[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
But have you ever served? Get to know our NCOs. [/quote]
Have you?[/quote]
Of course. Where do you think I get my opinion? Along with 90% of the guys I know. [/quote]
Officers have a significantly richer understanding and appreciation for strategy , while the enlisted ranks have a predilection for the operational and tactical levels. The wars in Afgahnistan and Iraq have have been significantly detrimental toward the morale of the American military, yet enlisted personel’s perception of American grand strategy from 2008 onwards has somehow had a greater impact? Enlisted personnel don’t get paid to strategize, they execute.
What was your branch of service, and what was your MOS?
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
That’s a good take on him Pat. I especially like the 2/3s perspective. [/quote]
If memory serves me, Pat doesn’t hold a doctorate in psychology, and I’m unsure if he has a bachelor’s degree in the field for that matter. The psychological analysis of statesmen is no easy task. Even if he had advanced training in psychiatry, which he doesn’t, that alone would still be insufficient for the complex and daunting requirements of the task. As evidenced by the CIA’s political psychology program launced in 1965, such a Herculean intellectual endeavor requires many highly qualified individuals working in close collaboration.[/quote]
The entire discipline of psychiatry is a sham of quackery. Insurance companies realised the quackery when they were forced to pay out on behalf of clients afflicted with maladies. The criminal justice and legal institutions likewise realised the quackery and the psychiatric discipline responded by creating “official” categories of illness that serve to indentify a specific malady. Hence the DSM and the constantly evolving definitions and specificities of mental illness. One day homosexuality is a mental illness; a few years of protests and intimidation and hundreds of millions of people across the globe are no longer mentally ill. Whatever you believe about homosexuality, this demonstrates the nebulous nature of “mental illness”. The other factor is political non-conformity being conflated with mental illness as exemplified by Soviet psychiatry and diagnoses such as “sluggish schizophrenia” and the use of psychiatry to suppress political dissent.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
That’s a good take on him Pat. I especially like the 2/3s perspective. [/quote]
If memory serves me, Pat doesn’t hold a doctorate in psychology, and I’m unsure if he has a bachelor’s degree in the field for that matter. The psychological analysis of statesmen is no easy task. Even if he had advanced training in psychiatry, which he doesn’t, that alone would still be insufficient for the complex and daunting requirements of the task. As evidenced by the CIA’s political psychology program launced in 1965, such a Herculean intellectual endeavor requires many highly qualified individuals working in close collaboration.[/quote]
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
But have you ever served? Get to know our NCOs. [/quote]
Have you?[/quote]
Of course. Where do you think I get my opinion? Along with 90% of the guys I know. [/quote]
Officers have a significantly richer understanding and appreciation for strategy , while the enlisted ranks have a predilection for the operational and tactical levels. The wars in Afgahnistan and Iraq have have been significantly detrimental toward the morale of the American military, yet enlisted personel’s perception of American grand strategy from 2008 onwards has somehow had a greater impact? Enlisted personnel don’t get paid to strategize, they execute.
What was your branch of service, and what was your MOS? [/quote]
Seriously guy, you are what 24 and in grad school?
And your goal is to be the guy in the think tank that watches on the monitor while the big boys put foot to ass…and then go home and high five yourself.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
That’s a good take on him Pat. I especially like the 2/3s perspective. [/quote]
If memory serves me, Pat doesn’t hold a doctorate in psychology, and I’m unsure if he has a bachelor’s degree in the field for that matter. The psychological analysis of statesmen is no easy task. Even if he had advanced training in psychiatry, which he doesn’t, that alone would still be insufficient for the complex and daunting requirements of the task. As evidenced by the CIA’s political psychology program launced in 1965, such a Herculean intellectual endeavor requires many highly qualified individuals working in close collaboration.[/quote]
MOAR TEXTBOOK RECITAL![/quote]
What an articulated and cogent argument. Arguments are supported by evidence. I cited an influential work in the field of political psychology, “The Psychological Assement of Politcal Leaders”, whose author, Jerrod M. Post, served 21 years with the Central Intelligence Agency where he founded and directed the Center for the Analysis of Personality and Political Behavior. Dr. Post brings a lifetime of experience to the groves of academe.
Another reason psychiatry as a discipline should hold no claim to authority; the arbitrary basis of the definition of mental illness. Mental illness defined for legal purposes is the ability to distinguish right from wrong. In a medical setting it’s how much your malady interferes with your life. Under the right circumstances anyone could be diagnosed with “depression”.
