Army Officer Says: "Generals Are Not Worthy Of Their Soldiers"

[DeSwiss]

SOURCE: USAToday

Active-duty Army officer: 'Our generals are not worthy of their soldiers'

An active-duty Army officer has taken the unusual step of writing about "intellectual and moral failures" among the USA's generals. Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, a veteran of Iraq whose unit's work was singled out for praise by the president, makes some pretty strong allegations in a lengthy essay that appears in the latest issue of the Armed Forces Journal, a Gannett publication.

"Our generals are not worthy of their soldiers," Yingling tells the Washington Post. He says the article which was reviewed by about 30 of his peers, reflects the prevailing sentiment of mid- and lower-level officers.

"America's generals have failed to prepare our armed forces for war and advise civilian authorities on the application of force to achieve the aims of policy," he writes in the journal article.

"America's generals have repeated the mistakes of Vietnam in Iraq," he says. "First, throughout the 1990s our generals failed to envision the conditions of future combat and prepare their forces accordingly. Second, America's generals failed to estimate correctly both the means and the ways necessary to achieve the aims of policy prior to beginning the war in Iraq. Finally, America's generals did not provide Congress and the public with an accurate assessment of the conflict in Iraq."

Excerpts from the article:
• inept planning for postwar Iraq took the crisis caused by a lack of troops and quickly transformed it into a debacle.
• The military never explained to the president the magnitude of the challenges inherent in stabilizing postwar Iraq.
• After failing to visualize the conditions of combat in Iraq, America's generals failed to adapt to the demands of counterinsurgency.
• America's general officer corps did not accurately portray the intensity of the insurgency to the American public.
• To improve the creative intelligence of our generals, Congress must change the officer promotion system in ways that reward adaptation and intellectual achievement.

Yingling urges lawmakers to retire generals at a lower rank if they fail to achieve their objectives. "As matters stand now, a private who loses a rifle suffers far greater consequences than a general who loses a war."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/04/activeduty_army.html

*** - That flushing sound you hear is Lt. Colonel Paul Yingling's career going down the gurgler........

[tblue]

1. And neither is the Commander in Chief. The buck stops....um....where?

[BOSSHOG]

2. I could swear LCOL Yingling is karl rove's pen name

Its all the generals fault. I ain't buying it.

[Fresh_Start]

3. Was Shinseki that last honorable man in the Pentagon?

Because Bush has been able to find a bunch of bootlickers and no one to stand up for the military or the troops.

[BOSSHOG]

4. Shinseki's actions disproves one of the LCOL premises

that no one told bush how fucked up his plan was. And congress changing the promotion system? For what purpose? To get Yingling promoted? This book sounds like something created in rove's lab.

[DeSwiss]

5. The most intriguing line to me was....

"As matters stand now, a private who loses a rifle suffers far greater consequences than a general who loses a war."

Yep. Lose a war and then they get the "HeckavaJob Freedom Medal".....