All Things Russia & Ukraine

[old salt]

And I do NOT recall you being in favor of changing the base names, I recall you making fun of doing so.

Typical of your partisan blind spot memory. I supported it from the start & suggested how they should be renamed.
I made fun of making a big deal about it, as if it would influence a soldier to enlist or re-enlist.

FTR -- I was all for renaming those bases & suggested they be named after Soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor who had some connection to that base,

[Typical Lax Dad]

And I do NOT recall you being in favor of changing the base names, I recall you making fun of doing so.

Typical of your partisan blind spot memory. I supported it from the start & suggested how they should be renamed.
I made fun of making a big deal about it, as if it would influence a soldier to enlist or re-enlist.

FTR -- I was all for renaming those bases & suggested they be named after Soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor who had some connection to that base,

The U.S.S Jesse Jackson

[old salt]

And I do NOT recall you being in favor of changing the base names, I recall you making fun of doing so.

Typical of your partisan blind spot memory. I supported it from the start & suggested how they should be renamed.
I made fun of making a big deal about it, as if it would influence a soldier to enlist or re-enlist.

FTR -- I was all for renaming those bases & suggested they be named after Soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor who had some connection to that base,

The U.S.S Jesse Jackson

USS Jesse L Brown -- I have several landings on her deck in my logbook.

[Typical Lax Dad]

And I do NOT recall you being in favor of changing the base names, I recall you making fun of doing so.

Typical of your partisan blind spot memory. I supported it from the start & suggested how they should be renamed.
I made fun of making a big deal about it, as if it would influence a soldier to enlist or re-enlist.

FTR -- I was all for renaming those bases & suggested they be named after Soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor who had some connection to that base,

The U.S.S Jesse Jackson

USS Jesse L Brown -- I have several landings on her deck in my logbook.

Good for you.

[MDlaxfan76]

And I do NOT recall you being in favor of changing the base names, I recall you making fun of doing so.

Typical of your partisan blind spot memory. I supported it from the start & suggested how they should be renamed.
I made fun of making a big deal about it, as if it would influence a soldier to enlist or re-enlist.

FTR -- I was all for renaming those bases & suggested they be named after Soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor who had some connection to that base,

"from the start"...this was 2018:

User avatarold salt
Posts: 14568
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:44 am
Contact: Contact old salt
Re: Is America a racist nation?
Report Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:01 pm

Nobody cares about the statues (except the pigeons), until they can be used as a totem to victimhood.

Just like the names of Army bases. Colin Powell said that as a young junior officer, he never gave a thought to the name of the base (or building, or street). He was more concerned about how the locals outside the gate treated him.

The moral judgments, across centuries, & the virtue signalling in this forum are suffocating.

Wait until future generations judge you. I got mine.
Control of Women or Population Control ? ...how many black babies have been aborted ?
Planned Parenthood ? Condoms have always been cheap or free, to prevent std's. Just go see doc in sick bay.

And then in 2020:

Re: The Politics of National Security
• Report
• Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:06 am

CU77 wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:11 pm
The military’s top officer on Thursday described Confederate leaders as traitors and said he is taking a “hard look” at renaming 10 Army installations that honor them, despite President Trump’s opposition to any changes.

“The Confederacy, the American Civil War was fought, and it was an act of rebellion,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, told members of the House Armed Services Committee. “It was an act of treason at the time against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution, and those officers turned their back on their oath.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ses-trump/

What does this have to do with national security ? Are you expecting the south to rise again ?
You should be trolling the Race Riots thread with this.
Colin Powell said when he was stationed at Ft Benning he didn't worry about who it was named for.
He was more concerned about how he was treated outside the base in GA.

I don't see "support" for renaming.

You were contemptuous, including of General Milley.

[old salt]

And I do NOT recall you being in favor of changing the base names, I recall you making fun of doing so.

Typical of your partisan blind spot memory. I supported it from the start & suggested how they should be renamed.
I made fun of making a big deal about it, as if it would influence a soldier to enlist or re-enlist.

FTR -- I was all for renaming those bases & suggested they be named after Soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor who had some connection to that base,

"from the start"...this was 2018:

User avatarold salt
Posts: 14568
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:44 am
Contact: Contact old salt
Re: Is America a racist nation?
Report Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:01 pm

Nobody cares about the statues (except the pigeons), until they can be used as a totem to victimhood.

Just like the names of Army bases. Colin Powell said that as a young junior officer, he never gave a thought to the name of the base (or building, or street). He was more concerned about how the locals outside the gate treated him.

The moral judgments, across centuries, & the virtue signalling in this forum are suffocating.

Wait until future generations judge you. I got mine.
Control of Women or Population Control ? ...how many black babies have been aborted ?
Planned Parenthood ? Condoms have always been cheap or free, to prevent std's. Just go see doc in sick bay.

And then in 2020:

Re: The Politics of National Security
• Report
• Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:06 am

CU77 wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:11 pm
The military’s top officer on Thursday described Confederate leaders as traitors and said he is taking a “hard look” at renaming 10 Army installations that honor them, despite President Trump’s opposition to any changes.

“The Confederacy, the American Civil War was fought, and it was an act of rebellion,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, told members of the House Armed Services Committee. “It was an act of treason at the time against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution, and those officers turned their back on their oath.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ses-trump/

What does this have to do with national security ? Are you expecting the south to rise again ?
You should be trolling the Race Riots thread with this.
Colin Powell said when he was stationed at Ft Benning he didn't worry about who it was named for.
He was more concerned about how he was treated outside the base in GA.

I don't see "support" for renaming.

You were contemptuous, including of General Milley.

c&s & I had a discussion on this in which I recommended they rename the Army bases for soldiers who had distinguished themselves who had some connection with that base or that region. It was before 2020. That's not when the issue was first raised.

I was questioning why it was posted in the national security thread. By 2020, the issue was old news.

It was about the time Brian Williams, on msnbc, had Gen Honore as a guest & recommended Ft Polk in LA be renamed Ft Honore.

https://wtop.com/virginia/2021/10/strip ... -passions/
For years, the military defended the naming of bases after Confederate officers; as recently as 2015 the Army argued that the names did not honor the rebel cause but were a gesture of reconciliation with the South.

[MDlaxfan76]

And I do NOT recall you being in favor of changing the base names, I recall you making fun of doing so.

Typical of your partisan blind spot memory. I supported it from the start & suggested how they should be renamed.
I made fun of making a big deal about it, as if it would influence a soldier to enlist or re-enlist.

FTR -- I was all for renaming those bases & suggested they be named after Soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor who had some connection to that base,

"from the start"...this was 2018:

User avatarold salt
Posts: 14568
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:44 am
Contact: Contact old salt
Re: Is America a racist nation?
Report Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:01 pm

Nobody cares about the statues (except the pigeons), until they can be used as a totem to victimhood.

Just like the names of Army bases. Colin Powell said that as a young junior officer, he never gave a thought to the name of the base (or building, or street). He was more concerned about how the locals outside the gate treated him.

The moral judgments, across centuries, & the virtue signalling in this forum are suffocating.

Wait until future generations judge you. I got mine.
Control of Women or Population Control ? ...how many black babies have been aborted ?
Planned Parenthood ? Condoms have always been cheap or free, to prevent std's. Just go see doc in sick bay.

And then in 2020:

Re: The Politics of National Security
• Report
• Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:06 am

CU77 wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:11 pm
The military’s top officer on Thursday described Confederate leaders as traitors and said he is taking a “hard look” at renaming 10 Army installations that honor them, despite President Trump’s opposition to any changes.

