The Military Thread

[Scrote Squad]

It is not a nuclear bomb, it is a very big bomb, but emits no radiation. We have generals for a reason, and bombs are dropped all the time, thousands upon thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 10 years.

This is only an issue to you because you are ignorant of what real war/conflicts are like. Not trying to insult, but this is the reality of wars and you dont have the time or need to consult the president with every military move, this is why authority is delegated to generals.

First, I'm aware of what type of bomb it is.

Second, it is trying to insult. I forgot about all of your real war/conflict experience as a loan officer.

Third, I never said that the President needs consulted in every instance. I think it's a discussion worth having, though, as far as what instances SHOULD involve Trump.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

First, I'm aware of what type of bomb it is.

Okay, then why is it that you think this bomb should require Presidential authorization, when we can drop double that amount of explosive in a an attack in separate bombs without seeking White House permission? Again, an extended operation that lasts weeks or months, with ordnance dropping daily is going to affect "relations" in that area a lot more than just one bomb.

Second, it is trying to insult. I forgot about all of your real war/conflict experience as a loan officer.

Look, I sometimes I had defend myself going back and forth to my car -- downtown Cleveland can be tough! So I think mocking me for being a loan officer is really unfair.

Third, I never said that the President needs consulted in every instance. I think it's a discussion worth having, though, as far as what instances SHOULD involve Trump.

Actually, you were pretty specific in saying it was wrong not to consult the President in this particular instance. So I am asking why you drew that line where you did. If you don't want to answer, fine, but you made the statement.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Sounds like things are going smoothly.

Ugh. I suspect the guy who wrote that article doesn't have much time as a loan officer.

 

[Lee]

First, I'm aware of what type of bomb it is.

Second, it is trying to insult. I forgot about all of your real war/conflict experience as a loan officer.

Third, I never said that the President needs consulted in every instance. I think it's a discussion worth having, though, as far as what instances SHOULD involve Trump.

I have zero experience, not claiming I did, the person i am quoting is former special forces, we talked about this as he is one of my best friends. I am very ignorant on these things, i was paraphrasing an expert, he has actually been to a MOAB sight before to see the after math. And no, he doesnt think the President was or should be consulted, and I called myself ignorant, so i wasn't trying to insult.

 

[Lee]

Okay, then why is it that you think this bomb should require Presidential authorization, when we can drop double that amount of explosive in a an attack in separate bombs without seeking White House permission? Again, an extended operation that lasts weeks or months, with ordnance dropping daily is going to affect "relations" in that area a lot more than just one bomb.



Look, I sometimes I had defend myself going back and forth to my car -- downtown Cleveland can be tough! So I think mocking me for being a loan officer is really unfair.



Actually, you were pretty specific in saying it was wrong not to consult the President in this particular instance. So I am asking why you drew that line where you did. If you don't want to answer, fine, but you made the statement.

Were you defending me, because he was coming after me. And i have zero experience, but my friend who went on dozens of missions as special forces might have a better opinion than us.

And PS, he hates trump but that should have nothing to do with anything in this discussion, but you already pointed that out, lol.

 

[Sebastian]

Its just a fancy bomb, but just a bomb that is used to destroy underground installations.

Authorization is no different than for a JDAM. Don't let the size fool you. The kill-chain has to remain compact in order to respond to threats in near real time. Involving Washington over mundane tactical matters greatly limits the effectiveness of the troops on the ground.

Even involving a four-star is a bit much in my experience. We once had a mortar team in our counter-battery's sites. They had to sit there for 30 minutes for USF-I to give the go ahead. Needless to say, the enemy didn't hang out for 30 minutes.

 

[Lee]

Its just a fancy bomb, but just a bomb that is used to destroy underground installations.

Authorization is no different than for a JDAM. Don't let the size fool you. The kill-chain has to remain compact in order to respond to threats in near real time. Involving Washington over mundane tactical matters greatly limits the effectiveness of the troops on the ground.

Even involving a four-star is a bit much in my experience. We once had a mortar team in our counter-battery's sites. They had to sit there for 30 minutes for USF-I to give the go ahead. Needless to say, the enemy didn't hang out for 30 minutes.

 

[Sebastian]

I think Scrote was making the point that any action that assumes a large geo-political dimension should be vetted by the White House?

I can see that. Now it becomes a matter if one values the military value of an action versus a political value. Often times Administration officials have no real idea what is happening on the ground. They perceive reality very differently.

I can't tell you how many times we were watching the news in Iraq or Afghanistan and some White House official was talking directly about stuff we were balls deep in and what they were saying was the complete opposite of the real situation.

