STORM2K

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Mar29.html

Read this articule and you will see the whole thing and it looks like there is some disagreement between some generals and Donald Rumsfeld about the war planning but as you know many on the media tends to hpye these kinds of storys but I am bringing it here to share it will all and you then may have distint opinions.

Hello cycloneye... I believe that these generals are being dubbed the "armchair generals" lol.

LOL Linda

the Generals assigned to War Plans in the Pentagon as "Armchair Generals" nor would I consider those who have raised planning issues who are in the field as the same either. Numbers are misleading since although we have over ¼million personnel in the Theater of Operations, only about 1/3 of those are actually engaged in combat in Iraq-this isn't much less than what we have facing us. Conventional wisdom states that the advancing force should be superior to the defending force numerically, training and equipement wise. When you add the element of fanaticism then you really have to out number your foe. In Manila in 1945, 6000 Japanese held out for a month against overwhelming odds in a battle that totally destroyed the City.

Steve

I would think there would be something wrong if there wasn't some disagreement. I think the media has overdramatized this issue.

Agree Garrett the media hypes these kind of storys and we have to read this kind of information with a grain of salt.

wx247 wrote:I would think there would be something wrong if there wasn't some disagreement. I think the media has overdramatized this issue.

I agree!

It is well to remember the new media maxim..."Good news is NOT 'news'".

Aslkahuna wrote:the Generals assigned to War Plans in the Pentagon as "Armchair Generals" nor would I consider those who have raised planning issues who are in the field as the same either. Numbers are misleading since although we have over ¼million personnel in the Theater of Operations, only about 1/3 of those are actually engaged in combat in Iraq-this isn't much less than what we have facing us. Conventional wisdom states that the advancing force should be superior to the defending force numerically, training and equipement wise. When you add the element of fanaticism then you really have to out number your foe. In Manila in 1945, 6000 Japanese held out for a month against overwhelming odds in a battle that totally destroyed the City.

Steve

I am just quoting what the Pentagon and Rumsfield calls them.

Feather Merchants (Civilians)? Or Military. Rumsfeld strikes me as being a bit arrogant at times. Additionally, a lot of the Military Analysts who are working for the media have themselves been Military Commanders of Major Commands or Services and I would hardly consider such an individual as an "Armchair General"-a term used by certain people to disparage the expertise gained over years of serving the US because the person disagrees with someone. As I have said before, Commisioned Officers take course work in Strategy and Tactics even before they are Commissioned so that even a green 2LT could probably see the flaws in the planning for this operation. Additionally, as they scale the ranks they take even more specialized courses in Planning, Tactics and Strategy before they move into Command Positions where they are required for daily operations. This is far more training and education than that which is usually in the resumes of the Civilian Appointees who are often there for Political reasons rather than expertise.

Steve

Actually, I find it rather insulting to the decorated generals that have been reporting that they are being called "armchair generals". That reminds me of the term "armchair quarterback" - which is aimed specifically at those of us who criticize those guys on the field, but have never played the sport in their lifetime.