Curious as to why you don't have much to say. I didn't hear any complaints at all on here about Bush's indecision/lack of complete interest in pursuing anything in Afghanistan. In fact, several of you here chided me for being more hawkish on AfPak.
The comments by Gerard and Neo are not surprising at all and just about the finest example of hypocrisy I've seen in awhile. Nowhere in their posts did I see what THEY would do, supported by logic and facts, in the president's position. Just more of the same "Obama is weak" meme which makes no sense at all considering he's put more effort, thought, and actual troops into Afghanistan then Bush ever did (8000 Marines from Camp LeJeune, 4000 Army from Ft Lewis and 5000 additional support troops). He has already increased troop levels in Afghanistan and now he's "weak" for not doing more? And how exactly does Neo know what the enemy thinks? Her last two paragraphs are completely uninformed, child like nonsense and are, sadly, yet another example of inner rage assertions...no logic...no facts. And quite an unhinged version of Vietnam, I might add. What exactly was indecisive about killing millions of people and bombing the beJesus out of that country in every possible way?
None of us are privy to the information that the NSC gets on a daily basis. So our opinions are not grounded in any sort of reality. My inclination has always been to send more troops but given what General Eikenberry has said and seen, I think coming up with a better plan might be a good idea. General Eikenberry is quite a problem for most of you in that a) He was in the military b) was the top guy in Afghanistan and c) he knows more than all of you. Put those two things together and, man, that really must suck for you guys.
Strangely, President Obama is also maligned for "thinking" and the left is smeared for supporting this. It's comforting to know that we shouldn't think at all in confronting what is currently the greatest threat to our civilization. Remember, too, that it was just dandy when George Bush sat there for 7 minutes and did nothing upon learning of the 9-11 attacks. I wonder what Neo would say if President Obama sat there for more than 10 seconds if there was another attack.
In fact, I wonder if Neo and others here support the symbolic attacks on President Obama (burning effigies, flags, posters etc) by the hirabis in AfPak. They are no different than the signs I saw at Michelle Bachmann's recent rally at the Capital. Actually, by your own assertions when Bush was president, protesters give aid and comfort to the enemy...making us look weak. Isn't that correct? Oh, that's right, it's not _______ when we do it!
Let's not forgot that it was President Bush that created this problem. I'm sure the cowards unable to take responsibility for their actions will come out of the woodwork now and scream BDS but this is a fact. By his own words, he didn't spend that much time on Afghanistan. Now, a rational, intelligent, and measured man has to deal with a giant pile of shit and you rip him for it. You should be thankful that we have a president that is going to think twice about sending more people who risk their lives to defend YOU.
"The comments by Gerard and Neo are not surprising at all and just about the finest example of hypocrisy I've seen in awhile."
Have you ever looked into a mirror, liar boy?
"So our opinions are not grounded in any sort of reality."
I'm still laughing out loud, teacher boy. When have your opinions ever been grounded in any sort of reality?
"Now, a rational, intelligent, and measured man has to deal with a giant pile of shit and you rip him for it. You should be thankful that we have a president that is going to think twice about sending more people who risk their lives to defend YOU."
See the above, little boy. You never learn, do you?
"Strangely, President Obama is also maligned for "thinking" and the left is smeared for supporting this".
Dude, he's been "thinking" (read "stalling")for over two fucking months. A lot can happen in theater in two months. Obama needs to shit or get off the pot. Either give the forces what they need, what they're asking for, or get the hell out. From what I've read, he's turned down EVERY option that's been given to him thus far and the troops there are still stuck in the "status quo" - apparently a bad thing here at home re healthcare, but just A-OK for the poor bastards getting shot up in Afghanistan.
If you can't make up your mind about such a relatively minor decision, then you clearly have no idea what you're doing in the strategic sense. If Obama doesn't have enough confidence in General McChrystal to grant his request without hesitation, he should either replace McChrystal or end the occupation and bring the troops home.
Personally, I suspect the troop request was a political CYA on McChrystal's part. He knows he can't win there because the US lacks sufficient loyalty from the famously fractious locals and he also knows Obama has zero desire to send more troops to Afghanistan, so the request for 40,000 troops is essentially McChrystal washing his hands of responsibility while hoping Obama has the balls to withdraw U.S. forces. I think he's miscalculated and that Obama will ultimately send the requested troops because, like most individuals with weak characters, Obama is terrified of being correctly perceived as weak. If the general is fortunate, Obama will send fewer troops and give him the ability to claim that he wasn't given the necessary forces required to do the job.
Marky Boy..... why oh why do you even open your mouth. There was a moment when I thought you were coming arround, but then you go and have to pour kerosene on a fire like this.
"Nowhere in their posts did I see what THEY would do, supported by logic and facts, in the president's position."
You want to know what i would do if I were the teleprompter n' chief? Given that I have absolutely no idea about war and how to manage one, I would first listen to my generals that did. And, when one of them tells me, and the others agree, that he needs more troops you do one of three things... of which, only two are respectable choices. You either give the man the troops he thinks he needs or you pull all troop out. The third choice is to do nothing, which is what is happening.
Let me put this another way for you Marky Boy.... why don't we air drop you in the middle of no where with a small fox hole to hide in. You are surrounded by 50 other men coming after you with automatic weapons firing at your position. They can't get you yet, but it is a very short time before they do. Are you honestly going to tell me you would want 2 months to decide what your nextr move would be in this situation?
Grow up man and stop provoking the local town folk.
I am still wondering what the left thinks Bush should have done in that "huge" 7 minutes after hearing about the 9/11 attack. Run around in little circles, screaming, flapping his arms like a loon? He was in a school classroom full of small children and didn't really have much if any real information as to what was going on. Why panic a bunch of little kids?
Don't get me wrong, I am in no way a Bush supporter. I think he was a mushy do-nothing kind of President who relied upon others to do his thinking for him, but to make a big deal out of the fact that it took 7 minutes for him to decide on a proper reaction to something as shocking as 9/11 is just stupid.
I notice Marky puts a lot of emphasis on the statements of Ambassador Eikenberry, a retired general.
