Stavridis is the worst of the worst. LOL! He claims Shalala is his mentor!
A Clintonite. A lifelong flunkie and benefactor of the Clintons.
I see what they are doing.
BTW, he LOVES Al Golden, according to his statements
The other thing that worries me is that he is an advocate of "smart power". "Smart" is normally a code word for elitists. At this point I will settle if he could just be as bad as Foote was.
Without going too OT, I think a "Smart Power" real world definition is in order..."Smart Power" is a re-branding of the "Soft Power" stuff that came from an egg head named Nye in the Clinton administration. After the Cold War and Gulf War, both the Democrats and Republicans wanted a "Peace Dividend;" i.e. slashing the defence budget and using the money from it to pay for their pet social programs or bridges to nowhere (cut taxes?...LMAO, it's D.C.). So the stripped pants(suit)s from Foggy Bottom came up with goofy "Soft Power" doctrine to make the Pols feel safe in cutting the DoD Budget. When "Soft Power" sounded too wussy post 9/11, "Smart Power' came around.
Today, it is used as code by some military leaders and their staffs to indicate they have absolutely nowhere near the force structure to accomplish their mission, hence they are relying on "Smart Power." I think Stavridis partly used it in this context to signal he had a EUCOM that was a mere shadow of even its 90s strength. He also partly used it to get the USSOUTHCOM and EUCOM gigs; most politicians either served for a short while or have never served in the military; they think military people conform to movie stereotypes. Trust me, ALL senior military leaders are adept politicians and by saying the "right" things, totally bamboozle these naive non-military politicians.
To Stavridis' credit, when Crimea was "liberated" by volunteer "freedom fighters," he was one of the few voices advocating a real response:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/03/01/nato-needs-to-move-now-on-crimea/
His successor mentioned, USAF General Breedlove, has only recently implemented some of these measures (though Breedlove probably realizes that between Jarrett, Swift Boat Coward Lurch and Video maven Rice, anything he does will get him thrown under the bus, hence a "what difference does it make" response).
Serious question: What has Stavridis ever done as an administrator that makes you guys excited about him from an athletics standpoint? So far, about all I've seen is that his parents used to attend UM football games and that he might have some sort of friendship or acquaintance with Butch.
Is there something concrete he's done as an administrator that makes people think he'll be pro-athletics?
read post #41 - nah, no management background at all.
Filmed June 2012 at TEDGlobal 2012
James Stavridis: A Navy Admiral's thoughts on global security
[video]http://www.ted.com/talks/james_stavridis_how_nato_s_supreme_commander_think s_about_global_security[/video]
I took 16 minutes and 27 seconds out of my life to view this public speech. IMHO, we have another idealistic impractical elitist. Politically, there is very little difference between him and the present regime. He reminds me of Ross Perot: states a problem (inferring knowledge/solution) but solves it with platitudes. The mere fact that this guy made admiral, shows that the pussification of America is entrenched, and continues.
I have no idea of his administrative skills. His office political skills must be excellent to get to his present rank. He might be an OK university president, or a continuation of the present idiocracy. On the surface, he speaks well but in idealistic platitudes, exuding an air of quiet dignified confidence. The country clubbers will love his civilized manner.
As far as the football program is concerned, as someone else said, he needs to hire a good AD, and get out of the way.
He wouldn't be my choice to lead the university, but no one is asking me.
Stavridis is the worst of the worst. LOL! He claims Shalala is his mentor!
A Clintonite. A lifelong flunkie and benefactor of the Clintons.
I see what they are doing.
BTW, he LOVES Al Golden, according to his statements
The other thing that worries me is that he is an advocate of "smart power". "Smart" is normally a code word for elitists. At this point I will settle if he could just be as bad as Foote was.
Without going too OT, I think a "Smart Power" real world definition is in order..."Smart Power" is a re-branding of the "Soft Power" stuff that came from an egg head named Nye in the Clinton administration. After the Cold War and Gulf War, both the Democrats and Republicans wanted a "Peace Dividend;" i.e. slashing the defence budget and using the money from it to pay for their pet social programs or bridges to nowhere (cut taxes?...LMAO, it's D.C.). So the stripped pants(suit)s from Foggy Bottom came up with goofy "Soft Power" doctrine to make the Pols feel safe in cutting the DoD Budget. When "Soft Power" sounded too wussy post 9/11, "Smart Power' came around.
