Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Failures in leaderhip


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Failures in leaderhip Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/16/2008 5:14:29 PM   
Thadius


Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline 		I am gonna go out on a limb here and make a somewhat edjumicated guess that Ranger the retired special forces officer,

1. does not still have his security clearance, (especially considering his current website)
2. get briefings on a daily or weekly basis from particular units, or their chains of command,
3. get a live feed when these engagements occur.

This does not mean he cannot raise concerns after the fact, hell he can express whatever opinion he wishes.  However, does his experience, and education make him a psychic to know what occured on the ground during a particular incident?  Tactics are one thing, and they are great to know so one is prepared, but when the proverbial shit hits the fan it is the training of the men on the ground involved in the action and the current situation that dictates what is or is not going to be done.  While post action reports and debriefings are very important, sometimes they aren't the entire story.  With a good map and basic intel, I can lay out one hell of a strategy, there will definitely be a good chance somebody is going to get injured or killed (afterall, I expect that the enemy is going to fire back), does that make the plan good or bad?  How about if those plans are based on experience and training?  What about a plan that falls apart as we hit the beach, because of faulty intel?  I can guarantee that if an officer is derelict in his duty, he will be seeing the "old man" and if he has a habit of getting the men under him killed, that the brass will get his ass or a friendly grenade just might.

Unfortunately, in a war, folks are going to die.  Who am I to decide if PFC Joe Schmoe died needlessly?  See I think that is the problem, if PFC Joe Schmoe died doing his duty, was he not serving a purpose, was he not honoring his comittment, does he not deserve credit for whatever objective (whether of value or insignificant in the eyes of others) was accomplished?  There are lessons learned in and from war, one of the hardest to grasp is that those that die are doing so for whatever reason they believe in, be it defending their buddies flank or another purpose.

As an aside, there are no "traditional" endgame objectives (capturing the capital, the leader, etc...).

Just my opinions as a no longer enlisted man,
Thadius



_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/16/2008 8:02:32 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and suspect that none of the people making ad hom attacks on Ranger are in fact Special Forces officers at the rank of Lt.Colonel or higher.

I highly doubt if anyone here has attended the War College as a senior officer, and studied (much less applied)  the manuals, and doctrine that Ranger cites in any official capacity.

Since he supports his point not merely by citing his rank and experience, but by quoting those command level strategic materials that say 'Do not do X, Y, and Z, or you will get your people killed', and then he asks why X, Y, and Z, were done in these cases, the criticism against him boils down to ' nobody should question anything any commander does', which I reject, as completely as I reject the notion that troops are just supposed to die needlessly.

...

Anyone who knows that there is a right way and a wrong way to deploy troops and equipment to avoid forseeable and pointless losses that accomplish no military objective, and doesn't say anything, shouldn't be pointing fingers at those who do say something.


Please point out where anyone has given an ad hominen attack against "Ranger".

But since you seem to think highly of his supposed qualifications ...

Ranger Against War is a link to his own site, where he gives his credentials.

If you read the comments, you'll see that he is appears to be under investigation of the "Stolen Valor Act".  (and his DD214, which was questioned, has disappeared from his "credentials"). I don't know if he is indeed what he says he is or not, but certain things about his documents strike me:

a.  It appears that the highest rank he achieved was Captain.  So I'm not sure why you want to insist that someone has to be a LTC or above to criticize his thinking.

b.  I've got more experience and awards than he does (and, oh, yeah, higher rank), in the basically the same fields (some differences).  Mine, however, are 20 years more current, and achieved in a very different Army.

c.  I have several more years experience in his fields than he does.  I've actually had a couple of commands of troops as well, and don't see anything like that in his online resume. He seems to have spent a lot of his time in training units.

d.  I have "studied" and "applied" all of the "manuals" and "doctrines" that "Ranger" discusses.  And, like General P, I've even got a Masters Degree in International Relations, paid for by your tax dollars while I was active duty military.

In other words, if you want me and him to haul out our dicks, I think mine is just as big as his, and probably a bit thicker.

Again, I think you are engaged in a selective bias in this entire issue.  Neither you nor he have provided sufficient details to consider doing anything resembling an honest analysis of the situation that you both cite as some sort of "proof" of the corruption of the US military officer corp, or it's strategy and tactics.

When I called you on it, and asked you to provide something in addition to just his comments you failed to answer me directly, but instead come back with this "his dick is bigger BS" that you wouldn't accept from anyone else in a similar discussion.

All of which points to a weak logical argument.

