Works for me:
Posted on 04/18/2006 7:06:15 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
"Brigadier Alan Sharp "
Actually I think this silly twit is Brigadier Andrew Sharpe:
http://www.euforbih.org/commanders/mntfnw/t060304a.htm
"He spent 2004 in Baghdad as a strategic planner, writing the Coalition Campaign Plan for Iraq for which he was subsequently awarded the OBE (and the Bronze Star by theAmericans). He attended the Royal College of Defence Studies in 2005. He deploys on I March 2006, on promotion to Brigadier, as COMBRITFOR (Balkans)"
I used to think I was John Wayne and I sure wasn't a general.
Works for me:
whatever you say there SunTzu... er Monty.
Big John Wayne Bump!
"proud announcements about how many Iraqis were killed"
This is, unfortunately, a hold over from Robert Strange McNamara and his attempt to quantify combat and effective combat leadership. His tour as SecDef (1961 - 1968 ?) was the beginning of the downfall of the American military.
By definition combat is not something that can be managed - prepared for, survived, endured - yes! But how do you manage chaos?
Combat has always been to effect the hearts and minds of the enemy. The quickest effect is to stop their hearts and minds. But, if war is a form of semi-controlled violence, the near total destruction of a society might not be the real end goal.
In 1919 World War I ended without affecting the hearts and minds of Imperial Germany’s population - twenty years later the world was at it again.
Yet in 1945 World War II ended with heavy effects on the German hearts and minds. That ended that particular European flash point (no new wars in/over Germany in 60 years (a record since the mid 1800s).
We can argue the Cold War details later. But, IMHO, it ended when the Soviet leadership cadre had a serious change of their hearts and minds (minimal destruction of the general, supporting, society).
In 1991 DESERT STORM ended without affecting the hearts and minds of the Iraqi population/leadership cadre. Twenty-one years later we were at it again.
I think that Brigadier Sharp might have a valid explanation for the “out break” of General Officers b**ching about Bush and the SecDef. These men got to their position through showmanship and self-advertising. And now, they are just one more retired officer who must continue to sell themselves to get, in their minds, their just rewards.
Better to be John Wayne than pantie waste Sean Penn or effeminate Henry Winkler.
What this toy soldier doesn't get is that Hollywood actually does imitate life once in a while - not the other way around as he states.Basically what I was going to say. Whaddamaroon.
When Britain was at its peak of power just about 110 years ago, it did not give a darn about the hearts and minds of the people whom they conquered, and was unashamedly proud of it.
Anyone read Joseph Chamberlain's speeches? The most naked American (so-called-)imperialist Teddy Roosevelt was never even half of Chamberlain's aggressiveness.
It's too bad that we never learn it.
I didn't say they were not brave but the Brits are, at best, very reluctant allies.
British opinions seem to be getting more Europeanized each day. I have read online articles over the years and every time when I see American patriotic posts or anti-anti-American articles, the angry retorts always seem to be coming from the Mother Country. Her Majesty's subjects seem more than content to defend their continental bretherns in front of those despised Yanks.
The saying that "The [English] Channel is wider than the Atlantic" is now a thing of the past. And if Britain's people aren't careful and fail to take any corrective measures, they will end up in the same fate as Europe - into the dustbin of history.
Britain's foreign policy has always been guided by what Lord Palmerston said in 1848: "We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are perpetual and eternal and those interests it is our duty to follow."
Over the past 60 years, Britain has largely believed allying with the United States serves the United Kingdom's national interests. But lately some (and a growing number of the general population) seem to believe detachment from the US serves Britain's interests in the world. Hence the increasing reluctance.
lol Showing a movie character American General who went insane and killed his own men might not be the best way of refuting this guy.
OOooh imagine if Hollywood made movies like that today.
He probably ran into Zinni and Clark.
Compared to Bitish officers we do have nads and are hard charging .... see Montgomery for the opposite.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.