Talk:Raymond T. Odierno

POV and Centcom

Someone at CENTCOM is continuously revising this article to eliminate or mitigate criticism. While I appreciate loyalty to a commander, Wikipedia articles are not official biographies and POV's should be minimized.Virgil61 19:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The same thing went on (and doubtless still does) with the Wikipedia article on Petraeus. If you even pointed out that Petreaus could have volunteered for the biggest war of his lifetime, Vietnam, such an obvious factual entry was promptly deleted by Pentagon spindoctors as if it were heresy. Look at the many rows of ribbons Odierno has, then ask yourself how many of them were earned in combat. Millions of draftees have the combat ribbons Petraeus and Odierno don't, me included. But it is somehow viewed as overly critical to merely note that interesting fact.

You can get on your ideological high horse if you like, but the fact is you also felt the need to remove a cited passage that refutes the very critisim you claim is so important. I understand the need for an open forum on the internet, especially in a heavily utilized site such as this. But that door swings both ways. Scott.Radcliffe 3 September 2007

There's no ideological high horse [I was in Iraq during 4th IDs first deployment] this isn't a CENTCOM official bio it's Wikipedia. The reference isn't a source in that it's an opinion piece in the NY POST. There's been no 'vindication' except in Ralph Peters mind [You used the word 'vindicate' and the article proves no such thing]. The argument--which Peters rah-rah piece has given no thought to--that's made by critics include the view the heavy-handed approach contributed to the rise of the insurgency [a view I and many who witnessed firsthand 4th IDs actions such as 1st MARDIV, USASOC and others share]. I will rephrase the sentence to show it as a counter viewpoint but not as the final word in vindication. That's fair to both views. Virgil61 12:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll accept that since it now gets down to semantics. As far as that not being a source, one could argue the same about a book written by a man with an agenda. Each did their own research and interpreted the facts as they saw them with healthy doses of opinion interspersed within their works. Some would argue that the Sunnis needed to truly understand they were defeated, others would say that the "heavy handed techniques" prompted a lot of this in the first place. In truth, there's really no way to know. My first deployment I was in charge of large portion of Rashid, one of Baghdad's most diverse neighborhoods, and I can tell from my own experience as well there needs to be an equal portion of patience and aggressive action. So just as Ricks and Peters, I believe we can both agree to disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.141.100 (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've undid the revision of what was agreed upon above that came from a CENTCOM IP that has--again--deleted criticism. Legitimate criticism was made by several valid sources in the Army and Marines, it was sourced correctly. It is not the last word but the criticism was widespread enough that it does merit inclusion. I know, I was in 1st MARDIV's COC (Marine for TOC) and heard criticism of 4th ID often. Virgil61 (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)