GorillaTicTacs
Member
+231|6823|Kyiv, Ukraine
I really wish these guys would use their balls God gave them while they're in.  General Odom below is just one of I think 100 or so retired Generals to stick his neck out from the safety of retirement lately.  I realize Bush more or less "purged the ranks", but it still pisses me off that Generals can't be honest while they're still drawing active duty pay.  Bush can't fire everyone.

The following is a transcript of the Democratic Radio Address delivered by Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.) on Saturday April 28, 2007:

General Odom wrote:

“Good morning, this is Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army, retired.

“I am not now nor have I ever been a Democrat or a Republican. Thus, I do not speak for the Democratic Party. I speak for myself, as a non-partisan retired military officer who is a former Director of the National Security Agency. I do so because Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, asked me.

“In principle, I do not favor Congressional involvement in the execution of U.S. foreign and military policy. I have seen its perverse effects in many cases. The conflict in Iraq is different. Over the past couple of years, the President has let it proceed on automatic pilot, making no corrections in the face of accumulating evidence that his strategy is failing and cannot be rescued.

“Thus, he lets the United States fly further and further into trouble, squandering its influence, money, and blood, facilitating the gains of our enemies. The Congress is the only mechanism we have to fill this vacuum in command judgment.

“To put this in a simple army metaphor, the Commander-in-Chief seems to have gone AWOL, that is ‘absent without leave.’ He neither acts nor talks as though he is in charge. Rather, he engages in tit-for-tat games.

“Some in Congress on both sides of the aisle have responded with their own tits-for-tats. These kinds of games, however, are no longer helpful, much less amusing. They merely reflect the absence of effective leadership in a crisis. And we are in a crisis.

“Most Americans suspect that something is fundamentally wrong with the President’s management of the conflict in Iraq. And they are right.

“The challenge we face today is not how to win in Iraq; it is how to recover from a strategic mistake: invading Iraq in the first place. The war could never have served American interests.

“But it has served Iran’s interest by revenging Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran in the 1980s and enhancing Iran’s influence within Iraq. It has also served al Qaeda’s interests, providing a much better training ground than did Afghanistan, allowing it to build its ranks far above the levels and competence that otherwise would have been possible.

“We cannot ‘win’ a war that serves our enemies interests and not our own. Thus continuing to pursue the illusion of victory in Iraq makes no sense. We can now see that it never did.

“A wise commander in this situation normally revises his objectives and changes his strategy, not just marginally, but radically. Nothing less today will limit the death and destruction that the invasion of Iraq has unleashed.

“No effective new strategy can be devised for the United States until it begins withdrawing its forces from Iraq. Only that step will break the paralysis that now confronts us. Withdrawal is the pre-condition for winning support from countries in Europe that have stood aside and other major powers including India, China, Japan, Russia.

“It will also shock and change attitudes in Iran, Syria, and other countries on Iraq’s borders, making them far more likely to take seriously new U.S. approaches, not just to Iraq, but to restoring regional stability and heading off the spreading chaos that our war has caused.

“The bill that Congress approved this week, with bipartisan support, setting schedules for withdrawal, provides the President an opportunity to begin this kind of strategic shift, one that defines regional stability as the measure of victory, not some impossible outcome.

“I hope the President seizes this moment for a basic change in course and signs the bill the Congress has sent him. I will respect him greatly for such a rare act of courage, and so too, I suspect, will most Americans.

“This is retired General Odom. Thank you for listening.”
General Odom has served as Director of the National Security Agency and Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army’s senior intelligence officer. In his address, General Odom will discuss why he believes President Bush should sign the conference report on the Iraq Accountability Act. Radio address

This is probably the simplest words possible that you could use to pound into the thick skulls of the bottom 27%.  Would you say this guy "supports the troops"?
TuataraDude
Member
+115|6972|Aotearoa
All due respect, for all we know, he did speak out while on active service. Many things Generals discuss don't make it out into the public arena as it is not good to have the government and the military at odds with eachother in the public arena.

I'm not saying he did speak up while in service, but if he did, we most likely would never know. It's called cabinet unity. Yes, a very politcal term, but the military is just as bound by it. Can you imagine what would happen if the generals and the president disagreed publicly on a military issue? The papers would have a field day. There would be some people stirring up trouble by mentioning coup etc.

Discussions like that are held behind closed doors, but out in the open, they present a united front.

Last edited by TuataraDude (2007-04-28 23:06:48)

-101-InvaderZim
Member
+42|7294|Waikato, Aotearoa
I keep saying that Mr Bush is THE world's #1 War Crim and America's biggest threat to National Security.
pj666
Member
+16|6816|Sydney, Australia
For all you know this guy was telling the higher ups for years they had got it wrong. Based on history to date, these were the guys that got ignored. But it wouldn't make them feel any better to say afterwards "Told you so".  Indeed, those in the Administration don't strike me as the types to appreciate being told they were wrong, or reminded of it.

As TuataraDude says, a military sniping at government does not work well.

Ultimately those in the upper levels of the military are policiticans as much as military men. They got to where they are because they could play the games necessary to climb the ladder. The problem is when civil servants of any service tell the government of the day what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear. Unfortunately, governments tend to politicise their top level civil servants to this end.  This is a problem faced in all Western systems, beyond just the US. In Australia we have definitely had this problem as well.
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|7011
It's not a matter of having or not having balls.  Part of their job is not bad mouth management.
Hurricane
Banned
+1,153|7080|Washington, DC

-101-InvaderZim wrote:

I keep saying that Mr Bush is THE world's #1 War Crim and America's biggest threat to National Security.
I don't know about the #1 war criminal, but he certainly knows how to kill 3,000 people in exchange for killing a dictator.

I'd say this General supports the troops. Anyone who's concerned about the well-being of them supports them. Someone who doesn't care that almost every day they're facing an enemy we haven't faced since Vietnam (call it whatever you want; war is not getting blown up by a guy who looks like a normal civilian and not being able to retaliate in full force due to ROE and civilians) doesn't support the troops.

I certainly wish that Iraq was handled better; before Iran-Iraq, Iraq was a pretty decent nation. Lots of people there were well off. Now? Lots of people get blown up or shot just crossing the street. I think it's beyond all hope.

One thing I'm not sure on though, what did Petraeus say at Congress? Was he saying things will improve, things aren't improving, or that we should hold a decision for a few months to see if things improve once the surge is complete?
The_Mac
Member
+96|6675

-101-InvaderZim wrote:

I keep saying that Mr Bush is THE world's #1 War Crim and America's biggest threat to National Security.
what is a crim? Is it something to eat? I am hungry!

I wouldn't necessarily say he has balls, I'd just say it seems like he might have taken a few bribes.
You know, these are politicians, and they're hardly human.

Last edited by The_Mac (2007-04-29 07:16:33)

-101-InvaderZim
Member
+42|7294|Waikato, Aotearoa
1 Star Generals and above are hardly politicians, and I doubt that they would take bribes.
Blehm98
conservative hatemonger
+150|6913|meh-land
the higher the rank, the more of a politician a soldier is.  Its just a plain well known fact for the most part in the military, simply because the duties of a high rank are more like a politician's duties

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard