Perspectives on his military career, not on his adultery skillz.
Just read a (very positive) account of his career and activities re counter-insurgency in Iraq; the author's perspective was that he basically saved the situation in Iraq, when almost everyone else had run out of ideas. Topical, given that Iraq seems to be falling apart now.
What's the Languish view? Also, why did he move into the CIA rather than getting a military position after Iraq and Afganistan?
Very positive.
Don't you mean Betray Us?
There's a good scene in Kagemusha where Takeda Shingen's senior vassal berates him for being angry at a guy for betraying him. People betray because they perceive it to be in their interest to do so. Taking it personally is for monkeys.
My views of General Petraeus are very positive. He's had a very good career in the military as far as what I've seen. He was the commander who saved the situation in Iraq by some innovative tactics and ideas during Pres Bush's surge.
Petraeus basically wasn't eligible for any more military positions when he retired. He had already been a Joint Commander (CENTCOM) and so the only position he was technically eligible for after that was Army Chief of Staff. He lost the competition for that job to General Martin Dempsey (who went on to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs) and actually got a kind of bonus tour by taking the head job in Afghanistan.
There are only so many 4-star jobs and slots, so you take your turn and then either join the JCS (service chief or vice-Chairman) or retire.
I'm not nearly as knowledgeable on the matter as many here, but my impression is generally positive.
I think he did very well. It is a shame that the work he did to unite political groups in Iraq fell apart after he left.
He was the American version of Julius Caesar. The Soldiers loved him. He could have burned his political capital and marched on Washington to save the Republic and reestablish free-market capitalism. Instead he decided to get a job that would in time open his way to the Whitehouse, and Obama ordered his goons to scoop his emails for any incriminating evidence to take him out.
Quote from: grumbler on January 09, 2014, 12:42:23 PM
Petraeus basically wasn't eligible for any more military positions when he retired. He had already been a Joint Commander (CENTCOM) and so the only position he was technically eligible for after that was Army Chief of Staff. He lost the competition for that job to General Martin Dempsey (who went on to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs) and actually got a kind of bonus tour by taking the head job in Afghanistan.
There are only so many 4-star jobs and slots, so you take your turn and then either join the JCS (service chief or vice-Chairman) or retire.
That makes sense, though the system appears a bit unfortunate if there is no way of retaining the services of successful fighting generals if they get too senior other than making them Army Chief of Staff, which they may not be suited for anyway.
Quote from: Siege on January 09, 2014, 02:06:15 PM
He was the American version of Julius Caesar. The Soldiers loved him. He could have burned his political capital and marched on Washington to save the Republic and reestablish free-market capitalism. Instead he decided to get a job that would in time open his way to the Whitehouse, and Obama ordered his goons to scoop his emails for any incriminating evidence to take him out.
*takes a drink*
Remind me what the Seebrew clause is please.
Quote from: Siege on January 09, 2014, 02:06:15 PM
He was the American version of Julius Caesar.
Along with Douglas MacArthur and Iggy Pop, and yet there are still barbarous Gauls on our Northern Frontier.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2014, 02:37:09 PM
Remind me what the Seebrew clause is please.
I need to fully formalize the LANGUISH DRINKING GAME.
But here is the draft rule:
Siege mentions Obama acting like a dictator( or Nixonian) -1 drink
Siege posts a conspiracy theory - 1 drink
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 09, 2014, 02:41:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2014, 02:37:09 PM
Remind me what the Seebrew clause is please.
I need to fully formalize the LANGUISH DRINKING GAME.
But here is the draft rule:
Siege mentions Obama acting like a dictator( or Nixonian) -1 drink
Siege posts a conspiracy theory - 1 drink
Looking forward to seeing the rules.
-1 drink? :x
Quote from: The Brain on January 09, 2014, 02:42:06 PM
-1 drink? :x
The booze was cursed. Should have had a wizard look it over first.
Quote from: Siege on January 09, 2014, 02:06:15 PM
He was the American version of Julius Caesar. The Soldiers loved him. He could have burned his political capital and marched on Washington to save the Republic and reestablish free-market capitalism. Instead he decided to get a job that would in time open his way to the Whitehouse, and Obama ordered his goons to scoop his emails for any incriminating evidence to take him out.
Saved for court-martial.
