Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, luckily Gates is Sec'y of Defense and he had no issues even with a Lt. Col. regularly conferring with the executive office during the last administration.
Read the linked article in the OP. His name and comments are there.who is this LtCol that you speak of? his Aide?
Read the linked article in the OP. His name and comments are there.who is this LtCol that you speak of? his Aide?
I understand that we don't agree. I am merely saying that I believe that I have a bit more understanding as to how the military operates than you do. So...not only do we disagree, in this case I am right and you are wrong.
I happen to know that the president does not need to carry on strategy discussions with theater commanders while simultaneously stepping over at least two levels of the chain of command to do so. Not only does he not NEED to, his doing so would undermine the effectiveness OF that chain of command.
I guess the pissing contest is on, let's see if you really have a "bit" more understanding......
Let's see if you can tell us all who Robert Patterson was and how he changed the world as we know it today......
This isn't some silly game of trivial pursuit.... I merely pointed out that you clearly don't have a clue about how the military chain of command works and how it is important for all levels of it to use it and support it up AND down. For Obama to talk directly to McChrystal, it would require that he bypass at least two layers of the chain of command to do so.
And the only Patterson I know of is the union general who screwed up at Harper's Ferry.... but I hardly think he changed the world as we know it. Maybe he brought back jalapeno peppers from his exploits in Mexico earlier in his career, but that would hardly be world changing either.
Read the linked article in the OP. His name and comments are there.who is this LtCol that you speak of? his Aide?
I guess the pissing contest is on, let's see if you really have a "bit" more understanding......
Let's see if you can tell us all who Robert Patterson was and how he changed the world as we know it today......
This isn't some silly game of trivial pursuit.... I merely pointed out that you clearly don't have a clue about how the military chain of command works and how it is important for all levels of it to use it and support it up AND down. For Obama to talk directly to McChrystal, it would require that he bypass at least two layers of the chain of command to do so.
And the only Patterson I know of is the union general who screwed up at Harper's Ferry.... but I hardly think he changed the world as we know it. Maybe he brought back jalapeno peppers from his exploits in Mexico earlier in his career, but that would hardly be world changing either.
Just what I thought, you can not stand up in a debate on the military......
Robert Patterson was Secretary of War during WW II, he is the one who told Patton when Patton wanted to take the Russians out then and I quote "Oh, George, you have been so close to this thing so long, you have lost sight of the big picture.", right, nearly 40 years later we witnessed the demise of the Soviet Empire, how many lives were lost, how many dollars were wasted because the chain of command didn't communicate with the true pulse on the street????
You have no understanding of military history, so are you sure you want to get into a pissing contest with me? Maybe you want to stick to that chain of command bullshit you really know nothing about.....
Micromanagement is NOT a good thing. But they seem to think it is.
In fact, these people are the same one generally complaining that there is too much micromanagement.
Yeah, I pointed that out in another thread and got a bizarre response.
Either the "war is being over-managed by politicians" or "the politicians don't give a shit about what is going on over there".
You can't have it bother[sic] ways.
This isn't some silly game of trivial pursuit.... I merely pointed out that you clearly don't have a clue about how the military chain of command works and how it is important for all levels of it to use it and support it up AND down. For Obama to talk directly to McChrystal, it would require that he bypass at least two layers of the chain of command to do so.
And the only Patterson I know of is the union general who screwed up at Harper's Ferry.... but I hardly think he changed the world as we know it. Maybe he brought back jalapeno peppers from his exploits in Mexico earlier in his career, but that would hardly be world changing either.
Just what I thought, you can not stand up in a debate on the military......
Robert Patterson was Secretary of War during WW II, he is the one who told Patton when Patton wanted to take the Russians out then and I quote "Oh, George, you have been so close to this thing so long, you have lost sight of the big picture.", right, nearly 40 years later we witnessed the demise of the Soviet Empire, how many lives were lost, how many dollars were wasted because the chain of command didn't communicate with the true pulse on the street????
You have no understanding of military history, so are you sure you want to get into a pissing contest with me? Maybe you want to stick to that chain of command bullshit you really know nothing about.....
like I said, this isn't some silly ass trivial pursuit discussion. YOu still have shown zero understanding of how our military and civilian command structure work together...
and are you suggesting that, even though they were our allies, we should have invaded the soviet union at the end of WWII because Patton with his three stars thought it was a good idea? Really?
Just what I thought, you can not stand up in a debate on the military......
