America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

The Fiscal Times By David Francis


It’s highly unusual for a high-ranking soldier, let alone a high-ranking Marine, to publicly question White House and Pentagon policy. Yet that’s exactly what four-star Gen. James Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps, did yesterday in Washington.

Speaking at the Brookings Institute Tuesday, Amos said the Obama administration paved the way for the emergence of the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq (ISIS) by completely withdrawing American troops in 2011.

Related: The Perfect Storm About to Hit the Pentagon

“I have a hard time believing that had we been there, and worked with the government, and worked with parliament, and worked with the minister of defense, the minister of interior, I don't think we'd be in the same shape we're in today,” Amos said.

Amos also blasted the White House for failing to live up to its obligations around the world.

“We may think we're done with all of these nasty, thorny, tacky little things that are going on around the world -- and I'd argue that if you're in that nation, it's not a tacky, little thing for you. We may think we're done with them, but they're not done with us," Amos said.

“We're probably the only country in the world that has the resources and the capability to be able to do some of this that others can't,” Amos added.

Related: Troubling Signs the Pentagon Is Going Soft

Perhaps Amos felt free to voice opinions on White House policy because he is set to retire this fall. Now, his comments are likely to influence the debate within the defense community about how to handle the myriad of crises going on around the world.

Unlike most issues in Washington, the argument surrounding American engagement around the world does not split along party lines. One strand of the GOP, represented by Rick Perry, believes the United States cannot retreat into an isolationist posture. The other, represented by Rand Paul, believes engagement will lead to prolonged wars like the one in Afghanistan.

Related: Rick Perry and Rand Paul Slug it Out in Prep for 2016

Amos is clearly in Perry’s camp. He also gave voice to a growing concern among DOD brass: that the troops who sacrificed by fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are becoming disillusioned as the gains they made disappeared.

“It breaks our hearts,” Amos said, referring to the fall of the Anbar province in Iraq, which Marines won in 2010. He noted that 852 Marines were killed and another 8,500 injured in Iraq.

“They believed that they'd made a difference,” he said.

Protecting ones border hardly equates to starting WW lll....

Leave the diplomacy to the politicians and prosecuting war to the nonpoliticians.

I agree. Every time daddy bush bowed to the Chinese dudes my outrage went to defcon 3. I was glad when he finally puked on one of them.

He wouldn't talk about him that way if he wasn't in that wheelchair....

See the interview with Robert Gates last nite on PBS talk show. Politicians should decide foriegn policy and when to go to war, not generals. He agrees. That is all I am refering to.

Chain of command.....period.

And I am NOT in the Perry camp.

we need to control the oil over there...

!!!
I must have missed 3 through 110...

Hmmmmm....... Do I really want to wade into this????

Truman fired MacArthur for insubordination.

In terms of protecting one's borders, it's a bit more complicated than thatl. South Korean and American troops pushed the North Koreans to the Chinese borders. As a result, a wave of Chinese troops crossed into North Korea and drove South Korean and American troops back into South Korea.

MacArthur in turn wanted to bomb China and send in Taiwanese troops. Believing this to be an un-winnable solution, Truman disagreed. MacArthur publicly challenged him and he was fired.

But, let's ponder this for a moment. Had Truman agreed with MacArthur, what would be the outcome? What if we would have won. Then China for all intents and purposes would have become an American colony. In terms of military spending, how much would it have cost to maintain that colonial relationship? How would this have been any different from Russia positioning missiles in Cuba? If one studies history one will find that the British tried to colonize half of the planet. How has that worked out?

How would this have been any different that letting Patton head into Moscow?

As far as letting politicians manage politics and military leaders manage wars, that's a conundrum at best. At face value, one would think that politicians are better at managing relationships. But, they make their decisions based on work done by subordinates who may or may not have agendas. Look no further than Dessert Storm. Who provided the "false data" that said Saddam had WMD's? Why did he/she/them do it? Did Chaney or those loyal to him distort facts knowing that Halliburton and other contractors would benefit financially from an invasion? Was it the intelligence community who provided this data to justify the inevitable increase in spending a war would generate? Did the military provide it to ensure a ramp up in spending? Did contractors feed distorted facts to ensure an uptick in war related spending.


Carry on