Redstate

...since I've read it and you haven't:

"The general staff consists of idiots who are fighting the last war instead of this one, and we need to boot them all out. Oh, yeah, Congress should pay more attention to what the Hell's going on."

It was not:

"There was a time when I had confidence in the military, but these guys have lied to us so much. They’re so intimidated by the White House."

Don't ever use an article to bolster your argument that you haven't read first. Do you understand, or do I need to use smaller words? Answer in your next post, unless you'd like it to be your last one.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

It is true that the author never accuses top officers of outright lying. He does accuse them of a similar and serious charge; he accuses them of the “moral failure” of lacking “candor” and “moral courage” and accuses them of failing to provide accurate assessments of military affairs. He compares today’s generals to those in the 60s whose “passive consent” was necessary for President Johnson’s duplicitous efforts to “conceal the costs and consequences of Vietnam from the public.”

He writes:

While the physical courage of America's generals is not in doubt, there is less certainty regarding their moral courage. In almost surreal language, professional military men blame their recent LACK OF CANDOR on the intimidating management style of their civilian masters.

The intellectual and MORAL failures common to America's general officer corps in Vietnam and Iraq constitute a crisis in American generalship.

Current oversight efforts have proved inadequate, allowing the executive branch, THE SERVICES and lobbyists to present information that is sometimes incomplete, inaccurate or self-serving.

America's generals did not provide Congress and the public with an accurate assessment of the conflict in Iraq.

… America's general officer corps did not accurately portray the intensity of the insurgency to the American public.

For more than three years, America's generals continued to insist that the U.S. was making progress in Iraq. However, for Iraqi civilians, each year from 2003 onward was more deadly than the one preceding it. For reasons that are not yet clear, America's general officer corps underestimated the strength of the enemy, overestimated the capabilities of Iraq's government and security forces and failed to provide Congress with an accurate assessment of security conditions in Iraq. Moreover, America's generals have not explained clearly the larger strategic risks of committing so large a portion of the nation's deployable land power to a single theater of operations.

Yes, some of the failure to provide accurate information and assessment is due to failures of competence, but the author repeatedly makes the claim that some of it is due to lacking the “moral courage” to tell people things they don’t want to hear. So is Murtha wrong to say that the military has lied? In a technical and literal sense, perhaps. But this article asserts that top officers have not provided the FULL truth when they otherwise could have, and should have. If its not a lie, its still morally dubious.

there is a difference between and "accusation" and "fact" and there is a difference between "lying" and "mistaken."

But getting back to Moe's point, the article is not germane to the discussion. At best it is an attempted threadjack. At worst it is just dishonesty.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Murtha: “There was a time when I had confidence in the military, but these guys have lied to us so much. They’re so intimidated by the White House.”

Article: "While the physical courage of America's generals is not in doubt, there is less certainty regarding their moral courage. In almost surreal language, professional military men blame their recent LACK OF CANDOR on the intimidating management style of their civilian masters."

They were not just mistaken. They lacked the moral courage to tell the whole truth.

I have strict banning standards.

See streiff's response for further commentary; he covered everything that I would have.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

from the article. I think I make a reasonable case that the author believes the generals did more than just make mistakes. He believes they are guilty of moral failures.

You may argue that point all you like on another thread. Shoot, write a post on it if you dare - but here and now the question is, did the author of this piece agree with Rep. Murtha that the United States Armed Forces are deliberately lying? Yes or no, Smerd. Pick one. No equivications, please: this was the primary objection to the use of this piece as evidence supporting Murtha's commentary.

Yes? or no?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

No, as I said before the author doesn’t accuse the army of lying. Still, I believe the article was very relavent to original post since it supports the idea that a congressmen listening to a military leader testify can not expect to get the whole truth or a candid assessment. The article even states that many officers admit lacking candor due to intimidation by civilan boses. If Murtha’s quote said “misled” or “failed to tell us the truth”, it would be an accurate summary of a portion of the article’s thesis. So lieing—no. Failing morally-yes. Different, but similar and in no way off topic.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

There is no question "the author believes the generals did more than just make mistakes. He believes they are guilty of moral failures." The author writes for the Washington Post. The same Washington Post whose own omsbudsmen admitted liberal bias and being unfair to George Allen. I'm not sure where you are from, but the Washington isn't a credible source on the war. They are agenda driven. No one around here really cares about the anti-war propaganda coming from the Post.

And is typical of all anti-war liberals, they always prop up any soldier or veteran that supports their position because they are so hard to find. People like Yingling, Murtha and Webb are granted special attention precisely because they represent a minority view. It's amazing the lengths the left will go to prop up the handful of veterans that support them, while completely ignoring and disavowing the overwhelming majority of the military that supports the war.

Last, I'll give liberals credit for completely destroying and manipulating the word "liar". You need intent to lie. This all started with Bush. Somehow being ill-informed or being an advocate got twisted into being a lie. The word liar carries such a negative wieght. It works so well for Democrats that ironically they have to actually lie to get people to believe other people lied. If Murtha is going to call people in the military liars, that is a serious charge. He better back it up. There is a difference between lying, intentionally deceiving, and using poor judgment. Apparently, the military is lying. I want to know specifically who lied and what they lied about. I also want to know that they purposely deceived me. Unless, he can do that, tell that freaking traitor to shut his fat piehole. He is a national disgrace.

"There is no question "the author believes the generals did more than just make mistakes. He believes they are guilty of moral failures." The author writes for the Washington Post."

The author being cited is an active duty officer writing in a military publication. I am talking about his article, not the article about his article in the Post.

So the Post picks up one story from one guy who runs with it.

