Army captains ‘pelt’ Mullen with tough questions on war.
Army captains ‘pelt’ Mullen with tough questions on war.
At a forum in Oklahoma today, Army captains — “who represent the military’s future” — pelted Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Navy Adm. Michael Mullen with “blunt questions” about the strain of Iraq redeployments:
The long and repeated battlefield deployments were a prime topic.
One year at war and one year back at home “is not good enough” one officer flatly told Mullen, setting the tone early for the discussion. [...]
“When it becomes a burden to my family, it becomes repulsive,” said one captain, who told Mullen that he wants a stable assignment so his wife can go to school, but he was told that “family considerations don’t play a role” in such planning decisions.
Mullen grimaced as the officer said he was preparing to leave the Army because of the problems.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Why do Army captains hate the troops and want us to lose?
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:08 pmWell, it’s about time somebody asked the tough questions!!
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:08 pmIn WWII there was non of this “one year off and one year on stuff.” You were in for the duration. These whiners are complaining about the wrong thing. They should be complaining about being ordered to commit war crimes. The whole war is a war crime.
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:11 pmYes, Annie, if the tough questions would have been asked in 2002 we wouldn’t be where we are today.
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:13 pmNow we have an army suffering under an incompetent c-in-c, struggling to perform their duty while maintaining their families, but the military can’t be “personal” when there is a war to be fought. Everyone is in an untenable position thanks to GWB.
These whiners are complaining about the wrong thing. They should be complaining about being ordered to commit war crimes. The whole war is a war crime.
Comment by Brrrp — October 23, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
These “whiners” as you call them are talking about the extended deployments that are breaking the military.
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:16 pmThey are complaining about the right thing
While your moniker fits you as being a bunch of hot gas released to the wind.
“Waaah!” “Whyyyyyyne!” “I wanna year–no make it a year an’ a half–off from the war!”
You are breaking my heart, guys. Back in World War II, we served until the armistice. Maybe you got a furlough now and then. That was it!
Now complain about the right thing: being told to fight an aggressive war, murder civilians, steal natural resources, torture prisoners, etc. Let’s hear some moral complaints instead of this selfish whining.
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:19 pmYou, too Wayne. WWII did not “break” our military. And there were no year long “tours of duty.”
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:20 pmComment by Brrrp — October 23, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
Nice try, check out LaHoods 5 day work week complaint.
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:25 pm“You are breaking my heart, guys. Back in World War II, we served until the armistice. Maybe you got a furlough now and then. That was it!
Now complain about the right thing: being told to fight an aggressive war, murder civilians, steal natural resources, torture prisoners, etc. Let’s hear some moral complaints instead of this selfish whining.”
Comment by Brrrp
And you probably were drafted – not like these guys, who signed a contract, and were later told the terms of that contract had suddenly changed. That’s pure bait and switch. Did they do that in WW2?
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:28 pmBack in World War II, we served until the armistice. Maybe you got a furlough now and then. That was it!
Comment by Brrrp — October 23, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
You mean during the war that EVERYONE sacrificed for? Not just the few?
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:30 pmWWII did not “break†our military. And there were no year long “tours of duty.â€
Comment by Brrrp — October 23, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
No, you’re right. WWII didn’t “break our military” Perhaps compulsory service had something to do with that. Approxiamtely 16 million Americans served during WWII. Out of a population of 70 million (give or take).
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:32 pmBait and switch? I dunno. What’s worse? Lying or conscripting people into enforced servitude on a battle field? I dunno.
Some of us enlisted and some of us were drafted, but draftees and enlistees got the same deal: you were in until it was over.
Still, WWII was, in my view, a just war–not like this war of aggression in West Asia.
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:33 pmIt is a stunning testament to the political devolution of this country that the most effective anti-war movement in America is inside the walls of the Pentagon or buried deep in the bowels of the CIA! – Billmon, Whiskey Bar.
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:36 pmIn WWII there was non of this “one year off and one year on stuff.†You were in for the duration. These whiners are complaining about the wrong thing. They should be complaining about being ordered to commit war crimes. The whole war is a war crime.
Comment by Brrrp — October 23, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
I agree with you, wholeheartedly, that this whole war is a war crime. No argument there. However, you cannot compare WWII with this war. First of all, we were attacked at Pearl Harbor by an Axis power. Then Germany declared war on the U.S. War was legally declared by the Congress, as per our Constitution. The ENTIRE country mobilized to fight the war, and the sacrifice was shared by more than 1% of the population. And there was a draft.
