[Goose]

Well, can you truly separate the military from politics? I don’t think we ever could.  But I think it’s worse now.

I agree that the military is unquestionably affected by politics. The objectives certainly are established by civilian politicians. That is how the system is designed. The members of the military are also citizens (for the great majority) who vote and who also have political opinions. The civilian politicians ideally would allow the military to use Auftragstaktik in accomplishing the commander's intent. As is normal with Auftragstaktik there will be constraints set forth specifying limitations the military must observe. Unfortunately, throughout history the civilian command authority (as well as other non-command politicians) have often "meddled" in this process. This has been true throughout our nation's history. Equally unfortunately the "objectives" set forth are often poorly thought out, ill-defined, and arguable not deliverable by military action. Without a doubt, these latter problems have become much worse since WW II.

IMO it is possible (and desirable) to separate the strategic and tactical execution of the (possibly bad, maybe even fatally compromised)  plan from the plan itself. We can't expect the military to remove legislative delays. That isn't their job. Their job is to execute the strategy and tactics necessary to fulfill the NCA's stated intent. The NCA clearly intends to supply weapons to Ukraine as expeditiously as possible. To whatever degree the military doesn't do that, we can criticize them without regard to whether we believe the NCA's intent is wise or prudent.  Stupid wars are bad. Stupid wars fought poorly are worse. The "fought poorly" part is IMO subject to criticism that is independent of politics. Deciding to do it is political. Actually doing it is not.

[Goose]

Well, can you truly separate the military from politics? I don’t think we ever could.  But I think it’s worse now.

I agree that the military is unquestionably affected by politics. The objectives certainly are established by civilian politicians. That is how the system is designed. The members of the military are also citizens (for the great majority) who vote and who also have political opinions. The civilian politicians ideally would allow the military to use Auftragstaktik in accomplishing the commander's intent. As is normal with Auftragstaktik there will be constraints set forth specifying limitations the military must observe. Unfortunately, throughout history the civilian command authority (as well as other non-command politicians) have often "meddled" in this process. This has been true throughout our nation's history. Equally unfortunately the "objectives" set forth are often poorly thought out, ill-defined, and arguable not deliverable by military action. Without a doubt, these latter problems have become much worse since WW II.

IMO it is possible (and desirable) to separate the strategic and tactical execution of the (possibly bad, maybe even fatally compromised)  plan from the plan itself. We can't expect the military to remove legislative delays. That isn't their job. Their job is to execute the strategy and tactics necessary to fulfill the NCA's stated intent. The NCA clearly intends to supply weapons to Ukraine as expeditiously as possible. To whatever degree the military doesn't do that, we can criticize them without regard to whether we believe the NCA's intent is wise or prudent.  Stupid wars are bad. Stupid wars fought poorly are worse. The "fought poorly" part is IMO subject to criticism that is independent of politics. Deciding to do it is political. Actually doing it is not.