Who is now a member of the State Department and therefore likely to be more focused on their concerns and their mindset than on the needs and concerns of the active duty military. Who is actually on the sidelines as far as military operations are concerned.
This is not meant to slam a man who holds a Combat Infantry Badge, simply an observation of the reality that he may have a different institutional view and agenda than, say the active duty General (McChrystal, who I noticed you never even allude to, let alone mention by name) who is actually in command and therefore responsible.
McChrystal is in the hotseat. Eikenberry isn't. All other things being equal I'd lean towards the requests of the General, not the Ambassador, when it comes to warfighting decisions.
Editorial comment: The role of the State Department is to prevent wars, and to negotiate the enemy's surrender. During a shooting war they need STFU and let the experts deal with the fighting.
I didn't hear any complaints at all on here about Bush's indecision/lack of complete interest in pursuing anything in Afghanistan.
This is bullshit of the highest order. (so, Par for the course for a Markadelphia comment!) Which you know, and you peddle because you're in fact, unable to think without this sort of hyper partisanship.
Bush wasn't indecisive, nor did he lack interest. As I've explained to you several times, and you allowed to pass without comment, it's trivial to illustrate that the MMoorvian insults by way of analysis is incredibly flawed. There's a vast difference between making a choice you don't like, and being indecisive. Oh, wait, let me guess. You don't know what "indecisive" means.
Bush pursued a specific strategy in Afghanistan. It's possible to disagree with it with factual backing (but you've never demonstrated the intellectual chops to actually do it). 7 years ago the situation was radically different than it is now, something you keep ignoring. Situations change. Reactions change. You don't, you repeat the same discredited lines, over, and over.
The Bush plan was changing to deal with that, and they left Obama specific details as to their plans and intents. Obama repaid them by claiming they did no such thing, and in fact, well, sitting on his hands for almost a year with no announcement of his intentions. He's specifically shunned the man he named to the post to deal with it, something you damn sure can't accuse Bush of ever doing.
In fact, several of you here chided me for being more hawkish on AfPak.
No, we chided you for being ignorant and/or hypocritical. When Obama was running, he couldn't talk up military presence in Afghanistan and invading Pakistan and essentially declaring war on them. The actual likelihood of this was so low as to be laughable, which we told you, and you repeated Obama's campaign pronouncements verbatim. You might want to at least admit that we were right there, and Obama's campaign claims were worth that of a politician prior to election, and that we correctly accessed the likely outcome.
Just more of the same "Obama is weak" meme which makes no sense at all considering
... His constant capitulation to opponents and insult and damage to allies?
he's put more effort, thought, and actual troops into Afghanistan then Bush ever did
See, you say Neo-neocon can't read people's minds, and then you insist that you can. (Even though as just reminded, you were totally wrong about Obama's claims during his campaign.)
He has already increased troop levels in Afghanistan and now he's "weak" for not doing more?
Yes. Merely adding troops blindly isn't enough. Though you hate the military and think little of them, they're not interchangable, and they only proceed with what they're allowed to do - and Obama's been dodging their commander instead of telling him what his mission is.
And quite an unhinged version of Vietnam, I might add.
Says the guy who can't even get casualties into the same order of magnitude of reality?
What exactly was indecisive about killing millions of people and bombing the beJesus out of [Vietnam] in every possible way?
...
What exactly was indecisive about a policy with no clear goal, no timeline, hamstrung military, and political showings?
Are you serious? I'd ask that surely you didn't mean that, but sadly, I know you did.
Man, one day you will finally hit the bottom of your own stupidity, but I don't know how far you have to go to get there. You think that merely sending in troops/dropping bombs is decisive? Again, I think we're demonstrating yet again, you don't know the meanings of the words you're using.
None of us are privy to the information that the NSC gets on a daily basis.
Hey, wait, so now that The Won is in there you think so?
Remember, too, that it was just dandy when George Bush sat there for 7 minutes and did nothing upon learning of the 9-11 attacks.
You say this repeatedly, but you have never explained what phone booth he should have changed into SuperMan. It's a slanderous, stupid argument, worthy only of you and Michael Moore. Oh, wait.
I wonder what Neo would say if President Obama sat there for more than 10 seconds if there was another attack.
He's been President almost 11 months. He's still not decided. Maybe it's time to stop with the stupid 7 minutes of not panicking the kids.
Let's not forgot that it was President Bush that created this problem.
Created this problem? No, dumbass, you've got to get back to Carter for "creating this problem".
Now, a rational, intelligent, and measured man has to deal with a giant pile of shit and you rip him for it.
It's part of the pay grade for the job he decided to run for.
And yes, we'll rip him for doing a bad job of it and trying to pass the buck to his subordinates.
Kevin S., I suggest that you take a look at ALL of the information that is kicking around the Pentagon right now. The "troops" as you put it are of many opinions and they don't just share McCrystal's views.
"he also knows Obama has zero desire to send more troops to Afghanistan"
If that's the case, Sara, then why did he send 17K more? And why hasn't he declared a definitive "No" yet? Whatever he does, though, I'm sure you will immediately hate it. And that includes killing bin Laden, Zawahari or any sort of US victory.
"I would first listen to my generals that did."
Does that include Eikenberry? And what of the rest of the generals not commonly heard about it in the "liberal" media?"
"Are you honestly going to tell me you would want 2 months to decide what your nextr move would be in this situation?"
Yes. How about six months if it meant doing the job right? And what if that time was spent so well that the mission is more of a success? Will you give him credit? I doubt it.
"We're ripping him because he's NOT dealing with it."
So, all the NSC meetings, the extra troops he sent over in February, Eikenberry....that's not dealing with it? And since when did you become Rahm Emmanuel?
"Bush pursued a specific strategy in Afghanistan."
Sorry, Unix. I couldn't read past that line. My eyes were filled up with tears of laughter.
