4 ms·

It’s interesting how opaque and non-transparent the US military is. From a glance it seemed like this is one of the reason Iraq was such a fuck up. The intel th

by baby 2y ago

It’s interesting how opaque and non-transparent the US military is. From a glance it seemed like this is one of the reason Iraq was such a fuck up. The intel that nothing was working there wouldn’t make its way up the chain, nobody understood how bad the situation was. There used to be that one documentary circulating on Reddit about that general that was pretty open about things there and got severely reprimanded for it. I can understand keeping things internal, but if things are not transparent internally then people should go public with the intel they have.

philwelch 2y ago
Nearly all of the mistakes in Iraq (including the decision to invade in the first place) were made at the political level, above the military. Bush decided to invade the country, Rumsfeld decided to commit too few troops to effectively occupy the country, and Obama decided to set a hard public deadline for withdrawal that allowed the insurgency groups that turned into ISIS to plan and bide their time. The military can’t question the orders they receive from the president and Secretary of Defense. That’s an important part of maintaining civilian control over the military. The military can only try to carry out whatever goals and decisions they’re given by the politicians, and in Iraq the politicians (from both parties) got it wrong.
- Mathnerd314 2y ago
  > The military can’t question the orders they receive They can present a report on why the orders are a bad idea, IIRC. That could be seen as "questioning". And there is the possibility of disobeying illegal orders. But it is true, if the orders are legal and final then they have to be carried out. (And if they're illegal... better be prepared to prove it at a court-martial)
  - philwelch 2y ago
    It’s possible there was some pushback on the manpower levels, because that actually is closer to a military decision. Though apparently even then, the military often just takes what they get. The original plans for the 1991 Gulf War didn’t include the flanking attack from the western desert because not enough forces were allocated, and it was Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney who had to remind the generals that they were allowed to request more troops if they thought they needed them. But the decision to start and stop wars is explicitly political and there is a much greater taboo against the military trying to tell the president which wars the country should be fighting in the first place. Which is a big part of the difference between a democracy and a military dictatorship!
- Log_out_ 2y ago
  You forgot firing the iraq administration and the iraqy army. Im still convinced the whole thing was a plan to get a shia and sunni war going in the middle east. In that regard it was a monstrous great success.
- throwaway984393 2y ago
  [dead]

by baby 2y ago

philwelch 2y ago

Nearly all of the mistakes in Iraq (including the decision to invade in the first place) were made at the political level, above the military. Bush decided to invade the country, Rumsfeld decided to commit too few troops to effectively occupy the country, and Obama decided to set a hard public deadline for withdrawal that allowed the insurgency groups that turned into ISIS to plan and bide their time. The military can’t question the orders they receive from the president and Secretary of Defense. That’s an important part of maintaining civilian control over the military. The military can only try to carry out whatever goals and decisions they’re given by the politicians, and in Iraq the politicians (from both parties) got it wrong.

Mathnerd314 2y ago
> The military can’t question the orders they receive They can present a report on why the orders are a bad idea, IIRC. That could be seen as "questioning". And there is the possibility of disobeying illegal orders. But it is true, if the orders are legal and final then they have to be carried out. (And if they're illegal... better be prepared to prove it at a court-martial)
- philwelch 2y ago
  It’s possible there was some pushback on the manpower levels, because that actually is closer to a military decision. Though apparently even then, the military often just takes what they get. The original plans for the 1991 Gulf War didn’t include the flanking attack from the western desert because not enough forces were allocated, and it was Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney who had to remind the generals that they were allowed to request more troops if they thought they needed them. But the decision to start and stop wars is explicitly political and there is a much greater taboo against the military trying to tell the president which wars the country should be fighting in the first place. Which is a big part of the difference between a democracy and a military dictatorship!
Log_out_ 2y ago
You forgot firing the iraq administration and the iraqy army. Im still convinced the whole thing was a plan to get a shia and sunni war going in the middle east. In that regard it was a monstrous great success.
throwaway984393 2y ago
[dead]