What u mentioned has already played out in Vietnam.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:This included one PC that tried to call in arty on his own men until the CSM and a few other guys stood up to him.
In war, I think I would trust my CSM more then my CO... that's for sure. I would take their orders with a large pinch of salt.
It is hard to find a general like Patton or Bradley these days. Most of our generals are of the Eisenhower variety; only know how to lead from the back and do politics, while the real generals are out in front fighting their hearts out.Originally posted by sgdiehard:In Iraq, and many parts of the world, many young americans soldiers died, many have died, and more will die, they must have produced many experienced junior commanders, but battle-hardened generals?
SAF is for the defence of Singapore, we don't need to sacrifice our young soldiers to produce battle-hardened generals.
The Chinese says: "yi jiang cheng gong wan gu gu". For every successful general, there are ten of thousands of dried bones (dead men)."
Ah yes, the frontline generals. And Patton's model was...Rommel.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:It is hard to find a general like Patton or Bradley these days. Most of our generals are of the Eisenhower variety; only know how to lead from the back and do politics, while the real generals are out in front fighting their hearts out.
Doubt the current adventure with Hezbollah is a neat example... given that the IDF after all fares a lot better in open conventional warfare against a conventional foe (the kind of warfare we prepare for) instead of a limited engagement with irregular forces along with dubious and vague political goals to the conflict to boot.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Most militaries have the same problems as ours, but the real question when war comes along is whether the military can perform. I will go as far as say that ours can't. The Israelis got bushwhacked by Hezbollah and they also follow a conscription system.
Yes, Erwin Rommel, the general I respect most, always in the front with his men, most notable during his campaign in North Africa.Originally posted by BillyBong:Ah yes, the frontline generals. And Patton's model was...Rommel.
There were generals who led from the back but were highly respected by their men. Prussian Field Marshal Erich Von Manstein comes to mind.
Sorry to say this, but I think u had been purposely one-sided. The article did include the fact that this American soldier conceding the fact that our army is the best in SEA. Why didn't u put it in? Is it because u see no relevancy in this topic or discussion, or u just felt there's no point in putting it?Originally posted by blueheeler:According to http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/263407/1/.html today, an American soldier Sean Walsh published in the journal Armed Forces & Society an article critiquing S'pore's SAF.
His questions include - Are Singapore's top military commanders too young and inexperienced? Are they fast-tracked to the upper echelons because of their scholar credentials, while more experienced non-scholars or "farmers" — as they have been unceremoniously labelled — toil in vain? Are soldiers here soft because of the emphasis on safety during training at the expense of realism? And do officers lack professionalism and commitment because mandatory retirement at 45 means many see their time in uniform "as a stepping stone" to a second career in politics or business?
In reply (see the link above), I just sense that SAF is deing defensive about the tough questions. To me, being 'defensive' means that you are not flat-out denying the allegations but simply trying to justify those accusations.
MINDEF/SAF is the most expensive organ of our govt, and probably also one of the most secretive, male-oriented, hierachy-based minsitries. We don't really know much about how it works, because we hardly get to to hear anything but the 'good stuff' from mediated press releases. I do not want think of our SAF as the grooming ground for S'pore's leaders because to me, a professional soldier who is trained to kill enemies and sacrifice his own footsoldiers probably would not be on top of my list as minister-material. But think of how many of our current minsiters actually have a BG in front of their names...
In this case, isn't the SAF the most expensive minister-training school ever built? If S'pore is run like a giant company, wouldn't it make more sense to get our top leaders who have experience in top business corporations instead?
*barfs*Originally posted by charlize:Hey, our PM was a BG when he was 33.
Yes, I've been one-sided for the sake of argument. Anyway, with S'pore's military budget vis-a-vis the other 9 SEAsian countries, it must be a GIVEN that it has the best army. So, what's the point of pointing something that we should not be surprised of? As a Sporean, I note that the SAF gets the lion's share of our annual budget. As such, I want to know that I'm getting the best deal for my money as a taxpayer. Yes, we may have the best army in SEAsia, but it's the flaws that I'm concerned with because I want the best bang for my S'pore buck.Originally posted by nanren4ever:Sorry to say this, but I think u had been purposely one-sided. The article did include the fact that this American soldier conceding the fact that our army is the best in SEA. Why didn't u put it in? Is it because u see no relevancy in this topic or discussion, or u just felt there's no point in putting it?
The IDF underperformed in the war, and quite a few of their Merkava tanks were knocked out or disabled, and even a frigate got hit (it had its electronic countermeasures switched off for some damn reason) and had to be towed back. If by anything, the IDF did not achieve any of their objectives, short of bombing the hell out of South Lebanon.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Doubt the current adventure with Hezbollah is a neat example... given that the IDF after all fares a lot better in open conventional warfare against a conventional foe (the kind of warfare we prepare for) instead of a limited engagement with irregular forces along with dubious and vague political goals to the conflict to boot.
And did they really get bushwacked? While they were surprised by the capabilities of Hezbollah, the Israelis still ultimately inflicted tremendous damage on Hezbollah and set them back quite far. Following the conflict, Hezbollah lacked the strength to do major mischief.
Unless you want to believe the Hezbollah tally of "oh only a couple dead on our side", the conflict was actually a military defeat for Hezbollah, but a decisive propangada and media victory as the Israelis were on the media defensive from the start and allowed them to spin the rather incredious pitch that they were inflicting massive losses on the IDF while the IDF were hitting everything but them. What actually happened on the ground was that they were getting pummeled, but the IDF was ultimately restrained by their own inability to decide what to do in the conflict.
Has anyone thought about the fact that this article could have been directed to US policymakers to try and get more from us in terms of training soldiers to contribute more towards coalition operations?Originally posted by Arapahoe:this article probably was intended a few pointers aim at the leader of Singapore to reflect upon.
But what I read between the lines it SAID : that our military leader does not have actual war time experience to lead a battle. when it comes to fighting against an experience enemy. It makes a different in winning the battle.
SAF are more, and beyond capable of defending Singapore but we did not send any ground forces to both afghanistan and Iraq maybe its time to throw in some career officier to the firing line.
what are your thoughts?