“The Confederacy, the American Civil War was fought, and it was an act of rebellion,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, told members of the House Armed Services Committee. “It was an act of treason at the time against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution, and those officers turned their back on their oath.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ses-trump/

What does this have to do with national security ? Are you expecting the south to rise again ?
You should be trolling the Race Riots thread with this.
Colin Powell said when he was stationed at Ft Benning he didn't worry about who it was named for.
He was more concerned about how he was treated outside the base in GA.

I don't see "support" for renaming.

You were contemptuous, including of General Milley.

c&s & I had a discussion on this in which I recommended they rename the Army bases for soldiers who had distinguished themselves who had some connection with that base or that region. It was before 2020. That's not when the issue was first raised.

I was questioning why it was posted in the national security thread. By 2020, the issue was old news.

It was about the time Brian Williams, on msnbc, had Gen Honore as a guest & recommended Ft Polk in LA be renamed Ft Honore.

My first quote by you was in 2018.

Milley's quote, if read with an open mind, made darn clear why he considered it a national security matter.
Perhaps you don't understand the importance of morale?
Do we celebrate traitors in our military, or those who act with honor in defense of our country?

But if one doesn't consider them to be traitors, as does Milley, I can understand why one wouldn't see the impact on morale in a diverse military.

[old salt]

And I do NOT recall you being in favor of changing the base names, I recall you making fun of doing so.

Typical of your partisan blind spot memory. I supported it from the start & suggested how they should be renamed.
I made fun of making a big deal about it, as if it would influence a soldier to enlist or re-enlist.

FTR -- I was all for renaming those bases & suggested they be named after Soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor who had some connection to that base,

"from the start"...this was 2018:

User avatarold salt
Posts: 14568
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:44 am
Contact: Contact old salt
Re: Is America a racist nation?
Report Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:01 pm

Nobody cares about the statues (except the pigeons), until they can be used as a totem to victimhood.

Just like the names of Army bases. Colin Powell said that as a young junior officer, he never gave a thought to the name of the base (or building, or street). He was more concerned about how the locals outside the gate treated him.

The moral judgments, across centuries, & the virtue signalling in this forum are suffocating.

Wait until future generations judge you. I got mine.
Control of Women or Population Control ? ...how many black babies have been aborted ?
Planned Parenthood ? Condoms have always been cheap or free, to prevent std's. Just go see doc in sick bay.

And then in 2020:

Re: The Politics of National Security
• Report
• Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:06 am

CU77 wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:11 pm
The military’s top officer on Thursday described Confederate leaders as traitors and said he is taking a “hard look” at renaming 10 Army installations that honor them, despite President Trump’s opposition to any changes.

“The Confederacy, the American Civil War was fought, and it was an act of rebellion,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, told members of the House Armed Services Committee. “It was an act of treason at the time against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution, and those officers turned their back on their oath.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ses-trump/

What does this have to do with national security ? Are you expecting the south to rise again ?
You should be trolling the Race Riots thread with this.
Colin Powell said when he was stationed at Ft Benning he didn't worry about who it was named for.
He was more concerned about how he was treated outside the base in GA.

I don't see "support" for renaming.

You were contemptuous, including of General Milley.

c&s & I had a discussion on this in which I recommended they rename the Army bases for soldiers who had distinguished themselves who had some connection with that base or that region. It was before 2020. That's not when the issue was first raised.

I was questioning why it was posted in the national security thread. By 2020, the issue was old news.

It was about the time Brian Williams, on msnbc, had Gen Honore as a guest & recommended Ft Polk in LA be renamed Ft Honore.

My first quote by you was in 2018.

Milley's quote, if read with an open mind, made darn clear why he considered it a national security matter.
Perhaps you don't understand the importance of morale?
Do we celebrate traitors in our military, or those who act with honor in defense of our country?

But if one doesn't consider them to be traitors, as does Milley, I can understand why one wouldn't see the impact on morale in a diverse military.

..it was from 2021. Look again. 2018 was when I joined LF.
c&s, Colin Powell & I agreed that most soldiers didn't know (or care) who Ft Benning was named after.

[old salt]

And I do NOT recall you being in favor of changing the base names, I recall you making fun of doing so.

Typical of your partisan blind spot memory. I supported it from the start & suggested how they should be renamed.
I made fun of making a big deal about it, as if it would influence a soldier to enlist or re-enlist.

FTR -- I was all for renaming those bases & suggested they be named after Soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor who had some connection to that base,

"from the start"...this was 2018:

User avatarold salt
Posts: 14568
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:44 am
Contact: Contact old salt
Re: Is America a racist nation?
Report Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:01 pm

Nobody cares about the statues (except the pigeons), until they can be used as a totem to victimhood.

Just like the names of Army bases. Colin Powell said that as a young junior officer, he never gave a thought to the name of the base (or building, or street). He was more concerned about how the locals outside the gate treated him.

The moral judgments, across centuries, & the virtue signalling in this forum are suffocating.

Wait until future generations judge you. I got mine.
Control of Women or Population Control ? ...how many black babies have been aborted ?
Planned Parenthood ? Condoms have always been cheap or free, to prevent std's. Just go see doc in sick bay.

And then in 2020:

Re: The Politics of National Security
• Report
• Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:06 am

CU77 wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:11 pm
The military’s top officer on Thursday described Confederate leaders as traitors and said he is taking a “hard look” at renaming 10 Army installations that honor them, despite President Trump’s opposition to any changes.

“The Confederacy, the American Civil War was fought, and it was an act of rebellion,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, told members of the House Armed Services Committee. “It was an act of treason at the time against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution, and those officers turned their back on their oath.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ses-trump/

What does this have to do with national security ? Are you expecting the south to rise again ?
You should be trolling the Race Riots thread with this.
Colin Powell said when he was stationed at Ft Benning he didn't worry about who it was named for.
He was more concerned about how he was treated outside the base in GA.

I don't see "support" for renaming.

You were contemptuous, including of General Milley.

c&s & I had a discussion on this in which I recommended they rename the Army bases for soldiers who had distinguished themselves who had some connection with that base or that region. It was before 2020. That's not when the issue was first raised.

I was questioning why it was posted in the national security thread. By 2020, the issue was old news.

It was about the time Brian Williams, on msnbc, had Gen Honore as a guest & recommended Ft Polk in LA be renamed Ft Honore.

My first quote by you was in 2018.

Milley's quote, if read with an open mind, made darn clear why he considered it a national security matter.
Perhaps you don't understand the importance of morale?
Do we celebrate traitors in our military, or those who act with honor in defense of our country?

But if one doesn't consider them to be traitors, as does Milley, I can understand why one wouldn't see the impact on morale in a diverse military.

That post 2021. Look again. 2018 was when I joined LF.
c&s, Colin Powell & I agreed that most soldiers didn't know (or care) who Ft Benning was named after.

Here ya go. Carville brought it up on Brian William's show.

My fellows soldiers were white, black, Puerto Rican, Navajo Indian, Mexican and even my good friend from Guam. If the politically correct thing is for Bragg to have a new name
I know what that name should be. Until the the day I die, it will always be Ft Bragg.

It would be interesting to know if your fellow black soldiers have the same opinion.

Not that I would expect them to feel comfortable being honest about it to us white folks.

