Archi

That is a very interesting question - and how he can get a message
across without contradicting Obama.

Interesting thought.

Like you, I haven't read much about Dempsey.

Read up on Dempsey.....you will find he lacks Wedding Tackle when it would be quite useful for the Troops if he did.

The place for Dempsey and others in the Military to contradict Obama is in very private, secure locations. They should be quite willing to stand up and tell the unqualified truth to Obama. That is their job....to ensure the President makes decisions based upon as much accurate information as possible.

Think about this for a minute.

Due to Budget cuts before Sequestration.....the US DOD made the decision to limit our Strategy of fighting Two Wars simultaneously to just a single War. Add in Sequestration Cuts, that Single War strategy is degraded to some extent.

We are engaged in a War in Afghanistan yet....and despite Obama declaring the War on Terror being over....that "War" continues.

Here we are pushing for an Attack on Syria....which is backed by Iran directly, and Russia directly. Is there anyone who doubts our Attack on Syria will not provoke Iran, Hezbollah, and even perhaps Russia to expand their support of Syria and even for Iran and Hezbollah to attack Israeli and American interests and people?

If this attack provokes and escalation of hostilities in the Middle East....is the US Military capable of responding adequately?

Dempsey of all people in the United States should have been able to clearly lay out the case for the Tactical and Strategic Objectives for this Attack. Even if he did not believe in them himself....he should have been able to articulate the Objectives ....because if you cannot do that....how in the hell do you think you know what you are doing?

No...in my View Dempsey is way out of his water....just as is Hagel and Kerry.

This situation scares me no end.

I will.

I have read Wiki which is never a great source for military people IMHO
but provides links.

I notice he command 1 Armoured in Iraq / just as the insurgency took off
as they say did a good job in difficult circumstances.

I imagine Dempsey is a good soldier. Sucks when your boss is the President and that people hang on every word looking for some hidden meaning or agenda. He has spoken his peace regarding Syria, and it falls in line with what seems to be the prevailing consensus here on the prune. Yet, he has his marching orders and I would imagine he will do exactly what he is told to the best of his capabilities despite his stated misgivings.

I see no need to trample on the General for following orders.

Wholeheartedly agree. I cringe whenever our media roll out that horrid platitude. Yes let's work together as we always have on common interests. But it really is time to ditch that meaningless phrase , serves no purpose, actually hinders.

Westy,

Befehl is Befehl!

Read McMaster's book...."Dereliction of Duty".

Now think about this....McCain had put a "Hold" on Dempsey's Nomination for a Second Term as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff....but just recently released that Hold so the General can have his second term.

It would appear Dempsey in the recent past was very much against what is being proposed and by saying so ran afoul of McCain....thus the "Hold".

Now....we see Dempsey going with the flow....the "Hold" is off....and we are headed to War.

We, who served in Vietnam were sold out by our Senior Military Leadership....and as far as I am concerned our current generation are not being served much better by the current bunch.

McCain has been pushing for more involvement in Syria.

Until very recently Dempsey was against it before he became for it.

You reckon Vietnam might have turned out for the better if we would have had some Generals that would have refused to obey LBJ's orders and when it came to a crisis.....looked LBJ in the eye and tell him...."Mr. President, that is not an order I can carry out and live with myself afterwards....get yourself someone else....I Resign!". How many would it have taken before he did find someone....and how long would it have taken for the Media and his opposition to catch on to what was happening.

The way I see it....Martin Dempsey is in exactly that situation and he opted for four more years as Chairman....just as the Vietnam era Chiefs did.



McCain calls Dempsey's warning against attack on Syria 'disingenuous' | JPost | Israel News

SaSless

I know this is the upper echelons of the US mil but frankly,
if I was President, I would want someone who would speak
their mind and say what is what without fear and then once
i had made a decision, carry it out.

If you have a Chairman who is afraid to speak his mind,
then i reckon you are not getting the best advice.

Yes, their are ways to do it and some do it better than others
but it still needs saying.

Just my HO.

No doubt it's a tough job, part of wearing a uniform is being a chameleon and Dempsey is stuck doing that. He has spoken in public about his misgivings, something that I would think cost him some political capital.

Really doesn't matter what you or I think of him. He is the man wearing the uniform and helping to shape the response for better or worse. We can work within that reality or bitch about some theoretical path under some other JCS.

