Just as I said on the first go-round with this fucker, Petraeus was an ass-kissing prick who used women to advance his military career.
General Petraeus: REMF, Ass-kisser.
Two months after graduation Petraeus married Holly Knowlton, a graduate from Dickinson College and daughter of retired Army General William A. Knowlton who was superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy (West Point) at the time.
Really? The son of a Dutch sea-captain immigrant just happened to marry the daughter of the Superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy (West Point)?
He lies, takes credit for other people's work, and keeps his own ass out of the line of fire as much as possible. (Not with much success -- he's been shot by his own guys in a training accident.)
To quote my own (above linked) post:
Anyone who's in the Army or any branch of service for decades will have pounds of fruit salad. Want to know what impresses me?
What a fucking wimp this guy's been. What is clear from Petraeus's fruit salad is how he's managed to stay far, far from harm's way.
Just as there are two kinds of military people, Grunts (infantry, armor, artillery, special operations [special forces, rangers, cag], and those directly supporting grunts (combat engineers, medics, certain aviation & transport units [but not others], and I'm probably missing some but I'm just trying to get an idea across) v. REMFS (everyone else)... there are two kinds of medals:
* Valor (including I Forgot To Duck)
v.
* Everything Else
1. Atta Boy,
2. I Wuz There,
3. We Wuz There,
4. You Can Do X e.g: Shoot a rifle without blowing our balls off, jump out of an airplane, eat snakes, wear girl scout hats (and girl scouts too). We're cooool.
5. Your Unit Did This Eons Ago So Be Proud you fool you fool
6. And the ever popular Identification Badge We Hope Will Impress the Rest of The Army With Where We Work aka "We're So Stupid We Have To Remind Ourselves Where We Work"
No one but REMFs gives a shit about anything but awards for valor.
(Cont.)
(Cont.)
Wow, that's a lot of medals and tabs and other fancy shit he's got there. Let's count them (for each Oak Leaf Cluster, add +1)
* U.S. military decorations - Valor (1) v. Everything Else (20)
* U.S. unit awards - Valor (0) v. Everything Else (6)
* U.S. non-military decorations - Valor (0) v. Everything Else (1)
* U.S. service (campaign) medals and service and training ribbons - Valor (0) v. Everything Else (12)
* U.S. badges, patches and tabs - Valor (1) v. Everything Else (
* Foreign military decorations - Valor (0) v. Everything Else (1)
* Foreign badges, patches and tabs - Valor (0) v. Everything Else (3)
* Non-U.S. service medals and ribbons - Valor (0) v. Everything Else (2)
TOTALS -- Valor (2) v. Everything Else (53)
In a career spanning decades, General David Petraeus who has truly had his choice of career, choose to stay in nice safe promising positions, and away from those nasty grunt dangerous positions with the sharp sticks and pointy things.
Awards for Valor: 2
Awards for Everything Else: 53
I bet he's has some nasty paper cuts too.
Of all the awards for valor, the Bronze Star is typically awarded quickest after the incident, in the heat of battle so to speak, on recommendation from Battalion or Brigade Commanders, by the Division CO. In a real war, they're passed out fast and quickly. Like candy.
It isn't that people don't earn their Bronze Stars with V device. They sure as shit do and we treat them with respect. But when an officer such as a 2-star freaking general earns one as his first combat action, how do we say this politely, um... It's viewed with some skepticism. And here's the stich. I don't know the facts, actually. It may well be this award was reviewed. Over and over and over again. I don't know and I won't suggest otherwise. Damn my fucking integrity. *cracks up* (Or it may be a total fucking fraud. [That's for swift-boating John Kerry, you right-wing fuckers.])
(Cont.)
(Cont.)
Normally I wouldn't expect a general officer to only have a Bronze Star. I'd expect a Silver Star and maybe a Distinguished Flying Cross or even a Distinguished Service Cross. I sure as hell wouldn't expect any senior officer to earn their first award for valor as a flag officer. Or for this to be their only medal for valor (his other award is the Combat Infantryman's Badge.)