Pretty weak responses from most of you. I have to say I'm pretty disappointed. I really didn't expect much, though, since you really don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to this debate. What's going to happen when he does make a decision and (gasp!) might actually succeed at it? One shudders at the thought of a successful military mission carried out by President Obama. I can see the sleepless nights ahead in your future:)
The role of the State Department is to prevent wars, and to negotiate the enemy's surrender. During a shooting war they need STFU and let the experts deal with the fighting.
Yeah, and equally, once the shooting is done, it is the military's turn to STFU and let the politicians/diplomats make a hash of things (as they are wont to do).
So exactly where are we in Afghanistan? Still an active war, or counter-insurgency support to the current "govt"? I'm not asking that facetiously, I don't know, and I doubt anyone with power does either. We are in yet another operation where victory is indecipherable.
"... I suggest that you take a look at ALL of the information that is kicking around the Pentagon right now. The "troops" as you put it are of many opinions and they don't just share McCrystal's views."
Just making shit up again, aren't you? You have no way of finding this out. Why do you insult our intelligence yet again, liar boy?
"And why hasn't he declared a definitive "No" yet?"
Because he can't make up his mind. Remember, he voted "present" 135 times as an Illinois State Senator. He is not a leader.
"Whatever he does, though, I'm sure you will immediately hate it. And that includes killing bin Laden, Zawahari or any sort of US victory."
Yeah, Sarah just hates it when our enemies die, doesn't she? Little boy, are you ever going to grow up?
"How about six months if it meant doing the job right? And what if that time was spent so well that the mission is more of a success?"
How about giving the initiative to the enemy? And what if spending six months does that, so the mission is more of a failure?
Teacher boy, don't try to act as if you are skilled in the operational art. You don't even know what it is.
"I really didn't expect much, though, since you really don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to this debate."
There you go again, with your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. You simply assert that the other side is what you don't like being accused of.
My brother is an Army Captain, Engineer Corps. He's about to begin training for deployment to Afghanistan.
As of a couple of weeks ago, he said the general feeling of the Army personnel he knows is in various states of being pissed off at the way Obama has been mishandling the situation. Many of them want to get there, now, to do their part and support the Army.
He's miffed because the Pentagon still has him lined up for a tour, but canceled his original orders to train Afghan troops (something he did in Iraq during his tour there) and haven't given him new ones.
Marxy is wrong, as usual, and like a true leftist, is putting words in the troops mouths and infantilizing them.
Wow, this guy will literally be the very last defender of Obama. A dead ender to the last. Even the Left is quickly tiring of the guy.
Seriously, what is so difficult about this decision?
Two choices. Pick one.
1.) Pull the troops out.
2.) Increase the troop strength to the level that his hand picked general determined was necessary.
Both choices fraught with risk. There are valid arguments for either one.
My guess is that he will try to split the difference and send half the troops that were requested.
Trying to make a third choice when there are only two to make never works.
Yosemite, thank God you aren't in charge. We had eight years of someone who thought the world was black and white and look where it got us.
Russell, nice try on the "I know someone" rag. People said the same thing about Bush.
DJ, there are a variety of opinions on what should be done in AFPak. Avoid the MSM (includes the right wing media) and you can find quite a bit from reliable sources.
During Pericles rule, he wanted to punish Megara for some slight to Athens.
He had two choices, one to invade, the other to leave them alone. Invading them would break the treaty between Athens and Sparta and start a war.
In 432 BC, he came up with a third way, the Megarian decree, which was in effect a trade embargo.
It did hurt Megara and sent out a signal to the rest of the Greece that Athens could hurt a state without invasion.
Alas, the Spartans used the degree as a reason to start the Peloponnesian war. The war destroyed the Athenian Empire and Athens never fully recovered. It also seems probable that Phillip II of Macedon was able to conquer Greece because of the damage the Peloponnesian war did to the Greeks.
Obama isn't worthy to carry Pericles' sandals. I doubt any third way Obama can come up with would work any better than Pericles'.
Yosemite Sam has the right of it, creating a third way doesn't work the way you intended.
"Bush pursued a specific strategy in Afghanistan."
Sorry, Unix. I couldn't read past that line. My eyes were filled up with tears of laughter.
Laugh if you want, it demonstrates how ignorant you are. (Vietnam? A decisive conflict? And you're laughing at anybody else?) "Shame" is another concept you lack.
There's an old saying about tactics and logistics. It's incredibly true. And it's one you'd never possibly understand.
You don't have enough ability to follow the discussions we've had prior - where you wanted to rush in 80 thousand troops who would have starved to surround Tora Bora where we might have had Osama cornered.
Yes, we know he was there now, but we, Bush, nobody knew that for certain then. As you seem to understand that Obama's decisions aren't easy ones. But they're his. They're made with imperfect information, with people and situations that are fluid, and yes, you sneeringly made much fun of Bush for dealing with these situations, and are objecting when Obama freezes for months, makes excuses (what does the election have to do with our troop numbers or direction?)
Bush did have a strategy, and it worked wonderfully - for the time. It wasn't a single-step solution. This isn't the movies, and shooting the Death Star reactor doesn't fix everything magically.
You can disagree with Bush's strategy, but what proves you a contemptible fool is that you argue with his success. Remember the Brutal Afghan Winter that was going to strand us like the British and Russians?
8 years overdue now.
Bush succeeded - at his goal to destroy Al Queda's base, to demolish the control of the Taliban. There was one of a line of goals and achievements, that were interlocked with what military capacity we have, what military capacity we can use, and the political sphere. The situation had changed in Afghanistan, that's true. (In large part due to your bureaucrats (who are registered Democrat 85% of the time) in the State Department and DEA.)
In large part due to the successes in Iraq.
But he succeeded at the time. Brilliantly. Before you laugh too much more, find a Russian vet from the '80's occupation and ask him about his opinion.
Your automatic sneering of anything Bush does, and automatic cheering of anything Obama [doesn't do] demonstrates why you've a childish mentality.
Bush did have a strategy, and a plan, and a vision. I might not agree with it, but I accept that he had one.
Have you tried to find out what the word "decisive" (and it's contra "indecisive") mean yet? It's obvious you haven't, but have you tried?
