On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:35:00 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 7/31/17 1:35 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 12:10:35 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


The solution lies in more training, more discipline, and more
prosecution. Women are entitled, literally, to serve in the armed forces
if they wish. I doubt it impacts on readiness, as our military forces
haven't taken on and defeated a serious, disciplined, well-equipped
opposing force since WW II and you can't blame our failures on women.
Blame the generals...they're in charge.

You really can't blame our results on the military.

Of course I can blame "the
military" leadership. If the military has a plan and it is nixed by
politicians, the generals involved can resign their commission.

That is not the way it works. The military is under the command of the
commander in chief and congress. You really don't want them to make
the decisions to go to war themselves do you?
You had Johnson lying us into a wars, and then sitting up all night
deciding what they should bomb and what they shouldn't based on
political goals, not military ones. The US never lost a battle in
Vietnam and they still lost the war because we never allowed the
military to hold the ground they took the day before. There was never
really a strategic military objective, only tactical ones that were
achieved every time.
We did the same thing in Iraq. Nobody knew what a win was supposed to
look like. We achieved all of the military objectives.
At least in Kuwait, we had a goal and the military was smart enough to
quit when they achieved it. (in 100 hours)
Then the politicians moved the goal posts, bombed Iraq for another
decade, eventually invading, with no plan of what to do when they
succeeded. That was 26 years and five presidents ago and we are still
mired in the same ****. You can't blame the military for that.