RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,176437_2,00.html

Is what Huber writes here accurate? true? Help me out here, folks. From a Managment 101 perspective it looks like a nightmare.

To be honest I'm not really sure what his point is. I thought it was going to be about the politics behind shooting at our helicopters, but then he broke into an illustration of how the chain of command works and THEN into his rants about Gen. Petraeus. I really don't see what the significance of each of those is in relationship to a coherent article.

From a Writing 101 perspective this article looks like a nightmare

Devildog2847:

I think the writers point is...Nobody is really in Charge. Or Afghanastans is ran by committee...which all started with his example of "The helicopter shot at by the Paki Check point...and nobody truely having a clue who's helicopter it really was...

I think the writer, once he researched who, what, how and when, saw a completely different story that just needed to be addressed...in his view, there is no straight forward Leadership/ Management chain of command to follow.

While I am loath to admit it, after 35 years of active duty, I do understand what Huber is saying. The chain of command is now so convoluted it is approaching gridlock. This is somewhat reminiscent of the politically controlled red tape hedge rows that field commanders had to suffer through in Vietnam. No major operation could be launched without a specivic OK from the White House. That misguided effort by political hacks turned a win into a loss--you can ask John McCain about that one. What pattern did the White House use to conduct the war in Vietnam? The same one that Nazi Germany used in WWII. No major military operation could be conducted without the specific OK of the Fuhrer. Actually, lucky for the Allies since they could launch an operation (Like D-Day) and the German High Command were paralized to act until the Fuhrer awakened from his nap. We are again pursuing this same failed "Over the shoulder" civilian command structure in conducting the War on Terror, or more accurately the War in Iraq and Afghanistan. NO, I'm not advocating ignoring the Constitutions "Civilian Leadership" role in this conflict. I'm just saying that if you want something done, pick the best people, lay out the mission, get out of the way and let the leaders trained and experienced in military operations do their job. I'm not seeing that yet. Good luck David, and goodnight Chet.

C'mon Dawg what Huber is so eloquently describing is a cluster***** of massive proportions.

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDog2847:
To be honest I'm not really sure what his point is. I thought it was going to be about the politics behind shooting at our helicopters, but then he broke into an illustration of how the chain of command works and THEN into his rants about Gen. Petraeus. I really don't see what the significance of each of those is in relationship to a coherent article.

From a Writing 101 perspective this article looks like a nightmare

A good writer is one that is unpredictable. Being unpredictable shows that the writer slants his or her stories in neither direction.

Huber is anything but unpredictable. So to actually pull facts from his writings you have to do your own research just to find the other half of possibly more of the story.

I can see his point about the chain of command becoming ineffective and loosing efficiency. He could have avoided the name calling, character bashing and finger pointing and would have had a much more well written and mature article.

quote:

Originally posted by PreMC:
A good writer is one that is unpredictable. Being unpredictable shows that the writer slants his or her stories in neither direction.

Huber is anything but unpredictable. So to actually pull facts from his writings you have to do your own research just to find the other half of possibly more of the story.

I can see his point about the chain of command becoming ineffective and loosing efficiency. He could have avoided the name calling, character bashing and finger pointing and would have had a much more well written and mature article.

I agree

quote:

Originally posted by bwf27:
RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,176437_2,00.html

Is what Huber writes here accurate? true? Help me out here, folks. From a Managment 101 perspective it looks like a nightmare.

It is always a nightmare when you have operations with more than one military service and more than one nation. For a retired USN Commander, Huber should understand that.

This would have been a good article, if he didn't degenerate into name-calling and go off on tangents. Something is definitly wrong with this guy. I have yet to read an article by him that didn't result in these same issues. I am starting to wonder if he was forced out of the service and now holds a grudge or something else happened. Does anyone know Huber from his military days or have insight as to motives/actions?

It's funny, Huber reminds me of Joe Thiesman (sp?) when he commentates at a football game. Acts like a jerk, negative about every player on the field, and acts as if he was the rgreatest player to ever strap on a helmet.

quote:

Originally posted by PreMC:
A good writer is one that is unpredictable. Being unpredictable shows that the writer slants his or her stories in neither direction.

Huber is anything but unpredictable. So to actually pull facts from his writings you have to do your own research just to find the other half of possibly more of the story.

I can see his point about the chain of command becoming ineffective and loosing efficiency. He could have avoided the name calling, character bashing and finger pointing and would have had a much more well written and mature article.

Thank you for the critique.

However prime purpose of any writer is to get read. Huber is very effective getting his message across.

quote:

Originally posted by mattkay4:

quote:

Originally posted by bwf27:
RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,176437_2,00.html

Is what Huber writes here accurate? true? Help me out here, folks. From a Managment 101 perspective it looks like a nightmare.

