A pathetic case of Pentagon incompetence

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

One more in the long line of pentagon screwups. Do you wonder why things went so "Right" in Iraq. When a fish stinks look to the head

How Many Government Agencies Does It Take To Teach Soldiers Arabic?
A pathetic case of Pentagon incompetence.
By Fred Kaplan
Updated Wednesday, April 6, 2005, at 3:47 PM PT

Quote:

I've just read one of the funniest and saddest government documents I've run across in years. Published by the Pentagon (the source of most such things) under the title "Defense Language Transformation Roadmap," it details the official plan for improving foreign-language skills among U.S. military personnel. The plan is meant to fill an urgent need. It was ordered by the deputy secretary of defense, administered by the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, and coordinated with the service secretaries, combat commanders, and Joint Chiefs of Staff. And to read it is to see, with your own increasingly widening eyes, the Pentagon's (or is it the federal government's?) sheer inability to get anything done on time.

Continued at:Read it and weep.
http://www.slate.com/id/2116330/

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,713 • Replies: 100

No top replies

First of all, why do American military problems make you as happy as this obviously does? Secondly, what is it that you feel went wrong in Iraq, other than failure to predict the insurgency? Give an example.

0 Replies

Jeez, the fact that you can't see the unbelievable sorrow that our military problems cause is just stunning, Brandon. How can you think that any of this make us happy?

This whole damn mess is depressing.

As for what went wrong in Iraq? We attacked them, simple as that...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Jeez, the fact that you can't see the unbelievable sorrow that our military problems cause is just stunning, Brandon. How can you think that any of this make us happy?

This whole damn mess is depressing.

As for what went wrong in Iraq? We attacked them, simple as that...

Cycloptichorn

Since that is just exactly what we intended to do, it is not an example of something that went wrong.

All war results in sorrow, although not necessarily more than not going to war. What military problems are you referring to?

I will not allow you to repeat your falsehoods over and over again without asking you to pin down specifically what your point is. On the other hand, if you wish to just call me names in lieu of an argument, that will only show that you have no argument to make.

0 Replies

Heh, it sure was a problem for the 17-20 thousand, at least, innocent civilians who were killed. I bet they would have rathered we didn't attack Iraq.

My point is that we are not happy when bad news comes out, but saddened by it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I have to get back to work soon, but I can put you in your place for a few minutes, at least.....

0 Replies

Brandon, not happy but dismayed and disgusted.
As for what went wrong in Iraq. The planning or lack thereof for control once we were in. And all the attendant problems related to it. You don't think it was well planned or do you?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brandon, not happy but dismayed and disgusted.
As for what went wrong in Iraq. The planning or lack thereof for control once we were in. And all the attendant problems related to it. You don't think it was well planned or do you?

Well, we won easily in 3 weeks. We didn't predict the subsequent insurgency, but who says wars are simple or predictable, or that enemies are pushovers? They haven't usually been such in the past. Probably we ought to have gone in with more troops. I am sure that most past wars were just overflowing with screw-ups. The difference was that in the past we usually had a loyal populace and press who didn't delight in crowing about every imprefection from a picture perfect sequence of events.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Heh, it sure was a problem for the 17-20 thousand, at least, innocent civilians who were killed. I bet they would have rathered we didn't attack Iraq.

My point is that we are not happy when bad news comes out, but saddened by it.

Cycloptichorn

That is not the same as saying that the war was executed poorly. Tell me about those "well run" wars where civilians didn't die.

0 Replies

Nah, I don't feel like having that argument with ya.

It's not the title or purpose of this thread, anyways...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Peace.

Brandon9000

0 Replies

Brandon
I will just give you a few screwups to dwell on
< We went into Iraq with an insufficiency of forces to control the aftermath
< Did not stop the looting of museums and facilities
< Did not guard the weapons depots allowing them to be looted and thus giving adequate arms to the insurgents
< Inadequately equipped troops in particular the national guard and reserve units.
< People at home had to buy and send their loved one bullet proof vests.
Vehicles that were not armored. Troops had to go to salvage areas for metal to armor plate their vehicles.
< Abu Gharab, and the policy on what constitutes torture?

