The seductive allure of wars we’re not winning
Andrew J. Bacevich, some sort of military historian, a former Army Armor colonel, Gold Star father and George W. Bush critic, according to Wiki, writes in the Washington Post a piece by the title above. Mostly, he runs through the regular crap that you’d expect from a liberal, who isn’t a former Army officer, about the allure of war to American youths, the naivete of young American men in search of the “brotherhood” of war. After Bacevich runs down the seductive nature of military service, he punches vets in the gut with these paragraphs;
Reports of rampant sexual assault in military ranks have not dented this collective self-esteem. The same goes for Air Force officers cheating on proficiency exams. Ditto for the generals behaving with adolescent boorishness. No wonder vets believe that they should go to the front of the line when seeking employment. From their perspective, it’s only fair for the virtuous to be rewarded.
Speaking for myself, I believe that the troops would do well to ratchet down the self-regard. And when it comes to interpreting yellow ribbons and other “thank you for your service” testimonials, they might want to exhibit a bit more skepticism.
But there’s another question on which I’d be interested in hearing from younger veterans. It’s this: The world’s best military establishment didn’t win in Iraq, and it won’t win in Afghanistan. Why is that?
Hey, dingus, the vast majority of veterans of the current and past wars never sexually assaulted anyone, most of us aren’t boorish generals, many of us never cheated on proficiency exams that were related to combat readiness, so suck it!
In regards to your question about why the best military in the world didn’t win the current war decisively, go look in the mirror. Bacevich positioned himself as an opponent of the wars and took every opportunity to disparage President Bush and the reasons the country went to war. Aid the enemy much?
The troops weren’t allowed to win the wars from the beginning. Just like my generation wasn’t allowed to win against Hussein in 1991. The hand-wringers were afraid that we’d violate some nebulous international standard of conduct that forbids destroying completely your enemy’s army, using every method at your command. So we had troops who were sniped at from mosques they couldn’t secure, the enemy would slip across borders where our troops were forbidden to follow (they learned that from the North Vietnamese). The enemy could hide among civilians to avoid massive firepower which would defeat them (ask Will Swenson about that). In fact, troops were forbidden, for a time, to even carry loaded weapons in war (it cost us several score of unarmed troops to that brilliant idea). Even the only real effective campaign of the Iraq War, “The Surge”, was declared a failure by your side before it even began. Aid the enemy much?
In short, Andrew J. Bacevich, just like Vietnam, the most effective military in history didn’t fail to win the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the American people failed to win the wars. The troops won every engagement, even in the face of 20-to-1 odds and piss-poor strategy from politicians. How fucking dare you put this at their feet? How can you call yourself an historian when you won’t even glance at recent history? I guess you plan on starting a whole new classification in the Blue Falcon genre.
Thanks to Chief Tango for the link.
Category: Dumbass Bullshit
This guy is lower than Frank Visconi. What a shitbird.
Another “frustrated” officer that “knows” what’s wrong with the Military… probably all ass-hurt that he didn’t get his starts and wasn’t able to join the “frat” of General Officers that engage in “adolescent boorishness”.
From the Wiki article on him, “On May 13, 2007, Bacevich’s son, 1LT Andrew John Bacevich, was killed in action in Iraq”. I think this says it all. He’s pissed, as he should be, that his son died over there, so he’s slashing and burning all of us. Thanks Col. You would almost think with his towing of the political line he was bucking for that star he never got.
Actually, his son died in 2007 and he began criticizing the Iraq War in 2003. He’s probably feeling guilty because his inane rambling against the war contributed to his son’s death.
A Hudson High graduate. Interesting that his Wiki entry says he’s a retired Colonel and another source says he’s a retired Lieutenant Colonel. Something smells here.
Well thank you so much Andrew J. Bacevich…for nothing! Thank you also for blaming the troops in the field for following orders, generated largely by the politicians in Washington and the pussies in the Pentagon, rather than the Commanders in the field and in the battles. I am absolutely sure your Washington Post article will be the highlight of Al-Qaeda’s morning brief! Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan? Look those up in your “historians” archives and take an in depth look at the causes of the failures on the ground. Not the men in those battles, ever! Good men bled, lost limbs and died. Good men in all those wars suffered because of being hamstrung by Washington. Shame on you Andrew J. Bacevich. Shame on you!
