TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,460
Goddamn I wish I could agree and like this post.
Post-Afghanistan, Special Operations to Shift to Conflict Prevention
- Thread starter Ravage
- Start date
Goddamn I wish I could agree and like this post.
Your post
Worked with State in mid-90's; then watched State turn Haiti into a goat fuck.
Worked with State, UN folks in Bosnia, Kosovo. Most of them are self-centered pricks who know they will never be held accountable, and DoD will rescue their asses (figuratively, and literally) is things take a dump.
Blizzard
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 3,988
Agree that these are challenges that need to be addressed. But, as the discussion here hits on, the question really becomes who should be addressing these matters; DoS, some OGA, or the military. My view is that ownership lies primarily with DoS. However, as Marauder pointed out, the reality is that comes with it's own challenges, not the least being it's very political and changing nature. Regardless, the line defining the military role continues to blur more and more...
From the Air Force Officer's Guide: "The armed forces exist to serve the United States by providing the military wherewithal to deter war and, should that fail, to fight and conclude war to the advantage of the United States. The armed forces do not exist for themselves, as a source of employment, as a market for American industry, or as a social welfare tool for social engineering."
It could be argued, perhaps, that "conflict prevention" is tantamount to deterring war. My view is that they are distinctly separate.
While speaking to the topic of professionalism, former Air Force Chief of Staff General Ronald R. Fogelman summed it up well, and I believe his statement is applicable here, when he said, "The Air Force is not a social actions agency. The Air Force exists to fight and win wars. That's our core expertise; it is what allows us to be called professionals. We are entrusted with the security or our nation..."
"Air Force" can be substituted with "armed forces" in Fogelman's statement above.
From the Air Force Officer's Guide: "The armed forces exist to serve the United States by providing the military wherewithal to deter war and, should that fail, to fight and conclude war to the advantage of the United States. The armed forces do not exist for themselves, as a source of employment, as a market for American industry, or as a social welfare tool for social engineering."
It could be argued, perhaps, that "conflict prevention" is tantamount to deterring war. My view is that they are distinctly separate.
While speaking to the topic of professionalism, former Air Force Chief of Staff General Ronald R. Fogelman summed it up well, and I believe his statement is applicable here, when he said, "The Air Force is not a social actions agency. The Air Force exists to fight and win wars. That's our core expertise; it is what allows us to be called professionals. We are entrusted with the security or our nation..."
"Air Force" can be substituted with "armed forces" in Fogelman's statement above.
Last edited:
Yeah, to echo what a lot of you are saying, I don't understand where the folks at the top forgot to read the memo on what the different departments do:
State Dept. : Diplomacy : War Prevention
Defense Dept. : Combat : Fighting/Winning Wars (when the above dept. fails)
Seems pretty simple to me.
State Dept. : Diplomacy : War Prevention
Defense Dept. : Combat : Fighting/Winning Wars (when the above dept. fails)
Seems pretty simple to me.
Similar threads
