Got a very unexpected call! (He) is heading out probably tomorrow or Tuesday - all depends on space available.

Safe & well
Pleased to hear it

Personally, I'd like to thank all of you for your kind words, emails, im's & so on. I appreciate it more than I can express. As many of you know we may disagree on a lot of things, but your support during this has been unwavering and it is/was sincerely appreciated.
Thank you all.

Well done. Congrats. You have much to be proud of.

Welcome home, warrior! :celebrat:

Glad he's back amigo. Pass on a hearty hello from me.

Ya'll, I'm a new guy here & I hate to do this, but a lot of these postings are bullshit. He has the wrong definitions for acronyms. I know one of his photos is stolen from 2005. This SCORPION report sounds bogus as hell. I have checked NIPR & SIPR & cannot find any similar reports. The approved daily report is "The Early Bird" which covers open source.

Sorry ya'll, but something isn't right. Maybe this guy just wanted to make himself sound big to friends & family back home

Thanks Sarge.

Sarge, yes you are the "New Guy" here and you wear a uniform, so I'll let it slide. But please do not doubt that which I have posted. I have talked with him at length and seen pictures of him with very high ranking people including senators, congressmen & women, ambassadors and a whole host of other very important people.

I've known him for almost 30 years and have NEVER had any reason to doubt his word, ever. Even as children he was always the one "doing the right thing" while the rest of us weren't.

As far as this thread is concerned - let whatever bias you have go and post your opinion in another - thanks.

Foul. Nobody tells someone where they can post or what they should post.

may be a red card foul
:redcard:
but people do it all the time.

Shut up and stop posting in this thread. :p

Out of curiosity, which one?

Big Sarge, would you mind PM'ing me your AKO email addy please?

Yesman, would you mind sending me the first and last name of your friend so I can look him up on AKO? AKO stands for Army Knowledge Online.

Does stop loss still apply to him?

1) pm sent
2) He was never in the Army - he is a Navy officer

Yes, he already stayed over his initial term.

Well that does explain why he is not on any of the Army Data bases. :D

Glad to hear he is out of the crap hole and on his way home. Hey, was he reserved on AD or just full time AD?

Merc, I have no idea - I'm not really too comfortable giving any more personal info either. I realize you all want to know if he is for real or not and all I can say is that his reputation is impeccable. I have zero reason to doubt him - none whatsoever.

Which one? Prove it.


I tried to post it, but since it was a pdf, I couldn't. I emailed it to UT - thought it was on here somewhere - oh well. Believe what you will.

What are current limits (conditions) for stop loss? (Does he get to sell his bed to someone else?)

How the hell would I know that? WTF?

AKO is transitioning to DKO, Defense Knowledge Online, we are a joint force these days more and more. It is possible to look for people in other branches of service now.

As far as "stop loss" goes, we are at war, on every contract are the following statements. Everyone signs this contract.

b. I understand that I can be ordered to active duty at any time
while I am a member of the DEP. In a time of war, my enlistment
may be extended without my consent for the duration of the war and
for six months after its end (10 U.S.C. 506, 12103(c)).
c. As a member of a Reserve Component of an Armed Force, in
time of war or of national emergency declared by the Congress, I
may, without my consent, be ordered to serve on active duty, for the
entire period of the war or emergency and for six (6) months after its
end (10 U.S.C. 12301(a)). My enlistment may be extended during
this period without my consent (10 U.S.C. 12103(c)).

Six months after the end of the GWoT would be , about the 12th of never.

I should have kept my thoughts to myself or sent a pm to yesman. I was wrong in the way I handled this. I'm very sensitive about postings concerning OIF.

I am currently deployed on a United Nations mission. I previously served 13 months in Iraq and I will be going back in the second fiscal quarter of 2009.

yesman - I admit I was wrong in my approach. I sent my AKO data to regularjoe & I truly understand why you do not want to share his personal data.

Sarge, you've run into a great group of people here. Many diverse beliefs, world wide in nature. Don't let em scare you off.

The guy in question is in the Navy, explains the different or as we might see it, wrong usage of acronyms and operational terms. Different doctrine over there with the swabbys. I'm sure working with NATO you run into that. Talking about the same thing, in different military culture, and doctrinal terms.