Robert Patterson was Secretary of War during WW II, he is the one who told Patton when Patton wanted to take the Russians out then and I quote "Oh, George, you have been so close to this thing so long, you have lost sight of the big picture.", right, nearly 40 years later we witnessed the demise of the Soviet Empire, how many lives were lost, how many dollars were wasted because the chain of command didn't communicate with the true pulse on the street????
You have no understanding of military history, so are you sure you want to get into a pissing contest with me? Maybe you want to stick to that chain of command bullshit you really know nothing about.....
like I said, this isn't some silly ass trivial pursuit discussion. YOu still have shown zero understanding of how our military and civilian command structure work together...
and are you suggesting that, even though they were our allies, we should have invaded the soviet union at the end of WWII because Patton with his three stars thought it was a good idea? Really?
Sounds like it...or else he was using Patton as an example to bolster our side of the argument.
patterson was undersecretary of war at the time of the conversation and the war in europe ended (VE-Day 8 May 1945) the day after the meaningless conversation took place.
big whoop
patterson was undersecretary of war at the time of the conversation and the war in europe ended (VE-Day 8 May 1945) the day after the meaningless conversation took place.
big whoop
Damn.
You just pissed all over his meaningless tidbit, that's only point was to demonstrate that he is a "student of military history".
patterson was undersecretary of war at the time of the conversation and the war in europe ended (VE-Day 8 May 1945) the day after the meaningless conversation took place.
big whoop
Damn.
You just pissed all over his meaningless tidbit, that's only point was to demonstrate that he is a "student of military history".
life's hard sometimes.
president carter told me that during PT one day at great lakes.
Damn.
You just pissed all over his meaningless tidbit, that's only point was to demonstrate that he is a "student of military history".
life's hard sometimes.
president carter told me that during PT one day at great lakes.
But how is he going to establish his bone fidas now? I mean, he's a student of military history, for chrissakes. That and a 1.50 will get you a cup of coffee at McDonalds.
I would have paid money to have the president PT with me. I'd have broken him.
It's all good, for now. BHO met with McChrystal yesterday. And, unlike others, all I care about is that I have confidence that he is making informed decisions. Of course, BHO has had McChrystal's recommendations since before Labor Day and has yet to set a strategy, but maybe soon now.This Afghanistan story is picking up speed - the Obama White House best get in front of it or they are going to be suffer some serious blowback...
It's all good, for now. BHO met with McChrystal yesterday. And, unlike others, all I care about is that I have confidence that he is making informed decisions. Of course, BHO has had McChrystal's recommendations since before Labor Day and has yet to set a strategy, but maybe soon now.This Afghanistan story is picking up speed - the Obama White House best get in front of it or they are going to be suffer some serious blowback...
I agree with his vague statements about paying more attention to Pakistan, but it's a complicated situation - money to Pakistan being diverted to projects counter to the USA yet Pakistan being needed for staging, etc. Perhaps you could provide some more input in the thread I started to see if anyone was willing to discuss it and exchange ideas. I like honest discussion of issues with honest brokers of discussion, that is.It's all good, for now. BHO met with McChrystal yesterday. And, unlike others, all I care about is that I have confidence that he is making informed decisions. Of course, BHO has had McChrystal's recommendations since before Labor Day and has yet to set a strategy, but maybe soon now.This Afghanistan story is picking up speed - the Obama White House best get in front of it or they are going to be suffer some serious blowback...
Why should the strategy change from the Bush Administration?
What strategy do you think should be in place?
agree with his vague statements about paying more attention to Pakistan, but it's a complicated situation - money to Pakistan being diverted to projects counter to the USA yet Pakistan being needed for staging, etc. Perhaps you could provide some more input in the thread I started to see if anyone was willing to discuss it and exchange ideas. I like honest discussion of issues with honest brokers of discussion, that is.
Yup. You said FATA sucks and will always suck. Okie doke.I agree with his vague statements about paying more attention to Pakistan, but it's a complicated situation - money to Pakistan being diverted to projects counter to the USA yet Pakistan being needed for staging, etc. Perhaps you could provide some more input in the thread I started to see if anyone was willing to discuss it and exchange ideas. I like honest discussion of issues with honest brokers of discussion, that is.It's all good, for now. BHO met with McChrystal yesterday. And, unlike others, all I care about is that I have confidence that he is making informed decisions. Of course, BHO has had McChrystal's recommendations since before Labor Day and has yet to set a strategy, but maybe soon now.
Why should the strategy change from the Bush Administration?
What strategy do you think should be in place?
I have.