You ask a good question. I was at Bragg from !979 to 1982. To be perfectly honest I do not ever remember the topic of who Ft Bragg was named after was ever brought up.

It's my experience that most service members are oblivious to the origins of the name of their ship or post.
Instead, they associate the name with the missions of the units based there, their history & their exploits.

James Carville recommended Ft Polk in LA be renamed Ft Honore', for the black, native son, 3 star who brought order to NOLA during Katrina.
If they can come up with namesakes that appropriate for the other 9 Forts, it could be a good thing.
Since Petraeus brought it up, I wonder which one he expects to be named for him.

It was an issue as far back as 2015
https://time.com/3932914/army-bases-confederate/
& resurfaced in 2017.
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/0 ... es/140326/
We discussed the issue on LP, which is where I first made a suggestion about what to rename the bases.

[old salt]

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/ ... ephen-walt

Friends in Need
What the War in Ukraine Has Revealed About Alliances

By Stephen M. Walt, February 13, 2023

NATO was created to prevent a major war in Europe, a task it accomplished well for many decades. Apart from the brief Kosovo war in 1999, its members never had to fight together or coordinate a joint response to aggression—until a year ago, when Russia invaded Ukraine. NATO’s response thus offers fresh, real-world evidence about how contemporary alliances work in practice.

The recent behavior of Russia and the West confirms that states form alliances not to balance against power but to balance against threats. The way NATO has done so has also revealed much about both the alliance’s virtues and its enduring pathologies. The war may have given NATO a new lease on life and shown the value of its well-established procedures, but it also underscores the degree to which its European members remain dangerously dependent on the United States.

As the world moves toward multipolarity, alliances will only matter more. In an age when no single country stands unchallenged atop the international system, success will depend on rival powers’ ability to form a coherent and capable grouping and exercise power collectively. Above all, the invasion of Ukraine and its aftermath show that leaders court disaster if they fail to understand why alliances form and how they work.

STRIKE A BALANCE
The concept of a balance of power—the idea that countries typically join forces to check powerful rivals—has been around for centuries, but in reality, countries more commonly seek allies in response to threats. Powerful states can be more threatening than weaker ones, of course, but where they are located and how their intentions are perceived can be equally important. Strong states are usually more worrisome to their immediate neighbors, especially when they appear willing to use force to change the status quo.

This tendency explains why Moscow saw NATO enlargement as a threat: a powerful alliance of wealthy democracies was inching toward Russian borders. Moreover, the strongest member of that alliance, the United States, was openly committed to spreading liberal institutions and had used force to do so on several recent occasions. Feeling threatened, Moscow responded by drawing closer to China and by trying to stop NATO from moving farther east, but it could not convince Ukraine to abandon the goal of joining the West or persuade NATO to suspend its “open door” policy, whereby any European country meeting its requirements can apply to join.

Unfortunately for Russia, its reaction to NATO enlargement merely reinforced the sense of threat felt by the United States and Europe, leading the West to draw even closer to Ukraine. When Russia seized Crimea after the 2014 Maidan revolution, which ousted Ukraine’s pro-Russian president, the United States and its allies imposed new sanctions and began to arm and train Ukraine’s military. Russian efforts to interfere in U.S. and European elections and its attempts to poison Russian exiles and other political opponents exacerbated Western concerns. U.S. President Donald Trump’s reservations about NATO did not stop the United States from deploying additional troops in Europe, and support for Ukraine increased further under U.S. President Joe Biden.

A powerful alliance of wealthy democracies was inching toward Russia.
The invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 removed any lingering doubts about Moscow’s revisionist aims and prompted a swift and far-reaching reaction. NATO and EU members imposed unprecedented economic sanctions on Russia, and the United Kingdom, the United States, and other countries began sending Kyiv sophisticated weapons, military training, financial support, and intelligence. Germany reversed course completely, backing European efforts to curtail energy imports from Russia and committing itself to a major military buildup. Not to be outdone, Sweden and Finland applied for NATO membership.

These reactions should not surprise anyone. Although its military has performed poorly throughout the war, Russia is still a major industrial power with a sizable stockpile of nuclear weapons, a large army, and considerable military potential. It borders several NATO members, including vulnerable Baltic states. Perhaps most important, the invasion of Ukraine showed that Russian President Vladimir Putin is willing to use armed force to alter the European status quo. Were that effort to succeed, other states in the region would have reason to wonder whether they might be next.

From Moscow’s perspective, of course, it was the United States and its allies that were trying to alter the status quo in Europe, and in ways inimical to its interests. NATO had done so, however, without resorting to military force. Because Ukraine wanted to join NATO and the alliance still supported this goal in principle, Russia could only hope to halt Ukraine’s accession by first threatening to use force and then launching an invasion, which in turn raised Western perceptions of threat to new heights.

PICKING TEAMS
For further evidence that states balance against threats, not power, consider Sweden and Finland’s revealing behavior after the invasion. Not only did each state abandon a policy of neutrality that had worked well for decades, and in Sweden’s case for centuries, they did so after Russia’s invasion had stalled and its military inadequacies had been exposed. Russia in 2022 was significantly weaker than the former Soviet Union, but Putin was more willing to wield military power than Soviet leaders had been, making Russia more threatening to the Swedes and Finns, causing them to seek the additional protection of NATO membership.

The tendency for states to balance against threats also explains why some states have remained on the sidelines. Russia’s assault on Ukraine poses no threat to Israel or some prominent members of the global South, including India and Saudi Arabia, and taking a firmer stance against Russia would jeopardize these states’ interests. U.S. and NATO leaders have been disappointed by such self-interested behavior, but they should not be surprised.

Putin’s failure to recognize that states ally to balance threats—and that violating existing norms against conquest would be particularly alarming to the West—was a major blunder. He appears to have assumed either that Kyiv would fall before NATO could act or that its members would limit their response to verbal protests and sanctions. He was wrong on both counts, and Russia now finds itself fighting an opponent backed by partners with a total GDP of more than $40 trillion (compared with Russia’s $1.8 trillion) and whose defense industries produce the world’s most lethal weapons. This disparity in overall resources does not guarantee a Ukrainian victory, but it has transformed what Putin expected would be a cinch into a costly war of attrition.

Europe can defend itself against Russia on its own.
Russia has acted in other ways that helped unify the opposing coalition. Unlike Otto von Bismarck, the first leader of the German empire, who cleverly manipulated France into attacking Prussia in 1870, Putin placed the onus for aggression firmly on his own shoulders. Russia had legitimate reasons to be concerned about efforts to incorporate Ukraine into Western economic and security institutions. But its prewar demand that NATO permanently guarantee Ukrainian neutrality and remove all military forces from the territory of members admitted after 1997 appeared to be a pretext for invasion rather than a serious negotiating position. To be fair, Western officials had done little to address Russia’s legitimate concerns, but Moscow’s unrealistic demands obscured that failure and made Russia appear uninterested in a political settlement.

Furthermore, although Putin’s speeches and writings (including his July 2021 essay, “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”) are not as dismissive of Ukrainian independence as his critics contend, his insistence that Russians and Ukrainians were “one people” and that Ukraine was under the sway of outside forces and “Nazis” reinforced suspicions that his true goal was restoring, and maybe expanding, a revived Russian empire. Instead of going to great lengths to persuade others that his aims were limited and defensive—a posture that might have undermined Western unity to some degree—Putin’s rhetoric and Russia’s defiant diplomatic stance made it much easier to hold the alliance together.