Everything else here is just junk, the kind of shit people pick up in their career. None of it means anything other than they've served and got their ticket punched. It raises many, many, hundreds more questions about why they've been in the rear, than in the front. To someone who knows how to read it.
Enough.
Wikipedia is your friend. it's all right there if you want to see. Most people don't change who they are in the middle of the game. Can happen. I did. It's goddamn hard. Petraeus didn't.
He's the same ass kissing suck up REMF he's always been.
Don't believe a goddamn word he says.
Those who have eyes to see, let them see.
**********
(End of former post)
The guy's a REMF.
And now he's plagiarizing?
Oh give me a FUCKING break.
And his ass-smooching pals are saying it's because that's just how they do things in the military.
HORSE FUCKING SHIT.
The way we do things in the military, is great leaders make goddamn certain the people who did the work get the goddamn credit.
That's how all great leaders everywhere do things.
Anyone who tells you anything else is lying.
Oh, wait... I said that already, months ago. I said he's a liar.
Yep, sure looks it. Liar. REMF. Asshole.
I need to start picking Lotto numbers. Or really really smart beautiful women who also can pick Lotto numbers and who want to go out with me. *grins*
Don't believe ANYTHING Betrayus says. To get ahead, he'd fuck a blind man's dog, then take his bone.
I bet they have their own document conversion language bushco "invented" and they input various parts of sensible, well thought out, grade A work into a bushinator. Then taaa daaaaa ..... kinda like this:
http://lolinator.com/lol/www.gro...-
plagarist.html
Only worser. Its teh only explanation.
Can anyone here explain to me how this guy collected a V for valor?
He has never been anywhere near a battle so how can this be? Someone help me here...Please
Integrity seems to have flown out the window.
Who want to bet he'll be republican candidat for 2012 presidential?
"doctoral dissertations, designed to be read by few and judged largely for the quality of their sourcing"
Judged for the quality of their sourcing? Really? If graduate schools gave doctorates to people because they are really good at sourcing, then most of the coursework they require would be pointless. Have they ever been near a real grad school?
Your post would be more convincing if you focused less on Petraeus and more on the issue of applying academic standards to military doctrine. Here's what I posted over at C&L (who links to you):
In your haste to denounce Petraeus, you neglected to do some research. First, Petraeus did not write the whole thing himself and doesn
’t claim to have done so - he helped lead the project.
Second, military doctrine is not written for academics and does not need to adhere to academic rules of citation. It is written for soldiers, marines, etc. to read in the field and put into action as quickly and easily as possible. It was published by an academic press as an afterthought, and the team that wrote the manual had already dispersed and so weren
’t going to put in the hours necessary to make it an academic text. The issue of the University of Chicago publishing the text and thus lending it academic credentials certainly is an issue, but that’s an issue for the UofC rather than Petraeus, Nagl, Mattis, and the others who actually wrote the thing.
Third, the individual authors of the chapters of the COIN manual have been encouraged to publish their chapters in academic journals, reworked as academic articles with full citations.
Petraeus
’ testimony was politicized, but that doesn’t mean every single thing he’s associated with is deserving of automatic condemnation.
For more informed views on this specific controversy, try these sites:
http://
abumuqawama.blogspot.co..........andal.html
http://smallwarsjournal.com/bl..........h-limited/
(a rebuttal to the original article)
The problem that I see with the lack of sourcing is that it is difficult to test the logic and assumptions cherry-picked from the various places to write this thing.
The Key - a valid point, however the audience this doctrine is written for isn't supposed to test the logic and assumptions of the doctrine - they are supposed to read it and carry it out. Testing logic and assumptions is what happens if the doctrine turns out to be a failure, and in that case the people who write a new doctrine would presumably/hopefully have access to the materials used by the previous doctrine-writing group.
um...ok..so where exactly are the passages that he plagiarized?
A whole write up on plagiarism without a single bit of proof.
Im no fan of Petraeus, but this is some weak writing.
Dear trolls, bite me.
