Washington Post: ‘We will pay the butcher’s bill in blood': General issues stern warning as he becomes Army chief
As Gen. Mark A. Milley was sworn in as the Army’s 39th chief of staff on Friday, he offered a stern warning that the United States must remain prepared to handle multiple enemies at a time or face the consequences.
“As America, we have no luxury of a single opponent,” Milley said. “We have to be able to fight guerrillas and terrorists all the way up through nation-state militaries. If we do not maintain our commitment to remain strong in the air, on the sea and yes, on the ground, then we will pay the butcher’s bill in blood, and we will forever lose the precious gift of our freedom.”
Milley replaced Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, who will retire after 39 years of service. Milley last served as the four-star commander of U.S. Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, N.C., and previously led tens of thousands of soldiers with III Corps at Fort Hood, Tex., and commanded troops in Afghanistan in 2013 and 2014.
WNU Editor: A valid warning .... but are the politicians in Washington listening?
26 comments:
If you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is to stop digging. Equating this to the "enemies" of the USA situation, stop creating more might be a good first step.
How are enemies created?
The Kaiser was our enemy because of Caledonia and the Phillipines.
The US will have enemies regardless, Bob.
"The US will have enemies regardless, Bob."
You said it better. I was trying to give an example.
Commodore Dewey brought Phillipine President Emilio Aguinaldo back from exile. in Hong Kong. The Commodore was against annexation (& rightly so). Dewey told this German counterpart who had 5 warships in or around Manila Bay to back the eff off and buzz off.
Just that fact alone could have had Germany against us. In the last 2 decades of the 19th century Germany looked to see if it could invade the U.S. by landing in New York state and decided the logistics just was not there. the Kaiser was mad enough, but the General staff told him it was infeasible.
If Germany had had a little more shipping tonnage?
The general said butcher's bill.
People should have paid attention. Rule of thumb with the butcher's bill is that when you don;t pay it, when you 1/2 ass it, you pay more in the end. the General laid down a marker. He told them what he really thought and they did not listen. He made a claim, an assertion, that he has to defend. Only he doesn't cuz they are not paying attention.
Philip.
You don't think the US has gone around the world creating enemies. They would have a lot less if they just stayed out of other people's business. Witness Iran and the obstructionism the US took part in that country. Iran will never be an ally or friend of the US they are far too smart to get sucked in. The Kurds appear to be on the cusp of becoming an enemy of the US, who created that situation? Iraq, Afghanistan populated with people who inherit blood feuds with the same pride we inherit the family cottage. People who saw the US needlessly kill their family members are now enemies. People who live in countries with US drones flying overhead seeking out wedding parties to obliterate will always be enemies. Sure we know they aren't seeking out wedding parties but try telling that to the young kids that lose their families.
The next few generations of Americans will inherit in addition to massive debt the anger of people in the countries the US has bombed or is about to bomb. That is going out of their way to create enemies.
The only natural enemies of the US are the native peoples.
Bob,
Mexico had a cow when Venezuela nationalized the Mexican company Cemex.
Is Cemex or British Petroleum more Holy than the other? Is one type of legitimate business salt of the earth while the next is scum?
Did Mexico not consider force because they are bright happy shiny people or because they was force parity, they Venezuelan army would clean up or the logistics (distance) was simply too great. Is a petroleum engineer scum compared to a civil engineer?
When you have an election is right to stop counting votes when only a fraction of them are in (40% to 80%)?
Bob
Was there an ak47 at the wedding/weddings or maybe an RPG?
In any case there's plenty of countries dropping bombs on people. The U.S. just has a valid reason as does Great Britain who shares our drones.
Phil
No there wasn't but even if there was, they still have no right to invade the air space of a sovereign nation. In violating such air space when they kill people innocent or otherwise it is murder. Often they buy permission from the governing body or get them to turn a blind eye on the attacks. Accordingly they create enemies of the innocents who see their families die. Mostly they get away with it because at this time there is nobody to call them to task.