I'm usually with you SAS, but I'm not going to trample on Dempsey. I've heard less than stellar things about McMaster as well, I believe the egos at the 3-4 star level make for some ugly politics that make the belt ways games look childish. I recognize heaping praise on someone doesn't sell books, crapping on someone does.

Broadsword:

An entirely predicable response... Ignore the subject matter completely, just go for the man... I applaud your scintillating intellect... :rolleyes:

West Coast:

I'm sure Dempsey was a good soldier. The problem with good soldiers is that they end up getting promoted to a point where their future can be controlled by pricks of enormous magnitude. By which time they have so much invested in their lives and careers that they can rarely do anything but follow the direction of their craphead civilian "leaders". Sad, but an honest interpretation of reality...

AA

Give me specific, unbiased, credible evidence and I'll reconsider. He has said this isn't a good direction to take. What would you have him do? What else can a JCS do within the powers they have?

West:

I can say "This is stupid, the administration are idiots and this course of action must not be taken". I can also say "This action is not a good direction to take"...

Where I JCS which do you think I'd say to protect my future? Which do you think I'd say if I were several layers down the totem pole with less reliance and investment in the system?

No "evidence" is needed. The guarded phraseology says it all...

AA said:
I believe I was discussing the subject matter when you butted-in with your personal insults and your declaration that you speak for the entire forum. Some might say your behaviour mirrors that of a delusional hypocrite. I, of course, would never suggest such a thing.

Broadsword

The mods are getting very hot about personal attacks.

Argue the point, not the man is all I can say having learn't
from previous mistakes !

Certainly the Great British Public seem to have spoken out this time -

and nobody enjoys a good punch up more than us given half a chance.

My gut feeling is that we so mistrust well shod, smug, public ( privately

educated ) schoolboys who have never earned a quid/buck in their lives

that intervention won`t happen.

Look at Tony Blair, a middle east peace envoy - don`t laugh - who

as British P.M. took us to war with lraq on the strength of WMD that

could strike us within 45 minutes.

When in reality sometime later he moved into a £6 million home in

the centre of the target area. Not bad on £140k/yr.

These money people must think we`re stupid.

AA

How do you know that behind closed doors he hasn't pressed a stronger argument? With all due respect you don't.

Behind closed doors is the appropriate method for a subordinate to provide his or her's unvarnished opinion. He would never have the access to anyone above a janitor to help shape policy if he was bombastic. Should he even try, the focus is then on the personality conflict and the issue is lost in the noise. Followed quickly by his desire to retire to spend more time with the family.

500N:

That's the way it should be, but in modern day Washington that's not the way it is. There are all too many who are so convinced of their own magnificence that they simply are not interested in hearing any opinion or information that does not agree with their pre-conceived notions. In fact in some cases they can't even conceive of how anyone could not agree with them. In other cases, they feel that since they're the smartest person in whatever room they're in, by definition there's no point in anyone else having any other views. And there're always those that feel it's their subordinates job to agree with them so there's no reason to consult with or explain to them.

Maybe Gen. Dempsey is just being honest.

500N

Thanks for the tip. Fixed.

I understand where you are coming from.

Respect has a lot to do with it and how you interact.

"And there're always those that feel it's their subordinates job to agree with them so there's no reason to consult with or explain to them."

I think it was Stormin' Norman who said in his book when he became
a Brig General, "once you become a Brig General, your sense of humour
improves markedly" :O (As in everyone laughs at your jokes !)

I still think this is all a road to disaster,
It's ok Obama saying we need to do this to discourage terrorists using chemical weapons etc, but that begs the question, if in the future a suicide terrorist used the damn stuff say in Washington, then what, trace where he / she came from and then bomb that city / country?
The nutters in Tokyo that dispersed Sarin in the underground, what do you do there?
It's alright saying we will go after a Country to stop the proliferation, but how does that work when you have a couple of nutters and terrorists involved?

I watched Obama in Sweden saying the international credibility as well as America's and Congress's credibility is on the line, he looked like he was trying to convince himself.


..

West:

We are actually agreeing here... But I see it as a problem that if he makes noise it is automatically seen as a personality conflict rather than what it truly is. That being a man who has devoted his life to war and the making of such telling a career, (albeit a very short career), politician who shuns the military that his ill advised "plans" are bull$hit. O'Bummer may be "Commander-in Chief" but in reality he's being a schoolyard bully with a Chicago gang backing him up and even the gang can see the Emperor has no clothes.