Unless you are related to one, talking to a general of the Armed Forces, or Admiral or Marshall of the Air, is always a unique experience.
For one thing, if you lack any experience in military service, you will find yourself savoring a bit of subtle disdain.
The fact that the closest you ever came to performing military service was when you dressed up as George Washington at a high school play, hardly qualifies you to engage in serious discussions about strategies, action plans, troop displacements, supply routes, etc.
and the many and complex aspects of a military campaign.
My editor said: "It is important to test the degree of involvement in the war planning process by the top layer of command at the Defense Department.
Several generals have been given the ax, or the retirement parachute when not fully in accord with some of the civilians pulling the chains of command.
Too much has been said and speculated about the former Secretary of Defense, the Vice President and the President himself and their ferrous control of a collective that since times immemorial has relied on the expertise of commanders possessing ample experience and knowledge of war.
" "Just what do you mean by all that, Sir?" I asked.
"It is a matter of lucid discernment, son.
One thing is to establish the general philosophical, or political assessment of a conflicting situation and another is to detail a military operation where victory is sought if certain conditions are met.
It is no longer enough to engage the enemy and hope he will cut and run and you will be left with the glorious aftertaste of victory.
War requires planning in all time-space quantums" I had to agree, so I proceeded to set up the appointment with a general that seemed to bethe favorite of the arbiters of this Iraq international dispute, war, invasion, what have you.
After a lengthy preliminary that involved filling out forms, answering questions about my ancestors, my GPA and my blood type, I was finally ushered into the executive office.
The general looked at me with a skeptical eye as he said: "I suppose that you are engaged in the dissection of current military options in the Middle Eastern theater of Operations, right?" "I guess so, mon General" I replied in my best St Cyr Cadet Academy lingo.
It did not amuse him.
His look turned from skeptical to annoyed if not enraged.
"Pose your queries and be done with it, sir!" "Okay, General.
What about this new surge everyone is talking about?' "Yes, we plan to surge" "How about staying the course?" "Also, except that we move forward to victory!" "What is victory, General?" "We win, they lose" "Who wins? The Shiite, the Sunis.
The Kurds, the Baathists or the Al Qaiida militants, the Iranians, the Siryans, the Saudis, the Democrats?" "If the Sunis win, we stand to lose while if the Shiites win we probably win, but that is not sure unless the Sunis and the Kurds, aided by the Baathist can coordinate a proper armistice where everybody wins as long as we lose in their view, which is opposite to withdrawing to victory or staying to defeat, is that clear?"" "Crystal, general.
What are our troops to do in this new surge for victory?' "Glad you queried.
At this pace and this point in time, without recurrent access to the reserve components through remobilization, we will manage to deactivate the active components and re-establish a potential basis for a balanced approach responding to presumed involvement and geometrical field saturation all within a reciprocal scale and thus to meet tactical and operating objectives within the limited perspective of decreased insurgency activity as long as triangular projections of troop deployments and cross-interaction can be effectively accomplished!" "Gee!" I thought, "this article is going to get me a raise!"
For one thing, if you lack any experience in military service, you will find yourself savoring a bit of subtle disdain.
The fact that the closest you ever came to performing military service was when you dressed up as George Washington at a high school play, hardly qualifies you to engage in serious discussions about strategies, action plans, troop displacements, supply routes, etc.
and the many and complex aspects of a military campaign.
My editor said: "It is important to test the degree of involvement in the war planning process by the top layer of command at the Defense Department.
Several generals have been given the ax, or the retirement parachute when not fully in accord with some of the civilians pulling the chains of command.
Too much has been said and speculated about the former Secretary of Defense, the Vice President and the President himself and their ferrous control of a collective that since times immemorial has relied on the expertise of commanders possessing ample experience and knowledge of war.
" "Just what do you mean by all that, Sir?" I asked.
"It is a matter of lucid discernment, son.
One thing is to establish the general philosophical, or political assessment of a conflicting situation and another is to detail a military operation where victory is sought if certain conditions are met.
It is no longer enough to engage the enemy and hope he will cut and run and you will be left with the glorious aftertaste of victory.
War requires planning in all time-space quantums" I had to agree, so I proceeded to set up the appointment with a general that seemed to bethe favorite of the arbiters of this Iraq international dispute, war, invasion, what have you.
After a lengthy preliminary that involved filling out forms, answering questions about my ancestors, my GPA and my blood type, I was finally ushered into the executive office.
The general looked at me with a skeptical eye as he said: "I suppose that you are engaged in the dissection of current military options in the Middle Eastern theater of Operations, right?" "I guess so, mon General" I replied in my best St Cyr Cadet Academy lingo.
It did not amuse him.
His look turned from skeptical to annoyed if not enraged.
"Pose your queries and be done with it, sir!" "Okay, General.
What about this new surge everyone is talking about?' "Yes, we plan to surge" "How about staying the course?" "Also, except that we move forward to victory!" "What is victory, General?" "We win, they lose" "Who wins? The Shiite, the Sunis.
The Kurds, the Baathists or the Al Qaiida militants, the Iranians, the Siryans, the Saudis, the Democrats?" "If the Sunis win, we stand to lose while if the Shiites win we probably win, but that is not sure unless the Sunis and the Kurds, aided by the Baathist can coordinate a proper armistice where everybody wins as long as we lose in their view, which is opposite to withdrawing to victory or staying to defeat, is that clear?"" "Crystal, general.
What are our troops to do in this new surge for victory?' "Glad you queried.
At this pace and this point in time, without recurrent access to the reserve components through remobilization, we will manage to deactivate the active components and re-establish a potential basis for a balanced approach responding to presumed involvement and geometrical field saturation all within a reciprocal scale and thus to meet tactical and operating objectives within the limited perspective of decreased insurgency activity as long as triangular projections of troop deployments and cross-interaction can be effectively accomplished!" "Gee!" I thought, "this article is going to get me a raise!"
SHARE