Equally important, the war crimes and atrocities committed by Russian forces during the war itself—including deliberate attacks on civilian targets and infrastructure—have reinforced outside sympathy for Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has also waged a masterful public relations effort to keep Western aid flowing, but Russia’s conduct of the war made his task much easier.

NO “I” IN NATO
The war has also underscored that institutions matter. Shared norms and well-established decision-making procedures help allies reach and implement collective decisions more rapidly and effectively. NATO is the most heavily institutionalized alliance in history, and its members have nearly 75 years of experience coordinating responses despite occasional disagreements. If NATO did not exist and its members had to devise a collective response to the war in Ukraine from scratch, it is hard to imagine them reacting as efficiently as they did.

To be sure, NATO’s consensus-based procedures can also create problems, as Turkey has illustrated by extracting concessions from Sweden through blocking its entry into NATO. On balance, however, NATO’s rapid decision to support Ukraine and its ability to deliver that support confirm that well-institutionalized alliances work better than ad hoc coalitions of the sort that Russia has formed with Iran and North Korea.

Despite NATO’s swift response, the war in Ukraine has demonstrated the need for a new transatlantic division of labor. Alliances provide collective goods; if joining forces helps a group of states deter or win a war, all its members benefit regardless of how much each contributed. As a result, the strongest members of an alliance typically bear a disproportionate share of the burdens and make the key decisions, whereas weaker members are prone to free-ride and (mostly) do as they’re told. The Ukraine war confirms that pattern: the United States has done more for Ukraine than any other NATO member, and Washington has largely defined NATO’s overall strategy toward the conflict.

Aggression rarely works unless a powerful state can fight its victims one-on-one.
Having one country in the driver’s seat made it easier to orchestrate a rapid response, but the United States’ preeminent role has a serious downside. Because Washington has long guaranteed its wealthy allies’ security, the latter let their armed forces erode and become dangerously dependent on U.S. protection. Had the United States not responded to Russia’s invasion—as it might have done under a different president—there is little that NATO’s European members could have done to help Ukraine. Russia’s prospects for victory would have been brighter.

Some see this episode as proof that U.S. leadership is still indispensable, but the real lesson of this war is that a new division of labor between the United States and Europe is both feasible and long overdue. Russia may seem threatening now, but it is not as powerful as many experts believed, and it will be even weaker in the future. NATO’s European members have more than three times as many people as Russia does and more than ten times Russia’s GDP, and they spend three to four times what Russia spends on defense every single year. If properly organized and led, Europe can defend itself against Russia on its own.

It follows that Europe should rebuild its forces and gradually take over primary responsibility for its own defense, while the United States shifts from being Europe’s first responder to being its ally of last resort. Sharing burdens within NATO would allow the United States to focus on balancing China in Asia, a task Europe is neither willing nor able to perform. Gradually reducing the U.S. commitment would also ensure that European states do not abandon their pledges to rearm and pass the buck back to Washington when the war in Ukraine is over.

In an emerging multipolar world, states that can attract and retain allies are more likely to succeed than those whose actions cause others to join forces against them. This is not a new lesson: Napoleonic France, Wilhelmine Germany, Nazi Germany, and imperial Japan all suffered catastrophic defeats at the hands of powerful balancing coalitions. Aggression sometimes pays, but usually only when a powerful state can arrange to fight its victims one-on-one. The Ukraine war shows that favorable circumstances of this kind are hard to arrange, because overt acts of aggression tend to unite other states in opposition. If any heads of state are pondering whether to launch a war to change the status quo, taking this lesson to heart will spare them a great deal of trouble and make for a more peaceful and prosperous world.

[cradleandshoot]

And I do NOT recall you being in favor of changing the base names, I recall you making fun of doing so.

Typical of your partisan blind spot memory. I supported it from the start & suggested how they should be renamed.
I made fun of making a big deal about it, as if it would influence a soldier to enlist or re-enlist.

FTR -- I was all for renaming those bases & suggested they be named after Soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor who had some connection to that base,

"from the start"...this was 2018:

User avatarold salt
Posts: 14568
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:44 am
Contact: Contact old salt
Re: Is America a racist nation?
Report Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:01 pm

Nobody cares about the statues (except the pigeons), until they can be used as a totem to victimhood.

Just like the names of Army bases. Colin Powell said that as a young junior officer, he never gave a thought to the name of the base (or building, or street). He was more concerned about how the locals outside the gate treated him.

The moral judgments, across centuries, & the virtue signalling in this forum are suffocating.

Wait until future generations judge you. I got mine.
Control of Women or Population Control ? ...how many black babies have been aborted ?
Planned Parenthood ? Condoms have always been cheap or free, to prevent std's. Just go see doc in sick bay.

And then in 2020:

Re: The Politics of National Security
• Report
• Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:06 am

CU77 wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:11 pm
The military’s top officer on Thursday described Confederate leaders as traitors and said he is taking a “hard look” at renaming 10 Army installations that honor them, despite President Trump’s opposition to any changes.

“The Confederacy, the American Civil War was fought, and it was an act of rebellion,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, told members of the House Armed Services Committee. “It was an act of treason at the time against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution, and those officers turned their back on their oath.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ses-trump/

What does this have to do with national security ? Are you expecting the south to rise again ?
You should be trolling the Race Riots thread with this.
Colin Powell said when he was stationed at Ft Benning he didn't worry about who it was named for.
He was more concerned about how he was treated outside the base in GA.

I don't see "support" for renaming.

You were contemptuous, including of General Milley.

c&s & I had a discussion on this in which I recommended they rename the Army bases for soldiers who had distinguished themselves who had some connection with that base or that region. It was before 2020. That's not when the issue was first raised.

I was questioning why it was posted in the national security thread. By 2020, the issue was old news.

It was about the time Brian Williams, on msnbc, had Gen Honore as a guest & recommended Ft Polk in LA be renamed Ft Honore.

https://wtop.com/virginia/2021/10/strip ... -passions/
For years, the military defended the naming of bases after Confederate officers; as recently as 2015 the Army argued that the names did not honor the rebel cause but were a gesture of reconciliation with the South.

Ft Bragg should be renamed Ft Ridgeway. The logic is plain and simple and General Ridgeway led the 82nd to its legendary status it still holds today. The next prominent feature at Bragg is Longstreet Rd. Gotta get rid of that stain as well. I got skin in the game here. I left a lot of rubber from my combat boots on my travels up and down that road. We use to call it Longhill Rd. It was 7 klicks to the end of Normandy DZ. Uphill in both directions. This is one of those can of worms that is opened up here. James Longstreet is not worthy of having anything named after him, even a road on an army base.
The US Army has already changed the name. Longstreet Rd is now simply Long Rd. One thing has not changed, walking it in full gear is not much fun.

[Farfromgeneva]

I disagree.
I think Putin had expected to 'take' Ukraine without spilling significant Russian blood, just needed to be patient.

This is plainly wrong.

If Putin wanted Ukraine this whole time, the time to do it was during the cakewalk that was Crimea. Take a sharp right with his troops, and boom, he's in Kiev. He had already shown his hand, so why the F not? Ukraine was all but unarmed.

And his toady was running things in Ukraine at the time, correct? And no one had armed or trained them.

He didn't want to confront NATO until it was further divided and weakened, as influenced by Trump.

You have two choices: you have to follow logic for Putin's actions. )r, if you prefer, admit we have no clue why Putin did what, when...because he's an idiot.