Today, it is used as code by some military leaders and their staffs to indicate they have absolutely nowhere near the force structure to accomplish their mission, hence they are relying on "Smart Power." I think Stavridis partly used it in this context to signal he had a EUCOM that was a mere shadow of even its 90s strength. He also partly used it to get the USSOUTHCOM and EUCOM gigs; most politicians either served for a short while or have never served in the military; they think military people conform to movie stereotypes. Trust me, ALL senior military leaders are adept politicians and by saying the "right" things, totally bamboozle these naive non-military politicians.
To Stavridis' credit, when Crimea was "liberated" by volunteer "freedom fighters," he was one of the few voices advocating a real response:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/03/01/nato-needs-to-move-now-on-crimea/
His successor mentioned, USAF General Breedlove, has only recently implemented some of these measures (though Breedlove probably realizes that between Jarrett, Swift Boat Coward Lurch and Video maven Rice, anything he does will get him thrown under the bus, hence a "what difference does it make" response).
Nicely written. However you have taken a narrow military approach and are talking specifically to "smart power." My comment was addressed to the use of the word "smart". Elitists, almost by definition, love the word smart. They believe they are the smartest people in any room and all smart people agree with them. Anyone who does not agree with them is not smart. They label many of their "ideas" and program as "smart" or claim to be doing things "smartly". All they candidates are "smart" regardless of actually GPA or IQ. That is why they love dictatorial methods of government. Let's hope this dude, if chosen, decides that "effective" coaching is what we need because "smart" just is not cutting it.
By the way, believing he politicians at naive or even stupid is one of our most serious mistakes. As a whole, they play the stupid card about as well as it is player. We excuse so much of what they do because we think they are stupid when in truth the almost always get what they REALLY want -- it just that it is never what they SAY they want. Our education system is the perfect example. They are getting exactly what they want from it; we just mistakenly think they want an educated populace. They switched gears in the late 60's because they need a different kind of citizen.
Filmed June 2012 at TEDGlobal 2012
James Stavridis: A Navy Admiral's thoughts on global security
[video]http://www.ted.com/talks/james_stavridis_how_nato_s_supreme_commander_think s_about_global_security[/video]
I took 16 minutes and 27 seconds out of my life to view this public speech. IMHO, we have another idealistic impractical elitist. Politically, there is very little difference between him and the present regime. He reminds me of Ross Perot: states a problem (inferring knowledge/solution) but solves it with platitudes. The mere fact that this guy made admiral, shows that the pussification of America is entrenched, and continues.
I have no idea of his administrative skills. His office political skills must be excellent to get to his present rank. He might be an OK university president, or a continuation of the present idiocracy. On the surface, he speaks well but in idealistic platitudes, exuding an air of quiet dignified confidence. The country clubbers will love his civilized manner.
As far as the football program is concerned, as someone else said, he needs to hire a good AD, and get out of the way.
He wouldn't be my choice to lead the university, but no one is asking me.
What? Pussification of America?
I don't think you listened or read it at all.
He is talking about 21st century Security issues. As we have seen, military force alone can't defeat problems like failed states, insurgency, terrorism, cyber crime, etc. this is all Mainstream political/security theory discussion. It's not a left-wing versus right-wing argument either.
If teaching literacy to Afghans keeps some of them from being brainwashed by Jihadists, how is it "pussifivation" to utilize those resources?
He isn't saying we should abolish the military, then hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
"Now, let me hit a somber note. This is a photograph of a brave British soldier. He's in the Scots Guards. He's standing the watch in Helmand, in southern Afghanistan. I put him here to remind us, I would not want anyone to leave the room thinking that we do not need capable, competent militaries who can create real military effect. That is the core of who we are and what we do, and we do it to protect freedom, freedom of speech, all the things we treasure in our societies ."
Officers don't choose what administrations they want to work for, they can't put their careers on hold waiting for a new president. it's silly for people to judge him because they don't like Democrats.
Lifelong "flunkie" Clintonite?
NYT says he was military assistant to Donald Rumsfeld. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/washington/24rumsfeld.html
Wikipedia says he went on to serve two 4-star jobs. How is that a flunky (correct spelling) or Clintonite?