Firm

< Message edited by FirmhandKY -- 7/16/2008 8:21:46 PM >

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/16/2008 8:39:08 PM   
Real_Trouble


Posts: 471
Joined: 2/25/2008
Status: offline 		I pretty much agree with FHKY here.  Trying to frame an argument with absurd credentials (which you had damn well better meet yourself, I might add, if you are trying to set them) is the sign of a weak argument; in a bit of irony, you are demanding commentary only from the very officer corps this individual is claiming is corrupt!  If you support his viewpoint, those are the LAST people you want commenting if you think he is right.

< Message edited by Real_Trouble -- 7/16/2008 8:40:32 PM >

_____________________________

Send lawyers, guns, and money.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/16/2008 9:43:24 PM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
quote:

I've got more experience and awards than he does (and, oh, yeah, higher rank), in the basically the same fields (some differences).


Lt. Colonel Hruska, whom I've had the pleasure of knowing for quite a while,  has satisfied me (and the American Legion, among many others... note his providing the name of the FBI agent to call if you have anything to back up your criminal claims), as to his credentials in person.
I will not be holding my breath waiting for you to prove your assertion that you held higher rank than O-5  or for you to provide proof of your slanders.

And if you did in fact have all this rank, command experience and education, you wouldn't have to hide behind lies and slanders to avoid the fact that you simply cannot answer honest questions about tactical failures.

Those field manuals aren't classified, why not just address the questions?

If Ranger is so wrong, what doctrine says that tanks are supposed to operate with no infantry support?

Are you claiming that hand grenades are supposed to be dropped into them by passers by?

Are you claiming that unsupported outposts is a tactical advantage?

Are you claiming that the primary function of the military is not combat, but 'nation building' and police work?


< Message edited by Alumbrado -- 7/16/2008 9:45:19 PM >

(in reply to Real_Trouble)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/16/2008 10:15:40 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

I've got more experience and awards than he does (and, oh, yeah, higher rank), in the basically the same fields (some differences).


Lt. Colonel Hruska, whom I've had the pleasure of knowing for quite a while,  has satisfied me (and the American Legion, among many others... note his providing the name of the FBI agent to call if you have anything to back up your criminal claims), as to his credentials in person.

I will not be holding my breath waiting for you to prove your assertion that you held higher rank than O-5  or for you to provide proof of your slanders.

And if you did in fact have all this rank, command experience and education, you wouldn't have to hide behind lies and slanders to avoid the fact that you simply cannot answer honest questions about tactical failures.

Those field manuals aren't classified, why not just address the questions?

If Ranger is so wrong, what doctrine says that tanks are supposed to operate with no infantry support?

Are you claiming that hand grenades are supposed to be dropped into them by passers by?

Are you claiming that unsupported outposts is a tactical advantage?

Are you claiming that the primary function of the military is not combat, but 'nation building' and police work?



Al,

You are normally a very sharp debater, although a bit acerbic for my tastes.

But you yet again duck the issue.  I'm asking very specifically for detailed operational information about the attack on American forces in Afghanistan that you (and "Ranger") claim prove American officer incompetence.  It may well be the case (there are idiots in all of life's paths).  But neither of you have presented anything but your "belief" that it is so.

As for my qualifications versus "Ranger's", that wasn't an issue I made, that was an issue you made.  I believe that military experience helps some people to understand these factors, but I don't believe it is an absolute requirement.  And Real_Trouble got it exactly right ... you condemn the professionalism and competence of all military officers .. and then claim that you have to be a higher-than-Hruska (obviously incompetent) military officer to rebut those claims?

There's a saying about trying to have your cake, and eating it to. This is a perfectly logic argument according to your own words:

Military officers = incompetent.
LTC Hruska = military officer
LTC Hruska = incompetent.

By your own logic ... why should I listen to "Ranger" Hruska?

Do military officers sometimes make mistakes?  Yup.  And some of them get soldiers (and themselves) killed. But one of the things I learned is, that if you aren't making mistakes, you aren't learning.  If you are so risk aversive that you always opt for the easy, "safe" route, you don't deserve your commission, and you'll end up killing more of your soldiers in the long run.

The rest of your above post is nothing more than more straw-man arguments.

Firm

PS.  Holding your breath is a childish method of debate.  And it turns you blue.


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/16/2008 10:47:01 PM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline 		Thanks for once again not bothering to step up to the plate.

You first raised the ad hominem attacks against the questioner, instead of answering the questions, you claimed to hold a higher rank than O-5 in SF. and now won't back that up, you can't answer the most basic of tactical questions out of the manuals you claim to have mastered, and the straw is all yours. 
Nowhere have I claimed that all military officers are incompetent, that is you once again simply making things up to avoid the questions you cannot answer.

And if you had ever served in the military at all, much less at the rank and status you claim, it would be exceedingly strange for you to not know that the details of those attacks are written in the award citations for the men who jumped on those grenades.... hardly classified stuff.


(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/16/2008 11:37:27 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Thanks for once again not bothering to step up to the plate.