Quote from: Siege on January 09, 2014, 02:06:15 PM
He was the American version of Julius Caesar. The Soldiers loved him. He could have burned his political capital and marched on Washington to save the Republic
Wat?
Americans save stuff by destroying it. :secret:
Quote from: Zanza on January 09, 2014, 03:38:08 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 09, 2014, 02:06:15 PM
He was the American version of Julius Caesar. The Soldiers loved him. He could have burned his political capital and marched on Washington to save the Republic
Wat?
OK, OK, but the free market capitalism part was right.
Or was that Cato?
Cato? :frog:
Was Cato Institutionalized?
Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2014, 04:06:30 PM
Was Cato Institutionalized?
No. Arterial Emptying Individually. But he left his Heritage.
Quote from: Malthus on January 09, 2014, 02:17:04 PM
That makes sense, though the system appears a bit unfortunate if there is no way of retaining the services of successful fighting generals if they get too senior other than making them Army Chief of Staff, which they may not be suited for anyway.
Well, they can invent new and temporary 4-star positions, as they did for Petraeus, but ultimately, you are right. That's kinda the deal when you put on your fourth star, though. You get your turn in the barrel, and then retire so the next guy can get his fourth star.
The guy who didn't get promoted because Petraeus got extended probably feels pretty strongly about that. :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on January 09, 2014, 05:30:38 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 09, 2014, 02:17:04 PM
That makes sense, though the system appears a bit unfortunate if there is no way of retaining the services of successful fighting generals if they get too senior other than making them Army Chief of Staff, which they may not be suited for anyway.
Well, they can invent new and temporary 4-star positions, as they did for Petraeus, but ultimately, you are right. That's kinda the deal when you put on your fourth star, though. You get your turn in the barrel, and then retire so the next guy can get his fourth star.
The guy who didn't get promoted because Petraeus got extended probably feels pretty strongly about that. :lol:
Isn't that something of a problem throughout the US military? That the whole place (or a good chunk of it) operates on an "up or out" mentality?
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2014, 05:32:48 PM
Isn't that something of a problem throughout the US military? That the whole place (or a good chunk of it) operates on an "up or out" mentality?
On the commissioned side, it is up or out. On the far more important long-term-professional-enlisted side, that's not true to nearly the same extent. I don't think that it is a problem at all. Petraeus was almost 60 when he retired, and the military is a younger man's game (sorry, Siege).
Quote from: grumbler on January 09, 2014, 05:38:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2014, 05:32:48 PM
Isn't that something of a problem throughout the US military? That the whole place (or a good chunk of it) operates on an "up or out" mentality?
On the commissioned side, it is up or out. On the far more important long-term-professional-enlisted side, that's not true to nearly the same extent. I don't think that it is a problem at all. Petraeus was almost 60 when he retired, and the military is a younger man's game (sorry, Siege).
If you don't have that up or out situation, you end up with 55 year old 2nd lieutenants. I'm not sure I 100% agree with grumbler's statement that the military is a young man's game when it comes to the high command types, but it certainly applies at the lower levels.
Quote from: grumbler on January 09, 2014, 05:38:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2014, 05:32:48 PM
Isn't that something of a problem throughout the US military? That the whole place (or a good chunk of it) operates on an "up or out" mentality?
On the commissioned side, it is up or out. On the far more important long-term-professional-enlisted side, that's not true to nearly the same extent. I don't think that it is a problem at all. Petraeus was almost 60 when he retired, and the military is a younger man's game (sorry, Siege).
Racism!!!
I mean, Ageism!!!
I'm only 42, I max out my PT test (push ups and sit ups, not the 2 mile run), and I bring a lot of nasty skills to the table.
I know a lot of young sergeants that can't compete with me.
Though I also know a lot of young sergeants that out perform me physically by a large marging.
QuoteI'm only 42
well it just goes downhill from there brother. :P
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 09, 2014, 02:41:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2014, 02:37:09 PM
Remind me what the Seebrew clause is please.
I need to fully formalize the LANGUISH DRINKING GAME.
But here is the draft rule:
Siege mentions Obama acting like a dictator( or Nixonian) -1 drink
Siege posts a conspiracy theory - 1 drink
You stick to that rule, you're gonna end up needing to apologize to Josq for all the alkie comments. :lol:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 09, 2014, 10:49:08 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 09, 2014, 02:41:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2014, 02:37:09 PM
Remind me what the Seebrew clause is please.
