Pencil-Necked Sissy II

View Comments (25)

• My Dad was a lifer in the AF. THere have always been idiots in command, but overall, the military was run by honorable, devoted men and women who were ready to risk life and limb for their country. The military has changed a great deal since then. TO get promoted, there is a check off list of crap to do or accomplish. If you are in one rank for longer than a certain period of time (say 3 or 4 years) or have been passed over for promotion twice, you are released from service. No more do the military guys and families support each other. They are in competition for an increasingly few number of positions. If you aren't political to some extent, you are out. THAT'S how we get people like this weasel as JCS.

• He is an appeaser just like his fearless leader. In street terms, he is nothing more than an ass kisser and only cares about his military career and protecting his beloved pension. Screw those who are under his command.

  • Every bureaucracy eventually reaches a point where only the best bureaucrats are promoted. I hate to repeat stories I've already told, but when my father landed at Normandy the senior officers kept disappearing. They kept finding excuses to go to the rear and "check on stuff." Then they never came back. Meanwhile, the regular enlisted guys and hurry-up-and-make-them officers like my dad stayed and fought. Eventually the guys who had thrived in the bureaucratic peacetime Army (many of them West Pointers) were all gone, and the regular Americans could get down to fighting Germans.

    • To your point, I have a fraternity brother who is now a rear echelon admiral (and a Rear Admiral) a doctor. If you were to meet him, you'd want to beat his ass out of general principle. Never have I met such a smug and careerist/politician in any walk of life.

• Political General.

  • Well, actually, so was Colin Powell.

• And they wonder why our combat troops are committing suicide in record numbers. They complain that our troops have turned into binge drinkers, and prescription drug abusers.
  They need look no further then this sorry excuse for a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs for the answers.

• What the hell has happened over the last ten years? These people are invading and destroying EVERYTHING America stands for. EVERYTHING. Our soldiers are fighting against these people, and now they can't be trained on how to combat them? CAIR and everything else related to it should be shipped out of the US entirely

  • The media has created an enemy to focus the attention of the populace. There are Extremist Christians (look at Terry Jones) as well as in everyother religion, belief, political group. MOST of the Muslims in America are not extremists. Many moved here when we were still friends with most of the middle east. They are Americanized, wear American fashions, drink and party like everyone else. Some attend mosque. Many don't. Bit increasingly in more recent times, Muslims who ARE extremists are moving here (or being sent) to disrupt. It is a falllacy to fall for the idea that ALL Muslims are bombers. The really dangerous ones look and act just like you and me. Place concern where it belongs, not where the media sends you.

• Check out the first couple slides (they are Dooley's).. I wanted to see if Dooley was carefully scoping his comments to the freakish Muslim extreme

  http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/total-war-islam/?pid=1195

  He is not, I would say. He has taken it to eleven, and as you might expect, I think its a little drastic at this time. But I thought you'd be interested in the vision ("nuke" and "Mecca" do appear in the same sentence.. and Hey there, Medina!)..

  Entirely expected that there'd be some--disagreement--over these doctrine

  • Two things: one, Dooley was using inherited course material, not stuff he created himself; and two, courses like this, for higher level strategic officers, model all kinds of shit without presuming to recommend it. Can you imagine what these courses taught about the Soviet Union during the Cold War? You think those courses didn't talk about using nukes? In other courses they model a military stomp down of a civilian uprising here in the United States, as we read about just a few weeks ago. How come the teachers of that course weren't fired? In order to be ready to use strategy, you have to know what your various strategic options are, which includes reverting to the actual words in the Geneva Convention rather than the politically-correct imaginary version we adhere to now... which basically has us fighting according to covilized rules and the enemy doing whatever they want.

    • The PDF has his name on it. Its his presentation. If I created a document at work and presented it to team leads, and I happened to borrow an out-dated & inaccurate failover diagram, no amount of finger-pointing gets me off the hook. Unless someone ordered me to include it, and even then, I'm up the shitty creek (and yeah, there is scapegoating potential here, i agree)

      But to greater points, I do understand the military runs simulations and wargames of all kinds. I can remember reading a report which detailed the U.S. taking command and control of Japan's government, military, and primary corporate resources in a fairly short war. This was 80s or 90s, and Japan's an ally obviously (struck me odd at first). Part of the reason for the exercise was to test new simulation/modeling techniques. Officers are probably gaming out an assault on a Chinese moonbase in 2037 as-we-speak. Strategic analysis needs to be put through its paces, with myriad contingencies planned for.

      This presentation is no such thing. I can see that Wired.com lifts out scenario assertions and presents them as if they were official positions. I've read almost all the PDF (July 2011 presentation) now and only 1/3 of the article, and have no desire to defend the magazine. I believe that Dooley vastly prefers a model which puts--by force if necessary--all of Islam on-the-hook for the actions of its extremists. With every page he diminishes the potential size and effect of the "moderate" segment of Muslim Ummah (love that term.. funny how Islam handed us a term which permits us to view them as monolith). I don't know why this would be surprising to anyone here, because Islam-as-Monolith is a common view.

      In another post i generously granted that 25% of global islam was extremist (including those who quietly support with whispered rhetoric & material support), and that the rest were cowed. I think my estimate is probably ridiculously conservative in the eyes of many here. Dooley would surely scoff at my naivety. I'm of the view now that he wants the same holy war that OBL wanted (remember, OBL hated Obama for specifically targeting AQ--in action and rhetoric--instead of Islam in general)

      I'm meandering too long here.. I should work. But this sounds like some fun to check out later (seriously): http://betabeat.com/2012/07/anti-jihadist-trolls-wage-war-on-terrorist-message-boards/

  • It works for me.

    • If you'll notice, further down in the text, Dooley did NOT write the course material. And even if he did, it also mentions that this is the scenario only if less extreme measures have already failed.

      Once again, Dooley is a scapegoat, to cure a problem that I don't even see as a problem. I would only have a problem with what he was teaching if it were untrue.

• Whose side is he on? Obama's. Which is not ours. A friend of my enemy, is no friend of mine.

• None dare call it treason.

• I'm not so sure he isn't one of those LGBT Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell dicks that sucked so hard on O's coat-tails that they got magically scooped up into the stratosphere of insider politics! One sissy kissing the ass of another.

• Notice how his lips are shaped. I'll bet they are exactly like Obama's asshole.