M2

And “a loss of confidence and trust in their ability to effectively lead and command” is a bureaucratic formula that hides whether the commander actually failed to lead effectively or merely fell out of favor with their superiors! If a commander is relieved for poor judgment, toxic leadership, mission failure, or misconduct, a generic statement can make it difficult to determine whether the action was justified. Specific reasons help demonstrate that standards are being applied fairly. Military organizations improve when leaders understand what went wrong. A vague explanation like "loss of confidence" provides little guidance for subordinate commanders trying to avoid similar mistakes. Also, when people see leaders removed without explanation, they may suspect politics, favoritism or scapegoating. Transparent reasoning can increase confidence that decisions are based on performance and standards. Future leaders, historians, and researchers need more than a boilerplate phrase to understand why a command decision was made and what lessons should be learned. Some will argue that the public does not necessarily have a right to know every detail; but a better balance is needed between transparency and institutional learning, and privacy, fairness, and command discretion!

Required reading for my CGSC class, very insightful! Ricks argues that the U.S. Army's success in World War II was partly due to its willingness to relieve ineffective generals, while the postwar Army became increasingly reluctant to hold senior commanders accountable for poor performance. According to Ricks, this decline in accountability contributed to military shortcomings in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Marshall routinely evaluated commanders and removed those who could not perform under combat conditions. During WWII, dozens (not 600) to include 16 division commanders of generals were relieved, reassigned, or retired when they failed to meet standards. Marshall prioritized mission success over protecting careers, but it wasn't always due to leadership failures. One famous example was Maj. Gen. Terry Allen, commander of the 1st Infantry Division, who was relieved despite being an aggressive and popular combat leader because Army leadership felt a different type of commander was needed for future operations. Leaders such as Matthew Ridgway, George Patton and Maxwell Taylor are highlighted as officers who adapted to changing conditions and inspired subordinates. Ricks contends that many senior leaders in Vietnam remained in command despite poor results. The Army became focused on preserving institutional reputation rather than candidly assessing failures, and that promotion systems increasingly rewarded conformity and career management. Officers learned to avoid mistakes rather than take calculated risks, and advancement often depended more on navigating bureaucracy than demonstrating battlefield excellence. Early phases of the Iraq War exposed deficiencies in strategic planning and senior leadership. (Petraeus is presented as a notable exception, helping to develop and execute the 2007 Surge strategy) and again Ricks argues many senior commanders were not adequately held accountable for flawed assumptions and operational setbacks. Ricks also highlights that being successful at lower levels of command does not automatically prepare an officer to be a successful general officer, that senior leaders must understand politics, policy, coalition management and strategy, not just battlefield tactics.

Well done, Spain!!

To elaborate a bit on that... Millennials are now the largest voting generation, making up roughly one-third of eligible voters. Boomers and older generations no longer constitute a majority of the electorate. Gen Z's share is growing rapidly; about 41 million Gen Z Americans were eligible to vote in 2024. Combined, Gen Z + Millennials account for nearly half of all eligible voters.

Not anymore, the 2024 electorate was approximately... (Source) Generation Birth Years Share of Eligible Voters Gen Z 1997–2012 ~17% Millennials 1981–1996 ~31% Gen X 1965–1980 ~25% Baby Boomers 1946–1964 ~27% Silent Generation 1928–1945 ~4%

And, of course, also the fact that both parties are offering complete morons for candidates!

Agreed, but the real fault lies with the fucktards that keep re-electing them!!

DOD Halts Cybersecurity Requirements for CMMC Phase 2: ‘The math just simply doesn’t math’ The Pentagon placed an immediate freeze on forthcoming cybersecurity requirements after government research suggested the policy would drive many businesses out of the defense industrial base at a time when the U.S. military urgently needs their innovations. Defense Department Chief Information Officer Kirsten Davies and Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Michael Duffey unveiled plans Monday to suspend the much-anticipated Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Phase 2 requirements that were set to take effect Nov. 10. A new CMMC Reform Task Force is expected to conduct a review of the entire program and submit a report of its findings and recommendations within the next 60 days. This major pause comes as contractors have been hustling to obtain third-party assessments of their CMMC compliance in preparation for that near-term enforcement date... (Full article at title link).

England!

The follow-on episode (20)... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eURsuxZnRKo And the next one... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yKwvQl4HqY

Learn... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drr7mmibt9E

You actually think the war in Ukraine and the eventual war in Taiwan will be anywhere similar?!? Other than both have/will involve drones; the latter will be over before any of those " metric shit ton of weapons" are employed (if they aren't already taken out of the fight via cyber).

Are you shitting us?!?

It's a double-edged sword, but as Brabus so correctly pointed out, the impetus is on the military to protect sensitive and/or classified material. The same argument can be made about PA wanting to release information just so they can look good. I don't consider the media to be spies (well, not ALL of them), but we all know there is a lot of information our adversaries learn about us through open source reporting (a commonly cited intelligence community rule of thumb has long been that 60–90% of useful intelligence can originate from open sources). Those of us who have been on here for a while remember Rainman’s famous recommendation when it comes to the media (“never talk to them”) but they are not the only ones trying to extract info from us. “Loose Lips Sink Ships” and “Never Pass Up The Opportunity To Shut The Fuck Up!” remind us how important OPSEC is, especially on forums such as this one. Steve is a well-known and respected aviation journalist who has contributed a lot to this forum; but he’s not the USAF and shouldn’t be expected to protect its secrets like the rest of us. That’s our job! And I don’t fault him for sharing things, that’s his job!