 

[Lee]

I think Scrote was making the point that any action that assumes a large geo-political dimension should be vetted by the White House?

I can see that. Now it becomes a matter if one values the military value of an action versus a political value. Often times Administration officials have no real idea what is happening on the ground. They perceive reality very differently.

I can't tell you how many times we were watching the news in Iraq or Afghanistan and some White House official was talking directly about stuff we were balls deep in and what they were saying was the complete opposite of the real situation.

What do you know though, its not like you were actually there.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I think Scrote was making the point that any action that assumes a large geo-political dimension should be vetted by the White House?

The problem is how is the military supposed to know when there is a "large geo-political dimension." You get ground rules as to who you can engage, and where you can engage them. Generals can't decide to cross borders or start fighting someone who isn't currently involved. Those are the key geo-political considerations. But in terms of the how they are engaged, that's something that should be left to the professionals.

I can't tell you how many times we were watching the news in Iraq or Afghanistan and some White House official was talking directly about stuff we were balls deep in and what they were saying was the complete opposite of the real situation.

My eyes were opened when I saw the news gathering process first hand in a war zone. Those reporters literally did not care what actually happened, as long as they could get quotes for a story. And that was the WaPo. But even in if they're trying in good faith, it is virtually impossible for people who aren't there to be fully informed.

 

[Sebastian]

The problem is how is the military supposed to know when there is a "large geo-political dimension." You get ground rules as to who you can engage, and where you can engage them. Generals can't decide to cross borders or start fighting someone who isn't currently involved. Those are the key geo-political considerations. But in terms of the how they are engaged, that's something that should be left to the professionals.



My eyes were opened when I saw the news gathering process first hand in a war zone. Those reporters literally did not care what actually happened, as long as they could get quotes for a story. And that was the WaPo. But even in if they're trying in good faith, it is virtually impossible for people who aren't there to be fully informed.

Often times the military has a much better understanding about the global regional and local national politics than the State Department does. The military has to engage with partners at every level every single day. State tends to deal at the national level and higher and have little clue of how a nation functions outside their dealings with national politicians with their own regional and ethnic agendas. State simply doesn't have enough people on the ground to be fed that amount of information. We had a State Dept. guy with us in Iraq and he did precious little other than trying to get us killed...

Reporters are good people. The News Bureaus often twist what they report. My favorite was when the Obama Administration had declared that all combat units were out of Iraq. That surprised us a great deal. All they had done was change the name of the units there, such as 2-4 Stryker Brigade Combat Team, to 2-4 Advise and Assist Brigade. Which is all well and good. Politicians like their pleasant fictions even if our unit was hit by a mortar a week after the announcement that hit the dinner chow line and killed a promising young woman.

 

[Sebastian]

What do you know though, its not like you were actually there.

Well, @Scrote Squad isn't wrong.

There is an argument that because the MOAB is such a high-profile weapon system that optically it does have a much greater international effect than dropping 100 JDAMs. It very well could warrant vetting by the White House.

Also, I tend to think that though Trump did not have to sign off on the attack, he probably knew all about it and encouraged it considering how quickly the media caught wind of it.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

People sometimes joke about wondering who's side the press is on. Guess the wondering is over, at least with respect to this guy:

MSNBC’s Malcolm Nance Nominates Trump Tower Istanbul for ‘ISIS Suicide Bombing’

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...olm-nance-nominates-trump-tower-istanbul-isis

 

[Scrote Squad]

I think Scrote was making the point that any action that assumes a large geo-political dimension should be vetted by the White House?

I can see that. Now it becomes a matter if one values the military value of an action versus a political value. Often times Administration officials have no real idea what is happening on the ground. They perceive reality very differently.

This is in line with my thinking. A militaristic view of a situation may be different from the political consequence.

And, I don't know what the answer is. Seems like a pretty subjective line on what type of conflict should involve approval instead of direct action.

@The Human Q-Tip - you seem to think this is no big deal. Where do you draw the line on what should involve CiC approval? I'm asking a serious question because, I've read the "this is how it should be" argument.

@King Stannis - same question to you.

 

[AZ_]

People sometimes joke about wondering who's side the press is on. Guess the wondering is over, at least with respect to this guy:

MSNBC’s Malcolm Nance Nominates Trump Tower Istanbul for ‘ISIS Suicide Bombing’

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...olm-nance-nominates-trump-tower-istanbul-isis

Is CNN is pro-Trump because they employ Jeffrey Lord to come on and say batshit stupid things like Trump is the Martin Luther King of healthcare?

Or because they employed Trump's campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, while he was still being indirectly paid by the Trump campaign?



It should also be noted that Nance has been a contributor to Fox News.