Reflexive Control of US Generals

What is a sane man to think when a nation's generals begin to behave so wierdly that their behavior is like that of maladpted morons?
In America, the public does not know the names of its generals nor their individual or group intelligence, bias or ideology.Most Americans believe that generals must be good and should be supported by the populace. Yet they know nothing about the bad decisions, even insane decisions being made by US generals every day.
There is no oversight of US generals, they are not accountable, and no taxpayer has any way of examing their behavior. The politicians don't care. They are too busy whoring, stealing and abusing substances to care. Americans do know that a group of left wing generals became very critical of Secretary of State Rumsfeld and President Bush. Since the media shared the bias of those left wing critics, a sizable minority of Americans followed the lead of the leftist generals, not out of knowledge or understanding but because the media told them what to think.

The fact is that America's conventional generals, that is at least 98% of them, know nothing about winning wars. That is true and can be proved by study of what is available in open sources. ANY check of their behavior in a military battle or operation can be compared to what they should do, and in that comparison, the shocking truth is revealed.

America's generals are not only obviously unfit to lead warriors in combat, they also behave wierdly or bizarrely.The behavior of US generals is so bad that some experts believe that they have been victimized by a Soviet/Russian psychological wafare methodology called Reflexive Control.

I am sure that no body reading this article knows what reflexive control is.

Read the following report.

At the end of July 1997, planners for Joint Warrior Interoperability Demonstration '97 "focused on technologies that enhance real-time collaborative planning in a multinational task force of the type usedin Bosnia and in Operation Desert Storm. The JWID '97 network, called the Coalition Wide-AreaNetwork (CWAN), is the first military network that allows allied nations to participate as full and equal partners."The demonstration in effect was a trade fair for private companies to demonstrate their goods; defense ministries got to decide where and how to spend their money wiser, in many cases without incurring the cost of prototypes. It is a good example of doing business better with less.Technologies demonstrated included:
Soldiers using laptop computers to drag cross-hairs over maps to call in airstrikesl
Soldiers carrying beepers and mobile phones rather than gunsl
Generals tracking movements of every unit, counting the precise number of shells fired around the globe, and inspecting real-time damage inflicted on an enemy, all with multicolored graphics.

Why would generals want to know what happened when soldiers used laptop computers to drag cross hairs over maps in order to call in airstrikes? How could the soldiers be sure that their cross hairs were placed correctly? If they were correctly placed, what were the generals trying to say?

Why would generals want soldiers to carry beepers and mobile phones instead of guns? Were they saying guns were not necessary for soldiers but the two devices were?

Why did generals plot such wierd things on multicolored graphs? Do the generals think that the inventories on those graphs have anything to do with winning war? For example, it took 6 million tons of bombs during Operation Anaconda to kill 123 Islamic terrorists. Will the general declare after squandering 6 million tons of bombs in specific target areas that 12 more enemy have been blown to bits?

How can the generals get exact real time measurements of damage inflicted on the enemy. At Cassino in WW2, air photos showed that every inch of the targeted battlefield had been ground to dust and no enemy was anywhere visible except for body parts. Yet when a Brit division marched into the area, a few German machine gun teams slaughtered practically the entire division of 15,000 men.

Are American generals saying that they must be as pefect in vision as God in order to win battles? Are the generals thinking straight?

Are graphs of unrelated info the secret to victory? Do generals think that if they have such graphs they will make better decisions>?

Do the generals imply that they have to have every possible shred of info before they can solve a problem? If so how long will that take?

Since 1997, America's generals have conducted hundreds of tests like the one described above. They have actually learned nothing from those tests. However, they agreed that what the US military needed was robots to fight its wars.

Would robots be smarter than America's bureaucrat generals? Yes.

Would robots be smarter than Russian, Chinese or Indian generals? No!

Figure it out. Then send in your evidence.