So if you chose that he's rational:

1. He invaded Crimea in 2014. NATO did nothing. This gets rid of the idea that Putin had plans on Ukraine. He obviously didn't. If he did, he would have invaded Ukraine at the same time, or shortly after he invaded Crimea. The man's not gonna live forever, and if the plan is to restore Soviet glory, he doesn't have time to mess around. So, unless you can explain why he didn't do that in 2014-----yet he did in 2022? Putin didn't PLAN on invading Ukraine from the outset.

Further, Putin's toady was running Ukraine at the time. It makes ZERO sense, therefore, for Putin to not turn his tanks toward Kiev, and take what he wants.

2. Given that he didn't do that, that tells you that Ukraine wasn't part of his overall plan. So you then have to ask: what changed that prompted Putin to go for Ukraine?

It's obvious that it was when America started arming them that Putin decided to act. There's no other answer. Losing an election to Zelensky just isn't a big deal....Putin still had power in Ukraine. And if was Zelensky that was the trigger, he would have invaded way back in 2019. If threats of NATO was the the trigger, Putin would have invaded at any point during his tenure....because that was on deck at any time.

Therefore, it was the prospect of US Arms and a US puppet government that got Putin to invade. Well that, and the fact that he's an idiot.

How's the ol GDP doin', Vladimir? Whoops.

Again, I disagree.

You are creating a straw man logic that deals in absolutes, not reality, IMO. It's not a straw man. You (and old salt) are telling us thaty you KNOW what prompted Putin to invade. If you're going to do that, you have to give us a reason that fits everything that happened. Neither of you can.

Neither of you can tell me why Putin didn't invade Ukraine at the same time that he took Crimea. OS tells us that it's all the same country...but apprarently not, or Putin would have driven straight through Ukraine in a line of tanks, and have dinner with his Puppet in Kiev before nightfall.
Neither of you can tell me why he didn't do that.....so sorry, you're both wrong.

Neither of us can prove either view, If that what you and OS want to concede? Great. Then stop telling us why Putin did what he did. Because neither of you know if I can't know. but it seems to me that Vlad has been moving piece by piece but did not want to trigger direct military action...as long as he had non military means to achieve his objectives of restoring the Russian Empire.

Which he did have happening, piece by piece. Until Zelensky plus Biden. It was then clear the 'operation' to undermine democracy was not going to happen in time.

Military action is enormously expensive, in all sorts of ways, and I don't think Vlad is a dummy nor crazy, albeit his 'dream' is delusional. So, that was his preferred path...until he grew impatient...and/or needed to control his ultranationalists with more direct action.

But of course Ukraine was always part of his expansion plan, he said so more than a decade ago and every time he's gone deep on the topic since. According to him, it's Russian territory...ALL of it.

I think I've answered this repeatedly.

IMO, Putin purposely avoided military conflict when taking Crimea.

The 'little green men' deniability was hardly Russian tanks rolling into Ukraine, guns ablazing.

Putin knew that military action was extremely expensive, so he took the limited action...and was immensely successful.

Remember, the gameplan was to undermine and divide NATO as much as possible, while 'taking' more and more of the prior Russian Empire into his fold. Political hegemony being much less expensive than tanks.

Part of that strategy was to increase European dependency on Russian commodities, especially energy, and to build as large a financial war chest as possible. That was working really, really well, and spooking the Europeans with a direct military invasion could have spooked that effort (as it ultimately did).

Putin was also building alliances with various players, including strange bedfellows like the authoritarians in Saudi Arabia and the authoritarians in Iran...and with Israel as well...

And he was investing financially in the support of right wing authoritarianism in eastern Europe and even here in the US. Undermining democracies.

But with Trump's loss a major element of that strategy was lost, and indeed NATO had already become more cohesive as Biden shored up relationships.

Meanwhile, Putin had progressively cracked down on all domestic opposition, jailing, killing any political opposition, and crushing any open media. That's a process, even in Russia, so not accomplished overnight...but in the past couple of years he'd managed to tighten the screws way down versus where he was in 2014.

The Europeans had been shocked by the Trump years and remained divided though mollified by Biden to some extent. Putin grossly miscalculated by invading, but I think the isolation of Covid, the financial damage done, and the frustration of not being able to make more progress in flipping Ukraine politically, led to the decision to do what I think he really thought would be such a quick strike and win that he could get away with it before the West could respond effectively.

I think he expected sanctions, but knew his sovereign wealth fund deep pockets could withstand those pressures...and he expected European energy dependence to overwhelm any stronger reaction.

He was partly right as our reactions were pretty weak at first. But he didn't understand how inept his own forces were and he didn't understand Ukrainian resolve with Zelensky's leadership (which he'd underestimated)...and once that became evident, the West, especially with Biden's leadership, stepped up.

I was definitely one for respond hard and fast vs slow and weak. We might’ve been able to shut him down by now had we rolled in hard and fast. Took wayyy too long to cut him off from swift for example. Should’ve been day one.

[Farfromgeneva]

He didn't want to confront NATO until it was further divided and weakened, as influenced by Trump.

Those are not my words. That's what happens when you chop up others' posts.

And folks complain about your use of shades of color too.....too hard to read, and yields posts that are miles long.

Happy to apologize for the mistake, though. I'm sorry about that mistake.

Stop chopping up my posts & I won't have to resort to a different color to respond.
They'll be shorter if you stop responding to my every post & repeating the same points & arguments I've already answered.
Stop hectoring me & I won't have to respond. Let me express my opinion as I do with you.
Stop posting what you think I think or say, using me to vent your angst against Fox & others, & I won't need to respond.

That’s BS because you just did it on a complete post to MD. “I’ll have to resort to..”

His history belies his contemporary comments.

Just because senility sets in for some doesn’t mean others have no memory or recall let alone interpretive ability.

The other funny idea is if someone acknowledges as to being completely oblivious and naive to some MSM govt conspiracy for 60yrs of their life then figures it out when Trump is elected it doesn’t speak very highly for said persons cognitive ability or intellect and certainly makes their interpretive skills untrustworthy as to their very own experiences over the time they were in the dark to the vast conspiracy thereby making all the actual military service experience useless in these discussions.

Unless of course this is all bad faith, dishonest and indifferent to reality and truth..

Took too 2016 to get that third eye…come on son

[Farfromgeneva]

FWIW, it's a good thing I didn't accept that full-ride NROTC scholarship, because there is no way I would have put up with such a bunch of sniveling ass-clowns as what seems to populate the US Navy. That and my father warned me about what a bunch of stuffed-shirt twats Academy boys were. He was a non-Academy flag officer. How about you, swabbie, you command a ship? Or did you catch a ride on someone else's ship? Then maybe commanded a desk? Or maybe you saw yourself as an Admiral Holloway (III) type? That it?

:lol: ...I don't know how we got by without you. I went to sea, flying from the decks of frigates & destroyers. They were commanded by Surface Warfare Officers, not by Naval Aviators. I spent my entire career in operational flying billets, flying aircraft, not desks. Thanks for asking.
NROTC scholarships are not full rides. You have to pay your own room & board. Depends on the school attended, as those provisions are often granted by the institution. I sent a $25 dorm deposit to Georgia Tech before I got a telegram from USNA. I was also accepted & approved for admission at Purdue & RPI, but Boddy Dodd sent me an invitation to come our for freshman football at GT.

