Talk:Merrill McPeak

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment[edit]

I understand that there was some commotion about his political statements and activites during the 2004 presidential campaign, and it was explained to me that former general officers are expected to not be outspoken about politics. Should this be incorporated in the article somewhere? Also, is it true that those who didn't like him refer to him as McPuke? Isaac Crumm 02:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expected not to be outspoken?? Wesley Clark ran for president, for crying out loud. And I thought his nickname among those who didn't care for him was "Skeletor" McPeak. --NetherlandishYankee 15:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This passage seems highly speculative: "McPeak has a history of jumping from campaign to campaign, some say in hopes of obtaining a coveted political appointment in the government." I think we could find "some" who will say damn near anything. Chris Mitchell 29 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.254.12 (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as a survivor of his commander days. Some did call him "McPuke." He was, in my opinion, a four-star (and no star and one-star and two-star and three-star) disaster for the service. No respect. J. Nickell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.89.8.95 (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Feb 1985 McPeak spoke for about 20-30 minutes in his office to a group of 5 of us new 2nd Lt when we arrived under his authority as HQ TAC/XP. He told us explicitly that in his view the USAF should consist only of trigger pullers specifically: single seat fighter pilots and MC-130s aircrews (only allowed enlisted). Everything else should be contracted out or eliminated totally: not only all support (including all medical and admin) but also missiles, bombers, and airlift (contractors from the safety of home or outside active air combat zone). He said ideally that included contractors doing hot zone combat air supply and the retrieval of soldiers from the battlefield. Yeah military members would pay for combat medical insurance themselves. He also said that all military personnel except pilots were free substitutes for hard to get Congressional weapons funds (shades of 18-19th century Generals who measured the magnitude of their victories by friendly body counts). After telling us that the worst most unpatriotic members of the military were IT "shoe clerks" who he would kill on the spot to save funds if he could get away with it, McPeak then asked us 2nd Lts what we did...no surprise that it was 5 IT people. And he had little more sympathy for Navigator/Weapon Systems Officers in two seat fighters, "bus drivers" in airlift etc. Probably one of the modern officers who came closest to getting fragged by his fellow officers before the enlisted could get to him. But discipline held if barely. Though if anyone had anticipated his getting Chief of Staff before his rumored early retirement that might have changed. Not a popular leader. Fortunately his most radical ideas were still hemmed in by Congress, POTUS, allies, treaties, and other external factors beyond his grasp. 70.114.146.70 (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC) To give him credit McPeak did foresee the coming of drone recon and attack warfare. And if not for those pesky "laws of armed conflict" embodied in treaties that divide legitimate military from civilians...McPeak might have a point about contracting out home-based operations outside the combat theatre. Indeed some of his logistics ideas have come to pass in forward areas just outside combat theatre with acceptable results. However, his thought that contractors would automatically be more stable and experienced than career military maintenance was a bit laughable considering typical 2 years competitive contracting. Only part of workforce gets stolen from prior contract holder. Of course McPeak also referred to changes in government outside the military to better support military operations. Apparently his ideal included patriarchal long-term contracting and quite possibly the long-lived trusted government administration to back that arrangement.70.114.146.70 (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable references please[edit]

I remarked out several paragraphs, they need to be referenced from WP:RS, there's a higher standard for info, see abobe Bio on Living People link.Awotter (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Error, and a Note about Comment[edit]

It is the Cross of Gallantry with Palm, not the "Gallantry Cross." I know because I have one myself.