Yes, you crying with Juan or Jose or whoever certainly did it much better.
Russell: you don't have the ability to pull that off. You actually gave more detail. And didn't talk about them getting SPIT on and being ENSLAVED in the military! You totally missed the emotional overload and gave facts instead!
I'm sorry! All! Weep for Javier! Forced to work at a job for mere wages! Only able to see his family for mere hours, and weekends.
OH, JAVIER! Don't weep for me, Javier, we are weeping for you you poor, enslaved soul with the too-small house and the aged car with the torn... seats... Oh, I can't go on! It's too.. unbearable! If only someone Just Like Al Queda Could put him out of his misery! Oh! Hope! Change!
I'd disagee with Mr. Vanderleuns assessment that the likes of Obama has not been seen in Politics before.
Kevins comment that Britain is a petri dish for what happens in a fully socialised, left wing, right on, politically correct State run by ("Ex") Marksist/Leninist/Trotskyite people who never got out of the University Students bar is entirely correct.
For a look at what will (hopefully NOT) be the future of the US over the next 4 to 10 years, kindly examine the career and behavior of Mr Tony Blair.
Been there since 1997, got the T Shirt, wore it out and washed the toilet floor with it long since ..
The grinning jackanapes Blair is currently desperately trying to resurrect his bid for the unelected and dictatorial position of President of the European Union (A.K.A. The United States of Europe, EUSSR etc.).
Just because the British people kicked him out of office doesn't mean that he won't be back as the supreme overlord of the EU and inflict more of the same on the Country.
As a parallel, I'd say that Obama is probably looking to head the UN when he is finished as President. I'll bet ANYONE $10 to a pinch of pigs**t that that's what he's got his sights on .. World Government via the UN? Why not?
The dithering and consequent demoralisation of the Armed Forces is (surprise, surprise)exactly in line with Lenins tenets - The Armed Forces must be demoralised and rendered incapable of functioning effectively (including the Police).
The "troops" as you put it are of many opinions and they don't just share McCrystal's views.
"I would first listen to my generals that did."
Does that include Eikenberry?
No offense Mark, but this suggests to me that trying to explain any concept having to do with military service to you (and expecting you to actually understand it) is like trying to explain something to a doorknob. The above suggests to me that you are genuinely incapable of grasping the concepts involved.
But I'm going to try, anyway:
they don't just share McCrystal's views.
So what? Is McChrystal in command or isn't he? The idea of "better a poor commander than a divided command" goes back beyond Alexander the Great. No one gives a shit what anyone else's opinion is, they aren't in the hotseat.
Does that include Eikenberry?
No, it does not. Eikenberry is not in line of command, he is an advisor.
McChrystal was sent there with the authority of theatre command. He has been on the ground with the troops to a much greater degree than any other American with the authority to make such assessments.
It's a simple decision for any military officer. When people are dying, doing anything constructive right now does more good than thinking of the perfect response hours after you lost the battle.
You have put someone on the ground to assess the situation. They have come back, been debriefed, you have a sitrep and his recommendations. Now you either trust his sitrep and his recommendations, or you trust his sitrep and it sparks an entirely new idea which you then hammer out the operational details of with him, or you do not trust his sitrep and/or his recommendations so you replace him with someone whose judgement you do trust.
It's a hard decision, but not a complicated one. The problem is that it's a decision that requires courage.
But one thing the greenest, most still-wet-new officer knows is that you do not sit on your hands and dither when your people are out there in the crosshairs. Your career will end if you do it for minutes, much less months.
You give people here grief over "giving Bush a pass" for seven whole minutes when he didn't have any solid information. Are you seriously telling me no one has a right to gripe over Obama not making up his mind for 100,000 minutes when he has his information already?
"DJ, there are a variety of opinions on what should be done in AFPak. Avoid the MSM (includes the right wing media) and you can find quite a bit from reliable sources."
Golly, teacher boy, you sound like, so totally safistakated, and stuff.
I note that you have not cited any sources, much less reliable sources, such that we can verify your vomitus about who thinks what. Your behavior is indistinguishable from making shit up and is just as reliable.
Markadaffya, when you give a student a test with a true/false answer do you give credit to a student who says neither? [Oh, if he answers this is going to be fun]
YS put forth a clear, simple and unambiguous choice that the President must make. He also noted that good arguments could be made for either case, and you throw Bush at him? If you don't have something even half-way intelligent to say, do everyone including yourself a favor, and say nothing.
Remember, too, that it was just dandy when George Bush sat there for 7 minutes and did nothing upon learning of the 9-11 attacks.
Well, golly, let's look at this from the other angle.
If it was inexcusable for Bush to not have By God Done Something within seconds of hearing there's been some sort of attack on American civilians, why is Obama's behavior justified?
"He is trying to find a way to not do anything and do something on the matter at the same time."
Obamateur doesn't know what to do but he wants credit for having done it. Markaphasia gives it to him and wants credit from us for having given it to him.
"what other choices does he have in Afghanistan besides the two I indicated?"
Well, the central problem as I see it is that the government we have supported for the last eight years is corrupt. This needs to change. Keeping troops there or pulling them out (your two choices) will not assist in this endeavor. Do we just pay people off like we did in Iraq? Eikenberry is clued in on many of the problems in the country and we should follow his lead.
From the military side, we need more human intelligence. We just don't have enough. There needs to be a national consensus on our part to learn as much as we can about AFPak and use that to our advantage. We need people who know the region infiltrating the ranks of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We don't have much of that now and we need more. Understand, this is hard for me to say because a big part of me just wants to bomb the shit out of large areas of Pakistan. But that would accomplish nothing. See also my Patraeus quote below regarding counter insurgency.
"Dead terrorists and lower taxes?"
bin Laden/Zawahari still alive and economy in shambles is a more accurate description of reality.
"I offered his perspective as a first hand account..."
"'If you bring more troops it will speed up results, but it can be done with what we have,' says US Army Lt. Gabe Lamois of Alexandria, Va., echoing the common sentiment here in the river valley.
A surge in US troops could even hinder another goal here, of putting an Afghan face on security efforts, some soldiers point out."
