Weinberger, Powell war doctrine - Galloway

My war doctrine says if it's a just cause go rip their motherfucking
heads off. I guess this means I won't be getting an invitation from
the Diplomatic Corp.

- LMAO

Greg


-------------------------------------------------

Weinberger, Powell war doctrines now history
By Joseph L. Galloway
Knight Ridder Newspapers


WASHINGTON - Going to war ought to be a hard thing for our political
leaders to do. In fact, going to war ought to be the hardest thing
they ever do.


In the wake of this country's ill-fated adventure in Vietnam - which
killed 58,235 Americans, wounded an additional 350,000 and took the
lives of a million Vietnamese - some far-sighted military and
political leaders said, ``Never again.''


Never again would America wade so easily into a quagmire, said the
late Gen. Creighton Abrams, the last U.S. commander in Vietnam. Never
again, said Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger. Never again, said the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Colin Powell, a Vietnam
veteran.


Concerned that the actions of the nation's political leaders had swept
the military into a conflict that the American public turned against,
Abrams began the first moves to make certain that any future venture
into war would take not only the Army but also the Army Reserve and
National Guard.


That way, he reckoned, the citizens of villages, towns and cities
across the nation would have a stake - their sons, and now their
daughters, too - in what was happening.


After terrorists bombed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut 20 years
ago, killing 241 Americans, Weinberger postulated a doctrine that bore
his name:


-The United States shouldn't commit forces to combat unless its
national interests or those of its allies were threatened.


-U.S. combat troops should be committed only wholeheartedly and with
the clear intention of winning.


-U.S. troops should be committed only with clearly defined and
achievable military and political objectives.


-The relationship between those objectives and the size and
composition of American forces should be continually reassessed and
adjusted if necessary.


-U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a reasonable
assurance that the American public and Congress support the
commitment.


-Committing U.S. troops should always be the last resort.


With the Persian Gulf war, Powell, who had worked for Weinberger,
added a couple of refinements:


-Always use overwhelming force, not proportional force.


-Always have an exit strategy, and when the fighting is over, exit.


During the Clinton years, these sound principles were eroded, most
famously by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who once
asked: "What's the point of having this superb military that you've
always been talking about if we can't use it?"


So that superb military was used, or misused, in places such as
Somalia and Haiti.


The erosion of both the Weinberger and Powell doctrines now seems
complete in the Bush administration. First in Afghanistan and then in
Iraq, Bush's aides talked of pre-emptive strikes and of how the
marriage of air power and special operations forces had made
overwhelming force obsolete. The vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs
even told Congress that the Pentagon didn't plan for postwar Iraq
because planning might have precipitated war.


Now Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld wants to throw out Abrams'
cherished and deliberate dependence on the National Guard and Reserve
so it's easier to go to war. He wants to pull the Guard and Reserve
units the Army can't leave home without - including engineers, civil
affairs and military police - back into the active Army.


Rumsfeld says he wants to be able to deploy military forces faster and
to create a more efficient mix of active and reserve forces. But he
also wants to make it easier for America's political leaders to go to
war without disturbing the American people by calling up their sons
and daughters.


Right now, 35 percent of the 120,000 American troops in Iraq are Guard
and Reserve. Some small communities have sent half their police and
fire departments to bolster the undermanned, overworked regular Army.
That hurts, just as Abrams intended, and it ensures that folks in
those communities are paying close attention to the political
decisions being made in Washington.


If Rumsfeld has his way and the Guard and Reserve roles are curtailed,
that clarifying pain and the resulting public stake in diplomacy and
decision-making will recede. Going to war will become quicker and
easier. At least until some future, and hopefully wiser, defense
secretary writes a new doctrine that makes it harder to go to war
again, harder to make the kind of mistakes that fill our national
cemeteries and our military and Veterans' Administration hospitals.


War should always be the hardest thing to do.


