China News Thread

[crash8pilot]

That's probably a different thread.

Clark was disliked (according to a warrant officer who worked on his G2) because he was too full of himself and refused to heed sound intel advise.

It's like those monologues in the movie "Thin Red Line"......

Whenever there is a large group of men, there will be politicizing, pecking order etc. It starts when you are a 23 year old LT, and you realize that you are measured against every other LT in the BN. It's the same perception game that coaches play with the players.

That being said, it is still mostly a meritocracy.

Your career (like any other) is a combination of luck and innate talent. You can get lucky and your talent and opportunity arrive at the right place at the right time, or you can be LT David Uthlaut. Shit happens.

I know a few guys that really should not wear the eagle, or even the oakleaf, and a few guys that should wear a star or two.

Hate to bring this further off the thread, but I've found it fascinating how ambitious flag officers the likes of Clark, McChrystal, McRaven, and to a certain extent Petraeus (not sure what to make of his tenure at Langley, scandal aside of course) haven't quite managed to crack into public office... and yet a low key Lloyd Austin (low profile from afar anyways, he always struck me as a "caretaker" or yes man of sorts that tries not to rock the boat) makes it as SecDef.

 

[voyager1]

Hate to bring this further off the thread, but I've found it fascinating how ambitious flag officers the likes of Clark, McChrystal, McRaven, and to a certain extent Petraeus (not sure what to make of his tenure at Langley, scandal aside of course) haven't quite managed to crack into public office... and yet a low key Lloyd Austin (low profile from afar anyways, he always struck me as a "caretaker" or yes man of sorts that tries not to rock the boat) makes it as SecDef.

There is fascinating story I read about Austin somewhere months ago. It seems that he has always been very low key and avoids public comments like a plague.

He was also against maintaining troops in Middle East so probably he was a smart guy.

Usual the smart guys are very careful on what they say publically so on this criteria Austin fits like a glove

 

[crash8pilot]

There is fascinating story I read about Austin somewhere months ago. It seems that he has always been very low key and avoids public comments like a plague.

He was also against maintaining troops in Middle East so probably he was a smart guy.

Usual the smart guys are very careful on what they say publically so on this criteria Austin fits like a glove

Another interpretation is that the Obama Administration brought Austin in to calm the waters after Mattis rocked the boat at CENTCOM, and Austin would do/say anything the administration wanted without refuting opinions or providing his own insight.... almost a figurehead for the Pentagon bureaucracy.

 

[steel21]

Hate to bring this further off the thread, but I've found it fascinating how ambitious flag officers the likes of Clark, McChrystal, McRaven, and to a certain extent Petraeus (not sure what to make of his tenure at Langley, scandal aside of course) haven't quite managed to crack into public office... and yet a low key Lloyd Austin (low profile from afar anyways, he always struck me as a "caretaker" or yes man of sorts that tries not to rock the boat) makes it as SecDef.

I really don't think senior flag grades are really competitive in politic these days.

As senior execs, they are centrists, and the battles are mostly in appropriation and budgets.

These days, you gotta be a Twitter commando and willing to whip up some real emotions while shoving dirt and piling shit on everyone else. It's a level of politicking that even dug-out Doug might find a tad distasteful.

I remember Chuck Hagel getting grill by Ted Cruz, alleging that he worked for DPRK for a measly 50k. I would've been tempted jumped over the table and smashed Ted fat face in. Oddly, that's the kind of behavior that the electorate would like to see these days.

Americans says they want a leader, what they really want is a game show host.

 

[voyager1]

Americans says they want a leader, what they really want is a game show host.

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

- H.L. Mencken

 

[Bellum_Romanum]

That's probably a different thread.

Clark was disliked (according to a warrant officer who worked on his G2) because he was too full of himself and refused to heed sound intel advise.

It's like those monologues in the movie "Thin Red Line"......

Whenever there is a large group of men, there will be politicizing, pecking order etc. It starts when you are a 23 year old LT, and you realize that you are measured against every other LT in the BN. It's the same perception game that coaches play with the players.

That being said, it is still mostly a meritocracy.

Your career (like any other) is a combination of luck and innate talent. You can get lucky and your talent and opportunity arrive at the right place at the right time, or you can be LT David Uthlaut. Shit happens.

I know a few guys that really should not wear the eagle, or even the oakleaf, and a few guys that should wear a star or two.

Clark probably became too full of himself after all the academic successes and promotions he received up until he was up for promotion for his 1st star and even then he was one of the U.S. Army's youngest 1 Star General at 41 years old.

The man graduated almost always at the top of whatever class he was on and him graduating at the top of his CGSC class shares a similar distinguished distinction with one of his former officers that served under his Staff Gen.Patraeus.

Hate to bring this further off the thread, but I've found it fascinating how ambitious flag officers the likes of Clark, McChrystal, McRaven, and to a certain extent Petraeus (not sure what to make of his tenure at Langley, scandal aside of course) haven't quite managed to crack into public office... and yet a low key Lloyd Austin (low profile from afar anyways, he always struck me as a "caretaker" or yes man of sorts that tries not to rock the boat) makes it as SecDef.

They don't really like officers that are too smart, too good and too wired so to speak with the exception of then SECDEF Mattis and McMaster which were all rendered useless under a very stubborn know-it-all man child Pres.Trump.

 

[Bellum_Romanum]

Sorry for the post above it wasn't meant to be included in my reply. That's the last one regarding ego driven American generals.

 

[voyager1]

Anyone who has been in the military knows the number 1 golden rule to follow before anything else.


Always, always, always CYA. As long as you follow this rule you will go up. The moment you slip up and something happens, down or out you go

 

[crash8pilot]

Sorry for the post above it wasn't meant to be included in my reply. That's the last one regarding ego driven American generals.

I know it isn't part of the topic thread, but I quite enjoyed the discussion... especially since these names get thrown out a lot whenever there is an opening in some sort of policy making position in the West Wing/State/Defense, or whenever the DNC is around the corner.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Hey guys let’s get back to the topic please.