The dumbest military idea posed by civilian armchair generals like Richard Perl, Dick Cheney and numerous other neo-cons was the war with Iraq. Slam dunk, contest over.

I wonder if Mr. Devine remembers exactly what happened during Sherman's march. I somehow think that wouldn't be advisable in the 21st century.

Only a few of these suggestions were actually evoked by anyone in influence. Who cares if Clinton wished out load that there were 'ninjas' that could Kill Osama Bin Laden? Who doesn't? In any case, how is that wishful thinking a 'policy suggestion'? Also, why exactly would bombing North Korea be such a bad idea? Nothing else has worked. Ditto with suggestions to try and isolate the Sudan and Zimbabwe. I suppose that sitting impotently while others are killed is the 'realistic' response.

...pretty sure US has backed several attempts to either assassinate or overthrow chavez. They just always fail.

Discussing pathologies of decisions making , I've noticed recently a some kind madness of local leaders (not only the military one) that probably should be called a Kurtz syndrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_Now
...they are/were there, they think they always know better, they think they know how to win their battle even if they lose allies , war etc.
People who do not understand logic of conflict (or reality) are in my opinion as hopeless as these ones who are are not able to change the rules of what they participate even if everything went wrong.

This article is probably one of the worst FP has ever published. Sad.

The only reason some of these plans are cockamamie is that they are not politically correct. Some of them make perfect sense in a world right side up. Unfortunately we currently live in a world upside down.

Marching into Pakistan to finish our war once and for all is the right thing to do.

But only because it is politically cockamamie we are going to spend the next 3 to 5 years wasting lives, money and time only to fail.

Now that is cockamamie.

I am not sure generals have such great ideas either. Every one of them I've ever met cares about nothing but gadget contracts and subsequently joining the board of XYZ Defense Company. Every so often, they will mull over the prospects of an all-out war with a superpower--one that happens to control our economy at the moment. Guerilla warfare has proven to be the strategic kryptonite against conventional military forces. Our military leaders have not come to grips with that fact. Our army sucks--period. Give it a war and it will lose it. (As far as I am concerned, the Corps of Engineers and the Special Forces are its only redeeming entities) Our air and naval forces are the best in the world, but they are virtually useless in unconventional warfare. In hindsight, has there been a good military policy decison in the US since World War II? Want a good military policy decision? Here is it: Get our troops out of every foreign country and stop subverting democratic governments all over the world. Somehow I think Islamic attacks will suddenly stop hitting our airports after that. If any great army is dumb enough to invade the US, I'm pretty sure a redneck/backwoods militia insurgency would make the Iraq insugency look like a welcome parade.

I hate Bill Clinton; but I would not be surprised if that ninja story about him was either apocryphal or taken out of context. It sounds like a rumor perpetuated by a military that hates him and makes parlor jokes about him and his wife.

Here's my vote for the armchair warrior FAIL that America has fallen victim to for over a century...
"They'll be home by Christmas."
Every president who ever sent troops anywhere fed us this tripe and it goes well beyond the myopic reference to current conflicts.

1. How are most of these suggestions any different from our other military blunders?

2. Haven't generals made their share of "cockamamie" suggestions?

3. Was this article originally written for cracked.com but then rejected for not being funny enough?

Had to look twice. It seems like he resurrected his idea in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen,...

Why doesn't the government of Mexico send assassins into Texas, Arizona and New Mexico to take out the gun dealers who provide weapons to the drug cartels?

If word gets around amongst the gun dealers about just what happens to dealers, their wives, children and pets then they would be much, much less likely to sell weapons that will go illegally into Mexico.

The US cannot object because it is, basically, the same approach they use with renditions and predator drone killings. Maybe the Mexican agents can even leave some collateral damage behind.

Referring to "Acheson's armed division on the autobahn"

"In 1961, with tension high between the United States and the Soviet Union over Berlin, U.S. President John F. Kennedy asked former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to launch a systematic review of U.S. policy toward Germany. To signal America's strong commitment to defending West Berlin, Acheson's suggestion for dealing with the Berlin crisis was to send "an armored division, with another division in reserve" up the autobahn through East Germany and into West Berlin. Acheson admitted, "There is… a substantial possibility that war might result." Kennedy wisely opted instead to bolster military readiness but avoid an outright provocation of the Soviet Union. "

Well, they didn't send an armoured division, but 1/18th Battlegroup, led by COL Glover S. Johns, Jr., went straight to Berlin through Red territory.

http://www.vmi.edu/uploadedFiles/Archives/Alumni/JohnsGS1931/Johns_Glover_1931_obituary.pdf

Civilian strategists often think they understand the use of force better than their generals do. Here are 10 cockamamie military schemes that thankfully never came to pass. Only a few of these suggestions were actually evoked by anyone in influence. Who cares if Clinton wished out load that there were 'ninjas' that could Kill Osama Bin Laden? Who doesn't? In any case, how is that wishful thinking a 'policy suggestion'? Also, why exactly would bombing North Korea be such a bad idea? Nothing else has worked. Ditto with suggestions to try and isolate the Sudan and Zimbabwe. "U. S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates once observed, "I have seen a lot of civilians make a lot of proposals for a lot of silly military actions. " In response to foreign-policy problems that resist easy solutions, the quick allure of military force is the civilian's siren song goldsboro life insurance. Many proposals -- while informal or semiserious -- are preposterous and overlook even a basic understanding of political objectives, military strategy, geography, and logistics. Here are the top 10 most ridiculous military options offered up by U. S. government officials or civilian commentators over the last few decades. Thankfully, these would-be civilian follies, based on unrealistic and often dangerous notions of what military power can achieve, were quashed before they left the drawing board. " Who cares if Clinton wished out load that there were 'ninjas' that could Kill Osama Bin Laden? Who doesn't? In any case, how is that wishful thinking a 'policy suggestion'? Also, why exactly would bombing North Korea be such a bad idea? Nothing else has worked. Ditto with suggestions to try and isolate the Sudan and Zimbabwe. I suppose that sitting impotently while others are killed is the 'realistic' response.