Yeah, I can see the Navy has been quite the bang-up fcuking success. Can't even run it vessels (little problems navigating without collision) or its acquisitions (Littoral Combat Shites) for shite. Or, maybe the stellar behavior of its leadership evidenced by the Tailhook fiasco or its maintenance and operations (Fat Leonard).

You really want to go with the position that it has been anything other than a unmitigated disaster? Good thing the Soviet Union collapsed, otherwise we'd have been screwed.

But you're right. My presence couldn't have overcome the imbecilic inertia of the ring-knockers like you. Which is why I decided, rationally, not to involve myself with such a circus.

Why don't you entertain me and others here with a point-by-point refutation of my charges of incompetence and arrogance?

“Ring knockers”. Thank you for a new term I will now abuse.

“What like a volkswagon?”

https://getyarn.io/yarn-story/19975175- ... fc65f54079

[Farfromgeneva]

Trump is not simply a despicable human being, he earned the suspicion he drew about his dealings with Russia, by lying about such so vociferously and so frequently, while brazenly calling for support from Russia.
That was a joke, mocking Clinton & her fabrication of the collusion narrative.
Now that you know about her Steele disinformation op. Do you get the joke ?

At the same time, Russia was actively seeking to create division in America and found an immensely useful tool in Trump.
That's funny, now that we know about HRC's use of Russians in her collusion disinformation op.
NONE of that was made up by those who were suspicious. Russia didn't nominate Trump. He earned it himself with his tweets, his policies & his divide & conquer attacks on his other opponents.

Salty is willfully blind to all this because it undercuts the notion all of his supposed "policy" preferences on a host of issues, whether foreign or domestic. supposed ? say what you mean.

The policy positions, whether Confederate monuments or isolationism of pro- nationalist authoritarian movements around the world (but not China), are ugly and wrong IMO on their own basis, but Trump's embrace of these were seductive to Salty.
Confederate memorials are just a small part of the woke war on history. btw -- I was for renaming bases.
pro-nationalist authoritarian movements around the world ? I simply recognize our inability to successfully meddle in the internal affairs of other nations.

So...we get all the Deep State nonsense...undercut media, undercut trust in government institutions, undercut law enforcement institutions, all in favor of the 'strong man' alternative, are the authoritarian playbook...and Salty has been an eager participant.
strong man alternative ? You prefer the EvIita Clinton model ? or the doddering old fool who pizzed away 20 years of sacrifice in Afghanistan & is now fueling the worst war in Europe since WW-II, while marching us into WW-III.

Clinton + woke = dumb and dishonest as to true motivations and intentions. That’s what it is.

[MDlaxfan76]

And I do NOT recall you being in favor of changing the base names, I recall you making fun of doing so.

Typical of your partisan blind spot memory. I supported it from the start & suggested how they should be renamed.
I made fun of making a big deal about it, as if it would influence a soldier to enlist or re-enlist.

FTR -- I was all for renaming those bases & suggested they be named after Soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor who had some connection to that base,

"from the start"...this was 2018:

User avatarold salt
Posts: 14568
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:44 am
Contact: Contact old salt
Re: Is America a racist nation?
Report Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:01 pm

Nobody cares about the statues (except the pigeons), until they can be used as a totem to victimhood.

Just like the names of Army bases. Colin Powell said that as a young junior officer, he never gave a thought to the name of the base (or building, or street). He was more concerned about how the locals outside the gate treated him.

The moral judgments, across centuries, & the virtue signalling in this forum are suffocating.

Wait until future generations judge you. I got mine.
Control of Women or Population Control ? ...how many black babies have been aborted ?
Planned Parenthood ? Condoms have always been cheap or free, to prevent std's. Just go see doc in sick bay.

And then in 2020:

Re: The Politics of National Security
• Report
• Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:06 am

CU77 wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:11 pm
The military’s top officer on Thursday described Confederate leaders as traitors and said he is taking a “hard look” at renaming 10 Army installations that honor them, despite President Trump’s opposition to any changes.

“The Confederacy, the American Civil War was fought, and it was an act of rebellion,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, told members of the House Armed Services Committee. “It was an act of treason at the time against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution, and those officers turned their back on their oath.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ses-trump/

What does this have to do with national security ? Are you expecting the south to rise again ?
You should be trolling the Race Riots thread with this.
Colin Powell said when he was stationed at Ft Benning he didn't worry about who it was named for.
He was more concerned about how he was treated outside the base in GA.

I don't see "support" for renaming.

You were contemptuous, including of General Milley.

c&s & I had a discussion on this in which I recommended they rename the Army bases for soldiers who had distinguished themselves who had some connection with that base or that region. It was before 2020. That's not when the issue was first raised.

I was questioning why it was posted in the national security thread. By 2020, the issue was old news.

It was about the time Brian Williams, on msnbc, had Gen Honore as a guest & recommended Ft Polk in LA be renamed Ft Honore.

My first quote by you was in 2018.

Milley's quote, if read with an open mind, made darn clear why he considered it a national security matter.
Perhaps you don't understand the importance of morale?
Do we celebrate traitors in our military, or those who act with honor in defense of our country?

But if one doesn't consider them to be traitors, as does Milley, I can understand why one wouldn't see the impact on morale in a diverse military.

That post 2021. Look again. 2018 was when I joined LF.
c&s, Colin Powell & I agreed that most soldiers didn't know (or care) who Ft Benning was named after.

Here ya go. Carville brought it up on Brian William's show.

My fellows soldiers were white, black, Puerto Rican, Navajo Indian, Mexican and even my good friend from Guam. If the politically correct thing is for Bragg to have a new name
I know what that name should be. Until the the day I die, it will always be Ft Bragg.

It would be interesting to know if your fellow black soldiers have the same opinion.

Not that I would expect them to feel comfortable being honest about it to us white folks.

You ask a good question. I was at Bragg from !979 to 1982. To be perfectly honest I do not ever remember the topic of who Ft Bragg was named after was ever brought up.

It's my experience that most service members are oblivious to the origins of the name of their ship or post.
Instead, they associate the name with the missions of the units based there, their history & their exploits.

James Carville recommended Ft Polk in LA be renamed Ft Honore', for the black, native son, 3 star who brought order to NOLA during Katrina.
If they can come up with namesakes that appropriate for the other 9 Forts, it could be a good thing.
Since Petraeus brought it up, I wonder which one he expects to be named for him.

It was an issue as far back as 2015
https://time.com/3932914/army-bases-confederate/
& resurfaced in 2017.
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/0 ... es/140326/
We discussed the issue on LP, which is where I first made a suggestion about what to rename the bases.

Thanks, I do now remember this post, just didn't find it when looking on FL. My recollection remains that you were generally dismissive of the importance felt by those who actually did bother to know the "origins" of these names. Your post above was such, albeit you allowed as to how it could be a good thing they could find 9 other "namesakes" like Gen Honore...then made a crack about Petraeus for bringing it up...

Did you ever say it was a valuable thing to do for morale?
Did you make such an argument?
Or just dismiss it as 'woke', and make fun of those who thought it important enough to bother to do?

BTW, my understanding of Powell's comment was that how he was treated, as a black man in the South rather than as a professional soldier on behalf of the United States, was more important than the names themselves...they were merely symbols of the very real, ugly racism he faced beyond the base.

I think he was a bit embarrassed that when he had the authority, he hadn't addressed it.