See below for another soldier's point of view.
GOF, one thing I did not see in your comment is the fact that the military is commanded by civilian leadership. President Obama is in charge of the military and thus, his ambassador to Afghanistan, Gen Eikenberry, is part of that decision making process. It sounds to me like you would rather have our country run by the military. Am I wrong? I hope so.
"you have not cited any sources"
See the above link, DJ. But, since you are extra special.
"The time President Barack Obama is taking to nail down the strategy in Afghanistan is time well spent, the commander of U.S. Central Command said today.
Army Gen. David H. Petraeus spoke at the Navy Memorial here as part of the American Veterans Center Annual Conference. He based his words not only on his current experiences, he said, but also on his experiences as the commander in Iraq.
'The real key in Iraq was the surge of ideas, not just the surge of troops,' Petraeus said. 'Yes, the 30,000 additional troops that ended up being deployed during the surge enabled us to … implement time-honored counterinsurgency concepts more effectively and more rapidly than we could have.'
Americans going to the country must understand the local customs and culture and the local power structures. 'We are trying to help Afghanistan re-establish traditional ruling structures: the traditional [religious leaders], the traditional tribal leaders, who in many areas have been pushed aside, or killed, or run off by the Taliban or the more extreme leaders,' he said.
So, DJ, by my count I have the formal General in charge of Afghanistan, the current commander of CentCom and troops on the ground in Afghanistan. Would you like some more sources?
Come on people. Democrats are great at running wars. Just take a look at Nam.
Democrats gave us "rules of engagement". A fantastic way to prolong violence and suffering.
The biggest war criminal of modern times was a democrat---Lyndon Johnson. From my personal observations, at least 20% of the casualties on BOTH sides of the Nam war were directly attributable to LBJ and Robert Strange McNamara policies.
My fear now is that this Obama will get all of us killed. This boy is a complete incompetent.
So?
See, Mark, this is why we laugh at you. You've now set the bar at 100% or 0%. Pass/Fail. Either you kill ALL the terrorists (that you can name) or you fail. You fail to note all the terrorists who are now dead. The networks that have been uprooted, the jihadi's who won't be wanting to shoot up a mall in your home town ... because they were shot by a US or allied serviceperson.
What task can you find that Obama completes 100%?
Not 95, but 100%. That is your measurement. If we can name any part that he doesn't succeed at, then he fails! By your measurement!
and economy in shambles is a more accurate description of reality.
Which has what to do with tax cuts? More money flowed into the Treasury.
The economy in shambles, as a result of what, exactly? Oh, yes. The nice, "progressive" or liberal, or whatever you want to call it subsidization of the housing market for people who were poor risks.
So, have we fixed it? Oh, no, we're still doing the same thing, even more so.
Thus you've "owned" yourself. Again.
Oh, and after the real estate crash and since the start of the current Administration we've demonized small business, promised to regulate more, add more fees, taxes, penalties, started trade wars, borrowed so heavily that the Bush deficit seems minor...
Again, not something you really want to be bringing up. But you're happily ignorant of anything other than your slander of the moment. You can in one hand condemn the lack of US jobs, and in the other, insist on huge tangled and arbitrary regulatory webs for environmental issues, personnel, capital...
President Obama is in charge of the military and thus, his ambassador to Afghanistan, Gen Eikenberry, is part of that decision making process.
No, he's not. I don't think you really want to get into a pissing match.. with... uh, vets.
What the hell am I saying? Of course you do. You don't have the sense to understand how much you don't understand, of course you want to argue with servicepeople about how the military works and lecture them.
Sorry, Ralph, it's getting late. You working the weekend?
Um....what? Unix, are you saying that President Obama is not charge of the military? Or that the former commander of the operation in Afghanistan (2 years), now ambassador to said country (i.e. owns your ass like a cheap whore), is not part of the decision making process?
"Yes, Mark, we would like more sources."
Adam, I'd like to see you respond to these two. And you are done with the shit giving regarding my "lack" of responsiveness. 16 words....sheesh.
Unix, are you saying that President Obama is not charge of the military? Or that the former commander of the operation in Afghanistan (2 years), now ambassador to said country (i.e. owns your ass like a cheap whore), is not part of the decision making process?
While I admit there's a possibility it wasn't clear, there's a much more likely possibility.
No, the ambassador is not in the chain of command. GOF already pointed that out.
"As part of the decision making process" is, though strained, possible, but you are using "decision making process" to be synonymous with "chain of command".
They're not.
Apologies for any confusion I engendered there.
(i.e. owns your ass like a cheap whore)
Only Verbatim Boy (who doesn't know that 22 is more than 15, or that a job isn't slavery, nor is a mortgage), would want to be tossing around slanders like that.
But at least if my ass was owned like a cheap whore (which it's not, as noted above, you hadn't proven any point, and it's just par for your course that you thought you did) I could get some help and money from ACORN.
Compare:
Markadelphia: I am not advocating seizing large quantities of cash from the most wealthy of this country.
Markadelphia: They pissed it away ... They used to to pay their CEOs insane sums of money for failing and invested it in unicorn farts. I think we have seen what they do with breaks and I think they should have less of them.
Only one of those can be true.
And you are done with the shit giving regarding my "lack" of responsiveness.
Suck it up, Verbatim Boy. Your bed. You made it. You get to lie in it. Or you've got a lot of threads to get back active in.
Notice all those threads above, in just this one URL that you've left dangling?
Hell, how about you correct even ONE of your slanders of Bush you've made in this thread. One. Should be easy enough for you to admit it, right?
...
I'll be nice and not note what people said when people who worked for Bush opined on his plans and efforts. Seems that made them unreliable, to some people.
By the way, Mark, adding to things you'll run away from...
Neo-neocon said: That was a huge part of the calculation by the enemy in Vietnam, and it worked very well for them. Vietam was a war of attrition; the enemies there calculated that they had more tenacity than we did, and they were correct.
What, exactly, (which means to be specific, which means to explain what) is "unhinged" about that?
