Corruption of US Armed Forces

Corruption of US Armed Forces
The incompetent bureucrats now in charge of American armed forces should be examined in detail. Alas, there are only five or six books extant which actually criticise, in depth, American generals for incompetence and ideological anarchism. The jargon of American armed forces has veered away from the type of rhetoric common to communities of warfighting warriors. It is now the jargon of mediocrity and futility. Battles are fought, not for victory, but for ambiguous and futile "end states."FM 100-5, Operations, defines end state as: "A military end state includes the required conditions that, when achieved, attain the strategic objectives or pass the main effort to other instruments of national power to achieve the final strategic end state." The commanders intent defines military conditions that must be achieved to support the end state. In the last comment of the commander's intent, the commander defines victory or success for the operation. Some example END STATES are: For an Infantry Battalion in Tactical Operations as Part of Peace Enforcement Operations, END STATE = "When the belligerent forces change their policy and behavior to conform to the demands of the international political agency sponsoring the operation." For Operation RESTORE HOPE, END STATE = "The end state desired is to create an environment in which the UN and NGOs can assume full responsibility for the security and operations of the Somalia humanitarian relief efforts." Who wants to give their lives for such bull s**t?American soldiers are not warfighters they are peacekeeprs who must sacrifice their pride, dignity, common sense and safety to raging enemies who hate them.A number of guidelines that will apply to the conduct of a peacekeeping force in all situations:All ranks must understand what the peacekeeping force is trying to do. All ranks must be fully briefed on the political and military situation, the customs and religions of the people and kept up to date as the situation changes. They must make every effort to get to know the people, to understand their problems with the aim of achieving a reputation for sympathy and impartiality. Peacekeeping soldiers must maintain a high profile; consequently, their lives are continually at risk. Commanders must balance the need to maintain a confident presence with provisions for the safety of their troops. No detachment, likely to face a difficult situation, should be without a knowledgeable individual in charge because of the crucial decisions which may affect the reputation of the force, the success of the mission, and the safety of the peacekeeping troops. These decisions have to be made without delay. However, emergencies may arise when no officer is available. Units should make sure that NCOs are well trained, briefed and prepared for the contingencies they are likely to face on peacekeeping operations. The policy on rules of engagement and the action to be taken with regard to infringements and violations of agreements must be enforced uniformly by all units. In operations where units have used noticeably different standards in executing the rules, there has been trouble with the belligerents and constant friction between the national contingents. Peacekeepers cannot be too concerned about the risk of appearing to "lose face." On many occasions, explosive situations have been defused because of the peacekeepers willingness to be accommodating, allowing a party to preserve its dignity. This is especially important when dealing with societies in which self-esteem and group honor are of great importance. It is sometimes difficult to explain the need for tact, without compromising principle, to soldiers who are trained to be forceful and aggressive. A unit naturally wishes to take credit for a successful performance, but undue concern for unit pride may prejudice the peacekeepers need to make concessions. Each situation calls for its own blend of calm, mature judgment, tact, a willingness to compromise, firmness and moral courage.American armed forces literature no longer discusses victory in any context. They only discuss "end states." For example, a foreign-born, Marxist, Muslim, African dictator could order predominantly white, Christian, freedom-loving, native American soldiers to sacrifice their lives and/or limbs for a series of controversial "end states" that are only abstractions of pseudo reality and therefore not worthwhile as risks for most American troops.American soldiers are no longer fighting for the victorious preservation of their homes, families and freedom. Now they are fighting for the privilege of "nation building" foreign nations who despise every aspect of their self identication. Discussions of who benefits from wierd and even insane "end states" are disallowed within the US armed forces. Hundreds of US soldiers are being arrested for what is essentially ideological differences disguised as war crimes (thought crimes in the Orwellian sense). For rexample, many troops complain that Muslim prisoners are able to get better medical care than that found in VA hospitals besides numerous stomach churning perks including the right to spit in the face and insult the honor of their guards. Many soldiers also object to the government "end state" of spending billions of taxpayer dollars to fund long and stupid legal cases which will let numerous mass murdering muslims go free.Of course the overwhelming majority of American taxpayers do not understand their armed forces and do not yet realize that the US military no longer protects the best interests of the American people. When the public finally breakthroughs the media lie barrier and gets an accurate fix on the US military, an upheaval will begin. In the meantime they think that supporting the US military is right because the military is supposedly protecting them. They do not understand the self defeating ramifications of Marxist "Laws of war and Rules of Engagement."Soldiers are asking, "Why are we fighting for "end states" that are not beneficial to us?"