---


ABOUT THE WRITER


Joseph L. Galloway is the senior military correspondent for Knight
Ridder Newspapers and co-author of the national best-seller "We Were
Soldiers Once ... and Young." Readers may write to him at: Knight
Ridder Washington Bureau, 700 National Press Building, Washington,
D.C. 20045.

On 3 Dec 2003 12:46:26 -0800, grglnsctt@cs.com (Greg Linscott) wrote:

Joe has a good point and I agree with him but, and that is the crux of
the matter. If you are going to use reserves, give them a hell of a
lot more training, make absolutely certain they know what they are
buying into. You can't send a "citizen-Soldier" with his head on
crooked and let them think they can come home when and if the going
gets rough.


>My war doctrine says if it's a just cause go rip their motherfucking
>heads off. I guess this means I won't be getting an invitation from
>the Diplomatic Corp.
>
>- LMAO
>
>Greg
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------
>
>Weinberger, Powell war doctrines now history
>By Joseph L. Galloway
>Knight Ridder Newspapers
>
>
>WASHINGTON - Going to war ought to be a hard thing for our political
>leaders to do. In fact, going to war ought to be the hardest thing
>they ever do.
>
>
>In the wake of this country's ill-fated adventure in Vietnam - which
>killed 58,235 Americans, wounded an additional 350,000 and took the
>lives of a million Vietnamese - some far-sighted military and
>political leaders said, ``Never again.''
>
>
>Never again would America wade so easily into a quagmire, said the
>late Gen. Creighton Abrams, the last U.S. commander in Vietnam. Never
>again, said Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger. Never again, said the
>chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Colin Powell, a Vietnam
>veteran.
>
>
>Concerned that the actions of the nation's political leaders had swept
>the military into a conflict that the American public turned against,
>Abrams began the first moves to make certain that any future venture
>into war would take not only the Army but also the Army Reserve and
>National Guard.
>
>
>That way, he reckoned, the citizens of villages, towns and cities
>across the nation would have a stake - their sons, and now their
>daughters, too - in what was happening.
>
>
>After terrorists bombed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut 20 years
>ago, killing 241 Americans, Weinberger postulated a doctrine that bore
>his name:
>
>
>-The United States shouldn't commit forces to combat unless its
>national interests or those of its allies were threatened.
>
>
>-U.S. combat troops should be committed only wholeheartedly and with
>the clear intention of winning.
>
>
>-U.S. troops should be committed only with clearly defined and
>achievable military and political objectives.
>
>
>-The relationship between those objectives and the size and
>composition of American forces should be continually reassessed and
>adjusted if necessary.
>
>
>-U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a reasonable
>assurance that the American public and Congress support the
>commitment.
>
>
>-Committing U.S. troops should always be the last resort.
>
>
>With the Persian Gulf war, Powell, who had worked for Weinberger,
>added a couple of refinements:
>
>
>-Always use overwhelming force, not proportional force.
>
>
>-Always have an exit strategy, and when the fighting is over, exit.
>
>
>During the Clinton years, these sound principles were eroded, most
>famously by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who once
>asked: "What's the point of having this superb military that you've
>always been talking about if we can't use it?"
>
>
>So that superb military was used, or misused, in places such as
>Somalia and Haiti.
>
>
>The erosion of both the Weinberger and Powell doctrines now seems
>complete in the Bush administration. First in Afghanistan and then in
>Iraq, Bush's aides talked of pre-emptive strikes and of how the
>marriage of air power and special operations forces had made
>overwhelming force obsolete. The vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs
>even told Congress that the Pentagon didn't plan for postwar Iraq
>because planning might have precipitated war.
>
>
>Now Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld wants to throw out Abrams'
>cherished and deliberate dependence on the National Guard and Reserve
>so it's easier to go to war. He wants to pull the Guard and Reserve
>units the Army can't leave home without - including engineers, civil
>affairs and military police - back into the active Army.
>
>
>Rumsfeld says he wants to be able to deploy military forces faster and
>to create a more efficient mix of active and reserve forces. But he
>also wants to make it easier for America's political leaders to go to
>war without disturbing the American people by calling up their sons
>and daughters.
>
>
>Right now, 35 percent of the 120,000 American troops in Iraq are Guard
>and Reserve. Some small communities have sent half their police and
>fire departments to bolster the undermanned, overworked regular Army.
>That hurts, just as Abrams intended, and it ensures that folks in
>those communities are paying close attention to the political
>decisions being made in Washington.
>
>
>If Rumsfeld has his way and the Guard and Reserve roles are curtailed,
>that clarifying pain and the resulting public stake in diplomacy and
>decision-making will recede. Going to war will become quicker and
>easier. At least until some future, and hopefully wiser, defense
>secretary writes a new doctrine that makes it harder to go to war
>again, harder to make the kind of mistakes that fill our national
>cemeteries and our military and Veterans' Administration hospitals.
>
>
>War should always be the hardest thing to do.
>
>
>---
>
>
>ABOUT THE WRITER
>
>
>Joseph L. Galloway is the senior military correspondent for Knight
>Ridder Newspapers and co-author of the national best-seller "We Were
>Soldiers Once ... and Young." Readers may write to him at: Knight
>Ridder Washington Bureau, 700 National Press Building, Washington,
>D.C. 20045.

