotten behind an invasion of Iraq had not 9/11 happened.

Yet for all that, BEFORE 9/11, Bush himself had settled on a very MAGA-like foreign policy. He wanted to build up strong US military at home, but thought the US was spread to far, wasting money on unnecessary foreign wars. He and his base were reacting to "Globalist" Clinton's policing in Bosnia and Kosovo, and they wanted drawdowns in Europe and the Middle East. Bush and they were NOT on board with the PNAC, one reason the Bush team paid little attention to warnings about some terrorist group planning to hijack jets and fly them into buildings.  

[hollodero]

(06-14-2020, 07:08 PM)Dill Wrote: Some quick historical notes: there is considerable contrast between generals like Pierce and Arthur and Garfield, who had full civilian lives first and then were tapped for service under emergency conditions. And really didn't run on their military experience. (Taft was a general??)  

Fair enough. And Taft really didn't serve, but still was made a major general for reasons I did not really quite get and wasn't too interested in.

I mainly responded to the point because you did not list Andrew Jackson. I mean, this guy has to count :) - the other four I listed have quite sophisticated military carees though and at least three of them (Harrison, Taylor and Garfield) were considered war heroes.

(06-14-2020, 07:48 PM)Dill Wrote:
Just a very quick clarification here.  I have seen no evidence that Mullen bought into the Cheney claim that Al Qaeda was in Iraq and working with Saddam Hussein in 2001.

However, you know that there was an affiliate of Al Qaeda in Jordan in 2001, led by Zarkawi. AFTER the US invasion this group moved into Iraq and became known to us as Al Qaeda in Iraq, Jama'at to themselves. They spun up the insurgency and eventually became ISIL.  That is the connection to Al Qaeda that Mullen is referring to in his speech. Part of the surge strategy was to get Iraqis themselves to turn against this group. Mullen understood very well that the invasion of Iraq was a gift to Al Qaeda, expanding their recruitment and giving them a "twofer."

One more clarification: About that advocacy for violent regime change in Iraq. The Iraq invasion happened largely because Bush pulled a bunch of guys from the Project for a New American Century into his administration.
https://www.rrojasdatabank.info/pfpc/PNAC---statement%20of%20principles.pdf  AND because of 9/11.

From 1996 onward, the PNAC had publicly groused that H.W. had stopped short of toppling Saddam in the Gulf War, called that a great mistake, but assumed (correctly) they would never get the country and Congress behind them to "finish the job" unless there were, in the words of their 1997 Report, some "catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor."  You know this movement as "neoconservativism"--the Neocons.

Then came 9/11--an OPPORTUNITY to get the job done, if only they could link Saddam to Al Qaeda. Hence all those embarrassing overrides of intel professionals. The creation of the "stovepipe" for funneling their unvetted intel to Congress and eventually the press.  It is EXTREMELY doubtful that Gore would have ever invaded Iraq, or even another Republican NOT so explicitly affiliated with the PNAC. It is doubtful (near impossible, really) that the country could have gotten behind an invasion of Iraq had not 9/11 happened.

Yet for all that, BEFORE 9/11, Bush himself had settled on a very MAGA-like foreign policy. He wanted to build up strong US military at home, but thought the US was spread to far, wasting money on unnecessary foreign wars. He and his base were reacting to "Globalist" Clinton's policing in Bosnia and Kosovo, and they wanted drawdowns in Europe and the Middle East. Bush and they were NOT on board with the PNAC, one reason the Bush team paid little attention to warnings about some terrorist group planning to hijack jets and fly them into buildings.  

Well this analysis goes quite deep. Much of it though amounts to many in the Bush environment really being eager to invade Iraq, they were just afraid they could not get the public behind it. And then an opportunity arose...
...and for how many of these people, shooting an US drone would have served as an opportunity as well? At least to escalate things further? Which is kind of my point, that many folks are just way more eager to go to war than Trump is. Or at least way less wary. Trump called back the attack on Iran, would everyone else have done that too? (Again, putting the idiocy aspect aside.)