Adrian, please explain some more to me about how military "doctrine" is written. I find it fascinating.
bob, have you heard of hyperlinking? wherein you 'click' a link and then read the linked to article.
but it's nice to know that Dave Petraeus has some lickspittle syncophants of his own who run around protecting his reputation.
As I read this article, I note that Petraeus "Gen. Petraeus collected a 'team of writers [who] produced the [Manual] strategy that General Petraeus is implementing in Iraq now.'" So it wasn't Petraeus that produced the writing so much as it was that team of writers. How is he the one guilty of plagiarism? Unless I'm completely misreading what you quoted.
And before you belittle the difference between military and academic documents, it'd be nice to know if this is actually standard military practice, because if it is there's no reason to vilify Petraeus over it.
Lastly, if the manual is working, does it matter who wrote it?
Do any of you morons think for yourselves? Seriously... could you possibly even just vary the republican talking points a little?
Bunch of stupid motherfuckers....
"however the audience this doctrine is written for isn't supposed to test the logic and assumptions of the doctrine "
Adrian
Well, that pretty much sums up the entire administration. Just who the hell DOES test the logic and assumptions? Do tell. Perhaps we can get some NEW assholes involved to be responsible for the biggest fuckup evah!!! Names... let's get to naming the NAMES, Adrian. Produce some evidence on just exactly who are the cobblers of this bit of insanity. Be specific, show your work.
I've heard Randi Rhodes say that this manual is brillant. However, this stuff hasn't been played-out to qualify it's "brilliance," so how can that be quantified.
I am a vet and Petraeus is just another career soldier, who may be smart, but kisses ass in order to advance his military career.
Randi is wrong.
FM 3-24 is well referenced with a rather robust annotated bibliography. This attack is bogus. To the vets who have served, I salute you. To those who have not and wish to be critical of GEN Petraeus, I give you da finga! LoL! Of course they revert to old doctrine and to hallmarks of counter-insurgency--because this shit has been done a thousand times over in past conflicts. The French in Algeria and Indochina, U.S. in Vietnam, are probably the brunt of these theories. And they are just that, theories that do not equate to an exact science. Big deal. Petraeus may be a yes-man for this administration, but these charges of plagiarism are bogus. Cheers.
Myrtle June:
The primary authors of FM 3-24 are, as I understand it, Petraeus, Lt. Gen. Mattis, LtC John Nagl, and Conrad Crane. The individual chapters have their own authors as well - for instance Kyle Teamey wrote the intelligence chapter most criticized by Price, chapter 3. All told there were about 20 authors of the doctrine.
All of this info is freely available on the web if you trouble yourself to look.
And you don't want soldiers in the field questioning their doctrine all the time (although that always ends up happening anyway), anymore than you want your airplane mechanic trying to redesign your airplane during flight prep.
Math_Mage:
Pretty standard practice - the problem is that most doctrine is stuff like "first load the gun, THEN pull the trigger" - so there aren't usually any issues of attribution because there's nothing to attribute.
Hubris Sonic:
Army doctrine is run by TRADOC, and thought up at the various Army schools. FM 3-24 is actually joint doctrine, written by both the Marine Corps and the Army (very unusual). The US counterinsurgency doctrine hadn't been updated since Vietnam, and so DoD figured it was time to update it, hence FM 3-24 in 2005.
Adrian you get an F on that answer. I asked " Just who the hell DOES test the logic and assumptions?". Name some names. Who?
And don't you think it is stupid to publish your working war plan to begin with? OR is that part of the insane war "plan"?
Answers, Adrian. Spill. Details, show your work, YOUR logic to arrive at your answers.
Thanks for the F - my favorite letter, starts my favorite word.
In the Army, the Chief of Staff is responsible for doctrine, as its a readiness issue. Right now that's George Casey. I assume its the same in the USMC, James Conway is the Commandant.
Obviously military historians, academics, retired officers, etc., will all chime in, but they have no official role.