Marky Boy, you stupid fucking turd, don't you ever presume to know the thoughts of the military. Ever. You're nothing but a fucking tool, a dipshit who's been used and doesn't even know it. Obama has done nothing in Afghanistan, and the military doesn't seem much good coming from the White House. General McChrystal has put out his plan, and Obama has ignored it, because Obama, like you, is a fucking retarded piece of shit who is so mentally diseased with Leftism that you can't even begin to think logically.
So take it from this Soldier, Marky Boy - you're a clueless fuck, and you don't have the right to even think about what the military wants. YOU are part of the problem, Marky. Not the solution.
"And you are done with the shit giving regarding my "lack" of responsiveness. "
No, I'm not, you motherfucker, and here's why:
I've watched you, for the last two fucking years, run from thread after thread.
I've engaged you on your own blog and you've run away.
I've engaged your friends and fellow bullshitters on your own blog, and they've run away.
And I've watched, again and again, as you have lied, misled, and thrown down complete nonsensical shit here and been outright mocked and proven wrong about it.
You keep coming back, and you never back up your statements.
So, yes, supposing you could even prove *one* of your statements wrong, it would never excuse the massive amounts of lies and bullshit you've thrown down here.
From http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1104/p08s04-wosc.html
'"The Taliban is not scared of the Afghan Army or Afghan police because we don't have heavy weapons. But there's enough US soldiers here to make us safe," says Raheem Hamdard, an Afghan policeman.'
And that was what my brother was going to help change. He was going to help train the Afghan Army to become dangerous to the Taliban until Obama but the brakes on it by his indecision.
"ut for many of the soldiers at Combat Outpost Penich, top commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal's stark warning – to send more troops or risk failure – sounds too dire. At least in the eastern Kunar River Valley, where their company-sized force (about 100 soldiers) is posted, they say the challenges aren't quite so insurmountable. Yes, they say, major results may take time, and soldiers here face difficult living and working conditions, but they say they can get the job done."
Um,a general like McChrystal sees more than just one small outpost. The 100 troops there maybe able to handle what they have, but that doesn't speak for the rest of the country.
My previous statement still stands, you are a moron. Further more, you still have no way of assessing and evaluating information that hasn't been predigested for you.
Although, I did look deep into my shriveled, black lump of a heart, and I am actually starting to pity Marxy. Being so wrong so often and so long must really be a hard burden to bear.
And yet no comment about my link and quote from General Patraeus? Does he see more than "one small outpost?" That link was from the defense department web site. I guess they don't know anything and secretly hate President Obama for his pinko faggotiness.
"So take it from this Soldier, Marky Boy - you're a clueless fuck, and you don't have the right to even think about what the military wants. YOU are part of the problem, Marky. Not the solution."
Well, you are correct. I don't have the right but the people I listed above do. In fact, if you are a soldier presently in the military then President Obama is YOUR supreme commander. If he says jump, you say how high? Am I right?
So,while you are busy ripping me I'm going to ponder how much that sucks for you.
Oh, and you've got a fine sense of irony to try and call anyone here out for abandoning threads. I counted no less than 10 you've already dropped. In this one URL. Then I ran out of fingers.
In fact, if you are a soldier presently in the military then President Obama is YOUR supreme commander. If he says jump, you say how high? Am I right?
So,while you are busy ripping me I'm going to ponder how much that sucks for you.
Thank you Mark, for your constant state of doltishness.
If he says jump, you say how high? Am I right?
Speaking for those in the service, no, not really. But I suppose someone as classless as the Democrats keep nominating might try that. Obviously you have no problem with it.
So,while you are busy ripping me I'm going to ponder how much that sucks for you.
Gods of the machine abend, you are a clueless dolt.
While you're enjoying the idea of torturing those sworn to protect you who you disagree with, you might want to just think about what would happen if they were to take exception to you and yours sneering disdain. There are many historical examples of exactly that. History? That class you slept through? Oh well...
Luckily for those of us who have exceeded a elementary school level of pique, they're far better people than you are.
"Kevin S., I suggest that you take a look at ALL of the information that is kicking around the Pentagon right now."
I'm not privy to ALL the information kicking around the Pentagon, any more than you are.
"The "troops" as you put it are of many opinions and they don't just share McCrystal's views."
So what? The military is not a democracy, nor is it a committee. McChrystal's the commander.
"So, all the NSC meetings, the extra troops he sent over in February, Eikenberry....that's not dealing with it?"
Um, no. Talking is not doing. You can have all the committee meetings and focus groups in the world, but they will all add up to a puddle of bunny piss if you don't actually IMPLEMENT something.
El presidente has been apprised of a problem in theater, has turned down ALL options offered to him, and has refused TO MAKE A DECISION. Not for seven minutes, BUT FOR OVER TWO MONTHS.
This is serious stuff, Markadelphia.
Your guy's in over his head - he's to arrogant to admit it, and you're too stupid to realize it.
Is Obama's specific error about Hirohito important? Not really; it's quite minor. But it's another indication of Obama's view of history: a lot of dramatic images (or, as he said, "notions") and very little detail or understanding of what's going on, or the need to do so. And I suspect Obama is ignorant in the worst way: he's ignorant of the extent of his ignorance. Or perhaps he's not ignorant at all, but purposely twisting the truth. Or maybe each, at different times.
This tendency of Obama's has been in evidence in many of his speeches: his summary of the Cold War, which he got entirely wrong. His Cairo address to the Muslim world on their history and that of the West, in which "almost every one of his references was either misleading or incomplete." On the campaign trail, when he showed astounding historical ignorance (or prevarication; take your choice) in his mischaracterization of the Berlin airlift.
Obama's errors are not random; they fit a certain pattern:
...
Obama's reluctance to pursue victory in Afghanistan is not just about that country and the peculiar challenges of combat there. Obama is quite explicit about that. In fact, he says he is "always worried" [emphasis mine] about using the "v" word because of the negative associations it conjures up in his mind: Hirohito coming down to sign a surrender to MacArthur.
