War would end if the Generals had to fight and die.

[MyUncle]

The killing of Soleimani is unique. He was instrumental in killing people and many of the people he commanded died based on his orders. This assassination was directed at a "General" and brought death directly to the person who was responsible for so much carnage.

A possible good outcome could be that those "Leaders" who would plant and reap death might hesitate if their very own lives were at stake.

The Trump Doctrine might be to kill the leaders (Qassem Soleimani, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi) and not the soldiers. IF that is the Trumps plan, I am for it.

[MineralMan]

1. Actually, many generals have died in wartime.

Here's a link to a page that lists WWII Generals and Flag Officers who died in such circumstances:

https://ww2gravestone.com/american-general-and-flag-officers-killed-in-world-war-ii/

Perhaps you are thinking, but not checking the facts. I don't know.

[MyUncle]

6. Your post showed 22 Generals who died in WWII.

Over 405,000 Americans died in WWII.

[MineralMan]

8. How is that relevant? Those Generals died.

Generals are always fewer in number than people of other ranks. Your statement was simply incorrect. War would not end if Generals fought and died. They have done so without wars ending.

Your statement is simply incorrect.

[hardluck]

31. And there were approx 1100 generals

That served in WW2. So a death rate of 2%.


16,112,566 served in WW2 so a death rate of 2.5%.

I’d say roughly equal.

[braddy]

2. Generals don't just sign up as a General, look at their military careers and check the life

expectancy of 2nd lieutenants in combat.

[MyUncle]

3. MineralMan , you are right, but how about since WWII ...?

In the past 50 years war casualties have mainly been the soldier and civilian. Countries, organizations send their young mostly men to fight and die, while they plan, fund raise, create the plots that kill their own people and so many civilians.

Let the price of "modern" war be on the heads of states and terrorist groups. We might see an outcome that is not the same as it ever was.

[MineralMan]

10. One General died in Afghanistan that I know of.

Generals don't usually take the field at all any longer. My point still stands, though.

[sarisataka]

4. Generals do fight and die,

Just not as much as they did coming up through the ranks. A general is a soldier just like a private, just with better pay and benefits.

Now if politicians had to fight and die in the wars they start....

[MyUncle]

5. OK, Generals AND Politicians.

Soleimani was both...

[MineralMan]

7. No, you see. That isn't how it works.

We have had politicians die during wartime, too.

Try a different idea, perhaps.

[sarisataka]

12. My answer was tongue in cheek

About politicians. The point I was making is the troops, including generals, will be the ones fighting the wars while the political leaders who order the wars are far away with no risk to themselves.

Killing leaders will not end the wars however. Say the impossible happened and Iran gets a suicide bomber close enough to kill Trump. Do you think this country would let that go? Missiles and planes would be on the way within hours, with the full support of Congressional Democrats.

Iran cannot respond to this killing in the same manner but you can be sure they will respond.

[keithbvadu2]

13. Children of politicians

Children of politicians

Eric and Don Jr?

[getagrip_already]

28. bad example.. trump doesn't care about his kids

and would gladly trade them for a badge of honor. It would be about him and his sacrifice......

But english royal family have fought in wars; most recently harry in afghanistan I believe.

And there are several serving senators and house members who have kids in the military.

[2naSalit]

14. +1

[harumph]

9. Conflict of the future will leave no fingerprints.

e.g. non-state actors acting as proxies for states.

[Hortensis]

11. For anything bigger than security maintenance and brief police actions,

I favor a draft and have since the 1960s. Only it's the older, able, parental generations, all sexes, who would be in the first draft, then the next most mature age group. Adolescents through their mid-20s only after mature adults were tapped out. Sometimes war is necessary, people lined up to sign up after Pearl Harbor, but this would get rid of a lot that wasn't.

I moved twice to different states in high school, and then dropped out; and ultimately, except for a couple, I've never known if, or which of the boys who talked in dread about their draft numbers came home okay from Vietnam. Or didn't. But I've always known that the parents who let them go should have gone first.

[braddy]

16. Warriors are young because of the physical requirements, 50 year old bodies can't do it in the first

place and the few who tried to keep up would quickly fill the VA hospitals and drain our disability pension funds.

