|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
New Member |
RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,166698_2,00.html
Just how many words did it take this guy to say absolutely nothing. His piece sounds just like the moaning & groaning that could be written by any of a thousand passed over malcontents. |
||
|
Member |
On the other hand... autonomous thinkers can hit an "invisible ceiling" in any organization. I would be interested to hear some discussion of the points Huber is making, pro or con, rather than the stale ad hominem too often used in these disussions. Is there a "good ol' boy" network for disinformation? Is there a legitimate question of conflict-of-interest regarding these "military experts" providing commentary on the the major news outlets? I.e. do they have investments in or backing from companies profiting from the Iraq war? Or do they sit on the boards of such? Advise such? Do stars on your shoulders make you exempt from harsh criticism from ex-Military? Are Huber's criticisms warranted? yes? or no?
|
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Sounds like another bushie to me.
|
|||
|
|
If a tree falls in a forest and lands on a politician, even if you can't hear the tree or the screams, I'll bet you'd at least hear the applause. Paul Tindale  |
Just another dog and pony show for the folks back home. End results? Evidently not much. I believe the word "gratuitous" comes to mind.
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
What generals like Petraeus, Mattis, McCaffrey, Odierno, etc. say about the war matches d*mn well with what my son says. Good.
Whereas, what Mr. Huber has to say bears zero relation to anyone's reality but his own. IMHO, Mr. Huber is by a considerable margin the weakest Military.Com columnist. No facts ... no quotes ... little reasoning. No need for Mr. Huber. |
|||
|
-------------------  Proud Member Derelict Veterans' Group -------------------  |
Yep!
Agreed.
Todays politics remind me of an old saying. - "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?" - Joseph Stalin |
|||
|
|
Member |
Yep. Retired a commander, never got his eagle when lesser men (in his mind) did. There is no real point in discussing the "points" he makes. He slings adjectives and ignores reality. He takes Petraeus to task for using a 100 man security detail to guard Senator John McCain. What was Petraeus supposed to do? Can you imagine that phone call? McCain: "General, I want to look around Iraq and see if the surge is having an effect." Petraeus: "Nope. Can't do it Senator. I'm not risking men to protect you. No Senator, it doesn't matter you're part of the reason I have 50,000 more troops here to help me do my job, you can't come to Iraq. You'll just have to trust that my summation of the situation is God's truth. Bye." That would have went over well. |
|||
|
|
suspended 90 days as of 5/19/09 |
http://www.deepikaglobal.com/ENG4_sub.asp?ccode=ENG4&newscode=18790
The program has been 'suspended' pending a review. There's nothing wrong with a professional military opinion, it's the political 'input' that's the problem. Wars are political, but politics should never be used to alter reality - unless you're the divisional comissar. When political hacks start telling the military how to fight a war, there's a problem - that goes for comissars, too. The 'review' means the political hacks are still front, center and looking for a few good 'dummies'. |
|||
|
|
suspended pending review,Nemesis |
Without commention on the entire argument, Mr. McCain and Graham were to say the least disingenious in their walking tour, and both of them admitted it. That they made fools of themselves is not the Generals fault of course - But fools they made of themselves. Dave |
|||
|
|
45 Days Suspension - Has Notes 04/30/2008 - ErichG |
What we will find out about this war is that it was waged by a bunch of career minded bureaucratic generals. They have been, and continue to be, perfectly willing to send soldiers to their deaths to ensure a future high paying job either as a T.V. commentator or defense contractor executive.
We will learn that many generals have quietly left the military in protest and soon that will all come out as well. Mr. Huber is absolutely right. This group of very self serving generals have allowed themselves to become political pawns. Example: Long before the surge when they knew they needed more troops, they allowed the President and the SecDef to "sell" to the American people that the military was getting "everything it needed" and the generals were getting "all the troops they asked for". It was precisely at this point where a general, who cared about the lives of his soldiers, would have stood up and said that it was absolutely not true. What does GEN Petraeus have to show for his "successful" surge? A stalemate. He is going to get troop levels (maybe) to the level where they were prior to the surge then just stop. Take a time out. Kind of like a half time show. Imagine, all the soldiers who died last year did so in order to declare "Stalemate". Yes, Mr. Huber is dead on. And unfortunately a lot are dead because of the actions he is describing. |
|||
|
* |
You can say that again.