Why that image (which never occurred in reality) would be so highly negative to Obama is a bit unclear; after all, wouldn't it represent the end of a long war and our victory over an aggressive enemy, as well as the beginning of that nation's rebirth and rebuilding under a democratic system? And note that Hirohito was allowed to live out the rest of his natural days in peace, continuing to reign over the new Japan until dying in his late 80s in 1989.
So, what might Obama find so terrible about all of that? ... to what he sees as the humiliation ("coming down") of a non-white (in this case, an Asian) at the hands of a white American ... but to unconditionally surrender, and then to have his country occupied by the morally despicable US.
That is what American victory means to Obama. And he's determined to avoid it.
And on contrast, we probably should in all fairness bring up the real bombshell today.
The decision to move Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York and try him in the criminal justice system.
http://blog.american.com/?p=7158
Trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian court will be an intelligence bonanza for al Qaeda, tie up our courts for years on issues best left to the president and Congress, and further cripple our intelligence agencies’ efforts to fight terrorists abroad.
KSM and his co-defendants will have all of the benefits and rights that the U.S. Constitution accords those who live here, most importantly the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it was obtained.
Arrested spies commonly use this right to get a better deal out of the government,...
This is no idle prediction. All one has to do is look at what happened in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the twentieth hijacker who was captured before 9/11 in the United States—his desire to learn how to take off but not land jetliners while at flight school tipped off the FBI. His trial never reached a single proceeding before a jury, and he tied up the court in knots for four years ...
It would be too politically explosive for Obama/Holder to do the dirty work of charging Bush administration officials; but as new revelations from investigations and declassifications are churned out, ... Thus, administration cooperation gives Obama's base the reckoning it demands but Obama gets to deny responsibility for any actual prosecutions.
Today's announcement that KSM and other top al-Qaeda terrorists will be transferred to Manhattan federal court for civilian trials neatly fits this hidden agenda. Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials. They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses — intelligence sources — must expose themselves and their secrets.
... KSM and his confederates wanted to plead guilty and have their martyrs' execution last December, when they were being handled by military commission.... The Obama administration could still accommodate them. After all, the president has not pulled the plug on all military commissions: Holder is going to announce at least one commission trial (for Nashiri, the Cole bomber) today.
Moreover, KSM has no defense. He was under American indictment for terrorism for years before there ever was a 9/11, and he can't help himself but brag about the atrocities he and his fellow barbarians have carried out.
So: We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America. Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it. The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts. And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.
....
I'm sure Mark sneers at these predictions (by men who know the criminal justice system well, and unlike The Won, have actually argued - and won - cases.)
But I know which way I'm betting. Too bad Mark won't put his money where his mouth is - we'd be rich.
"In fact, if you are a soldier presently in the military then President Obama is YOUR supreme commander. If he says jump, you say how high? Am I right?"
Saying "how high" when the "Supreme Commander" says "jump" sounds more like your fantasy, son, not to mention being a more apt description of the Milice de Volontaires de la Sécurité Nationale than the U.S. armed forces. Perhaps you don't understand the difference; perhaps you'd prefer the MVSN.
No, dipshit, you've simply done what you should have done without having to be kicked in the ass first.
We've been trying for two and half long, frustrating years to get you to understand that making uncorroborated (look it up, teacher boy) statements is indistinguishable from making shit up, that if you want people to believe what you say is true, then you should provide evidence that people can verify on their own. You are the slowest learner I have ever had contact with, but you have now actually shown very slight evidence of learning this.
Now, try doing it without having to be prodded.
"Would you like some more sources?"
Of course we would.
The next thing for you to learn is what I've been telling you all during those same two and half years. The truth cannot be contrary to observable fact. Thus, you should never stop gathering evidence and testing the truth against it.
You behave like a one-trick pony; you stop looking when you find one fact that supports what you believe and then you ignore all the facts you stumbled over in the process that don't. So, yes, by all means, keep looking and show us, but show us all the facts, not just the pretty ones.
"Or that the former commander of the operation in Afghanistan ... is not part of the decision making process?"
That's right, he is not.
Teacher boy, you don't know what you don't know about how the military works. Decision making in the military is not done by committee. Decisions in the military are made by those who have command authority. Advisors to the President, regardless of their history, do not have command authority. They can make suggestions to the President, but they cannot make decisions that have binding authority over others.
"... now ambassador to said country ... is not part of the decision making process?"
Yet again, you don't know what you don't know.
Ambassadors to foreign countries are figureheads. Their job is to carry messages to and from the President and to formally represent the President as his agent. They are not in the chain of command and they do not have command authority.
The State Department runs embassies through its permanent staff, who are career professions and are highly trained for the job. Ambassadorships are political perks, i.e. rewards for contributors and such, and are generally very short term in nature. Ambassadors are trained in the protocols of receptions and photo ops, but little else.
Now, how do I know this? My former employer served as one. He could not even come and go as he pleased because he was under strict travel orders issued by the State Department. For a wealthy person who owned and ran his own business, this was intolerable. He served for only a bit over two years because he could not tolerate being a puppet. He was not a commanding officer, he was not a decision maker, and he was not an advisor; he was a gopher in a pretty suit.
Well, the central problem as I see it is that the government we have supported for the last eight years is corrupt. This needs to change.
I'm not going to claim to be "up on" Afghan politics, but okay, so stipulated.
Keeping troops there or pulling them out (your two choices) will not assist in this endeavor.
Not directly, no. What they do accomplish is to have an armed, unified force in the area basically saying "You guys don't get to use things that go 'bang' in your decision making process until we leave. Now go and work out yer issues." In other words, it is a stabilizing force much more often than not.
Does it increase the danger to the people over there (ours and theirs)? Ours, of course it does. But that's still an improvement over those who are there being 'hung out to dry'. Support them or pull them out, anything in the middle increases casualties without increasing effectiveness.
Theirs? In some ways yes, in others no. The overall stabilizing effect increases overall safety. But of course, this makes those whose purpose is chaos go to yet greater lengths. This is not exactly news, either.
Eikenberry is clued in on many of the problems in the country and we should follow his lead.