I need to fully formalize the LANGUISH DRINKING GAME.
But here is the draft rule:
Siege mentions Obama acting like a dictator( or Nixonian) -1 drink
Siege posts a conspiracy theory - 1 drink
You stick to that rule, you're gonna end up needing to apologize to Josq for all the alkie comments. :lol:
I need a new liver.
you will
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 09, 2014, 02:41:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2014, 02:37:09 PM
Remind me what the Seebrew clause is please.
I need to fully formalize the LANGUISH DRINKING GAME.
But here is the draft rule:
Siege mentions Obama acting like a dictator( or Nixonian) -1 drink
Siege posts a conspiracy theory - 1 drink
I am going to have to get more booze
That's unfair. I do not talk of President Obama in a biased negative way. When he does something positive, I recognize his contribution.
Besides, you all talk shit all day as well. Defending criminal communist economic practices, that perpetuates poverty and misery, is far worst than anything I do.
You only solve poverty by raising the poor, not by lowering the rich.
The only reason poor people today have a better standard of living today than 50 years ago (cars, A/C, cellphones, PCs, etc) is because of capitalism.
Free market capitalism is what makes scarcity into abundance.
And I don't talk about conspiracy theories that much either. I haven't mentioned the Moon Hoax in 86 days.
Quote from: Siege on January 10, 2014, 08:25:42 AM
And I don't talk about conspiracy theories that much either. I haven't mentioned the Moon Hoax in 86 days.
You have to be careful with this kind of humor, Siege. It will totally spoil your schtick.
Quote from: Siege on January 10, 2014, 08:25:42 AM
Defending criminal communist economic practices, that perpetuates poverty and misery, is far worst than anything I do.
You only solve poverty by raising the poor, not by lowering the rich.
The only reason poor people today have a better standard of living today than 50 years ago (cars, A/C, cellphones, PCs, etc) is because of capitalism.
Free market capitalism is what makes scarcity into abundance.
I just don't get what we are doing now that is different in any significant way than we ever have done things. The only change of any sort is Obama care but it is not like free market capitalism has had much to do with health care in a long time.
I've read a few books involving him, most recently the Gamble by Thomas Ricks...... The books and the media go a long way to glorify him, but I've heard some less than great news about him behind the scenes.
Apparently he was as 'career orientated' as could be as an officer in the army, which you military folks will know is a bad thing. Very cut throat and took all credit for his underlings while not hesitating to throw them under the bus whilst forming a 'cult' of followers around him.
For instance, his whole strategy in Iraq was based off a colonel's success in the North of Iraq which we'll never hear or learn about since he gets all the credit. It's really all just conjecture, but since his fall more and more is slowly leaking out.
So who knows. :hmm:
Quote from: Siege on January 10, 2014, 08:25:42 AM
That's unfair. I do not talk of President Obama in a biased negative way. When he does something positive, I recognize his contribution.
Besides, you all talk shit all day as well. Defending criminal communist economic practices, that perpetuates poverty and misery, is far worst than anything I do.
You only solve poverty by raising the poor, not by lowering the rich.
The only reason poor people today have a better standard of living today than 50 years ago (cars, A/C, cellphones, PCs, etc) is because of capitalism.
Free market capitalism is what makes scarcity into abundance.
And I don't talk about conspiracy theories that much either. I haven't mentioned the Moon Hoax in 86 days.
I'll bite. If you really feel that way you should resign from the army, forgo any benefits (which are "socialist" in nature and was enacted by fellow "socialists") and leave the country or go into the private sector. If Obama is actually the tyrant you say he is, you staying in the army only aids and abets him. Unless you are willing to move against the the President in which case you are a traitor and unworthy of your uniform. So which one is is Siege, are you a traitor, or a coward?
:chugs whole bottle:
Quote from: Alcibiades on January 10, 2014, 11:53:47 AM
I've read a few books involving him, most recently the Gamble by Thomas Ricks...... The books and the media go a long way to glorify him, but I've heard some less than great news about him behind the scenes.
Apparently he was as 'career orientated' as could be as an officer in the army, which you military folks will know is a bad thing. Very cut throat and took all credit for his underlings while not hesitating to throw them under the bus whilst forming a 'cult' of followers around him.
