If true, this is pathetic!

https://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/168636-guess-president-vice-president-2-star-general-laid-rest/

If true, this is pathetic!

https://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/168636-guess-president-vice-president-2-star-general-laid-rest/

Just curious - what do you think the IJ Review headline would have been if Obama or Biden had been at General Greene's funeral?

I get he should have been there, but I would never want any President at any event that was personal for me. Funeral, wedding, bar mitzvah... he brings entirely too much pain for everyone else there to be worth whatever hollow statement. So maybe the family was glad he was playing golf.

Do you guys think POTUS should have been there? I guess I don't get all the consternation about him not being there (if he was in fact playing golf, then that's probably poor timing...). Seems the Army Chief of Staff attending is an appropriate level for the funeral of a 2 star. I think there's enough legitimate critiques of the administration that glomming onto something like this drowns out debate on valid topics.

Didn't dubya quit playing gold after he got notified of a death while on the golf course? Something about not feeling right playing golf while the country is at war?

Did it make a material difference? No, but the impression it gave was useful.

That was Reagan.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do think he should have been there. As much as he wants to pretend it's not, this is his war now. He's chosen this ill-fated advisor mission as the way forward. He needs to take a very personal interest in the success, failures, and hardships of those involved in the mission.

So should he attend every funeral of a fallen service member? Why does the death of an O-8 result in expected POTUS attendance, but an E-8 doesn't?

So should he attend every funeral of a fallen service member? Why does the death of an O-8 result in expected POTUS attendance, but an E-8 doesn't?

Because a GENERAL was killed in combat dude. This was the highest ranking person to die in a conflict since Vietnam. Kind of a big deal if you ask me.

So should he attend every funeral of a fallen service member? Why does the death of an O-8 result in expected POTUS attendance, but an E-8 doesn't?

Why does POTUS comment on some teenager's deaths and not others? He's the President and he's a politician, no different than his predecesors--he decides what he personally wants to comment on, what events he does and does not want to attend, etc. His advisors and staff work for him, but in the end what he says/doesn't say and does/doesn't do is up to him. I personally don't have a problem with the President not going to the funeral, it's his choice.

But as for the remark of "Why does the death of an O-8 result in expected POTUS attendance, but an E-8 doesn't?"...(assuming that someone thinks the Major General deserves it) it has to do with the same reason of why a base makes a big deal when an O-8 visits vs when an E-8 visits. And why the service chiefs get a front row seat at the State of the Union while at the same time the top E's do not. Rank has its privileges, even when you're dead.

I think that the SECDEF should have attended. Agree with both sides of the president debate.

Not sure if Reagan quit too but G.W. quit playing in August 2003.

Because a GENERAL was killed in combat dude. This was the highest ranking person to die in a conflict since Vietnam. Kind of a big deal if you ask me.

So you don't think that would send the signal that the General's death was more important than say, Pfc Keith Williams? Because that's the way it would be spun if he had chosen to attend.

This is why the POTUS goes the the wreath laying at Arlington on Memorial Day, represents the nation at D-Day ceremonies, etc. All battle deaths are tragic, and none should be treated different than the other.

I too would have expected the SecDef to attend, especially given that his office is about 2 miles away. Is he out of the country or something?

Edited August 18, 201411 yr by HercDude

All the headstones at Arlington are the same size. Just saying.

All the headstones at Arlington are the same size. Just saying.

You obviously have never been to Arlington...

All the headstones at Arlington are the same size. Just saying.

Seriously? Yeah, JFK's just blends in with everybody else's.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All the headstones at Arlington are the same size. Just saying.

Majestik fail.

Posted by Gen Greene's son on facebook.

" Ladies and Gentlemen, while the president and vp were welcome to attend my father's funeral and burial lets make a few things clear.

1) my father is no more important than any other soldier lost in war. What message does it send if he attends one funeral over another? Does it make that soldier more important than another? What does it say to families?

2) do you think the president being at the service helps bring my father back or make us feel any better that he is gone? The answer is no.

3) If the president or vp had been there, there would have been more stress on our family simply in terms of logistics let alone security. More people would have had to stand outside or not come at all due to the security requirements .

I am happy the president or vp did not come because the ceremony was more personal, more intimate and better because we got to share it with the people who meant the most to us.

Do not allow news outlets to make a political soapbox out of my family or my father."

I've been to a few veterans' cemeteries, including Arlington, and noted how uniform the headstones were regardless of rank or stature. Of course, Presidents or generals like Grant or Lee have bigger monuments, but the majority are intermixed with everyone else.

Examples:

https://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jjpersh.jpg

https://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/display/31054ea2-1cb4-43f8-b984-c95882ba061f.JPG

https://image2.findagrave.com/photos250/photos/2001/222/arnoldhenry.jpg

https://www.doolittleraider.com/images/DOOLITTLEJAMESH.jpg

It was just an observation, and not a political one.

It was just an observation, and not a political one.

Dude, just stop...

https://etc.usf.edu/clippix/picture/headstones-at-arlington-national-cemetery.html

No, they are supporting the enduring counter-terrorism mission. CT isn't combat because...we aren't doing that anymore. I'm headed over in a few weeks as well to advise. It'll be cool how my job changes on 1 Jan after OEF officially ends. It's like those people that leave active duty and show up the next day to the same office in civilian clothes.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

We were all "Advisors" in Vietnam. That turned out well.

No, they are supporting the enduring counter-terrorism mission. CT isn't combat because...we aren't doing that anymore. I'm headed over in a few weeks as well to advise. It'll be cool how my job changes on 1 Jan after OEF officially ends. It's like those people that leave active duty and show up the next day to the same office in civilian clothes.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

They sending you with super-cool "Resolute Support" patches so you can rip off the ISAF patch at midnight on 31 Dec and put on the RS (or whatever we wind up officially calling it) patch?

My old Battalion is gonna be there till March by most estimates.... a CAB is already slated to come in and replace them.

What advisory role does an Apache have?... Bueller?

We can just use some of these advisors in Afghanistan as well.

https://www.duffelblog.com/2014/09/pentagon-advisers-iraq-syria/