Life is too important to
be taken seriously- Oscar Wilde

>In the wake of this country's ill-fated adventure in Vietnam - which
>killed 58,235 Americans, wounded an additional 350,000 and took the
>lives of a million Vietnamese - some far-sighted military and
>political leaders said, ``Never again.''

Whoa-boy! "in the wake"??? Whew! Nam was 35 years ago and half our population
doesn't know diddly about Nam (a Cold War thing). I think Galloway is a good
guy, but holds some baggage a little too close. Times and enemies have changed.


Galloway goes on to talk about a future SecDef writing a doctrine to make it
difficult to go to war. My understanding is if the commander in chief says
we're at war, we are at war. Bush stated immediately after 9-11 that he viewed
the events of that day as an "act of war".

Best Regards

Greg

"GrgLnsctt" wrote in message
news:20031203185601.21586.00000087@mb-m23.news.cs.com...
> >In the wake of this country's ill-fated adventure in Vietnam - which
> >killed 58,235 Americans, wounded an additional 350,000 and took the
> >lives of a million Vietnamese - some far-sighted military and
> >political leaders said, ``Never again.''
>
> Whoa-boy! "in the wake"??? Whew! Nam was 35 years ago and half our
population
> doesn't know diddly about Nam (a Cold War thing). I think Galloway is a
good
> guy, but holds some baggage a little too close. Times and enemies have
changed.
>
>
> Galloway goes on to talk about a future SecDef writing a doctrine to make
it
> difficult to go to war. My understanding is if the commander in chief says
> we're at war, we are at war. Bush stated immediately after 9-11 that he
viewed
> the events of that day as an "act of war".
>
> Best Regards
>
> Greg

It's my understanding that the Constitution empowers congress, not the
President, to declare war. Acts of war are not a declaration of it.


Chas Hurst

"Chas Hurst" wrote in message
news:e4SdnRm7noTsHFOiRVn-vw@comcast.com...
>
> "GrgLnsctt" wrote in message
> news:20031203185601.21586.00000087@mb-m23.news.cs.com...
> > >In the wake of this country's ill-fated adventure in Vietnam - which
> > >killed 58,235 Americans, wounded an additional 350,000 and took the
> > >lives of a million Vietnamese - some far-sighted military and
> > >political leaders said, ``Never again.''
> >
> > Whoa-boy! "in the wake"??? Whew! Nam was 35 years ago and half our
> population
> > doesn't know diddly about Nam (a Cold War thing). I think Galloway is a
> good
> > guy, but holds some baggage a little too close. Times and enemies have
> changed.
> >
> >
> > Galloway goes on to talk about a future SecDef writing a doctrine to
make
> it
> > difficult to go to war. My understanding is if the commander in chief
says
> > we're at war, we are at war. Bush stated immediately after 9-11 that he
> viewed
> > the events of that day as an "act of war".
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> > Greg
>
> It's my understanding that the Constitution empowers congress, not the
> President, to declare war. Acts of war are not a declaration of it.