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Couldn't agree more ... the threat title ("What a Piece of Garbage") fits Huber like a pair of spandex briefs. |
|||
|
|
If a tree falls in a forest and lands on a politician, even if you can't hear the tree or the screams, I'll bet you'd at least hear the applause. Paul Tindale |
After reading the above, "spandex briefs", and having looked at his photo, I am now afraid to go to sleep. That is something I definitely do not want to think or dream about. Jade, you have made me a shattered man.  |
|||
|
|
Member |
From Mr. Huber's op-ed... Allard, McCaffrey, Marks and many other network military analysts have been part of an extensive Pentagon information campaign designed “to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance,” according to Barstow. The effort “began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day.” Not surprisingly, “Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.” You will find here facts, quotes, and reasoning. And from the NYT article by Barstow... Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized. Some more facts and reasoning but no quotes (unless we count this quoting of the article as a quote)  . |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Bwf27, you happened to pick a quote where Mr. Huber's statements are indeed dead-wrong on the facts. Try reading Gen. McCaffrey's After Action Reports for yourself (here and here). You will see that they are *NOT* "designed to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance." Quite the contrary. McCaffrey's AARs are oriented toward war-winning. Summary: Mr. Huber's column is wrong on the facts---which is bad---and what is even worse, Mr. Huber gratuitously smears military personnel who serve our nation well. In my book, ignorant smears like Mr. Huber's are just plain wrong. And I don't care whether it's a liberal or a conservative who spreads them ... they are dead-wrong either way. So I stand by my statement that Mr. Huber's columns are Military.com's worst. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
 ... though I personally think it is a toss-up between Gaffney and Huber. While the issue Huber attempts to address is a perfectly valid one, as usual, he is shallow in his approach. It has been addressed far better in other articles and threads on ITN. I'd add that as soon as an author resorts to name calling ("Shoeless", "Clueless") it is a clear signal to me that the author has nothing meaningful to say and is lacking in credibility. Regards - |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
|
|||
|
|
Member |
Thank-you for your reply. And thank-you for the references. Powerful stuff. I agree Huber gets too colorful in his condemnations, but some points still have merit. 1) my initial references were merely to counter the "no facts" assumption, but I will add... 2) from the Barstow article... Two of NBC’s most prominent analysts, Barry R. McCaffrey and the late Wayne A. Downing, were on the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an advocacy group created with White House encouragement in 2002 to help make the case for ousting Saddam Hussein. Both men also had their own consulting firms and sat on the boards of major military contractors. 3) if you go further with the Barstow article it supports the allegation of an information campaign or "psych-ops" campaign to promote the invasion. 4) the reports you cite from McCaffrey come after much of the alleged Rumsfeldian info-campaigns cited by Barstow, I believe. The '07 report was, to me, disheartening but candid about the Iraqis and their many unresolved issues. You are right... it was not the report of someone trying to sell anything. 5) if the Barstow article holds water (and it appears to so far) it is a damning revelation about what were presumed to be authoritative military retirees, fully disengaged from war or "military-industrial complex" issues, giving reasoned commentary. 6) given what is said about the one general, McCaffrey, pro and con, I personally find the pro more convincing so far. He seems to have genuinely earned his stars. My hunch is his being a commentator is an extension of his overall belief in a life of service. But any commentator employing "bullet points" from the Pentagon or DOD or WH is compromising objectivity when he or she does so. This message has been edited. Last edited by: bwf27, |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
|
|||
|
|
New Member |
What garbage, Mr. Huber is the worst Military.Com columnist and as usual this piece follows his same tack of few facts and poor reasoning.
|
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
