Professional Soldiers ® - View Single Post - Fallujah

NousDefionsDoc · 04-13-2004, 13:52

When I say the grammar of the conflict, I am not referring to the

2 a : the characteristic system of inflections and syntax of a language b : a system of rules that defines the grammatical structure of a language

but rather the

4 : the principles or rules of an art, science, or technique <a grammar of the theater>

definition I think. Hence the quotation marks.

I agree with what you say about their manner of speaking. I can remember, for example, the news casts of Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, etc. in the 1960's-70s. They never said "Huh" "Ah" etc. We seem to have left that era. A shame, but not overly important to the content, I agree

I'll give you an example of what I mean - the current lull in the operations against Sadr. We now have actions and reactions practically in real time. We have propaganda from all sides. We are bombarded by Al Jeerzera, Fox, CNN, the networks with what is happening. We are also bombarded with "experts" offering opinions as to why and what is next, but:
1. Are they truly experts? Fox has a retired Air Force Colonel offering opinion on the ground war and counter-terrorism.
2. Do the recipients of the information - Joe and Jane - have the "grammar" of conflict in their backgrounds that allows them to decipher these opinions and make judgements - voting for President for example - that are informed and valid?

I think not. Most of the "experts" are decrying the lull. "Smash them! "Don't stop"! "Quagmire!' "Vietnam - Part II!

I think the days of "Do it because I said so" are pretty much over, even with the troops.

Has the USG done a good job of explaining to the public the reasons for being and staying in this conflict? For the lull? To the average Muslim or Iraqi? To the troops? To the currrent and potential coalition partners? In other words, have they achieved the "buying in" of the stakeholders?

I am all for protecting sources and methods - but are the definitions of "sources and methods" classified as well? Do Joe and Jane understand, truly, what sources and methods are and why we need to protect them? Or have they been left to conjecture and end with the opinion that it is merely CYA by politicians?

We have yet to define terrorism in our security community, yet we are in the Global War on Terrorism and wondering why there are doubters and nay sayers?

The grammar of conflict. Not the public speaking ability of the current administration.

04-13-2004, 13:52	#94
NousDefionsDoc Quiet Professional Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: LA Posts: 1,653	When I say the grammar of the conflict, I am not referring to the 2 a : the characteristic system of inflections and syntax of a language b : a system of rules that defines the grammatical structure of a language but rather the 4 : the principles or rules of an art, science, or technique <a grammar of the theater> definition I think. Hence the quotation marks. I agree with what you say about their manner of speaking. I can remember, for example, the news casts of Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, etc. in the 1960's-70s. They never said "Huh" "Ah" etc. We seem to have left that era. A shame, but not overly important to the content, I agree I'll give you an example of what I mean - the current lull in the operations against Sadr. We now have actions and reactions practically in real time. We have propaganda from all sides. We are bombarded by Al Jeerzera, Fox, CNN, the networks with what is happening. We are also bombarded with "experts" offering opinions as to why and what is next, but: 1. Are they truly experts? Fox has a retired Air Force Colonel offering opinion on the ground war and counter-terrorism. 2. Do the recipients of the information - Joe and Jane - have the "grammar" of conflict in their backgrounds that allows them to decipher these opinions and make judgements - voting for President for example - that are informed and valid? I think not. Most of the "experts" are decrying the lull. "Smash them! "Don't stop"! "Quagmire!' "Vietnam - Part II! I think the days of "Do it because I said so" are pretty much over, even with the troops. Has the USG done a good job of explaining to the public the reasons for being and staying in this conflict? For the lull? To the average Muslim or Iraqi? To the troops? To the currrent and potential coalition partners? In other words, have they achieved the "buying in" of the stakeholders? I am all for protecting sources and methods - but are the definitions of "sources and methods" classified as well? Do Joe and Jane understand, truly, what sources and methods are and why we need to protect them? Or have they been left to conjecture and end with the opinion that it is merely CYA by politicians? We have yet to define terrorism in our security community, yet we are in the Global War on Terrorism and wondering why there are doubters and nay sayers? The grammar of conflict. Not the public speaking ability of the current administration. __________________ Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimal food or water, in austere conditions, training day and night. The only thing clean on him is his weapon and he made his web gear. He doesn't worry about what workout to do - his ruck weighs what it weighs, his runs end when the enemy stops chasing him. This True Believer is not concerned about 'how hard it is;' he knows either he wins or dies. He doesn't go home at 17:00, he is home. He knows only The Cause. Still want to quit?
NousDefionsDoc is offline