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:39 pmToday, people join the military for many different reasons and it should be realized that the military is partly to blame for those who “sign the contract” then change their minds. In order to recruit more troops the military has offered incentives that can’t possibly be fulfilled in a time of war but they offer them anyway and soldiers get mad.
However, I agree with the troops “one year on, one year off” never knowing when or for how long they will be home is horrible. The military needs to just suck it up, either they send everyone home or the soldiers are told that they will be over seas indefinitely. At least that way, families know that they’re not coming home until it’s over. It makes it much harder when you think someone is coming home and then you’re told “no, sorry. 6 more months†They need to stop jerking people around.
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:41 pmDear impeachcheneythenbush,
You are right about your facts, but I don’t see how it makes a difference. The point is that the idea of a “tour of duty” is a modern idea, introduced during Vietnam, when we did have a draft.
These captains are not complaining about the war’s being undeclared, illegal, etc. They just want more time off for themselves. They are not taking a principled position.
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:44 pmYou, too Wayne. WWII did not “break†our military. And there were no year long “tours of duty.â€
Comment by Brrrp — October 23, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
WWII was not an occupation either.
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:47 pmtwit.
“WWII was not an occupation either.”
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:49 pmThat’s what these captains should be complaining about. Or else they should quit.
These captains are not complaining about the war’s being undeclared, illegal, etc. They just want more time off for themselves. They are not taking a principled position.
Comment by Brrrp — October 23, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
But in trying to make your point, you compare this war to WWII, when the burdens borne by the troops are completely incomaprable. WWII the burden was borne by everybody, and the armed forces included more than one in every five Americans. It was a shared burden.
Today’s soldiers serve with objectives far less clear-cut and knowing that theior struggle is shared by almost no one else back home except their families. makes a huge difference. Yet you expect the troops to display the same committment that WWII demanded, when the president treats their sacrifice so cynically that he fires generals who don’t tell him what he wants to hear.
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:51 pm“Today’s soldiers serve with objectives far less clear-cut and knowing that theior struggle is shared by almost no one else back home except their families. makes a huge difference.”
THAT’s what they should be complaining about–the obscure objectives, the lack of moral clarity, the absence of democratic support AND the violation of the Geneva and Hague accords in bello and ad bellum.
But “give us more time off from our aggressive warfare”?
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:54 pmSorry, that’s just whiny self-interest.
“WWII was not an occupation either.â€
That’s what these captains should be complaining about. Or else they should quit.
Comment by Brrrp — October 23, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
And they are quitting, as are generals and other officers who can. The fact is, this isn’t a war at all; it’s an occupation with profits as the goal, so the soldiers are well withing their rights to demand that their contracts be upheld. You are wrong, suck it up.
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:55 pmBut “give us more time off from our aggressive warfare�
Sorry, that’s just whiny self-interest.
Comment by Brrrp — October 23, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
it’s actually sensible self-preservation, you soulless moron.
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:56 pm“You are wrong, suck it up.”
What am I wrong about? You haven’t disproved a thing I have said.
And as far as sucking it up, sorry, but I am not interested in your peculiar sexual fantasies.
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:57 pmBrrp: “You are breaking my heart, guys. Back in World War II, we served until the armistice. Maybe you got a furlough now and then. That was it!”
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Nobody did a full year of combat duty in WWII. And, after tours, soldiers got weeks with their comrades on ships to wind down rather than immediately being flown back into the real world as they are now and were during the Viet Nam War. Moreover, WWII was over in three years. This is going on 5 years with no end in sight.
I’m not sure why you’re so intent on smearing a bunch of dedicated military men concerned about the sustainability of their mission, but you don’t know as much about WWII as you think you do.
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:59 pm“You are wrong, suck it up.â€
What am I wrong about? You haven’t disproved a thing I have said.
And as far as sucking it up, sorry, but I am not interested in your peculiar sexual fantasies.
Comment by Brrrp — October 23, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
You are wrong about everything you’re basing your argument on. You started out comparing this invasion and occupation with a declared war, and went downhill from there. And if my use of the term of military origin “suck it up” plays to your sexual fantasies, then it’s quite obvious why you never served.
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:05 pmBrrp, possibly you’re thinking that because the military kept service people technically deployed for the duration, their tours of duty were greater than many of the soldiers in Iraq. This is a misconception. During WWII, deployment to active combat duty usually was over in a matter of weeks or months for the average soldier.
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:06 pmBrrrp sounds suspiciously like P.
