Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (43190)	5/10/2004 10:40:09 AM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793692

If you want a dysfunctional organization, fire the boss every time something goes wrong. Ignore how he responded to the mistake. Ignore how he acted to mitigate the damage. Ignore his long term plans to improve the organization. Just fire him and don't ask questions - he'd the boss right? Accountability means expulsion and humiliation right? Pick this strategy and you have doomed the organization to an ever-increasing cycle of screw-ups and firings, and eventual collapse. But this Rumsfeld business isn't about improving the defense of the country, it's all about hurting Bush, damn the country.

To: michael97123 who wrote (43190)	5/10/2004 10:01:11 PM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (8) \| Respond to of 793692

Mike, I am going to give you some meat to chew on. Call it the unclewest theory. Like most war articles these days it is not based on any sources. Nor is it based on any facts that I know. It is all a figment of my time warped mind coupled with much too much experience with war and tiny tidbits in the recent news. It is also based on the fact that I know war is ugly. Every facet of war is ugly. There are no flowers on active battlegrounds. The Problem: The problem is the military chain of command is being portrayed as from the bottom up. It is even that way on every military unit bulletin board. It starts typically with the company commander, then goes to Battalion Commander, Brigade Commander, Division Commander, and all the way to the president. Rumsfeld is just before the president. That is how it is learned and memorized by every soldier. It is not however how the system really works. Military orders always come from higher authority. The chain of command works from the top down not the bottom up. The Situation: We have Privates, SP4s and junior Sergeants being investigated and accused of crimes that they say they were ordered to do. Then we leap over multiple layers of the chain of command to a Brigadier General who, though in overall command, claims no knowledge about anything. The mystery question: Where are the Lieutenants, Captains, Majors, Lieutenant Colonels and Colonels who are in the chain of command between the alleged perps and that General? What role did they play? The real questions: What role did the CIA play in this? Why was the CIA in charge of this area of the prison? What were the CIA and other intel operators telling the guards? How were the CIA and Intel folks treating the detainees prior to and after questioning? What instructions did they then give the guards? Where were the members of these soldiers' chain of command? The answers: If as has been done in the past, the CIA operators played a role, they will not come forward. The CIA will let the military folks hang out to dry and never say a word. I have been mulling this over for days. The press and Congress have been working over our top leadership. I do not believe the answers they seek are to be found at the top. The orders to abuse did not originate with Rumsfeld. There is something quite amiss here...perhaps terribly amiss. The entire middle section of the chain of command has been missing. There have to be many many answers available by questioning them. It appears presently that six low-ranking soldiers are probably going to face court-martial. We must first confront the Lieutenants, Captains, Majors, Lieutenant Colonels and Colonels, in these soldiers' chain of command for answers before proceeding with that. Because all of them had a responsibility to supervise and protect those under their command as well as the detainees. If the alleged perps were performing these acts on their own (which I have serious doubts about) without guidance (which I have serious doubts about), a helluva lot of officers failed in their duties to supervise. In fact so many separate layers of these soldiers' chain of command would have failed it seems conspiratorial. My brain has trouble accepting that thought, so I have other possibilies. One is the Brigadier General created such a lax environment that everyone screwed off. Another is the middle chain of command was either totally negligent or they too were participants under the guidance of what they erroneously thought was a higher chain of command, the CIA. That mistake has been made before. On the other hand, if those at the bottom of the chain of command (those accused) were receiving guidance directly from intel operators, their chain of command failed them miserably. If indeed these soldiers were acting on their own, the chain of command failed the detainees miserably. I don't know where this goes. I do know with certainty that it goes far beyond six enlisted men and women. unclewest