Generals are skilled soldiers who got old in the ranks and also wrecked their bodies if they were in combat arms.

[Hortensis]

17. :) I don't buy it. I'm a grandmother and way too experienced

to believe a bunch of callow adolescents make better soldiers than men and women who've achieved emotional and intellectual maturity. More gullible and malleable beyond doubt, but not taking advantage of that, drafting people of mature abilities, needing it to be important enough for them them to sacrifice cushy, prosperous years, is exactly what I'm talking about.

And let's face it, few in the military are combat soldiers. Clerks, electricians and forklift drivers serve also. But even combat soldiers no longer march across Spain and Portugal.

The problem with my fantasy is political of course. People would have to choose to change the way it's always been. But if it was that way for just a while, following that new norm by trying to exploit adolescents to send them into danger because their parents wouldn't go would be seen as egregiously immoral.

And that's really the point of my rant.

[braddy]

18. As a vet and a contractor I can tell you it is the fact, the combat arms life is hard and wrecks our

bodies, old knees and backs cannot carry 100 pound packs up mountains and move 100 pound artillery shells etc. Old people can't handle the heat, the arctic cold, the jungles, the dysentery, their eyes and ears aren't as good, they can't dig foxholes and handle combat jumps with 200 pounds of weight into trees, snow, and water, at night, and on and on.

As a vet who associates with other vets I can tell that many of us older guys would love to replace our kids in the military.

Your mention of the ancient days indicates that you don't know a lot about hard modern soldiering. Old men's bodies can't handle it, it even tears up the young female body and they are almost all in support.

[Hortensis]

19. No, I don't begin to know what you do. But our friend who

retired in his late 40s as a sergeant major after working into his 40s as a career combat soldier,
master sergeant rank with a number of deployments to the ME, as well as other parts of the world, agreed with me. The age for combat soldiers should be moved up, or at least preference should be for older. Btw, I just looked and the average age of Olympic athletes is 27, with many in their 30s.

Once retired and until cancer took him a couple years ago, our friend made an avocation of counseling wounded kids on getting what they're going to need from military systems that are trying to hustle them out for least cost. Most make easy victims at this end of their service also, with the experience they need before signing still ahead of them.

Have a nice day. And let's hope Trump doesn't get any killed... Might as well. Until it happens.

[braddy]

21. This theory of old people replacing the young as warriors is so silly that it has never been done

and never will be, if the old and worn out were interchangeable with the young and fit then we would simply have a permanent job as combat soldier just as civilians do, and we would hire our old vets like me.

[Hortensis]

22. Lol to your notions that 30 is old and worn out.

But no wonder you think the knees of 50-year-old accountants couldn't handle payrolll disbursements.

Our thoughts are on nonintersecting lines. This was just meant to be a passing rant, anyway. Average military service age has been rising and is expected to continue to in future, but not because the parents go before their children.

[braddy]

23. I never included 30 year olds and the discussion is about combat arms, not finance, legal, and

medical, no one cares how old they are.

Thirty year olds are not the Generals and old parents that this thread is about, enlist and learn something about this military that is insulted by this thread.

[dware]

24. +1.

35 year USMC veteran-retired.

[matt819]

15. One word

Draft

[Vinca]

20. Trump doesn't care who dies as long as it's not him.

[Mariana]

25. History shows us the opposite is true.

Generals have fought in battle and died for thousands of years. War didn't end.

[sandensea]

27. +1

War is just so ingrained in human nature, sadly. It appeals to the ego.

Plus the profit motive. Always the money.

[sandensea]

26. The Trump Doctrine is: if war can get you re-elected, provoke it any way you can

And if it can make you boatloads of money, all the better.

[cwydro]

29. Most of them become generals because of their combat records.

Most know about fighting and dying.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

30. No, it would not.

Many generals have been killed in combat; in the old days even kings died in battle, and wars continued anyhow. There's always an effort to take out a leader. Don't forget that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were killed for that reason. Trump didn't have Suleimani killed because he was a general, but because Trump is too stupid to understand that doing so was likely to cause more blowback than he was worth. That's why neither Bush nor Obama tried to take him out although they could have done so easily. There is no "Trump doctrine." Trump does something because he thinks it might benefit him personally at a particular moment. And killing generals has never stopped wars.