It is always a nightmare when you have operations with more than one military service and more than one nation. For a retired USN Commander, Huber should understand that.

This would have been a good article, if he didn't degenerate into name-calling and go off on tangents. Something is definitly wrong with this guy. I have yet to read an article by him that didn't result in these same issues. I am starting to wonder if he was forced out of the service and now holds a grudge or something else happened. Does anyone know Huber from his military days or have insight as to motives/actions?

It's funny, Huber reminds me of Joe Thiesman (sp?) when he commentates at a football game. Acts like a jerk, negative about every player on the field, and acts as if he was the rgreatest player to ever strap on a helmet.

Such nightmares have been part of the military for centuries. Learning to deal with them is the prime purpose of such institutions as military academies. The actualities of them are the stuff of staff-work.

The continued existence and interference of 'nightmares' in the mission is a measure of staff efficiency.

Would to god it were only a football game.

The biggest Wacky here is the writer- a Naval Aviator with zero ground Command time and who never made it pass LCDR- yet this fellow knows all about ground operations, Multi-force Cmd links, and Multi-National Command. Chain of Cmd has always been a problem ever since we started Multi-Service/Multi anything OPS. And it will always be so, you just follows the Cdr's intent to the best of your ability and drive on. As for borders in the Middle/Far East, 90% have no terrain features and have been argued over since they were set up. Hell, the State of GA is whinning about the border between it and TN, which has been there for 214 yrs.

quote:

Originally posted by lovatscot:
The biggest Wacky here is the writer- a Naval Aviator with zero ground Command time and who never made it pass LCDR- yet this fellow knows all about ground operations, Multi-force Cmd links, and Multi-National Command. Chain of Cmd has always been a problem ever since we started Multi-Service/Multi anything OPS. And it will always be so, you just follows the Cdr's intent to the best of your ability and drive on. As for borders in the Middle/Far East, 90% have no terrain features and have been argued over since they were set up. Hell, the State of GA is whinning about the border between it and TN, which has been there for 214 yrs.

You're right, he's wrong. All's golden in S. Asia - 15 seconds left, 1st down and goal to go.

You do multi-anything in a war and you HAVE to get it right, preferably the first time. It may be approaching rocket science now, but it's surely nothing new. Centuries ago it was done, at times very well, with dispatch riders, wig-wags and spies. Hi-tech seems to have baffled the brains - the 'slam-dunk' of modern warfare is patently absent.

Thanks, Folks. Even though some of you couldn't help but resort to some ad hominem against Huber, what you said confirmed some of the worries my career-Military father had in his later years (retired '69). I'll be checking back, pro and con. It's a case where I wish Huber was off base but worry that he isn't.

quote:

Chief Pakistani military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas said the helicopters had "crossed into our territory in Ghulam Khan area."

Pentagon bull feather merchant Bryan Whitman said that, "The flight path of the helicopters at no point took them over Pakistan."

General Abbas said, "They passed over our check post so our troops fired warning shots."

Bryan Whitman said, "The Pakistanis have to provide us with a better understanding of why this took place."

Um, Bryan, they just told you: your helicopter passed over their check post and they fired warning shots at it. What's not to understand?

This incident is yet another prime illustration of what America's biggest casualty has been in our woebegone war on terror: the truth.

This is typical Huber... take a few facts, throw in a lot conjecture to muddy the water and squeeze REALLY hard until it fits into the mold of the "evil administration" somehow.

The fact that the chain of command is convoluted it nothing new, certainly not in this war although it has now made it painfully obvious.

Huber you liberal idiot. You should be ashamed of yourself. I can't believe Military.com lets you write for them. **** off!!!!

Huber is up to his nonsense again. Consider the following:

1. He believes the Pakis' word, but not the US'.

2. The US helos have GPS to pinpoint their locations at all times. Do the Pakis on their convoluted border with Afghanistan?

3. Has he ever heard of probing the lines?

4. Even if we did cross the lines, it was either done accidentally or purposefully. (See #3).

5. All forces there are assigned the COCOM (combatant commander) for centralized control and decentralized execution. they follow the COCOMs orders. Their other original service chain of commands maintain other responsibilities (funding, training, etc...) It is way too much to explain here.

6. We have joint and combined service operation centers for these operations with real time intell/camera/etc... I guess Huber never saw or sat in one before.

OK, I wish he would keep it short like, "It's the Bush Administration's Plan" instead of wasting my time with his half-baked rant and rave. Oh, he wouldn't have anything to do then.

I'd like to see him and Lind on one of those celebrity fights. Two zealots without much basis duking it out.