The world’s best military establishment didn’t win in Iraq, and it won’t win in Afghanistan. Why is that?
Because, COL Twatwaffle, armies don’t fight wars-nations do. Without the full support of the nation there is only so much the Army can do-which is to say that we can dominate the battlefield, but still lose because the political will isn’t there. Anyway, please now go piss up a rope for disparaging the finest institution that exists in America today-one which is rightly admired by the public (even if they do occasionally misunderstand it).
This guy, like Cindy Sheehan is proof not all Gold Stars think alike. From my experience, he is as much of an anomaly amongst Gold Stars as he is amongst military officers and veterans.
In my opinion, any Gold Star that makes statements like this dishonors their child’s service and memory. He seems to have supported his son’s service, right up until he had to get his hands dirty. In other words, he felt he and his son were in a career for job security, recognition and to march in parades, not to actually do what the military is meant to do.
I am sorry for his pain, one I know all too well. However, time to sit down and shut up. You are a disgrace as an officer, a veteran and you are smearing the honorable memory of your son. From now on, rather than think of your son as one of the Fallen, the world will remember him as the son of a class-A buffoon.
If your son didn’t want to be there, didn’t believe in the mission, wasn’t there for the men in his unit, that simply means that apple didn’t fall far from the tree and you are to blame for that as well. How does it feel to know your son died for what you consider a meaningless and worthless fight? Does that seem harsh? Too bad. It is the feeling you are trying to thrust on the parents and loved ones of all the Fallen. I wish for you every misery for that.
Signed,
Denise Meehan
Gold Star mother of PFC Andrew Meari
KIA 11/1/10 Khandahar, Afghanistan
My condolences on the loss of your son, Denise. Your son did what few of his peers have done – put on the uniform and serve his country, and for that, I am grateful.
Denise, I wrote this back in 2005 when Cindy Sheehan was disgacing he r son’s sacrifice. I theink applies equally to COL Bacevich.
A Useful Death
A mother’s anguish turns to ire,
Her liquid tears to spears of fire,
A useful fool for the liberal Left,
All hatred now, no more bereft.
The honor which her son embraced,
Is now dishonored, now disgraced,
As his mother stands atop his grave,
From there to shriek, from there to rave.
Yes, some are maddened in their grief,
And grief can surely change belief;
But this woman’s views, her family say,
Have long been held, long fore today,
Enabling Leftists to use her grieving,
For Moore deception, Moore deceiving.
I see this mother as a willing fool,
A useful Moorish Code Pinko tool.
As one who fought in another place,
I sorrow for this boy’s disgrace,
By a zealot mother grafting grief
Stealing his brave deeds, an honor thief,
Usurping his valor to claim her share,
Five minutes of fame in Media’s glare.
Her platform one you don’t see often:
A dishonored, flag-draped, soldier’s coffin.
I can hear Michael Moore muttering under his breath,
“Yeah, this was really a useful death.”
Poetrooper, well said. Well said indeed. I’d like to share this, with your permission and full credit, of course. I know a few Gold Stars who would join me in applause and appreciation for your eloquent and artful words.
‘so suck it!’ – That’s a whole lot nicer than what I was going to say, JL.
I wonder if this is a senior rank disease. ADM Zumwalt changed his mind about the Vietnam war, but only after he found his son was dying of Agent Orange-related cancer, so that doesn’t apply.
These wars are going to go on for several more decades, and yes, we will very likely be involved in them, willy-nilly. Lack of support from people like this will only make things worse.
You nailed it Jonn. Fighting wars with one hand tied behind our back started in Viet Nam. We were rocketed and shelled from north of the DMZ but we couldn’t reciprocate.