Why would one need war declared by Congress if he has the power to respond
to "acts of war," in kind?

By their works, not words, shall ye know them.

Rita

"MeSoSweet" wrote in message
news:bqm0te$e29$0@pita.alt.net...
>
> "Chas Hurst" wrote in message
> news:e4SdnRm7noTsHFOiRVn-vw@comcast.com...
> >
> > "GrgLnsctt" wrote in message
> > news:20031203185601.21586.00000087@mb-m23.news.cs.com...
> > > >In the wake of this country's ill-fated adventure in Vietnam - which
> > > >killed 58,235 Americans, wounded an additional 350,000 and took the
> > > >lives of a million Vietnamese - some far-sighted military and
> > > >political leaders said, ``Never again.''
> > >
> > > Whoa-boy! "in the wake"??? Whew! Nam was 35 years ago and half our
> > population
> > > doesn't know diddly about Nam (a Cold War thing). I think Galloway is
a
> > good
> > > guy, but holds some baggage a little too close. Times and enemies have
> > changed.
> > >
> > >
> > > Galloway goes on to talk about a future SecDef writing a doctrine to
> make
> > it
> > > difficult to go to war. My understanding is if the commander in chief
> says
> > > we're at war, we are at war. Bush stated immediately after 9-11 that
he
> > viewed
> > > the events of that day as an "act of war".
> > >
> > > Best Regards
> > >
> > > Greg
> >
> > It's my understanding that the Constitution empowers congress, not the
> > President, to declare war. Acts of war are not a declaration of it.
>
> Why would one need war declared by Congress if he has the power to respond
> to "acts of war," in kind?
>
> By their works, not words, shall ye know them.
>
> Rita
>
If that was as far as it goes, we don't need a declaration. But currently we
have individuals in custody that are in limbo as to their classification, we
have a President exercizing powers that are reserved for a declared war.

The devil is in the details.

Chas

"Chas Hurst" wrote in message
news_idnS3EmoxDEVOiRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
>
> "MeSoSweet" wrote in message
> news:bqm0te$e29$0@pita.alt.net...
> >
> > "Chas Hurst" wrote in message
> > news:e4SdnRm7noTsHFOiRVn-vw@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "GrgLnsctt" wrote in message
> > > news:20031203185601.21586.00000087@mb-m23.news.cs.com...
> > > > >In the wake of this country's ill-fated adventure in Vietnam -
which
> > > > >killed 58,235 Americans, wounded an additional 350,000 and took the
> > > > >lives of a million Vietnamese - some far-sighted military and
> > > > >political leaders said, ``Never again.''
> > > >
> > > > Whoa-boy! "in the wake"??? Whew! Nam was 35 years ago and half our
> > > population
> > > > doesn't know diddly about Nam (a Cold War thing). I think Galloway
is
> a
> > > good
> > > > guy, but holds some baggage a little too close. Times and enemies
have
> > > changed.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Galloway goes on to talk about a future SecDef writing a doctrine to
> > make
> > > it
> > > > difficult to go to war. My understanding is if the commander in
chief
> > says
> > > > we're at war, we are at war. Bush stated immediately after 9-11 that
> he
> > > viewed
> > > > the events of that day as an "act of war".
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards
> > > >
> > > > Greg
> > >
> > > It's my understanding that the Constitution empowers congress, not the
> > > President, to declare war. Acts of war are not a declaration of it.
> >
> > Why would one need war declared by Congress if he has the power to
respond
> > to "acts of war," in kind?
> >
> > By their works, not words, shall ye know them.
> >
> > Rita
> >
> If that was as far as it goes, we don't need a declaration. But currently
we
> have individuals in custody that are in limbo as to their classification,
we
> have a President exercizing powers that are reserved for a declared war.
>
> The devil is in the details.