You are trying to deflect with your reference to Britain. The British are just as guilty when they do it but we were talking about the enemies of the US not Britain.
Imagine how many enemies less the US would have today and how much better off the country would be financially if following 911 Bush had said something like 'okay you got one by us, it won't happen again. We will get the people responsible for this attack but if you think your actions will cause us to invade innocent nations killing many and bankrupting our country you are mistaken.' But there is at least one generation coming up the chain that will retaliate against the US and Americans.
Remember Bin Laden's declaration of war on the US and his commitment to draw the US into useless costly wars. 911 in creating that senseless reaction brought Bin Laden's dream to something beyond a terrorists wildest dreams. The enemies that senseless reaction created are yet to be counted.
The US has friends it hasn't even used yet and enemies it doesn't know exit, yet.
Aizino interesting examples. I think that in the case of Iran that normal business deal was made possible through the subversive efforts of the CIA (as they recently admitted) to overthrow a sitting leader. The Iranians are justified in being super cautious of the US. Cautious, heck they thumb their collective noses every chance they get.
BOB,
What airspace did we violate?
Afghanistan? We declared war against a brutal government that harbored terrorists and refused to give them up.
Pakistan? They tacitly approve. They say no publicly for domestic consumption and say yes in private. They are playing a duplicitious game.
Even though they gave us permission maybe we out not not cross their air space, but just give them rope so they hang themselves.
The Pakistani government has been running military advisors and ISI agents supporting the Taliban since before 911. They did not stop afterwards.
So again we should may be not use their air space and let the duplicitious bastards rot. There is the Pakistani Taliban. maybe the ISI can have some more fun with them
Aisino I think you might benefit by going over the information available on the refusal to give Bin Laden up. Even so such a refusal does not establish the right for the US, or any country, to invade. By the way did not declare war on Afghanistan. The US has not declared war on anyone since WW II. Think about the men who carried out the 911 attack. Mostly Saudis and no Afghans or Iraqis.
I'm talking about the US's amazing ability to create enemies throughout the world.
Aisino. Sorry "what airspace did "we" violate?" How about Iraq in response to 911 for one?
Aizino,
"Sorry "what airspace did "we" violate?" How about Iraq in response to 911 for one?'
How many times is Iraq violate the terms of the armistice?
No fly zones in the 1990s to protect the Kurds and the Shia were a waste? NOTED.
When Saddam was overthrown, Iraq ceased to be sovereign. Who were we suppose to hand power over to? the 1st person an american patrol in Baghdad saw on the street?
Oh right we held an election. I remember something about purple thumbs. You are not color blind are you?
I do know a little something about fire missions. If the eyes in the sky saw someone else besides the target, they scrubbed the mission. So who do I believe. A dozen or more people, who I could see their facial expressions first hand or some guy named Bob Huntley behind a keyboard, who I cannot see.
"Aizino I think you might benefit by going over the information available on the refusal to give Bin Laden up. Even so such a refusal does not establish the right for the US, or any country, to invade. By the way did not declare war on Afghanistan. The US has not declared war on anyone since WW II. Think about the men who carried out the 911 attack. Mostly Saudis and no Afghans or Iraqis"
"Even so such a refusal does not establish the right for the US"
According to your logic, if they had exploded a nuke in NYC we would not have a right to go after them in Afghanistan. Interesting.
After all yuk, yuk it is the same situation just a different weapon.
You have any other interesting insights or should I start throwing pearls?
"Think about the men who carried out the 911 attack. Mostly Saudis and no Afghans or Iraqis. "
Who were the men protecting the Saudis and Yemenis in Afghanistan? Oh right, it was Afhganis
"Bob, I think you might benefit by going over the information available on the refusal to give Bin Laden up."
""Think about the men who carried out the 911 attack. Mostly Saudis and no Afghans or Iraqis. "
Iran certainly worked with Al Qaeda. Iraq worked with several terrorists groups.
Iraq having worked with several terrorists groups and having violated the armistice numerous times, we had a right.