For instance, his whole strategy in Iraq was based off a colonel's success in the North of Iraq which we'll never hear or learn about since he gets all the credit. It's really all just conjecture, but since his fall more and more is slowly leaking out.
So who knows. :hmm:
Interesting stuff. :)
Is this stuff you are hearing through the military grapevine?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2014, 12:01:55 PM
:chugs whole bottle:
No, no, you are suppose to hit yourself.
Quote from: Alcibiades on January 10, 2014, 11:53:47 AM
Apparently he was as 'career orientated' as could be as an officer in the army, which you military folks will know is a bad thing. Very cut throat and took all credit for his underlings while not hesitating to throw them under the bus whilst forming a 'cult' of followers around him.
For instance, his whole strategy in Iraq was based off a colonel's success in the North of Iraq which we'll never hear or learn about since he gets all the credit. It's really all just conjecture, but since his fall more and more is slowly leaking out.
Sounds like most great generals.
Yeah, I am not sure you ever succeed in a largely peacetime (meaning non-total war army where there are a lot more upper level officers than there are combat slots for them), professional army like the US Army without stepping on a lot of toes and making a lot of enemies on the way up.
My personal opinion on Patreus won't really be influenced by some people coming out with nasty books about what a jerk he was - I just assume that to be true to begin with.
Quote from: Malthus on January 10, 2014, 12:03:25 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on January 10, 2014, 11:53:47 AM
I've read a few books involving him, most recently the Gamble by Thomas Ricks...... The books and the media go a long way to glorify him, but I've heard some less than great news about him behind the scenes.
Apparently he was as 'career orientated' as could be as an officer in the army, which you military folks will know is a bad thing. Very cut throat and took all credit for his underlings while not hesitating to throw them under the bus whilst forming a 'cult' of followers around him.
For instance, his whole strategy in Iraq was based off a colonel's success in the North of Iraq which we'll never hear or learn about since he gets all the credit. It's really all just conjecture, but since his fall more and more is slowly leaking out.
So who knows. :hmm:
Interesting stuff. :)
Is this stuff you are hearing through the military grapevine?
I was fortunate enough to sit and chat with a pair of full bird colonels last spring, he was one of the topics that came up.
Quote from: Berkut on January 10, 2014, 12:10:52 PM
Yeah, I am not sure you ever succeed in a largely peacetime (meaning non-total war army where there are a lot more upper level officers than there are combat slots for them), professional army like the US Army without stepping on a lot of toes and making a lot of enemies on the way up.
My personal opinion on Patreus won't really be influenced by some people coming out with nasty books about what a jerk he was - I just assume that to be true to begin with.
Obviously I know nothing of the inner workings of a modern military...
...but coming from a career in the civillian public service, that's not usually what I see. Now, the people who get promoted are definitely playing political games, butit's more a question of developing allies, being sure to widely distribute favours, definitely a side of empire-building, but the good ones do it without stepping on anyones toes.
The ones who do step on toes and make enemies don't last.
Quote from: Berkut on January 10, 2014, 12:10:52 PM
Yeah, I am not sure you ever succeed in a largely peacetime (meaning non-total war army where there are a lot more upper level officers than there are combat slots for them), professional army like the US Army without stepping on a lot of toes and making a lot of enemies on the way up.
My personal opinion on Patreus won't really be influenced by some people coming out with nasty books about what a jerk he was - I just assume that to be true to begin with.
Heh, agreed. A country doesn't need generals who are
nice. It needs generals who
win. ;)
Quote'GOOD-MORNING; good-morning!' the General said
When we met him last week on our way to the line.
Now the soldiers he smiled at are most of 'em dead,
And we're cursing his staff for incompetent swine.
'He's a cheery old card,' grunted Harry to Jack
As they slogged up to Arras with rifle and pack.
. . . .
But he did for them both by his plan of attack.
- Sassoon, "The General"
Of course, if their jerkishness allows then to thrive in rank despite military incompetence, that's a different story. Also, if their jerkishness ruins morale.
I hear this phrase from time to time, what is a full bird colonel?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 10, 2014, 12:24:46 PM
I hear this phrase from time to time, what is a full bird colonel?
As opposed to Lt. Colonel.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 10, 2014, 12:24:46 PM
I hear this phrase from time to time, what is a full bird colonel?