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:06 pmBrrrp sounds suspiciously like P.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — October 23, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
sounds more like michael to me…
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:13 pmBrrrp sounds suspiciously like P.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — October 23, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
I actually thought that this one was a rather obvious sock-puppet. Mr. P loves to start a new persona as a concern-troll, “Ok, now look, as a lib who hates Bush…”. His personae are almost always retired military, they almost always come from a state involved in the current discussion, or went to school at the appropriate school, and has a current or former career appropriate to the discussion. Never any facts to back it up, never any citation, never any answers to questions that rebut the points he makes, but plenty of answers to ad hominem attacks, misspellings, and any errors in facts that HAVE been made by those opposing him (still, never even acknowledging the pointed rebuttals at all).
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:14 pmounds more like michael to me…
Comment by joe cantwell — October 23, 2007 @ 8:13 pm
there’s ample reason to believe that michael is merely one of p’s many sockpuppets, possible the stupidest one, certaily the most cowardly, excepting miss P herself…
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:14 pmYeah, Lefty, Brrrp does sound just like P, I thought it could be with it’s first post.
The war is an occupation for profit and I guess some of the military are starting to realize that they have been duped.
Buck Fush
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:21 pm#7
“You, too Wayne. WWII did not “break†our military. And there were no year long “tours of duty.â€
Comment by Brrrp”
Oh please. There was a draft, too. And rationing. The country was mobilized and the entire nation sacrificed. WWII didn’t break the military because there was 100% commitment, a draft and massive volunteerism by those of military age (unlike today with kids like the romneys who have “other priorities”). The US didn’t try to fight its wars with the same 400,000 troops cycled through over and over again.
And if you were injured with your “million dollar wound” you were out. Done. Not patched up and sent home and re-mobilized 6 months later.
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:25 pmIf someone were deliberately trying to devise a way to destroy the U.S., how could they do better than BushCo has. Evil incarnate – do they know it?
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:51 pm#16
“The point is that the idea of a “tour of duty†is a modern idea, introduced during Vietnam, when we did have a draft.
Comment by Brrrp”
That’s either ignorance or a lie on your part.
Tours of duty were in place at least since WWII; this was the whole purpose of the “point” system used to determine when individuals got to go home.
Since you clearly *didn’t* serve in WWII, I’ll safely assume you’re just a liar.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:09 pmi think Brrrp’s posts are troll-bait…so that malkin (or someone) can point to those posts as “proof” that we “dont support” the troops.
i do not believe that someone posting in good faith would call the toops “whiney”.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:12 pm#34 continued–
There were other ways of measuring a tour in WWII; for the US Marines in the Pacific, it was three landing campaigns and you were done.
For the AAF in Europe it was 24 missions and you were done (RAF was 30).
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:15 pmComment by Billy Hill — October 23, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
what kind of senseless blather is that? it’s your deserter-in-chief that’s the homicidal drunk.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:24 pmComment by Billy Hill — October 23, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
Sounds like you have been drinking the wild turkey.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:27 pm“The point is that the idea of a “tour of duty†is a modern idea, introduced during Vietnam, when we did have a draft.
Comment by Brrrpâ€
You are full of sh!t.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:28 pmThey introduced a point system towards the end of the war. If you had 41 points, you were supposed to get out. But many people had way more than 41 points and still were not allowed to be discharged.
By the way, I am not whoever you folks suspect me to be. I have never posted here before. If my ideas upset your sense of what it means to be against this criminal war, then it is high time it was upset.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:29 pmThe average deployment in an active combat zone for US forces during WWII was about 2 weeks, not over a year.
Brrrp is just a release of hot air, from the posterior region.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:32 pmHe is not Mr. P.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:53 pmOur action, retreat.
Comment by robroy — October 23, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
Ronald Reagan, Surrender Monkee!!!
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:36 pmWhen the bomb detonated, it may have been the largest non-nuclear explosion in history up to that time (we used the “Daisy Cutter†in Afghanistan which weighs 15,000 lbs).
Not… even close… Texas City, Texas, 1947.
October 24th, 2007 at 12:02 amOur action, retreat.
Comment by robroy — October 23, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
Ronald Reagan, Surrender Monkee!!!
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — October 23, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
Not just retreat…but….invade Grenada! Nothing takes the public’s eye off the immediate problem, like invading and attacking another defenseless nation. It’s the Republican way.
October 24th, 2007 at 2:18 amIt’s the Republican way.
Comment by Innocent Bystander — October 24, 2007 @ 2:18 am
Didn’t Ronnie refer to it as a “splendid little war”???
Excuse me, I think I’m gonna puke.
October 24th, 2007 at 2:22 amChimpy is ruining this country each and every single day.