This is where insurance companies get panicky. If “mental illness” is so arbitrary in its categorisation of mental illness, how authentic a discipline is it? The ideas of the father of psychiatry, Sigmund Freud, are now considered mostly discredited pseudoscience. Psychiatry is founded upon the prestige of the latest crop of “experts” and the discipline manifests a latching on to theories and then dumping them for the newer ones.
A populist contest of metaphysical systems amongst an academic elite; anyone deviating from the current popular orthodoxy a “denier” and existential threat to the discipline as a whole. This is the same case with the climate change prognosticators and seers.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
But have you ever served? Get to know our NCOs. [/quote]
Have you?[/quote]
Of course. Where do you think I get my opinion? Along with 90% of the guys I know. [/quote]
Officers have a significantly richer understanding and appreciation for strategy , while the enlisted ranks have a predilection for the operational and tactical levels. The wars in Afgahnistan and Iraq have have been significantly detrimental toward the morale of the American military, yet enlisted personel’s perception of American grand strategy from 2008 onwards has somehow had a greater impact? Enlisted personnel don’t get paid to strategize, they execute.
What was your branch of service, and what was your MOS? [/quote]
Seriously guy, you are what 24 and in grad school?
And your goal is to be the guy in the think tank that watches on the monitor while the big boys put foot to ass…and then go home and high five yourself.
Typical.
[/quote]
Indicate where I’ve expressed the above sentiment. By the way, those who are on duty in tactical operations centers are those who produced the intelligence that led to the identification of the objective in the first place and actively support operators conducting direct action missions. Analysts and operators have a symbiotic relationship.
Typical of what, exactly? The only thing typical in foreign policy discussions on PWI is the habit of individuals who are wholly unfamiliar with the fundamental concepts and works of the relevant disciplines throwing ad hominems at those who have the audacity to draw upon the work of prominent practitioners and academics. Heaven forbid that one sincerely address an evidenced argument that doesn’t jive with their nescient preconceptions.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
That’s a good take on him Pat. I especially like the 2/3s perspective. [/quote]
If memory serves me, Pat doesn’t hold a doctorate in psychology, and I’m unsure if he has a bachelor’s degree in the field for that matter. The psychological analysis of statesmen is no easy task. Even if he had advanced training in psychiatry, which he doesn’t, that alone would still be insufficient for the complex and daunting requirements of the task. As evidenced by the CIA’s political psychology program launced in 1965, such a Herculean intellectual endeavor requires many highly qualified individuals working in close collaboration.[/quote]
The entire discipline of psychiatry is a sham of quackery. Insurance companies realised the quackery when they were forced to pay out on behalf of clients afflicted with maladies. The criminal justice and legal institutions likewise realised the quackery and the psychiatric discipline responded by creating “official” categories of illness that serve to indentify a specific malady. Hence the DSM and the constantly evolving definitions and specificities of mental illness. One day homosexuality is a mental illness; a few years of protests and intimidation and hundreds of millions of people across the globe are no longer mentally ill. Whatever you believe about homosexuality, this demonstrates the nebulous nature of “mental illness”. The other factor is political non-conformity being conflated with mental illness as exemplified by Soviet psychiatry and diagnoses such as “sluggish schizophrenia” and the use of psychiatry to suppress political dissent.
[/quote]
I have no interest in addressing a non-sequitur criticism of psychiatry as a discipline, especially one that cites an impertinent Wikipedia article describing the abuses the took place in the Soviet Union. Refer to Dr. Post’s credentials above.
[quote]theuofh wrote:
having to “deal” with Iran.
[/quote]
Do you take issue with the P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran? If yes, why?[/quote]
There’s nothing to negotiate. [/quote]
Isn’t there? Iran wants crippling economic sanctions to be lifted. The P5+1 (and numerous other states) do not want Iran to become a nuclear weapons state. [/quote]
There is nothing to negotiate. They are not to have a nuclear weapon and it must be prevented either by diplomatic pressure, or force. Anything else is a stupid dangerous game.