I don't think they are in limbo. I think if Congress wants to exercise power
over the president in this case, it is going to have to do so against an
aggressive president. Clinton, BTW, called for acts of warfare without
approval when the US hadn't even been attacked, (and he's probably not the
only one,) which leads to the probably not new phenomenon of acting in the
interest of "it's better to ask forgiveness than permission." Just your
usual fight-to-the-death politics.

So, that takes us back to "works."

Rita

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 2041 -0500, "Chas Hurst"
wrote:

>
>"MeSoSweet" wrote in message
>news:bqm0te$e29$0@pita.alt.net...
>>
>> "Chas Hurst" wrote in message
>> news:e4SdnRm7noTsHFOiRVn-vw@comcast.com...
>> >
>> > "GrgLnsctt" wrote in message
>> > news:20031203185601.21586.00000087@mb-m23.news.cs.com...
>> > > >In the wake of this country's ill-fated adventure in Vietnam - which
>> > > >killed 58,235 Americans, wounded an additional 350,000 and took the
>> > > >lives of a million Vietnamese - some far-sighted military and
>> > > >political leaders said, ``Never again.''
>> > >
>> > > Whoa-boy! "in the wake"??? Whew! Nam was 35 years ago and half our
>> > population
>> > > doesn't know diddly about Nam (a Cold War thing). I think Galloway is
>a
>> > good
>> > > guy, but holds some baggage a little too close. Times and enemies have
>> > changed.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Galloway goes on to talk about a future SecDef writing a doctrine to
>> make
>> > it
>> > > difficult to go to war. My understanding is if the commander in chief
>> says
>> > > we're at war, we are at war. Bush stated immediately after 9-11 that
>he
>> > viewed
>> > > the events of that day as an "act of war".
>> > >
>> > > Best Regards
>> > >
>> > > Greg
>> >
>> > It's my understanding that the Constitution empowers congress, not the
>> > President, to declare war. Acts of war are not a declaration of it.
>>
>> Why would one need war declared by Congress if he has the power to respond
>> to "acts of war," in kind?
>>
>> By their works, not words, shall ye know them.
>>
>> Rita
>>
>If that was as far as it goes, we don't need a declaration. But currently we
>have individuals in custody that are in limbo as to their classification, we
>have a President exercizing powers that are reserved for a declared war.
>
>The devil is in the details.
>
>Chas
How bout we let them all out, make them wear an ankle bracelet and
send them over to your place to wait for the judge and then the
hanging? Would that be better you think?

Life is too important to
be taken seriously- Oscar Wilde

"patricktee" wrote in message
news:bi4tsvcrf6v706ac2kef9p0ltpptafu76r@4ax.com...
> How bout we let them all out, make them wear an ankle bracelet and
> send them over to your place to wait for the judge and then the
> hanging? Would that be better you think?
>
> Life is too important to
> be taken seriously- Oscar Wilde

Who are we talking about? The prisoners at Gitmo? We're letting them go, a
hundred or so are gone or going. How about the two US citizens that are
being held without charges, without council, at the whim of the President.
I think you need to come up with something other than an eigth grade reply.
That would be better.

"MeSoSweet" wrote in message
news:bqm3o1$k76$0@pita.alt.net...
>
> I don't think they are in limbo. I think if Congress wants to exercise
power
> over the president in this case, it is going to have to do so against an
> aggressive president. Clinton, BTW, called for acts of warfare without
> approval when the US hadn't even been attacked, (and he's probably not the
> only one,) which leads to the probably not new phenomenon of acting in the
> interest of "it's better to ask forgiveness than permission." Just your
> usual fight-to-the-death politics.
>
> So, that takes us back to "works."
>
> Rita
>
Clinton again. I thought Dubya was the Prez.

Chas