911 was the right time to drain the swamp. For instance the ETa declared a unilateral cease fire, which they violated a few years later when they figured no one was coming after them in a meaningful way so they went back to business as usual. We should have gave them an ultimatum to turn themselves in. We didn't and so missed a opportunity. Gaddaffi did give up his terrorism and WMDs. With a little more backbone we could have got more such deals.
"Think about the men who carried out the 911 attack. Mostly Saudis and no Afghans or Iraqis. " - Bob
NEW TALIBAN EMIR ACCEPTS AL QAEDA’S OATH OF ALLEGIANCE
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/08/new-taliban-emir-accepts-al-qaedas-oath-of-allegiance.php
So Afghanistan had noting to do with 911?
okey dokey.
Can you pass the bong?!?!
Aisino
"How many times is Iraq violate the terms of the armistice? etc."
Okay I get it. The cheese slid off your cracker some time ago.
""How many times is Iraq violate the terms of the armistice? etc."
Okay I get it. The cheese slid off your cracker some time ago." - Bob
Brave things to say by someone that hasn't been in unfriendly skies and been irradiated/ painted by anti aircraft artillery.
I suppose the no fly zone is no big deal. I suppose that you don't patrol it, but give them 24 days notice that well you saw something on radar and you are going to check it out in 24 days with a CAP.
I remember the 7 main factions of the PLO and the terror they wrought in the 1970s. We went into Baghdad and took care of two of them. Abu Nidal & Abu Abbas. I guess that counts for nothing either.
Aisino
What you forget Asinio is that the topic of discussion concerns the making of enemies by the US. There may be reasons for making an attack on a sovereign nation's people and workarounds to make it appear okay and those reasons might even be valid but the US is especially adept at violating other countries' sovereignty and people like yourself who endeavor to justify such actions, only make the problem of enemy creating worse.
You and Phil seem to think that it is okay to kill innocents in retaliation for some real or perceived reasons. Think about that for a minute. What you are agreeing to is that you will be okay if some of your family and friends get killed when a retaliatory attack comes your way. In the final analysis, 911 was such an attack when enemies created in the pre 911 period attacked the US in retaliation. Many more enemies have been created for the US by inane actions such as invading Iraq and droning innocent people with much retaliation yet to come.
"You and Phil seem to think that it is okay to kill innocents"
Show me a perfect war where there were no civilians deaths.
You cannot. It does not exist yet. Let's put it this way. you are not the type of person that could bring it about. I have had a parent and a parent in law that were on the receiving ends of payloads.
Al Qaeda from the start went after civilian targets. If Al Qaeda hit a military target is was oops collateral damage. The World Trade Center had a nursery school. Nonetheless Al Qaeda hit it. The nursery school was near the ground level and the kids were taken out pronto. No crumb crunchers were killed by Al Qaeda there, but it was not for a lack of trying.
Al Qaeda hit a civilian targets and hid behind the skirt of Mullah Omar. Omar refused to hand over Usama. Afghanistan case closed.
The Iraqi regime murdered civilians in the tens if not hundreds of thousands and we are just talking in one year after the end of the Gulf War. They shot at our planes or prepped for it. The obfuscated weapons inspections. There are 3 causus belli right there.
So Bob it looks like radical Islamists & other types created all of their enemies.
Bob
We were attacked we retaliated...get over it.
Why don't you worry about your own country and what it would do if it was attacked. But you would probably just blame America for creating terrorism right?
And no I don't think it's okay when innocent people die dammit. We don't have to apologize for war against extremists and the collateral damage that follows.
Thanks for the heads up on the future attacks from radical Islam we'll handle it.
Phil. Get over it? Look in the mirror when you say that Phil because you attacked and were retaliated upon. Try and get over that and stop attacking other people.
Aizino
Thank you for making my point. The discussion was about creating enemies and everything you say shows that the build up of enemies is appropriate.
Bob
Get over a country defending itself?
You just don't get it do you Bob?
Post a Comment