Just a few of the deficiencies in planning. Do I need to say more?
I suggest you stop trying to defend the indefensible.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brandon
I will just give you a few screwups to dwell on
1. We went into Iraq with an insufficiency of forces to control the aftermath

Probably so, but not predicting the size of the insurgency does not constitute an unusual failing, since most invasions in war have not in fact been followed by anything like this, e.g. the invasion of Japan in WW2. Ordinarily, this could easily have been corrected by a draft, but people like you would probably have screamed bloody murder had Bush done this. Actually, the constant harping on him has probably resulted in a much less agressive prosecution of the war than would otherwise have been the case.

au1929 wrote:

2. Did not stop the looting of museums and facilities

I would guess that the same sorts of things happened in past occupations. If you can show me a reference that shows that we did a better job of guarding museums in our occupation of Japan, I may relent.

au1929 wrote:

3. Did not guard the weapons depots allowing them to be looted and thus giving adequate arms to the insurgents

I do not know much about this, but you may be right.

au1929 wrote:

4. Inadequately equipped troops in particular the national guard and reserve units.
5. People at home had to buy and send their loved one bullet proof vests.
6. Vehicles that were not armored. Troops had to go to salvage areas for metal to armor plate their vehicles.

Most likely, the only difference between this and past wars is that in past wars there was no expectation that everyone would have perfect equipment.

au1929 wrote:

7. Abu Gharab, and the policy on what constitutes torture?

And, of course, I am sure that no enemy soldier was questioned in appropriately in WW2 or Korea. You have failed to distinguish this from routine problems with past wars.

au1929 wrote:

Just a few of the deficiencies in planning. Do I need to say more?
I suggest you stop trying to defend the indefensible.

You haven't made much of a case that Iraq has been handled less efficiently than past wars. You need to say a lot more.

0 Replies

Brandon
Brandon why bother. Admitting the truth is just not your style.
I will say again we went into Iraq unprepared for the ocupation. Stop trying to muddy the waters and talk BS.
Do you have any Idea of what happened in Japan or any other wars. If you had read anything about what has occurred in the last several years in Iraq instead of blindly following the administration rhetoric you would recognize the extent of our screwup in Iraq. You would also know that which I pointed out was exactly what happened. And believe it or not no WMD's were found. I guess they must all have been sent to Syria. Right of course right.

0 Replies

Okay ... I'll admit it: The Pentagon doesn't teach Arabic very well.

Next.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brandon
Brandon why bother. Admitting the truth is just not your style.
I will say again we went into Iraq unprepared for the ocupation. Stop trying to muddy the waters and talk BS.
Do you have any Idea of what happened in Japan or any other wars. If you had read anything about what has occurred in the last several years in Iraq instead of blindly following the administration rhetoric you would recognize the extent of our screwup in Iraq. You would also know that which I pointed out was exactly what happened.

Translation: You can't take me on point by point. Even if you can (which I doubt) you forfeit the argument by not doing so. You have simply ignored my arguments and said, "You know I was right," which is equivalent to a forfeit.

au1929 wrote:

And believe it or not no WMD's were found. I guess they must all have been sent to Syria. Right of course right.

When you lose a few debating points, it is always helpful to obscure things by raising new issues. When you think of something to counter the responses I had made to your prior to your statements, I will address this new subject.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Okay ... I'll admit it: The Pentagon doesn't teach Arabic very well.

Next.

Heehee

0 Replies

It ignores competent advice that it is (at least Rumsfeld does - other folk listened) basing plans to invade Iraq on faulty intelligence.

It ignores (at least Rumsfeld and cronies did) competent advice - including from Colin Powell, and its own ME experts - that it is seriously understaffed for keeping peace in Iraq - IF the administration insists on invading on questionable intelligence....

0 Replies

Brandon
What the hell point to point are you talking about. I give you facts and you counter with that is the way it is in other wars. To begin with you haven't the slightest Idea what happened in other wars and second it has nothing to do with this one. They screwed up royally and no one is disputing it. That is no one but you.
I should also note you use the same style of argument on every thread. No facts but much BS.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brandon
What the hell point to point are you talking about. I give you facts and you counter with that is the way it is in other wars.

I answered your points one by one. You ignored mine and said, "You know I was right." That is a forfeit.

au1929 wrote:

To begin with you haven't the slightest Idea what happened in other wars...

You don't know who I am, or what I have studied. The above response is just on the face of it nonsense. Moreover, you should respond to what I actually write, rather than speculate about the origins of what I write.

au1929 wrote:

...and second it has nothing to do with this one.

On the contrary. If you advance a criticism of this war, but your criticism is equally true of most wars, then you have no argument.

au1929 wrote:

They screwed up royally and no one is disputing it. That is no one but you.

Millions of people dispute it. Our candidates do tend to beat yours, remember?

au1929 wrote:

I should also note you use the same style of argument on every thread. No facts but much BS.

My style of debate is irrelevant. Since you are unwilling to address my responses to your statements, you lose. That is clearly the rule of debate. Repeating, "I'm right" over and over is the debating tactic of a child.

0 Replies

A pathetic case of Pentagon incompetence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know