Lt. Colonel insignia is a silver star.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F6%2F6e%2FUS-O5_insignia.svg%2F125px-US-O5_insignia.svg.png&hash=c1b9fde14403bbe7f24de51c31082dc64d57c7ce)
Full colonel insignia is an eagle
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fc%2Fc5%2FUS-O6_insignia.svg%2F175px-US-O6_insignia.svg.png&hash=ffff8c3baa2fcf7cb080436e90485dcab9b0af9e)
Hence...
CC never watched MASH.
Quote from: Berkut on January 10, 2014, 03:37:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 10, 2014, 12:24:46 PM
I hear this phrase from time to time, what is a full bird colonel?
Lt. Colonel insignia is a silver star.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F6%2F6e%2FUS-O5_insignia.svg%2F125px-US-O5_insignia.svg.png&hash=c1b9fde14403bbe7f24de51c31082dc64d57c7ce)
Full colonel insignia is an eagle
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fc%2Fc5%2FUS-O6_insignia.svg%2F175px-US-O6_insignia.svg.png&hash=ffff8c3baa2fcf7cb080436e90485dcab9b0af9e)
Hence...
Full colonel is in the grade of an 0-6, lieutenant colonel is an O-5. Both are referred to as colonel. Wouldn't sound like a big difference but the respect and responsibilities between the two are a lot bigger, so "worth" distinguishing between.
Quote from: Siege on January 09, 2014, 02:06:15 PM
He was the American version of Julius Caesar. The Soldiers loved him. He could have burned his political capital and marched on Washington to save the Republic and reestablish free-market capitalism. Instead he decided to get a job that would in time open his way to the Whitehouse, and Obama ordered his goons to scoop his emails for any incriminating evidence to take him out.
Wrong Roman. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulla) How do you pass psych evals?
Quote from: Queequeg on January 11, 2014, 12:53:50 AM
Quote from: Siege on January 09, 2014, 02:06:15 PM
He was the American version of Julius Caesar. The Soldiers loved him. He could have burned his political capital and marched on Washington to save the Republic and reestablish free-market capitalism. Instead he decided to get a job that would in time open his way to the Whitehouse, and Obama ordered his goons to scoop his emails for any incriminating evidence to take him out.
Wrong Roman. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulla) How do you pass psych evals?
It's no use. I think only Viking, who has professional experience penetrating dense materials, could get something through that thick skull.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 11, 2014, 12:53:50 AM
How do you pass psych evals?
Well, to start with he casts his heroes as Julius Caesar rather than Sulla.
Quote from: Berkut on January 10, 2014, 03:37:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 10, 2014, 12:24:46 PM
I hear this phrase from time to time, what is a full bird colonel?
Lt. Colonel insignia is a silver star.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F6%2F6e%2FUS-O5_insignia.svg%2F125px-US-O5_insignia.svg.png&hash=c1b9fde14403bbe7f24de51c31082dc64d57c7ce)
Full colonel insignia is an eagle
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fc%2Fc5%2FUS-O6_insignia.svg%2F175px-US-O6_insignia.svg.png&hash=ffff8c3baa2fcf7cb080436e90485dcab9b0af9e)
Hence...
Come on B,
Silver Oakleaf, a silver star is a Brigadier General for the army
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 11, 2014, 01:07:05 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on January 11, 2014, 12:53:50 AM
How do you pass psych evals?
Well, to start with he casts his heroes as Julius Caesar rather than Sulla.
Sulla marched in to Rome at the head of a coup to try to restore his version of the traditional order to a Republic. Can't really say Caesar did that.
I think Petraeus can be credited with a significant contribution to turning Iraq's security situation around. He was also a key high-level patron for a cadre of officers who argued for a new operational and tactical approach, the importance of which is often easy to forget. Try getting anything disruptive done in any organisation without an energetic senior backer.
Yes, he was politically astute and knew how to work the media well, but above a certain level of seniority, the art of generalship begins to take on political overtones, particularly when it comes to winning bureaucratic struggles back home as well as the exercise of theatre command.
I've met him a couple of times; he seems like a genuinely decent man. On one trip through the UK, he took the time to participate in a private seminar with students and young researchers. It was all off the record, so there was no PR gain for him, and none of us were politically connected - but he took the meeting seriously, was generous with his time in a packed schedule, and gave answers as frank as anyone in his position could realistically do. I think that said a lot about him.