You first raised the ad hominem attacks against the questioner, instead of answering the questions, you claimed to hold a higher rank than O-5 in SF. and now won't back that up, you can't answer the most basic of tactical questions out of the manuals you claim to have mastered, and the straw is all yours. 
Nowhere have I claimed that all military officers are incompetent, that is you once again simply making things up to avoid the questions you cannot answer.

And if you had ever served in the military at all, much less at the rank and status you claim, it would be exceedingly strange for you to not know that the details of those attacks are written in the award citations for the men who jumped on those grenades.... hardly classified stuff.





You first raised the ad hominem attacks against the questioner

Please quote these "attacks" for me (plural, even!).


you claimed to hold a higher rank than O-5 in SF

Please quote this for me.


you can't answer the most basic of tactical questions out of the manuals you claim to have mastered

What you mean is, I won't be drawn into a dead end argument.  I asked for facts, not bullshit.


Nowhere have I claimed that all military officers are incompetent
Close enough, considering the context of both this thread, and the article by "Ranger" which started it:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

That doesn't mean the role of the officer corps is to see how many ways they can get troops killed without achieving any military objective... the focus of the articles mentioned.



 And if you had ever served in the military at all, much less at the rank and status you claim

Again, what does my military background have to do with your failure to provide any - I repeat - ANY information about the attack in Afghanistan?


it would be exceedingly strange for you to not know that the details of those attacks are written in the award citations for the men who jumped on those grenades
You (and "Ranger") provide zero ... I repeat ... ZERO information about any of the events you both reference, so that any reasonable search could locate reliable information about the events.  They could all have happened and support both your claims.  Or they could all be made up bullshit.  Or something in between.

But right now, from here, it looks like everything you and "Ranger" are writing is bullshit, and you are squirming all over the place trying to deflect everyone's attention from that fact.

Read my signature line, and try again.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/17/2008 3:13:34 AM   
DomAviator


Posts: 1253
Joined: 4/22/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

I think "getting troops killed without achieving any military objective..." is a product of having a professional military staffed by the underclass. If we had a draft for all major US engagements, our country would have a much more realistic "war" consciousness. As is, we have a war unconsciousness --- or denial system in place.

As we've seen, the American mass media doesn't fill the gap here.


Well isnt that just special.... For your information, I entered OCS with an engineering degree from the #4 engineering school in the USA. Pretty much everyone in my OCS class had an engineering, science, or math degree.  Among the schools representend were Cornell, Embry Riddle, Syracuse, MIT, Colorado School of Mines, Stanford, Texas A&M, Brown, Penn, Purdue, Chapel Hill, and Hobart-William Smith. In the fleet, I served with men from just about every good school around, PLUS the Academy.

Yeppers, we waz all a buncha yeeeeehaws who done wandered ourselves into the united states navy to fly us them there aeroplanes causin we didnt have nowheres else to go and truckmasters wazzmt havin us...

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/17/2008 5:25:14 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline 		I was not referring to the Buffalos being a nasty surprise, I was referring to the simple fact that two carriers supporting Wake AND the Additional troops would have been.

When you consider that the rest of the Amphibious Forces available to the Japanese was already being used in the Philipines, slated for use in Java, Indonesia, Singapore, and other areas of the PTO, and in place for those operations, they would have been forced to give up on Wake, at least for the first part of the War.

By the time enough troops were free to actually try to take Wake once more, it would have been after their operations were complete in the rest of the PTO including New Guinea and the Solomons.  At which point the move would have been after Wake, not Midway.

Now for the war at hand.

quote:

Alumbrado
Strolling up to tank after tank and dropping grenades inside is a preventable and forseeable occurence with a well known defense...which was ignored in Iraqi operations.


I do hate to disappoint you, but this has not been the case in Iraq.  While tanks have been used as road blocks, they have not been without infantry support.  Nor does anyone 'stroll' up to a tank and drop a grenade inside, probably because the hatches have a locking mechanism, and cant be opened from the outside.

Now granted, the use of tanks as road blocks is underusing a major asset, however, so is throwing tanks into a battle that is taking place in an urban environment.  Tanks are an open terrain weapon, they are not good for urban areas.  A bozo with an rpg on top of a roof can make a tank a not so fun place to be, because once the tank is past you, it has exposed its weakest point.

In point of fact, the urban environment only favors the guerrilla fighter.  The only truly effective way to reduce a city to a point of safety for troops is exactly that, REDUCE the city, i.e carpet bomb the place till there is nothing left standing.



_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Failures in leaderhip - 7/17/2008 10:50:22 AM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline 		Trying to convince a former Marine of the futility of reinforcing Wake is not an exercise I should be involved in ...apologies

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 50
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Failures in leaderhip Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.078