You sound like a good guy, I look forward to getting to know you better here.

Considering that "Mission Accomplished will easily be a decade long war, that is quite a contract. I did not realize stop loss applied that long.

Also interesting is the phrase "in time of war or of national emergency declared by the Congress". 'War' (legally) does not exist in Iraq. Therefore it becomes a "national emergency declared by the Congress". I don't recall that specific condition having being declared. But then such details get lost in the reporting.

So "Mission Accomplished" is a national emergency. Is Afghanistan (the justified war) a "war"? And for consistency, was Bosnia a 'war' or a 'national emergency'? A deployment authorized by the UN would not trigger stop loss?

Stop Loss is usually applied when a unit is placed on alert for mobilization. We had it apply to some soldiers who were about to retire & a couple that went over age 60 while deployed. Also, it prevents a soldier from transferring to a non-deploying unit.

Most of the troops I have worked with haven't been too worked up over stop loss. Some of us get a little burned out, but it goes with the job.

Jesus, fuck what was said with this mission accomplished bullshit. Deal with the reality of the world. If it turns out to be a 10 year long struggle. So be it.

I can only speak for myself, as a member of the military. I don't give a damn about politics, sound bites and quotes.

About Iraq, which is what you are referring to. Lets just assume for a minute that i don't agree with what put us there. The fact is we are there, and have incurred a rather large responsibility. One we cannot now turn our back on. It doesn't mean that i should give up my job, and happily go about my business and say there is no enemy in the world.

No matter how the dice fall right now, it's a fucked up mess. Doesn't really matter to me, because ya'll are going to ask us, the military to take a front row seat in fixing it. It really won't matter how long it takes and who says what on TV.

A ten year war means the war is lost. Once military operations have finished, Phase Four operations must begin - and quickly. As so many great American commanders noted even in WWII, the conquering army has six month to implement Phase Four planning - of that war is lost.

"Mission Accomplished" is just that. All the potentially good work conducted in military operations was completely undermined by what happened to day after Baghdad fell. There was no Phase Four planning - a basic violation of military doctrine. What was in the second wave on D-Day? Civil Affairs officers. Why? Phase Four planning is just that - critical to victory.

"Mission Accomplished" is the proper name for the Iraq invasion - as named by George Jr. As George Jr said, "America does not do nation building." No phase four planning. Therefore he accomplished the mission he was destined to achieve. "Mission Accomplished" is the resulting civil war created because - just as they did in Desert Storm - those same Washington power brokers even subverted any Phase Four planning.

Where is the strategic objective in a civil war? No negotiations (what ends a war) can occur until domestic parties decide to do so. America cannot achieve (or create) that strategic objective. Did you not hear Petreaus say the exact same thing? Tactical success (winning every military engagement) does not automatically achieve a strategic victory. Whereas Petraeus said he can made a strategic victory possible with tactical accomplishments (and he has achieved some tactical victories), Petraeus also said he cannot make the strategic victory possible. Only Maliki (or someone equivalent) can make a strategic victory possible. And Maliki is not doing so.

Six months after military operations terminated, nothing was done to win that war which is more years in Iraq can end us just as useless as the 10 years in Nam - for the exact same reasons.

Why are we not fighting ten years later in Bosnia? Phase Four planning was implements immediately. Where are thousands of American dying in Bosnia? Where is routine fighting and bombings ongoing in Bosnia? None because the solution was properly implemented immediately AND because all combatant parties were talked to constantly and immediately. More problems that mean Americans will only continue to die uselessly in "Mission Accomplished".

Meanwhile, another war that should have been concluded well over five years ago has only gotten worse. Again, the same idiots in Washington who have no respect for the American soldier have done the exact same mistake in Afghanistan. So now we have two Quagmires - defined by the same 1963 reasons that created the original quagmire - Vietnam. Why was Nam a quagmire? Look at what Westmoreland did to make that war unwinnable.

How bad did America make "Mission Accomplished"? Gen Odiero is considered the perfect example of why "Mission Accomplished" was being lost. Ironically, Gen Odiero is also the perfect example of how a military commander can learn from his mistakes. Gen Odiero's change demonstrates how good commanders learn quickly from their mistakes. Cited is even his Colonel’s 'revolt' that apparently started him reassessing his mistakes in weeks. Unfortunately, too much damage had already been created which is why America cannot create a strategic victory in “Mission Accomplished”.

