7 ms·

If you want to understand why we've been losing wars for 70+ years, look no farther than this perfect microcosm of the U.S. military's approach to leadership.

by 23B1 3y ago

If you want to understand why we've been losing wars for 70+ years, look no farther than this perfect microcosm of the U.S. military's approach to leadership. Field grades denying it's a problem, gaslighting those who say it's a problem, doing everything they can to suppress discussion about the problem – and then a bunch of lower enlisted dudes having to FFIO on their own.

lbotos 3y ago
FFIO - Freakin' Figure It Out (polite form) for those like me who weren't sure :D
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
psunavy03 3y ago
The military as an institution has its flaws, sometimes serious ones. And one could make a serious argument that an up-or-out stack-ranked promotion system is toxic, inefficient, and ineffective at promoting true talent. But the US military has also not been "losing wars for 70+ years," and the overall tone of this post screams "disgruntled junior enlisted who thinks they have all the answers." It's something I'd frankly expect to see on Reddit. And with 20 years of active and reserve service, if I had to put one group of military leadership under the microscope as most in need of an institutional course correction, it wouldn't be the O-4s and O-5s. It'd be the E-7+.
- mandmandam 3y ago
  > the US military has also not been "losing wars for 70+ years," Maybe you don't consider Korea a loss (many do, and not just on Reddit), but Vietnam is a lot less debatable. And then in recent years you have the 8 trillion dollars (so far) spent in the ME. It's a staggering, unfathomable loss.
  - psunavy03 3y ago
    The military ultimately executes the policies of the Presidential administration which commands it and the Congress that funds it, under the laws the latter put in place. Especially in the Middle East and Vietnam, while there is blame to be put on theater commanders, the US military was also hamstrung by incoherent policy decisions of the civilian leadership. And frankly I don't care whether or not "many" armchair generals and admirals do or don't consider Korea a "loss." War is not a sports game. The details of the geopolitical and economic fallout of a stalemate like that matter a whole hell of a lot more than who "won."
    - mandmandam 3y ago
      Sounds a lot like "Just following orders" and "You weren't there". > And frankly I don't care That's just it though. This isn't about you. Sports game or not, there are losers in war; and it's been us, a lot, for decades. Whoever you try to blame, whatever you call people who point this out, that fact remains true.
      - blq10 3y ago
        You are very much missing the point. If you read the one thousand page postmortem on the invasion of Iraq - lots of blame to be placed on civilian leadership and intelligence. A few: The core reasoning (WMD) was the CIA misinterpreting Saddam grandstanding to his generals as a serious WMD program. This was due to the CIA having an insufficient grasp of the local situation, largely due to the fact that we had only infiltrated isolated parts of the regime and couldn't corroborate. Slightly before Obama's election, the US forces were effectively ordered to stop patrolling and attempting to take and hold territory in order to reduce the American bodycount for political reasons - this allowed forces outside the green zone to maintain continuity of operations and simply wait for us to get bored and leave. Similarly, lack of a clear set of objectives, and lack of frank expectations setting with the US population lowered the ability of the DoD to prosecute the war in a winnable fashion. These aren't small nitpicks, these are core reasons why the GWOT didn't go so well - and almost none of them have anything to do with defense procurement or military mismanagement.
- arminiusreturns 3y ago
  Spoken like an officer indeed (inferring here, could be wrong). 1. Ignores the core subject of the post and the GP's response claiming it is indicative of continued failure of leadership. 2. Generically tries to seem like there is some level of agreement without being concrete in admitting problems in any way. 3. Tries to defend Wilsonionism foreign policy (a root cause evil) by ad-homineming GP as a "disgruntled junior enlisted", and in a later post using the old-faithful "civilian leadership" excuse. 4. Defends officers generally while attacking senior enlisted (who are subject to said officers). I think you just about made the GP's point. We have billions for Ukraine and Israel and the military industrial complex (or the better put MICIMATT, by Ray McGovern), but when it comes to taking care of our junior enlisted leadership can't be bothered. Despite your generic denials it is indeed indicative of a repeated failure of leadership pattern. There is a reason recruiting is suffering massively right now... the internet makes it much harder to cover up these sort of things that got swept under the rug in the past, and a completely disconnected from the constitution foreign policy that is plain for all to see exacerbates the problem. How about we remove the plank from our own eye before we move to take the splinter out of our brothers?
  - 23B1 3y ago
    You just saved me a ton of retort'ing, TYFYS!
- suoduandao2 3y ago
  I'd say Korea counts as a US win or stalemate, but Vietnam ended with the US achieving none of its objectives, having wasted tons of lives and leaving in a humiliating fashion. Is it so weird to call that a defeat? In that case it's 50 years, given that Afghanistan ended in '21 in similar fashion. Are you just taking issue with 70 years being hyperbole? If not, I have to say this idea that the US didn't lose a lot starting with Vietnam is weird. In fact, it seems like exactly the kind of delusional self-talk among the leadership that would lead to such situations reoccurring. I mean, suppose I get in a fistfight and get knocked down then don't get up. Can I really say I chose not to get up because I didn't want to hurt the guy too badly and I therefore didn't lose? Even if it's true, it just means I lost on purpose.
- halJordan 3y ago
  Fuckin' get 'em! Agreed with your general sentiment. The navy probably does have a bigger problem with the cult of the chiefs, but the Army less so with its senior enlisted. But the problem is the JBSA post commander LTG Jones told Vice literally on Friday that "I don't have a mold problem, I have a discipline problem." And it's just a gross lie at this point. https://12ft.io/proxy?&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vice.com%2Fen%2Farticle%2Fm7b583%2Farmy-general-barracks-arent-filthy-hellholes-soldiers-are-just-lazy https://12ft.io/proxy?&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vice.com%2Fen%2Fa...
  - psunavy03 3y ago
    Well that's a public faceplant on line with the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy telling the GW Sailors "at least you're not in a foxhole" after a rash of suicides during a yard period.
- 23B1 3y ago
  Username checks out

by 23B1 3y ago

lbotos 3y ago

FFIO - Freakin' Figure It Out (polite form) for those like me who weren't sure :D