Gen. Curtis Lemay USAF had the best strategy at the time, “Nuke ’em back to the stone age.” The problem is not with troops, it is with the political leadership. Semper Fi
I suppose you could argue that Truman started this playing to a draw during the Korean War when he retired MacArthur for wanting to nuke the Chinese to prevent them from entering the war. It would have ended the war early and saved American lives. We never fought to win after that. On the ground every soldier and Marine fought to win, but the overall strategy was just containment and a political solution.
Just to be clear, I totally agree with everything thats been said. Very sorry for your loss Denise.
Screw this bozo.
I’m seriuosly coming to the conclusion that damn near every retired Colonel or above who lashes out with such venom is a bitter asshole who is pissed that no one recognized how “intellectually superior” they were.
“It would all have worked out if they let me be in charge”
They are like the bitter third string quarterback on the football team.
I wonder if this is just an attempt by him to kiss up for some political appointment to become some part of B. Hussein 0bama & Co.?
Is this guy trying to fight me? It sure sounds like it with those words.
Why didn’t we “win”? Simple, because you’re a fucking pussy and your kind wouldn’t let us. Wars aren’t won by armchair brass criticizing enlisted doing the fighting you cunt.
What a disgrace you are, Sir.
Wow. I’ll say this, at least he’s not masking his hatred of the military like most leftists do. This is what they think about us, but very few actually say it. He is still a Grade A asswipe. I think the gents over at Ranger Up should send this guy to Douchebagistan and make him douche of the week. I hope this guy gets hit by a bus.
Wiki sez USMA grad in 69, served in VN summer 70-71 probably as 1LT, unit unspecified. Apparently got MA & PhD in American Diplomatic History from Princeton University on the Army’s dime since he taught at USMA. Served in 1st Gulf War probably as a historian. Retired in early 1990’s, subsequently a college professor and author. Started vocal criticism of preventive wars in 2003. His views apparently didn’t affect his son who joined the Army after he wasn’t able to enroll in ROTC because of his asthma. When the military eased its restrictions, he went on to train to be an officer. Killed May 2007 by an IED in Iraq. Tipped his old man over the edge apparently. Became vocal critic of Iraq effort. Supported Obama in 2008, critic of him now because he didn’t end wars. Can tolerate his opinion on wars but not attacks on service members who fought them. In summary, a bitter, pretentious, over-educated putz.
I especially liked his “apart from revealing an inexplicable preference for George W. Bush as commander in chief over Barak Obama…”
well let me break it down Barney Style for you Colonel: Bush may have sent us to war, but at least he respected us and took care of us. Instead of selling us out for cheap political points. Oh yeah and I’m pretty sure it was Barry Sotero and company who’ve set us up for “losing” Afghanistan. Just like he didn’t finish up in Iraq
oh yeah, go read the article. Actually just read the comments. They’re comedy GOLD, GOLD I tell you. It’s like most of the yahoos/morons/liberals (I know, redundant) are using the same talking points
The “military establishment” is management–which I define as field grades and above, and arguably E8s and E9s (whom we have turned into second rate field grades, when we need Basil Plumley/Sam Elliot). It isn’t up to the troops to win the wars, only to win the fights we send them to. Ours did that well, and with honor and compassion.
We lost our two wars because I and my fellow “managers” never connected ends (definition of victory) with means (the kids fighting the fight), because we are incompetent strategists. The folks we select for management, especially the key decision makers, pass through such a narrow span of assignments during their careers that we are unlikely to win a complicated war in our lifetimes. They’re damned smart guys, but they know only how to kill, not how to win. Read Thomas Ricks (another tool, but he is right about this isasue) for the details.
By all means throw rocks at the establishment, we bastards who lost these wars, but leave the troops out of it.
I bet Bacevich was a prick when he was on active duty, too.
Pat
I don’t feel sorry for this shitbird one damn bit. You don’t think the son knew how his father felt? You don’t think he heard from his father how useless his sacrifice and service was? He’s not a Gold Star anything — he’s part of the problem, he’s part of why his son is dead, he’s one of the worst kinds of traitors, and he can go f*ck himself with his contempt of our military. This pissant can go straight to blistering hell, as far as I’m concerned.