Of course, his record is mixed, and the Broadwell affair was a silly indiscretion. But the counter-cult of Petraeus went a little too far, I felt, in trying to peg him back down.
Sulla. :wub:
Siegey should watch Seven Days in May
Quote from: Queequeg on January 11, 2014, 02:15:31 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 11, 2014, 01:07:05 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on January 11, 2014, 12:53:50 AM
How do you pass psych evals?
Well, to start with he casts his heroes as Julius Caesar rather than Sulla.
Sulla marched in to Rome at the head of a coup to try to restore his version of the traditional order to a Republic. Can't really say Caesar did that.
In a modern context, Caesar is superior. A modern Sulla would be like some Republican general marching to bring back the 1950s (although no doubt with much lower tax rates).
Quote from: Neil on January 11, 2014, 10:12:12 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on January 11, 2014, 02:15:31 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 11, 2014, 01:07:05 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on January 11, 2014, 12:53:50 AM
How do you pass psych evals?
Well, to start with he casts his heroes as Julius Caesar rather than Sulla.
Sulla marched in to Rome at the head of a coup to try to restore his version of the traditional order to a Republic. Can't really say Caesar did that.
In a modern context, Caesar is superior. A modern Sulla would be like some Republican general marching to bring back the 1950s (although no doubt with much lower tax rates).
Sounds dreamy. :wub:
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 10, 2014, 12:24:46 PM
I hear this phrase from time to time, what is a full bird colonel?
Army Colonels are always flying around over the battlefield to have a better situational awareness, so they are called birds.
Seriously, the rank of Colonel is an Eagle.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uniforms-4u.com%2Fproductimages%2F6869%2Fbig-u-army-colonel-cap-rank-insignia-7639.jpg&hash=a33e7ffdfb4bfd6bd8857784eaaf9d0645e1eb21)
While a Lieutenant Colonel Rank Insignia is a silver-colored oak leaf.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uniforms-4u.com%2Fproductimages%2F6865%2Fbig-u-army-lieutenant-colonel-rank-insignia-7635.jpg&hash=7c0fea8f0b9964ca64a30fca5f3dee745d2f86f4)
Quote from: FunkMonk on January 11, 2014, 08:53:49 AM
Siegey should watch Seven Days in May
I don't watch movies.
Recommend a book if you please.
Quote from: Siege on January 11, 2014, 10:01:47 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on January 11, 2014, 08:53:49 AM
Siegey should watch Seven Days in May
I don't watch movies.
Recommend a book if you please.
Okay, read Seven Days in May.
:D
Quote from: Warspite on January 11, 2014, 07:59:38 AM
I think Petraeus can be credited with a significant contribution to turning Iraq's security situation around. He was also a key high-level patron for a cadre of officers who argued for a new operational and tactical approach, the importance of which is often easy to forget. Try getting anything disruptive done in any organisation without an energetic senior backer.
Yes, he was politically astute and knew how to work the media well, but above a certain level of seniority, the art of generalship begins to take on political overtones, particularly when it comes to winning bureaucratic struggles back home as well as the exercise of theatre command.
I've met him a couple of times; he seems like a genuinely decent man. On one trip through the UK, he took the time to participate in a private seminar with students and young researchers. It was all off the record, so there was no PR gain for him, and none of us were politically connected - but he took the meeting seriously, was generous with his time in a packed schedule, and gave answers as frank as anyone in his position could realistically do. I think that said a lot about him.
Of course, his record is mixed, and the Broadwell affair was a silly indiscretion. But the counter-cult of Petraeus went a little too far, I felt, in trying to peg him back down.
Thanks again.
It is first-hand experience like yours and Alcibiades' that keeps me reading Languish. :cheers:
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 10, 2014, 06:01:37 PM
CC never watched MASH.
Thats where I think I heard it the most. Thanks for the explanations all.
Quote from: Alcibiades on January 10, 2014, 11:53:47 AM
Apparently he was as 'career orientated' as could be as an officer in the army, which you military folks will know is a bad thing. Very cut throat and took all credit for his underlings while not hesitating to throw them under the bus whilst forming a 'cult' of followers around him.
Kind of difficult to avoid in an organizational culture built upon a "move up or move out" philosophy, isn't it?