Powell later agreed that changing the base names is a constructive part of sending a more clear message to those racists, combatting such racism, as well as sending a message to the soldiers about such. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5080 ... nfederate/

[Typical Lax Dad]

And I do NOT recall you being in favor of changing the base names, I recall you making fun of doing so.

Typical of your partisan blind spot memory. I supported it from the start & suggested how they should be renamed.
I made fun of making a big deal about it, as if it would influence a soldier to enlist or re-enlist.

FTR -- I was all for renaming those bases & suggested they be named after Soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor who had some connection to that base,

"from the start"...this was 2018:

User avatarold salt
Posts: 14568
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:44 am
Contact: Contact old salt
Re: Is America a racist nation?
Report Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:01 pm

Nobody cares about the statues (except the pigeons), until they can be used as a totem to victimhood.

Just like the names of Army bases. Colin Powell said that as a young junior officer, he never gave a thought to the name of the base (or building, or street). He was more concerned about how the locals outside the gate treated him.

The moral judgments, across centuries, & the virtue signalling in this forum are suffocating.

Wait until future generations judge you. I got mine.
Control of Women or Population Control ? ...how many black babies have been aborted ?
Planned Parenthood ? Condoms have always been cheap or free, to prevent std's. Just go see doc in sick bay.

And then in 2020:

Re: The Politics of National Security
• Report
• Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:06 am

CU77 wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:11 pm
The military’s top officer on Thursday described Confederate leaders as traitors and said he is taking a “hard look” at renaming 10 Army installations that honor them, despite President Trump’s opposition to any changes.

“The Confederacy, the American Civil War was fought, and it was an act of rebellion,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, told members of the House Armed Services Committee. “It was an act of treason at the time against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution, and those officers turned their back on their oath.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ses-trump/

What does this have to do with national security ? Are you expecting the south to rise again ?
You should be trolling the Race Riots thread with this.
Colin Powell said when he was stationed at Ft Benning he didn't worry about who it was named for.
He was more concerned about how he was treated outside the base in GA.

I don't see "support" for renaming.

You were contemptuous, including of General Milley.

c&s & I had a discussion on this in which I recommended they rename the Army bases for soldiers who had distinguished themselves who had some connection with that base or that region. It was before 2020. That's not when the issue was first raised.

I was questioning why it was posted in the national security thread. By 2020, the issue was old news.

It was about the time Brian Williams, on msnbc, had Gen Honore as a guest & recommended Ft Polk in LA be renamed Ft Honore.

My first quote by you was in 2018.

Milley's quote, if read with an open mind, made darn clear why he considered it a national security matter.
Perhaps you don't understand the importance of morale?
Do we celebrate traitors in our military, or those who act with honor in defense of our country?

But if one doesn't consider them to be traitors, as does Milley, I can understand why one wouldn't see the impact on morale in a diverse military.

That post 2021. Look again. 2018 was when I joined LF.
c&s, Colin Powell & I agreed that most soldiers didn't know (or care) who Ft Benning was named after.

Here ya go. Carville brought it up on Brian William's show.

My fellows soldiers were white, black, Puerto Rican, Navajo Indian, Mexican and even my good friend from Guam. If the politically correct thing is for Bragg to have a new name
I know what that name should be. Until the the day I die, it will always be Ft Bragg.

It would be interesting to know if your fellow black soldiers have the same opinion.

Not that I would expect them to feel comfortable being honest about it to us white folks.

You ask a good question. I was at Bragg from !979 to 1982. To be perfectly honest I do not ever remember the topic of who Ft Bragg was named after was ever brought up.

It's my experience that most service members are oblivious to the origins of the name of their ship or post.
Instead, they associate the name with the missions of the units based there, their history & their exploits.

James Carville recommended Ft Polk in LA be renamed Ft Honore', for the black, native son, 3 star who brought order to NOLA during Katrina.
If they can come up with namesakes that appropriate for the other 9 Forts, it could be a good thing.
Since Petraeus brought it up, I wonder which one he expects to be named for him.

It was an issue as far back as 2015
https://time.com/3932914/army-bases-confederate/
& resurfaced in 2017.
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/0 ... es/140326/
We discussed the issue on LP, which is where I first made a suggestion about what to rename the bases.

Thanks, I do now remember this post, just didn't find it when looking on FL. My recollection remains that you were generally dismissive of the importance felt by those who actually did bother to know the "origins" of these names. Your post above was such, albeit you allowed as to how it could be a good thing they could find 9 other "namesakes" like Gen Honore...then made a crack about Petraeus for bringing it up...

Did you ever say it was a valuable thing to do for morale?
Did you make such an argument?
Or just dismiss it as 'woke', and make fun of those who thought it important enough to bother to do?

BTW, my understanding of Powell's comment was that how he was treated, as a black man in the South rather than as a professional soldier on behalf of the United States, was more important than the names themselves...they were merely symbols of the very real, ugly racism he faced beyond the base.

I think he was a bit embarrassed that when he had the authority, he hadn't addressed it.

Powell later agreed that changing the base names is a constructive part of sending a more clear message to those racists, combatting such racism, as well as sending a message to the soldiers about such. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5080 ... nfederate/

The best part of that article: “President Trump on Sunday said he “might” veto a defense spending bill because it includes a provision to remove the names of Confederate leaders from Army bases.
“I might,” Trump told Fox News’s Chris Wallace during an interview that aired Sunday morning. “Yeah, I might.””

Classic. His supporters cheered.

[MDlaxfan76]

And I do NOT recall you being in favor of changing the base names, I recall you making fun of doing so.

Typical of your partisan blind spot memory. I supported it from the start & suggested how they should be renamed.
I made fun of making a big deal about it, as if it would influence a soldier to enlist or re-enlist.

FTR -- I was all for renaming those bases & suggested they be named after Soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor who had some connection to that base,

"from the start"...this was 2018:

User avatarold salt
Posts: 14568
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:44 am
Contact: Contact old salt
Re: Is America a racist nation?
Report Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:01 pm

Nobody cares about the statues (except the pigeons), until they can be used as a totem to victimhood.

Just like the names of Army bases. Colin Powell said that as a young junior officer, he never gave a thought to the name of the base (or building, or street). He was more concerned about how the locals outside the gate treated him.

The moral judgments, across centuries, & the virtue signalling in this forum are suffocating.

Wait until future generations judge you. I got mine.
Control of Women or Population Control ? ...how many black babies have been aborted ?
Planned Parenthood ? Condoms have always been cheap or free, to prevent std's. Just go see doc in sick bay.

And then in 2020:

Re: The Politics of National Security
• Report
• Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:06 am

CU77 wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:11 pm
The military’s top officer on Thursday described Confederate leaders as traitors and said he is taking a “hard look” at renaming 10 Army installations that honor them, despite President Trump’s opposition to any changes.

“The Confederacy, the American Civil War was fought, and it was an act of rebellion,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, told members of the House Armed Services Committee. “It was an act of treason at the time against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution, and those officers turned their back on their oath.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ses-trump/

What does this have to do with national security ? Are you expecting the south to rise again ?
You should be trolling the Race Riots thread with this.
Colin Powell said when he was stationed at Ft Benning he didn't worry about who it was named for.
He was more concerned about how he was treated outside the base in GA.

I don't see "support" for renaming.

You were contemptuous, including of General Milley.

c&s & I had a discussion on this in which I recommended they rename the Army bases for soldiers who had distinguished themselves who had some connection with that base or that region. It was before 2020. That's not when the issue was first raised.