October 24th, 2007 at 3:17 amAdmiral Mullen told them to look for solutions. As an Artillery Captain, who probably knows most of the guys at that meeting, I’ve got the solutions the American public and he just dont want to hear them.
1) Immediately request a draft of all American citizens between the ages 18 and 42 to double the size of the Army and Marine Corps until we drop troop strength in Iraq to 50,000 or below. Once we start to drawdown in Iraq we begin to phase out the draft. At the same time we would have the military take over the factories where all of our equipment is produced to insure the is no profit motive and equipment is getting pushed out in a timely manner.
2) Start conscripting Iraqis and other foreign nationals to serve beside us and gradually phase us out and leave them in charge. This will only work if we make the Iraqis more afraid of us than they are of their rival religious or tribal factions. It would therefore require a bit of incivility on the part of our military, which would be different than the volunteer force we allow them to have now.
Both of these options require the military to finally accept their role as army of imperialism and occupation and start acting as such. We are still trying to pretend we are the shining city on the hill. However, that time is long gone.
October 24th, 2007 at 5:31 am“1) Immediately request a draft of all American citizens between the ages 18 and 42 to double the size of the Army and Marine Corps…”
Of course, we would start with college republicans, neo-cons, and economic majors at the University of Chicago.
October 24th, 2007 at 5:33 amYou are a sad, disgusting person. You sit there bashing the troops that are doing the job the CITIZENS OF THE US sent them to do. It doesn’t matter if you support this occupation or not, the fact is that the citizens have the relatively easy job of not getting complacent while the government abuses us and our Military.
WE HAVE FAILED THE MILITARY, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. The majority, if not all, of combat troops (who see combat DAILY FOR THE ENTIRE TIME THEY ARE THERE) are on their 3rd, 4th and some on their 5th tours of duty. Many are IN A COMBAT ZONE FOR COMBINED TIME GREATER THEN THE WHOLE OF American involvement in WWII.
Also, in WWII they got to share the burden with the rest of the country. What is the country doing for them now (besides cutting benefits and not giving them health care)? Is anyone sacrificing besides the military?
Too many people believe it is a RIGHT of an American not to care, be complacent, and lazy. THAT IS NOT TRUE, it is the job and responsibility of the citizens to hold its government responsible and we all deserve some of that blame. Get off your hight horse, except your blame and start doing something about it instead of blaming the troops that are bound to protect and defend us in the missions we as a people assign them to. You don’t like what is happening, then get out there, call your congressmen, organize rallies, speak out — do something other than shifting your responsibility and piling it on the shoulders of our service men and women. They already have the weight of the country on their shoulders, they don’t need your guilt too.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:48 amGuess what, the Military doesn’t force you to serve. When you get in, you do so with full knowledge of the perils. If you underestimated the risk, feel free to leave. No dishonor in doing so. That’s part of the deal.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:54 amThen who would fight this super duper important war and keep the islamoreesespieces from coming here and cutting our head off?
I don’t know about you, but the “feel free to leave” is only true if you don’t mind a year stay in Leavenworth. That sounds free to me.
Sure it is free. Good idea, bash the soldiers that actually want to DO something for this country instead of those misusing and abusing them. Many would like to continue serving their country, they just want the respect, treatment, and rest they have earned. They know and can handle the “risks”.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:35 amGuess what, the Military doesn’t force you to serve. When you get in, you do so with full knowledge of the perils. If you underestimated the risk, feel free to leave. No dishonor in doing so. That’s part of the deal.
Comment by hits — October 24, 2007 @ 8:54 am
What is not part of the deal is the nature of the war. This is not a war for freedom and saving lives; it is about resoures. The troops are pawns.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:49 amWayne
WWII, 2 week deployments? Ok, right, wow, really astute.
Comment by robroy — October 23, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
Read a bit of history.
In WWII there was an actual front line. Troops were rotated in and out of the front lines on a 2 week average, depending on the situation and the availability of troops to relieve those one the front lines. Those rotated behind the lines had time to rest and recover.
In Iraq, it is an occupation, there is no “line” to go behind to rest. The front line start when you walk out the door in the morning.
October 24th, 2007 at 12:03 pmThe reality during WW2, especially in the ETO, is that tours of duty were often extended and combat troop rotation was often ignored. Some of the troops on the ground were in combat for months without relief; military doctors were instructed to send the physically and mentally wounded back into combat as soon as possible. Some things never change.
October 24th, 2007 at 12:46 pmSadly, these captains aren’t serving their country — they’re serving Bushco. I imagine a lot of them are staying in to look after their troops.