As to whether generals should get into politics, that is a valid question because generals never really "retire" and can be called up at any time military necessity requires it. Still, the U.S. has a long history of generals getting into politics (Grant, Ike, etc.), and many more recent officers of that rank (Zumwalt, Clark, etc.) have been politically outspoken. That said, it is entirely open to question whether McPeak (or any general officer) should be essentially trading on his military background in order to make it seem as if his political opinions have unique validity.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.152.227 (talk • contribs) 21:24, March 22, 2008

The article linked to the above medal refers to it both ways, it's not an editing error on this article page, that's the actual title used for the other article (Vietnam Gallantry Cross).Awotter (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scott Adler's allegation that McPeak is anti-Semitic[edit]

The article appears to be a defensive ploy designed to protect McPeak. There is a real problem in Obama's campaign. Most of his top advisors, including McPeak, hold views with which Obama claims to disagree. In the American Spectator, Robert Goldberg wrote:

In recent years McPeak has echoed the Mearsheimer-Walt view that American Middle East policy is being controlled by Jews at the expense of America's interests in the region. In a 2003 interview with the Oregonian, McPeak complained of that the "lack of playbook for getting Israelis and Palestinians together at...something other than a peace process....We need to get it fixed and only we have the authority with both sides to move them towards that. Everybody knows that."
The interviewer asked McPeak: "So where's the problem? State? White House?"
McPeak replied: "New York City. Miami. We have a large vote -- vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it.

If he said that, it's primitive anti-Semitism. The problem isn't forcing a peace settlement. The problem is the day after the peace treaty is signed, when the rockets still fly across the border. Scott Adler (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Israel lobby in the United States exists and one of the groups within it (there are a few groups, for example one of the components is Christian Zionists) is composed primarily of American Jews. The purpose of this lobbying that goes on is to influence U.S. foreign policy to be supportive of Israel regardless of whether it is in the US's national interest. (If being supportive of Israel was naturally in the US's interest, there would be no need for such a lobby to ensure US support for Israel.)
This type of lobbying is not unique to American Jews either, it is just standard operating procedure in the broader area of Diaspora politics in the United States.
(Note: I have changed the title of this section to reflect the fact that it is our own Scott Adler who is making the charge of antisemitism, it is not found in the sources he is referencing.) --John Bahrain (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is written to adhere to the standards of Wikipedia. Personally I'd rather not be involved with this guy he's such a loose cannon, but because he pisses off both sides equally apparently it requires keeping out the POV pushers from both sides.Awotter (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The American spectator isn't a neutral source —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meese (talk • contribs) 09:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


You are kidding me right? You are using the American Spectator as a SOURCE?!?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.193.233 (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McPeak's response in Foreign Affairs[edit]

Here: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080331faupdate87277/merrill-a-mcpeak/how-to-secure-israel.html

More than 30 years ago, ... I wrote an Foreign Affairs published an article now being circulated in the blogosphere as evidence of an alleged anti-Israel point of view. Some commentators reach farther, suggesting that since I have been an active supporter of Barack Obama's presidential bid he, too, is anti-Israel. Both these assertions fall flat after any objective reading of the historical record.

--John Bahrain (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes[edit]

Awotter removed some sections because he found the wording to be not appropriate. I agree that some of the wording was inappropriate, although I do not agree with the wholesale removal of those sections. I have added back those sections but without the inappropriate and unsourced characterizations. I have also, somewhat unrelated to Awotter's changes, modified the tone from "controversy" to "criticism", since really this is about people who have criticized his word and opinions.