I was questioning why it was posted in the national security thread. By 2020, the issue was old news.

It was about the time Brian Williams, on msnbc, had Gen Honore as a guest & recommended Ft Polk in LA be renamed Ft Honore.

My first quote by you was in 2018.

Milley's quote, if read with an open mind, made darn clear why he considered it a national security matter.
Perhaps you don't understand the importance of morale?
Do we celebrate traitors in our military, or those who act with honor in defense of our country?

But if one doesn't consider them to be traitors, as does Milley, I can understand why one wouldn't see the impact on morale in a diverse military.

That post 2021. Look again. 2018 was when I joined LF.
c&s, Colin Powell & I agreed that most soldiers didn't know (or care) who Ft Benning was named after.

Here ya go. Carville brought it up on Brian William's show.

My fellows soldiers were white, black, Puerto Rican, Navajo Indian, Mexican and even my good friend from Guam. If the politically correct thing is for Bragg to have a new name
I know what that name should be. Until the the day I die, it will always be Ft Bragg.

It would be interesting to know if your fellow black soldiers have the same opinion.

Not that I would expect them to feel comfortable being honest about it to us white folks.

You ask a good question. I was at Bragg from !979 to 1982. To be perfectly honest I do not ever remember the topic of who Ft Bragg was named after was ever brought up.

It's my experience that most service members are oblivious to the origins of the name of their ship or post.
Instead, they associate the name with the missions of the units based there, their history & their exploits.

James Carville recommended Ft Polk in LA be renamed Ft Honore', for the black, native son, 3 star who brought order to NOLA during Katrina.
If they can come up with namesakes that appropriate for the other 9 Forts, it could be a good thing.
Since Petraeus brought it up, I wonder which one he expects to be named for him.

It was an issue as far back as 2015
https://time.com/3932914/army-bases-confederate/
& resurfaced in 2017.
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/0 ... es/140326/
We discussed the issue on LP, which is where I first made a suggestion about what to rename the bases.

Thanks, I do now remember this post, just didn't find it when looking on FL. My recollection remains that you were generally dismissive of the importance felt by those who actually did bother to know the "origins" of these names. Your post above was such, albeit you allowed as to how it could be a good thing they could find 9 other "namesakes" like Gen Honore...then made a crack about Petraeus for bringing it up...

Did you ever say it was a valuable thing to do for morale?
Did you make such an argument?
Or just dismiss it as 'woke', and make fun of those who thought it important enough to bother to do?

BTW, my understanding of Powell's comment was that how he was treated, as a black man in the South rather than as a professional soldier on behalf of the United States, was more important than the names themselves...they were merely symbols of the very real, ugly racism he faced beyond the base.

I think he was a bit embarrassed that when he had the authority, he hadn't addressed it.

Powell later agreed that changing the base names is a constructive part of sending a more clear message to those racists, combatting such racism, as well as sending a message to the soldiers about such. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5080 ... nfederate/

The best part of that article: “President Trump on Sunday said he “might” veto a defense spending bill because it includes a provision to remove the names of Confederate leaders from Army bases.
“I might,” Trump told Fox News’s Chris Wallace during an interview that aired Sunday morning. “Yeah, I might.””

Classic. His supporters cheered.

And apologists just stayed mute.
I don't see Salty objecting to Trump's position..

[PizzaSnake]

FWIW, it's a good thing I didn't accept that full-ride NROTC scholarship, because there is no way I would have put up with such a bunch of sniveling ass-clowns as what seems to populate the US Navy. That and my father warned me about what a bunch of stuffed-shirt twats Academy boys were. He was a non-Academy flag officer. How about you, swabbie, you command a ship? Or did you catch a ride on someone else's ship? Then maybe commanded a desk? Or maybe you saw yourself as an Admiral Holloway (III) type? That it?

:lol: ...I don't know how we got by without you. I went to sea, flying from the decks of frigates & destroyers. They were commanded by Surface Warfare Officers, not by Naval Aviators. I spent my entire career in operational flying billets, flying aircraft, not desks. Thanks for asking.
NROTC scholarships are not full rides. You have to pay your own room & board. Depends on the school attended, as those provisions are often granted by the institution. I sent a $25 dorm deposit to Georgia Tech before I got a telegram from USNA. I was also accepted & approved for admission at Purdue & RPI, but Boddy Dodd sent me an invitation to come our for freshman football at GT.

Yeah, I can see the Navy has been quite the bang-up fcuking success. Can't even run it vessels (little problems navigating without collision) or its acquisitions (Littoral Combat Shites) for shite. Or, maybe the stellar behavior of its leadership evidenced by the Tailhook fiasco or its maintenance and operations (Fat Leonard).

You really want to go with the position that it has been anything other than a unmitigated disaster? Good thing the Soviet Union collapsed, otherwise we'd have been screwed.

But you're right. My presence couldn't have overcome the imbecilic inertia of the ring-knockers like you. Which is why I decided, rationally, not to involve myself with such a circus.

Why don't you entertain me and others here with a point-by-point refutation of my charges of incompetence and arrogance?

“Ring knockers”. Thank you for a new term I will now abuse.

“What like a volkswagon?”

https://getyarn.io/yarn-story/19975175- ... fc65f54079

Careful. They tend to be a wee bit touchy about that sobriquet.

[Farfromgeneva]

FWIW, it's a good thing I didn't accept that full-ride NROTC scholarship, because there is no way I would have put up with such a bunch of sniveling ass-clowns as what seems to populate the US Navy. That and my father warned me about what a bunch of stuffed-shirt twats Academy boys were. He was a non-Academy flag officer. How about you, swabbie, you command a ship? Or did you catch a ride on someone else's ship? Then maybe commanded a desk? Or maybe you saw yourself as an Admiral Holloway (III) type? That it?

:lol: ...I don't know how we got by without you. I went to sea, flying from the decks of frigates & destroyers. They were commanded by Surface Warfare Officers, not by Naval Aviators. I spent my entire career in operational flying billets, flying aircraft, not desks. Thanks for asking.
NROTC scholarships are not full rides. You have to pay your own room & board. Depends on the school attended, as those provisions are often granted by the institution. I sent a $25 dorm deposit to Georgia Tech before I got a telegram from USNA. I was also accepted & approved for admission at Purdue & RPI, but Boddy Dodd sent me an invitation to come our for freshman football at GT.

Yeah, I can see the Navy has been quite the bang-up fcuking success. Can't even run it vessels (little problems navigating without collision) or its acquisitions (Littoral Combat Shites) for shite. Or, maybe the stellar behavior of its leadership evidenced by the Tailhook fiasco or its maintenance and operations (Fat Leonard).

You really want to go with the position that it has been anything other than a unmitigated disaster? Good thing the Soviet Union collapsed, otherwise we'd have been screwed.

But you're right. My presence couldn't have overcome the imbecilic inertia of the ring-knockers like you. Which is why I decided, rationally, not to involve myself with such a circus.

Why don't you entertain me and others here with a point-by-point refutation of my charges of incompetence and arrogance?

“Ring knockers”. Thank you for a new term I will now abuse.

“What like a volkswagon?”

https://getyarn.io/yarn-story/19975175- ... fc65f54079

Careful. They tend to be a wee bit touchy about that sobriquet.

In the limited exposure you’ve had to me here do you think I have or function under a robust personal risk management framework?