Deal with reality well proven from history. Ten years to spend $trillions on a third world nation? Do you really have no respect for America? We did the same stupid mistake in Nam. Fortunately we had smarter leaders who kept us from making the same mistake in Somalia, he Balkans, and Desert Storm.

Nothing here comes from wacko extremist sound byte on TV and radio. These concepts are well understood by those who do and learned military concepts. You heard Patton say the same thing in post VE-day Germany. You saw MacArthur do same in post VJ-day Japan. You saw Westmoreland so violate these principles as to make Vietnam an unwinnable quagmire. You saw these principles properly implemented in the Balkan where negotiations even got Malosevik all but negotiate himself out of power. Why? In every case, the final military victory is only achieved at the negotiation table and requires (there is no exception) Phase Four planning starting before the first battle happens. No Phase Four planning - Nam and "Mission Accomplished" is why ten year later we would still waste the nation's most precious treasure. Just another example of another well proven principle: 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management.

Are you officer material? Then you either know this stuff or have the mindset to want to learn what a nation's best commanders must know.

You, um, missed the point.

If the 'point' was missed, then define what that point was. You asked about "Mission Accomplished". Defined was why it is named as George Jr defined it. What point was missed? Defined is why ten more years in Iraq traditionally only means defeat and is directly traceable to George Jr (actually Cheney).

No, you asked about "mission accomplished". I told you that I really don't care. I know what the situation is on the ground, and I'll go back, we will deal with what ever the politicians get us into.

It sounds to me like you know what the answers are, but are unwilling to earn a commission, or some stripes in the military, to go and put that solution into action. Civil Affairs is a wide open carreer field in the military right now. As far as the Army goes, they only recruit Civil Affairs on active duty from soldiers who have been in a while. Captains and above, Staff Sergeants and above. You really need to get busy. The reserve side of the house might take you into the Civil Affairs field if you have some expertise that lends to the civil military operations ongoing around the globe. City management, law, construction etc... Call a recruiter and ask about it.

Perhaps a position in the State Department. Something.

My point is: I don't care about the politics, and rhetoric and general hot air here in the states. I'm going to be out working on the solution on the ground. Long after President Bush is gone, and long after the next President is gone. I'd love for you to join me.

What is the purpose of war? To move the conflict back to the negotiation table. Boots on the ground (ie civil affairs officers) are how that can be accomplished only if a viable strategic objective exists with all necessary planning (including Phase Four).

Some in the military never understand that. For example, Air Force officers have claimed they alone can win a war. They don't understand their principle function - to support the army. After victory, the army has six months to achieve the actual victory. A strategic objective is won (accomplished) at the negotiation table, making possible execution of the Phase Four planning. Phase Four planning can complete the victory. Politicians must not throw away all that good work performed by the military and make possible that six months consolidation.

Shameful is how much was lost after Schwarzkopf's stunning victory in Desert Storm. Again, the purpose of a war. When he went to accept the Iraqi defeat, he asked Washington for surrender terms. Well, those politicians were too busy 'drinking champaign' to bother. George Sr noted that something did not appear right. But he never grasped mistakes being made by his subordinates.

Schwarzkopf had to invent those surrender conditions on the fly. Protected was the only thing that kept Saddam in power. Eventually the US Army watched Saddam massacre maybe 10,000 insurgents in Basra from five miles away and could do nothing to stop it.

Why did Saddam stay in power? Why were Iraqis - encouraged by Americans to rebel - massacred by Saddam? Because that good work in Desert Storm was subverted by who must finish a war - the politicians. Purpose of war is always to move that conflict to a negotiation table. A victory so stunning in Desert Storm was tarnished by politicians who did not do their job - did not plan for the peace.

Same in Iraq. There is no military solution because same politicians (including Bremer, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Feith, Wolfovich, etc) so screwed up the political settlement. Success now lies somewhere between Maliki, Sistani, Sadr, a Kurdish leadership, etc. The Iraq Study Group also noted other necessary parties including Iran, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Worse, none appears interested or capable yet of that solution. Like it or not, the only "Mission Accomplished" solution lies with the politicians - as Petraeus noted.