Also, we are not yet included Obama's response not McPeak's response to the criticism, which should be done at some point. --John Bahrain (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be left out of the article is labels like "Christian Zionist" - "Zionist" - "Right wingers" - "Left wingers" etc. and etc. The views he holds and expressed are all accessible in the references and don't need to be framed as such, that's up to the reader to decide.Awotter (talk) 06:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "right wingers" isn't mentioned in the article, and I did not add that back. But the article is very clear about the other terminology. Here is a quote frmo the original American Spectator article by Goldberg:
In recent years McPeak has echoed the Mearsheimer-Walt view... (emphasis added by me)
Notice that in the original article, the phrase "Mearsheimer-Walt view" is linked to their article on "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", thus my linking to the less imflamatory Israel lobby in the United States is not a stretch, in fact, I am linking to something more mild. I linked to the Israel lobby in the United States article because McPeak was speaking prior to the publication of the M-W paper and thus it is obvious he wasn't referencing the paper specifically, but rather the idea of AIPAC and the pro-Israel lobby more generally.
There is also this sentence in the original American Spectator article:
McPeak also claims that a combination of Jews and Christian Zionists are manipulating U.S. policy in Iraq in dangerous and radical ways: "Let's say that one of your abiding concerns is the security of Israel as opposed to a purely American self-interest, then it would make sense to build a dozen or so bases in Iraq. Let's say you are a born-again Christian and you think that Armageddon and the rapture are about to happen any minute and what you want to do is retrace steps you think are laid out in Revelations, then it makes sense. So there are a number of scenarios here that could lead you in this direction. This is radical...." (emphasis added by me)
Notice that it is Goldberg that uses the phrase Christian Zionists in its interpretation of McPeak's words and Goldberg uses that term to introduce the same quote as I did in this Wikipedia article.
Thus I maintain that I am not adding my own interpretation, rather I am very accurately reflecting the context of Goldberg's criticism. --John Bahrain (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read the article, you are engaging in WP:OR by adding POV and words not used in the article in the context of Goldberg inferring McPeak holding similar views to a third party who isn't quoted, . It's up to the reader to review the reference and quotes and not for you to direct the interpretation. I'd also suggest from a review of your contributions that that seems to be a pattern.Awotter (talk)
Golberg mentions by name Christian Zionists and he directly linked to and mentions Mearsheimer and Walt's Israel lobby book saying that they are similar. I could only agree with you if you wanted me to change the link from Israel lobby in the United States to a link to The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. But to simply remove both is completely wrong because they are mentioned in the original piece by Goldberg. --John Bahrain (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awotter, just so you know, I moved the original FP article into the appropriate place in his career account. It isn't controversial since it is just an article that he wrote and hasn't been criticized for. You have now inserted it twice into this biographical account. --John Bahrain (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the solution is not to just simply quote McPeak's statements, but to quote from Goldberg since he is the one criticizing McPeak. Also, we should quote from Goldberg directly in order to avoid OR issues. Right now, we are calling McPeak controversial, but that isn't sourced. Specifically McPeak has been criticized by Goldberg (and possibly others, but we don't yet have additional sources of criticism.) It is important in cases like this to stick as close as possible to the supporting references. Right now, I don't believe this is being done as well as it can. --John Bahrain (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current coverage is a mess. The response by McPeak actually is in reference only to his Foreign Affairs article, but right now there is no criticism of it provided. There is only criticism of an interview he did. It may be best to separate out these two particular topics, quote the criticism of McPeak verbatim, and their respective responses (McPeak responded to the FP article, while Obama himself responded to the interview.) --John Bahrain (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Merrill McPeak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is garbage[edit]

According to this article, "...McPeak is best remembered by many current and since-retired Air Force personnel for the sweeping changes he made to the Air Force's service dress uniform, especially for commissioned officers."

Changes to the uniform? Really? McPeak is the service chief who, under Les Aspin, opened up fighter and bomber cockpits to women. This article does not make a single mention of that. I see no link to the Combat Exclusion Policy. Not so much as added down in the See Also section. Of the three women that McPeak introduced in that press conference on April 28th, 1993, as being the first to become USAF female fighter pilots, one today is a general officer. Another is a US Senator.

My own opinion is that this info is worth mentioning. Not just buried down in the body of the article, but right up at the top. This article has been in existence for more than 13 years. No one has thought to include this info? Either that, or for whatever reason it has been removed. Either way, this article is in dire need of being fixed. I see this to be among the worst of what Wikipedia has to offer. If this was a top quality article, then it would mention the more current activities McPeak has been involved in regarding something like the Lafayette Escadrille. As it is, I don't see this as meeting a minimum standard of acceptability.

McPeak's legacy runs much much deeper than a flash in the pan uniform change. He made sweeping permanent changes to the very core of the US Air Force. --Concord19 (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Go for it! Marquardtika (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Merrill_McPeak&oldid=1208939836"