Army Chief of Staff General James McConville arrives at a military field hospital for non-coronavirus patients inside CenturyLink Field Event Center during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in Seattle, Washington, U.S., April 1, 2020. REUTERS/Lindsey Wasson
Reuters: Military leaders only recommend combat as last resort: U.S. Army chief
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army’s head said on Tuesday that military leaders would only recommend sending troops to combat when it was in the national security interest or as a last resort, but declined to comment on President Donald Trump suggesting that leaders wanted to fight wars to keep weapon makers happy.
“Many of these leaders have sons and daughters that serve in the military, many of these leaders have sons and daughters who have gone to combat or may be in combat right now,” U.S. Army Chief of Staff General James McConville said during an event.
“I can assure the American people that the senior leaders would only recommend sending our troops to combat when it is required in national security and in the last resort. We take this very, very seriously in how we make our recommendations,” he added.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: The US Army chief is deflecting from what President Trump said. Bottom line. Why are US forces still in war-zones like Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere? Who in Washington and in the Pentagon are responsible for keeping US forces in these forever wars this long? Who in the Pentagon must be help accountable for all the promises that they made that their strategy would win in places like Afghanistan? Who has benefited from these forever wars? Military leaders do more than just recommend when combat must be used. They play a critical role in US foreign and national security policy, and they must be called out when they fail. And God! With the exception of President Trump unleashing Defence Secretary Mattis to destroy ISIS, they have failed miserably.
7 comments:
By the time Defense Secretary Mattis was "unleashed" ISIS had already done much to destroy itself by overpaying it hand, causing much death and destruction turning mich of the locals against them. As such, any role played by Mattis and the US military was nominal compared to the credit they are taking.
"...they have failed miserably." Indeed they have. If they had any shame, they'd be embarrassed and would've resigned long ago.
"Who in Washington and in the Pentagon are responsible for keeping US forces in these forever wars this long?" Uh, well, there's a certain famous position which doubles as Commander in Chief of all armed forces. Pretty sure the office used to come with some kind of decoration that said "the buck stops here"?
I wonder who's in that chair these days.
"Why are US forces still in war-zones like Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere? Who in Washington and in the Pentagon are responsible for keeping US forces in these forever wars this long?"
Answer: Globalists. Since the end of WWII they have spread like a cancer to virtually every institution in our country. Be they RINOs or Dems, they love never-ending wars, and hate anyone who doesn't.
globalists?
is that group elected to be commander in chief?
The president is in charge. He can bring troops back home or send troops to a war zone. He is in charge. To say otherwise is plain dumb
All these generals are the same. Especially the OBAMA ERA sycophants like tose tolls Miller and the Sec Def clown. I retired from the US military and it was all about the next job after retirement working for HALLIBURTON, Dyncorp, Boeing, General Dynamics, big Navy contractors, some BS high price think tank......or just about anyone who could pay big money and a nice general officer typelifestyle they and the trophy wife Mrs were accustomed to.
These forever war leaders, except for the Isis killers, were pretty useless.
If the military cut half the flag officers tonight no one would miss them.
We could have done sanctions against Syria. they supported the killing of our peacekeeping troops in Lebanon. They were behind the killing of other Americans and the embassy bombing.
They assisted anti-American forces in Iraq. ISIS in Syria is blowback from the Iraq efforts.
This has been going on for 43.5 decades before we had troops in Syrian. did they try sanctions 1st?
The faux fraulein of Germany and and the nancy boy of France would not support sanctions, so it would be an uphill battle. Also Pelosi, Kerry, Hillary and other similarly bight bulbs of the American intelligentsia would not have supported sanctions.
say what you will but the man in charge, the commaner in chief is Trump. He can withdraw troops. He can change direction of efforts. He can alter previous deployments. He is the man in charge. To imply otherwise is simply wrong.
Post a Comment