Scroll down a bit, there is some live reporting coming right from the trenches. One Captain states

“There’s not a single one of my soldiers who doesn’t look at the neighborhood we’re in, look at the children there, and not want to do whatever they can to give these kids as bright a future as possible. We want to finish this job, and we know we can do it.”

Can I expect a story from the Washington Post about all the soldiers who believe in this mission and want to win and want to win for nable reasons.

No, it'll just be the usual blather highliting every single negative thing and bolstering every dissenting soldier that represents the minority. Who is Yingling? Why is his opinion, so important all of a sudden?

edit - "win for noble reasons"

I'm trying to turn down my cynicism and fairly read that article. The cynic says our writer is contemplating a new career and thinks the next President will be a Democrat, so he's positioning himself to be on somebody's short list for something in the next administration or maybe a lucrative gig with some think tank. So, with that predjudice disclosed;

I don't know enough about the pure military aspects of his complaints to presume to much comment beyond to this amateur student of history and things martial, much of it has a ring of truth. Streiff and others are much more qualified and I'm sure will comment.

I do know a lot about management of large governmental organizations and every word he says about organizational culture, military or civilian, and promotion systems in government, the military isn't unique, rings true. The very, very worst thing you can do for your career in government is to be good at the actual delivery of whatever service your agency provides. In a large government, a division director is the rough organizational equivalent of a one or two star; he or she heads an organic unit that possesses all the delivery of service and infrastruture staff to independently accomplish a given mission. It is normally a politically appointed position, but usually doesn't require confirmation by a legislative body. Sometimes, a director is appointed from the ranks and actually knows the division's workings, most times a division director is appointed because he or she knows the mayor, governor, secretary as the case may be. All too often, this is the level at which skill, honesty, and courage stops cold. The purely political director doesn't want to be told anything he doesn't want to hear, certainly doesn't want to hear that something he wants done can't be done or can't be done with current resources, and usually views "looking good" as a zero sum game and won't allow his subordinates to look good because he feels that makes him look bad. Where the director is a skilled practitioner, he faces the same sort of personalities I described above him. First, he will not be promoted into the position unless he can at least fake hewing to the line espoused by the people who might appoint him. Second, a skilled practitioner may well not be appointed because that very skill will make the superior look bad. I wish I had a nickel for everytime I've been tasked with a "bullet point" briefing memo on something and then drug along with the boss over to a conference in the Governor's Office or a legislative hearing but left out in the hall so the boss can try to go in and look like he actually knows something, but had me out in the hall in case he needed to take a discrete break and go out and find out what the Hell he was talking about. The further you get up the organization the more deadly to your career actually knowing or doing anything becomes; you must be "hail fellow well met" and never do anything to upset anyone's applecart or cause any sort of controversy. If there is controversy, there will be no discussion of whether you were right or wrong, won or lost, you will simply be excoriated for creating controversy - the greatest, perhaps the only, mortal sin in government.

Whoever comes up with an effective promotion and appointment scheme for people in such positions will be the next legend in organizational design and theory. I don't share the writer's enthusiasm for 360 evaluation; it's one of those biz school things that looks good until you try it. It really becomes more of a measure of a person's sociability and popularity, both of which are more likely than not to be contraindicative of effectiveness. Maybe because the stakes are so high, soldiers' lives, it would work better in the military than in the civilian world, but I'd have to be convinced; what you do every day is what you do every day, only the consequence of error varies.

In Vino Veritas

I am prepared to apply the Spirit of '93 and begin a new career selling shirts and bumper stickers through the pages of the American Spectator.

I'd rather see GOP success but, hey, one must adapt to a changing environment. If anti-capitalists take power, the correct way to resist is to capitalize.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

AChance- Your observations really apply to the armed forces and federal civil service. In the the service branches, there is usually an informal system for knowing what is happening, and getting things done. It often doesn't follow the chain of command.

Next time, you may want to read the article. Care to point out where he says they lied or mislead?

As for the overall assessment, I will leave that up to more capable, credible people like Streiff, et al.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

If you're referring to me, I did read Achance's post, and I did NOT say anything about lying or misleading. I also spent considerable time in both of these bureaucracies.

This was a call to action on Franklin. Nothing to do with your post.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

Lt. Col. Yingling did convey a great disappointment with the military's leadership in Iraq up til now:

" For more than three years, America's generals continued to insist that the U.S. was making progress in Iraq. However, for Iraqi civilians, each year from 2003 onward was more deadly than the one preceding it. For reasons that are not yet clear, America's general officer corps underestimated the strength of the enemy, overestimated the capabilities of Iraq's government and security forces and failed to provide Congress with an accurate assessment of security conditions in Iraq. Moreover, America's generals have not explained clearly the larger strategic risks of committing so large a portion of the nation's deployable land power to a single theater of operations."

Yet he concludes with a call for more of what I interpret as the Gen. Petraeus-type leaders who have the intellectual skills to evaluate security conditions.

...feel have not been trustworthy."

I agree. But with a fairly significant difference...

Nailing Murtha on Abscam

--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox

Seeing as you're defending Murtha, and everything.

Moe

PS: Don't make the n00b mistake of thinking that pretending to be dumb and/or disingenuous works with me.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

So I am guessing you would then agree that a lack of leadership would be some disengenuous act; for example, using unrelated, parochial material having nothing to do with a particular subject and containing no evidence of endemic or widespread systemic failure, beyond their intended subject, as support for an argument, right?

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

based on pure substance alone, I swear. No really.

Me too. And I am congenitally unable to lie. Especially about decently hot conservative babes.

But seriously, RECALL MURTHA NOW!!!! Can't wait till 08.

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?