Los bericht bekijken
Oud 17 mei 2021, 09:00   #871
parcifal
Banneling
 
 
parcifal's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 18 februari 2003
Berichten: 26.968
Standaard

Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Bach Bekijk bericht
Dit lijkt serieus. Politieke zuiveringen aan de gang is het gerucht.
Stuiptrekkingen van oude witte mannen uit de Donald Trump Fanclub.

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/202...letter/174041/

Citaat:
First, it is not inclusive, seemingly excluding both women and people of color. Second, only one four-star signed it (Jerome Johnson), so, among those that care about retirees’ ranks, it immediately carries less weight. Third, some of the signatories have high political profiles (e.g., Thomas McInerney, John Poindexter) but most we know nothing about post-retirement. Fourth, many of these men retired before 9/11 (e.g., William Bloomer, 1984; Johnson, 1992; Ronald Iverson, 1997) or soon thereafter, so their military experience is, in a word, dated. In other words, the demographics for the signees skew older, white, male, less senior flag officers, and based on those with public profiles, and by the group’s own admission, supporters of Donald Trump. Why should we care what a self-selected, narrowly focused group of retired men think?

Now to the body of the letter. Hopefully, these retirees expected much better staff work when they were on active duty. Effective staff work respects other viewpoints, persuades through objective analysis and tight argumentation, and leads to logical conclusions and recommendations. None of these qualities come through in this letter. Instead, it offers stark dichotomies (“supporters of Socialism and Marxism vs. supporters of Constitutional freedom and liberty”) and emotional phrases such as “tyrannical intimidation tactic.” What senior officer allows wording meant to inflame, rather than inform?

The letter also repeats lies about the election, against all data and analysis, and further, fails to assemble a coherent argument. What remotely connects the political philosophy discussion at the start of the letter to “additional national security issues?” What is the overall logic for that national security section? This section jumps from one poorly articulated idea to another without providing the reader any underpinning logic that might connect them. The critique could go on, but obviously the criteria for solid staff work these retirees once enforced do not apply here. To serving and former staff officers, this letter clearly falls into the “revise and resubmit” category, or the university equivalent of an F.

The reason they failed as staff officers in this task carries a larger lesson. Just as they no longer know what good staff works looks like, because they left that part of their life behind, the military they served in also no longer exists; it now belongs to history. They might be retired flag officers, but the emphasis is on retired. “General” or “flag officer” groups do not exist. The generals and admirals are all retirees who served their country, and then pursued other profession and interests in retirement. They are individuals, not a collective. When they come together, it is driven by individual motives. We can appreciate what retired flag officers did on active duty, but until we know what they’ve done since their retirement, we should not privilege their perspectives.

It’s a small step, but one place to start is give an “F” to a poorly written missive, supported by a self-selected group of retired white men, posted on a website that implies, somehow, these retirees are uniquely “for America.” This letter demonstrates just how unworthy they are of the public voice they tried to claim as flag officer retirees.

Laatst gewijzigd door parcifal : 17 mei 2021 om 09:01.
parcifal is offline   Met citaat antwoorden