Iran has nothing to offer in terms of negotiation. Any such perception is tacit permission for them to create a nuclear weapon which will compromise any possible peace in the middle east. No, I don’t expect omaba to get that. Netanyahu’s approach is the only correct one. [/quote]
Iran seeks the bomb primarily to establish nuclear deterrence, as it cannot possibly hope to establish conventional deterrence. Allowing Iran to maintain its breakout capacity alongside security assurances would be made contingent on a cessation of Iranian support for terrorism. That would be a win-win, certainly. Netanyahu wants the U.S. to preventively bomb Iranian nuclear facilites because the IDF lacks the capability to effectively do so. Doing so would certainly fuel regional instability and only serve as a delay to te Iranian nuclear program. Anti-American sentiments and the incentive to establish nuclear deterrence would only be increased by such an action.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
That’s a good take on him Pat. I especially like the 2/3s perspective. [/quote]
If memory serves me, Pat doesn’t hold a doctorate in psychology, and I’m unsure if he has a bachelor’s degree in the field for that matter. The psychological analysis of statesmen is no easy task. Even if he had advanced training in psychiatry, which he doesn’t, that alone would still be insufficient for the complex and daunting requirements of the task. As evidenced by the CIA’s political psychology program launced in 1965, such a Herculean intellectual endeavor requires many highly qualified individuals working in close collaboration.[/quote]
It doesn’t take an advanced degree to tell when someone is an asshole, asshole
The Iranian regime is fundamentally a revolutionary regime and their irrational fanaticism places them outside the realm of the rational actor. Indeed, their fundamentalist eschatology informs their foreign policy and geopolitics. A nuclear Iran presents, not only a cover for the escalation of their conventional and terrorist hostilities, a disastrous destabilising alteration of the regional balance of powers and an actual existential threat to the sovereignty of Israel.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
But have you ever served? Get to know our NCOs. [/quote]
Have you?[/quote]
Of course. Where do you think I get my opinion? Along with 90% of the guys I know. [/quote]
Officers have a significantly richer understanding and appreciation for strategy , while the enlisted ranks have a predilection for the operational and tactical levels.
[/quote]
Fair enough, as far as it goes.
I don’t know. The enlisted personnel are more likely to know than either of us.
Silly implied non-sequitor. If enlisted personnel do not at least believe the strategy might be adequate, it could adversely impact their morale regardless of what they get paid to do. One might as well say enlisted personnel and officers do not get paid to have bad morale, therefore their morale is always excellent.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
But have you ever served? Get to know our NCOs. [/quote]
Have you?[/quote]
Of course. Where do you think I get my opinion? Along with 90% of the guys I know. [/quote]
Officers have a significantly richer understanding and appreciation for strategy , while the enlisted ranks have a predilection for the operational and tactical levels. The wars in Afgahnistan and Iraq have have been significantly detrimental toward the morale of the American military, yet enlisted personel’s perception of American grand strategy from 2008 onwards has somehow had a greater impact? Enlisted personnel don’t get paid to strategize, they execute.
What was your branch of service, and what was your MOS? [/quote]
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
But have you ever served? Get to know our NCOs. [/quote]
Have you?[/quote]
Of course. Where do you think I get my opinion? Along with 90% of the guys I know. [/quote]
Officers have a significantly richer understanding and appreciation for strategy , while the enlisted ranks have a predilection for the operational and tactical levels.
[/quote]
Fair enough, as far as it goes.
I don’t know. The enlisted personnel are more likely to know than either of us.
Silly implied non-sequitor. If enlisted personnel do not at least believe the strategy might be adequate, it could adversely impact their morale regardless of what they get paid to do. One might as well say enlisted personnel and officers do not get paid to have bad morale, therefore their morale is always excellent.
[/quote]
Enlisted personnel do not formulate strategy. They are concerned with the operational and tactical levels. I am not referring to strategy in the military sense, but the grand strategy of the state.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
That’s a good take on him Pat. I especially like the 2/3s perspective. [/quote]
If memory serves me, Pat doesn’t hold a doctorate in psychology, and I’m unsure if he has a bachelor’s degree in the field for that matter. The psychological analysis of statesmen is no easy task. Even if he had advanced training in psychiatry, which he doesn’t, that alone would still be insufficient for the complex and daunting requirements of the task. As evidenced by the CIA’s political psychology program launced in 1965, such a Herculean intellectual endeavor requires many highly qualified individuals working in close collaboration.[/quote]
That is correct, you don’t know what credentials I hold, but I am credentialed. I am sure that makes you sick deep down inside somewhere. I don’t tell people what degrees I hold or what certs I hold because it’s not pertinent to a conversation. I usually let the prose speak for itself. If I have to give my resume, I haven’t been clear in what I said, and probably has no merit on it’s own. So I never give my resume, ever. Never will.
I think it’s weird when people have constantly remind others how smart they are or have to declare their own victories. It’s a sure sign of low self esteem and personal weakness.
Since reading comprehension isn’t a strong point of yours I will explain what I said simply.
See spot, you cannot diagnose a person with a disorder from afar.