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

psunavy03 3y ago

The military as an institution has its flaws, sometimes serious ones. And one could make a serious argument that an up-or-out stack-ranked promotion system is toxic, inefficient, and ineffective at promoting true talent. But the US military has also not been "losing wars for 70+ years," and the overall tone of this post screams "disgruntled junior enlisted who thinks they have all the answers." It's something I'd frankly expect to see on Reddit. And with 20 years of active and reserve service, if I had to put one group of military leadership under the microscope as most in need of an institutional course correction, it wouldn't be the O-4s and O-5s. It'd be the E-7+.

mandmandam 3y ago
> the US military has also not been "losing wars for 70+ years," Maybe you don't consider Korea a loss (many do, and not just on Reddit), but Vietnam is a lot less debatable. And then in recent years you have the 8 trillion dollars (so far) spent in the ME. It's a staggering, unfathomable loss.
- psunavy03 3y ago
  The military ultimately executes the policies of the Presidential administration which commands it and the Congress that funds it, under the laws the latter put in place. Especially in the Middle East and Vietnam, while there is blame to be put on theater commanders, the US military was also hamstrung by incoherent policy decisions of the civilian leadership. And frankly I don't care whether or not "many" armchair generals and admirals do or don't consider Korea a "loss." War is not a sports game. The details of the geopolitical and economic fallout of a stalemate like that matter a whole hell of a lot more than who "won."
  - mandmandam 3y ago
    Sounds a lot like "Just following orders" and "You weren't there". > And frankly I don't care That's just it though. This isn't about you. Sports game or not, there are losers in war; and it's been us, a lot, for decades. Whoever you try to blame, whatever you call people who point this out, that fact remains true.
    - blq10 3y ago
      You are very much missing the point. If you read the one thousand page postmortem on the invasion of Iraq - lots of blame to be placed on civilian leadership and intelligence. A few: The core reasoning (WMD) was the CIA misinterpreting Saddam grandstanding to his generals as a serious WMD program. This was due to the CIA having an insufficient grasp of the local situation, largely due to the fact that we had only infiltrated isolated parts of the regime and couldn't corroborate. Slightly before Obama's election, the US forces were effectively ordered to stop patrolling and attempting to take and hold territory in order to reduce the American bodycount for political reasons - this allowed forces outside the green zone to maintain continuity of operations and simply wait for us to get bored and leave. Similarly, lack of a clear set of objectives, and lack of frank expectations setting with the US population lowered the ability of the DoD to prosecute the war in a winnable fashion. These aren't small nitpicks, these are core reasons why the GWOT didn't go so well - and almost none of them have anything to do with defense procurement or military mismanagement.
arminiusreturns 3y ago
Spoken like an officer indeed (inferring here, could be wrong). 1. Ignores the core subject of the post and the GP's response claiming it is indicative of continued failure of leadership. 2. Generically tries to seem like there is some level of agreement without being concrete in admitting problems in any way. 3. Tries to defend Wilsonionism foreign policy (a root cause evil) by ad-homineming GP as a "disgruntled junior enlisted", and in a later post using the old-faithful "civilian leadership" excuse. 4. Defends officers generally while attacking senior enlisted (who are subject to said officers). I think you just about made the GP's point. We have billions for Ukraine and Israel and the military industrial complex (or the better put MICIMATT, by Ray McGovern), but when it comes to taking care of our junior enlisted leadership can't be bothered. Despite your generic denials it is indeed indicative of a repeated failure of leadership pattern. There is a reason recruiting is suffering massively right now... the internet makes it much harder to cover up these sort of things that got swept under the rug in the past, and a completely disconnected from the constitution foreign policy that is plain for all to see exacerbates the problem. How about we remove the plank from our own eye before we move to take the splinter out of our brothers?
- 23B1 3y ago
  You just saved me a ton of retort'ing, TYFYS!
suoduandao2 3y ago
I'd say Korea counts as a US win or stalemate, but Vietnam ended with the US achieving none of its objectives, having wasted tons of lives and leaving in a humiliating fashion. Is it so weird to call that a defeat? In that case it's 50 years, given that Afghanistan ended in '21 in similar fashion. Are you just taking issue with 70 years being hyperbole? If not, I have to say this idea that the US didn't lose a lot starting with Vietnam is weird. In fact, it seems like exactly the kind of delusional self-talk among the leadership that would lead to such situations reoccurring. I mean, suppose I get in a fistfight and get knocked down then don't get up. Can I really say I chose not to get up because I didn't want to hurt the guy too badly and I therefore didn't lose? Even if it's true, it just means I lost on purpose.
halJordan 3y ago
Fuckin' get 'em! Agreed with your general sentiment. The navy probably does have a bigger problem with the cult of the chiefs, but the Army less so with its senior enlisted. But the problem is the JBSA post commander LTG Jones told Vice literally on Friday that "I don't have a mold problem, I have a discipline problem." And it's just a gross lie at this point. https://12ft.io/proxy?&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vice.com%2Fen%2Farticle%2Fm7b583%2Farmy-general-barracks-arent-filthy-hellholes-soldiers-are-just-lazy https://12ft.io/proxy?&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vice.com%2Fen%2Fa...
- psunavy03 3y ago
  Well that's a public faceplant on line with the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy telling the GW Sailors "at least you're not in a foxhole" after a rash of suicides during a yard period.
23B1 3y ago
Username checks out