Reading through many of the comments, I have the strong sense that nobody has actually read anything that this man actually wrote, except for the quote-mine posted here at the site.
By my reading of two of his books, he is not blaming the soldiers for anything and you all should take a deep breath and a closer look. He is highly critical of superficial, far-from-the-front-lines “patriotism” (“Thank you for your service and I’m glad all I have to sacrifice six syllables from my fat mouth while I cut your vet benefits and send you off to another war I will not sacrifice anything for”). I have not seen this particular article, but the books I know from him do not attack soldiers.
If he is saying here that soldiers need to have a bit less swagger, perhaps he has observed that all the pop patriotism is getting to your heads. I don’t know. Like most Americans, I am out of touch with the military – a state of affairs that Bacevic is highly critical of. He argues that the military and the society it defends should have a less superficial relationship – more men should serve and when war comes, everyone should sacrifice and everyone should give a real crap and not be able to just put a bumper sticker on and be done with it (and with you soldiers). He is asking you to look at what is really behind the decadent, phony “support the troops” rhetoric from a nation that simply doesn’t pay attention or give a shit – not about Iraq, not about you soldiers. You should be angry about that instead of attacking the messenger based on your reflexive assumption that any criticism is automatically from some kind of subversive “liberal.”
We’re not inclined to nursemaid idiots, so I’ll keep this short.
Soldiers have every right to be proud of what they do. They are highly trained professionals who go into harms way for people who can’t or won’t make that commitment. They have no use for “pop patriotism” — in fact, they despise it.
If you feel you’re out of touch with the military and that’s important to you, then get off your ass and do something about it. Volunteer at the VA, become a Soldier’s Angel, or send care packages to troops overseas. That will at least make you someone who is trying to correct whatever problem there is with the civilians in this country, and not part of the problem.
We reserve the right to verbally dog-pile ingnorant tools who troll here. It might be better for you to ask questions, rather than spout off about something of which you know nothing. There’s a lot to learn here if you’ll engage us rather than pontificate.
True that, Pinto Nag. I don’t let the attention I receive from people get to my head. In fact, it has served to make me more humble and congnizant of the responsibility that all of us in uniform bear. While I do get a little uncomfortable sometimes from the people thanking me for my service, I also engage them and respond so that they hopefully see the person behind the uniform. Like I tell my friends, being in the military doesn’t make me a “better man”, but it does make me different. What makes me a “good man” is the totality of my life: how I provide for my family, how I help others, how I try to share the blessings that I have had in my life. What the military has done is channeled my talents and provided me a means to support my family, help others, and share some of the blessings that I have had. As Kipling said in his Sapper poem: “It’s all one”.
Soldiers have every right to be proud of what they do. They are highly trained professionals who go into harms way for people who can’t or won’t make that commitment. They have no use for “pop patriotism” — in fact, they despise it.
Then, by my reading, Bacevich is on your side.
We reserve the right to verbally dog-pile ingnorant tools who troll here.
Bacevich is not a “tool who trolls here” but someone who has written at length on these issues and got quoted here. My impression was – and I apologize if I am wrong – that he was being dogpiled based on a short quote from one of his countless articles and books – a quote someone posted here (probably out of context) and which is being given a reflexively unsympathetic reading. If the context and his other writing still makes him a a “shirtbird” and “bozo” with a “disease”, then so be it. I haven’t read his collected works and don’t need to defend him.
Soldiers might want to be careful to not contribute to the superficial, polarizing discourse that hasn’t served them very well until now.
I missed commenting on this:
We’re not inclined to nursemaid idiots, so I’ll keep this short.
Looks like Bacevich was on target if he was in fact saying soldiers can be arrogant. A reflex to condescend and curse at anybody where you sense disagreement, even before you engage their statements in any depth, is not a good sign.
Interestingly, that does not correspond to my past experience. Through my job, up until about five years ago I used to have lots of contact with the military – DoD civilians, active duty, reservists, families, vets – and did not have that impression.