See spot, obama’s actions are ones indicative of a narcissism and arrogance.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
That’s a good take on him Pat. I especially like the 2/3s perspective. [/quote]
If memory serves me, Pat doesn’t hold a doctorate in psychology, and I’m unsure if he has a bachelor’s degree in the field for that matter. The psychological analysis of statesmen is no easy task. Even if he had advanced training in psychiatry, which he doesn’t, that alone would still be insufficient for the complex and daunting requirements of the task. As evidenced by the CIA’s political psychology program launced in 1965, such a Herculean intellectual endeavor requires many highly qualified individuals working in close collaboration.[/quote]
The entire discipline of psychiatry is a sham of quackery. Insurance companies realised the quackery when they were forced to pay out on behalf of clients afflicted with maladies. The criminal justice and legal institutions likewise realised the quackery and the psychiatric discipline responded by creating “official” categories of illness that serve to indentify a specific malady. Hence the DSM and the constantly evolving definitions and specificities of mental illness. One day homosexuality is a mental illness; a few years of protests and intimidation and hundreds of millions of people across the globe are no longer mentally ill. Whatever you believe about homosexuality, this demonstrates the nebulous nature of “mental illness”. The other factor is political non-conformity being conflated with mental illness as exemplified by Soviet psychiatry and diagnoses such as “sluggish schizophrenia” and the use of psychiatry to suppress political dissent.
[/quote]
I have to disagree. First psychiatry is a medical practice and it’s deals with brain diseases. It’s physiological medical practice.
I think you meant to criticize psychology as quackery. I understand why you feel that way and partially you have a point.
Here’s how it breaks down. There are good psychologists doing good solid science out there and are inching along making discoveries about human behaviors and cognition.
The power structure in the world of psychology has become very heavily politicized and corrupt, and it’s sad. Because at the higher levels it’s not science for the sake of science. It’s science to achieve a social political end, serving the special interest of those in power and those they represent.
I can give you a very controversial example as we advanced from the DSM III to the DSM IV, but perhaps I will save that for another day. There is a reason for your correct observation about the DSM. I can say the “day the music died” for psychology as a real, not a pseudo science was in the advent of the DSM IV. There was a loss of scientific integrity and honesty.
That being said, there are good solid scientists doing good solid work despite all of this, do not throw out the baby with the bath water.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
That’s a good take on him Pat. I especially like the 2/3s perspective. [/quote]
If memory serves me, Pat doesn’t hold a doctorate in psychology, and I’m unsure if he has a bachelor’s degree in the field for that matter. The psychological analysis of statesmen is no easy task. Even if he had advanced training in psychiatry, which he doesn’t, that alone would still be insufficient for the complex and daunting requirements of the task. As evidenced by the CIA’s political psychology program launced in 1965, such a Herculean intellectual endeavor requires many highly qualified individuals working in close collaboration.[/quote]
It doesn’t take an advanced degree to tell when someone is an asshole, asshole
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Where is the graph depicting the plummeting morale with the U.S. Military? Thanks to our Sunni-in-Chief. Talk to some of our military, they will gladly tell you. [/quote]
I work with a couple of retired military intelligence officers that would argue that the 13 years of unbroken war which have cost te United States 6714 lives, many more wounded, and $4-6 trillion has an exponentially greater impact on morale than whatever straws your grasping at.[/quote]
I would love to see your evidence on how it was determined these numbers you spit out have affected moral. You say the number of casualties and financial cost had an ‘exponential’ effect on moral? What evidence can you produce they supports this assertion. I think it’s only fair since you ask everybody else for evidence that you provide evidence based assertions only. So what do you know and how do you know it? please provide your evidence.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
But have you ever served? Get to know our NCOs. [/quote]
Have you?[/quote]
Of course. Where do you think I get my opinion? Along with 90% of the guys I know. [/quote]
Officers have a significantly richer understanding and appreciation for strategy , while the enlisted ranks have a predilection for the operational and tactical levels. The wars in Afgahnistan and Iraq have have been significantly detrimental toward the morale of the American military, yet enlisted personel’s perception of American grand strategy from 2008 onwards has somehow had a greater impact? Enlisted personnel don’t get paid to strategize, they execute.
What was your branch of service, and what was your MOS? [/quote]
All military personnel is ‘enlisted’, and since top generals are also enlisted personnel, they do get paid to strategize.
What evidence do you have of the over all morale of the American military’s as affected by the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq? I am assuming, since you never said, that the moral has been negatively impacted by these conflicts, what evidence can you provide to support this assertion?