Again - all info is on the web, if you want to figure this shit out, maybe you should look it up yourself instead of bitching at me for trying to point out that US military doctrine isn't some Bush conspiracy. None of this is peculiar to the Bush administration - it's the way its always been done to my knowledge. It's just that this is the first time people were actually interested in the doctrine itself, and the first time that a press tried to make a quick buck by passing off doctrine as academia.
DoD didn't ask for the manual to be updated. Davey boy did that all on his lonesome... when he was sitting on his ass at Leavenworth. Which is where they shoved him after doing a bad job in Iraq the first time around.
Adrain,
So "Falafel" is your favorite word too, huh. I see.
And you still cannot answer the question about who is responsible for testing "logic and assumptions" of any policy. You continue to flail about with inconsequential tidbittery. Look, there is one person who bares all responsibility and that is YOUR BOSS.... THE commander in chief. Period. Now go pick those unsightly splinters out of your ass from too much fence sitting. You, nor anyone else, can successfully defend the indefensible acts of this administration. Ever.
"None of this is peculiar to the Bush administration - it's the way its always been done to my knowledge. "
BULLSHIT.
TRADOC you say... hmmm... Look Adrain, since you seem kind of thick, I will clue you in on a little secret. This is pretty much a mil-blog. Half of the bloggers are ex military, and a lot of the commenters are also. Some comment from Iraq and Afghanistan. So, spare us a description of TRADOC. Some of us have been cursing those worthless motherfuckers for more than 3 decades.
The COIN manual didnt need rewriting. It was rewritten after Nam' and was an excellent work. Dave Petraeus decided to rewrite it all on his own. His trained monkeys have been peddling that he rewrote it for quite some time now. So to try and act like it was a group effort is complete bullshit. He sent his pet dog Nagl on the Daily Show to pimp the book.
You shouldnt have waded into a subject that you are ill-equipped to argue about.
Yeah I'm sure a COIN doctrine written in 1985 is perfect for 2007. No innovations in guerrilla warfare since 1985, therefore need to update at all, right?
Myrtle June, if you want to point me in the direction of some doctrine that uses Chicago-style footnotes or whatever, be my guest.
your original question was about testing the logic of doctrine, not policy. Bush's policy is plainly disastrous and indefensible. If you think I'm trying to butter you up, just pick a random entry from my blog to verify. I'm on your side. My original comment attempted to argue that things aren't so black and white - that Petraeus might, on one hand, be worthy of contempt as sucking up to Bush and intentionally misleading Congress in an attempt to 'win' Iraq by himself, but on the other hand be worthy of respect as he helped write a good document that might even outlast whatever damage he does by prolonging our involvement in Iraq.
No reason for me to continue the thread all by myself, I don't think I'm going to convince either of you. You're welcome to comment on my blog if you feel like it.
Adrian -
Let me clue you in to one other thing we HATE around here.
People who show up out of fucking nowhere, tell us they have the answer to life's great questions, fail to show dick, and then leave saying, "well, continue this over on my blog."
That's called BLOG WHORING.
Don't whore your goddamn blog here.
It's perfectly fine -- in fact, we'd like you to, which is why we make it available -- to put your website in next to your name and email address.
If people give enough of a damn about what you're saying, they will go follow you over their own damn self. But for you to go pimping your shit on our blog? It's rude. Don't do it. Do it more than a couple of times, we'll bounce you.
PS. I'm yet another of the ex-military Hubris is talking about, an ex-dustoff medic. You're WAY over your head here.
COIN doctrine written in 1985 is perfect for 2007.
My point Adrian, is WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW ABOUT IT?
You like to use the word Doctrine. The point about Doctrine is that its good or bad. It doesn't matter if its Algeria, Nam, Nicaragua, or Basra... 1969, 1985, 2006... what difference does it make.
As someone who implemented that doctrine in 1985, I can tell you it doesnt matter when it was written. it was good. and it stands up.
Dave Petraeus rewrite the parts he didnt agree with and took credit for being some CI genius. NO Sale.
Commenting by HaloScan