Like McCain, rest his soul, but he even started singing Bomb Iran to the tune of Barbara Ann once. And it was not that it was an out of character joke or seemed unfitting to his attitude. And I'd guess many at least in his party could get behing that notion and I guess some on that fred list might too. Trump, not so much.

As for al qaeda in Iraq, maybe Mr.Mullen deserves no scrutiny, but many used that narrative to directly connect Saddam to 9/11 really.

[Dill]

(06-15-2020, 11:33 AM)hollodero Wrote: As for al qaeda in Iraq, maybe Mr.Mullen deserves no scrutiny, but many used that narrative to directly connect Saddam to 9/11 really.

No. NOT Mullen's narrative. A different one. And this is an important distinction. 

There was no "Al Qaeda in Iraq" in the lead up to the 2003 war, when Cheney et al. were claiming there was. Mullen knew this in 2010 (and probably in 2002).  

There WAS Al Qaeda in Iraq in 2010, when Mullen referred to a network of Al Qaeda affiliated networks in the region. His audience would not be confusing these narratives, or assume Mullen was peddling or extending the already discredited Cheney claims.

(06-15-2020, 11:33 AM)hollodero Wrote: I mainly responded to the point because you did not list Andrew Jackson. I mean, this guy has to count :) - the other four I listed have quite sophisticated military carees though and at least three of them (Harrison, Taylor and Garfield) were considered war heroes.

Sorry. Just don't like Jackson. Messed up the central bank. Trail of tears. Defiance of  Congress. Trump values but real competence and a real warrior. Did have an illustrious military career for sure. Beat the British; beat up on Indians.

Garfield never saw battle, and was a "hero" of logistics if anything. Taylor is the only guy you listed with a "sophisticated" military career, i.e. one with sophisticated training--drill, instruction in tactics, study of military history.

No one gets to be a "general" anymore simply because he was a big wig at the local or state level, so a state governor put him in charge of militia.

[hollodero]

(06-15-2020, 01:50 PM)Dill Wrote: No. NOT Mullen's narrative. A different one. And this is an important distinction. 

There was no "Al Qaeda in Iraq" in the lead up to the 2003 war, when Cheney et al. were claiming there was. Mullen knew this in 2010 (and probably in 2002).  

There WAS Al Qaeda in Iraq in 2010, when Mullen referred to a network of Al Qaeda affiliated networks in the region. His audience would not be confusing these narratives, or assume Mullen was peddling or extending the already discredited Cheney claims.

Conceded.

(06-15-2020, 01:50 PM)Dill Wrote: Sorry. Just don't like Jackson. Messed up the central bank. Trail of tears. Defiance of  Congress. Trump values but real competence and a real warrior. Did have an illustrious military career for sure. Beat the British; beat up on Indians.

Just wanted to mention that he was a real general for sure that deserves to be put on the list of US generals becoming presidents.

(06-15-2020, 01:50 PM)Dill Wrote: Garfield never saw battle

That's not true... Eg. "Jenny's creek" followed by an altercation at "middle creek" with confederates, where he very much saw battle as commander, also he was under fire at the Battle of Shilow. Later he rode to Missionary Ridge after the battle of Chickamauga, a scouting ride wikipedia describes as "becoming legendary".

[Dill]

(06-15-2020, 02:05 PM)hollodero Wrote: That's not true... Eg. "Jenny's creek" followed by an altercation at "middle creek" with confederates, where he very much saw battle as commander, also he was under fire at the Battle of Shilow. Later he rode to Missionary Ridge after the battle of Chickamauga, a scouting ride wikipedia describes as "becoming legendary".

LOL ok you got me on that one. Guess I should take wikipedia more seriously.

Looks like he entered as a colonel with no military training and commanded one battle, Middle Creek.

Guy certainly did his duty.

Nothing you say is going to make me like Jackson.