That's not up to you or me. Eikenberry is welcome to advise the President (as I'm sure he does, that's his job after all) and the President is welcome to listen to him or not. But as others have pointed out better than me (sorry, I didn't realize it was necessary), the only two people with command authority in this process are President Obama and Gen. McChrystal. Eikenberry can be, and is, part of the information gathering process. He is not, nor can he be, part of the chain of command.
From the military side, we need more human intelligence. We just don't have enough. There needs to be a national consensus on our part to learn as much as we can about AFPak and use that to our advantage. We need people who know the region infiltrating the ranks of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We don't have much of that now and we need more.
I'm glad you understand that part. Do you understand that increasing the size of the force in the area not only increases the basic stabilizing effect of a military "police action" presence, it also provides an even larger crowd of "rather new to the area" people for those doing intel gathering to hide among?
GOF, one thing I did not see in your comment is the fact that the military is commanded by civilian leadership. President Obama is in charge of the military and thus, his ambassador to Afghanistan, Gen Eikenberry, is part of that decision making process.
See above.
It sounds to me like you would rather have our country run by the military. Am I wrong? I hope so.
Yes, you are wrong, and I'm very glad you are. What I'm saying is that the President's blazing ignorance of what the military is for and how they work is apparent in his decision making process. While Eikenberry should be ready to advise him, he has no command authority and should know it.
A Marine Corps Lt. Colonel once told me the secret of successful command lay in "the 3 D's":
Dictate
Delegate
Disappear
In other words, if you are the President, and therefore Commanding Officer Present in any possible variation on this theme, you have gotten your information, from McChrystal, from Eikenberry, from many others. Now make up your fucking mind. Snap out your orders, delegate the people you want to execute those orders, and get the hell out of the way.
"If you bring more troops it will speed up results, but it can be done with what we have..."
Sure, in theory. Assuming your opponents don't succeed in changing the boundary conditions of the game, which is something you never assume in a war, much less in politics.
Given the nature of the US elective process, it's not completely out of left field to think that if the AfPak theatre isn't "won" by 2016, we've lost, period. What will conditions there have to be like, at a minimum, for US voters to support a candidate backing a continuation of action there?
And, regardless of how much or little time you spent, how many or how few people you sent, if you went in at all and didn't accomplish your mission, in many ways all you did was throw away lives, both ours and theirs.
Well, the central problem as I see it is that the government we have supported for the last eight years is corrupt. This needs to change.
Considering the state of our own government, both now and for the last several decades, I feel I must express support for anyone who is skeptical of anything we say or do on this subject.
Markadelphia, we know you are 100% ignorant on any topics concerning the military, but why do you have to be so ironically militant about your ignorance?
This quote, though, just blows my mind:
Keeping troops there or pulling them out (your two choices) will not assist in this endeavor.
You know that your only choices are to keep troops in Afghanistan, or to take them out? If you do not take them out, you have to keep them there. If take them out, you cannot keep them there. If neither is "helpful", then what, exactly, will be helpful? You just described a binary situation, and said neither 1 nor 0 is the right answer - I hate to break it to you, but that is a non sequiteur of the highest order.
...thus, his ambassador to Afghanistan, Gen Eikenberry, is part of that decision making process...
Taken at face value, this statement is entirely false. For the sake of education (assuming you understand the concept, which is a frightening thought, considering your supposed teacher-ness), you might want to take a look at the military's chain of command. Yes, there are civilians at the top - namely, the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the various branches' Secretaries. But there are no ambassadors, no advisors, no close personal friends, no other civilians in the military's chain of command.
Yes, the ambassador can advise the President, and that may affect the President's decision-making process, but the ambassador is not, in any way, shape, or form, actually or directly involved in that decision-making process. Hell, to put it in tremendously simple terms (that you still will probably violently misunderstand), the ambassador reports to his own chain of command through the Department of State, a Department that has no say, sway, or control over the Department of Defense.
Do you even comprehend how our government operates on a daily basis on the grand scheme, much less the specific details of military operations?
...by my count I have the formal General in charge of Afghanistan...
Funny, by my count, the formal General in charge of Afghanistan (namely, General McChrystal) is the one asking for more troops. I suppose you meant "former General in charge of Afghanistan", but his opinion, to be perfectly frank, is completely meaningless at the moment. General McChrystal took over almost six months ago - effectively an eternity in terms of warfare, especially the kind of warfare our troops are encountering in Afghanistan. Sure, the previous General can make his opinions known, but when it comes to a choice between listening to him, and listening to the man on the ground, in the fight, only a pure-bred idiot would go with the former.
...and troops on the ground in Afghanistan...
You just do not comprehend how the military is run, do you? The troops are there to follow orders, do their jobs, and make the other guys die for their countries. Yeah, more often than not, the opinion of those individuals in the foxholes will differ, often greatly, from the opinions of those guys who have the charts and maps laid out in front of them. Which one do you think has a better picture of the situation? Which one do you think will have a better idea of how the strategy is coming together? Which one do you think will have a better understanding of how the fight is tending?
The military does not operate off consensus. Stop pretending like it does.
Now, back to the top...
Now, a rational, intelligent, and measured man has to deal with a giant pile of shit and you rip him for it.
1. Calling him those words does not make him worthy of them.
2. The only thing of Our Glorious President that has been "measured" is his astonishing willingness to dawdle, dally, and delay when it comes to making the important decisions abou things that actually matter, rather than things that simply give him and his compatriots more power/popularity.
3. We are ripping him because he is not dealing with it. He is pissing and moaning while our servicemembers are fighting and dying. No, he did not start this war. No, it probably was not his choice (though I will point out that he actually managed to vote "yes" for a good number of bills providing monetary support to the Afghanistan operations).
But by God, he is the gorramed President of the United States and the Commander in Chief of our military, and it is about frakking time he start acting like it. Bush is no longer in office. He has not been in office for almost a year now. Your window for blaming him for current situation has well and truly expired. This situation, and every other situation that we are currently engaged in, is President Barack Hussein Obama's responsibility - the buck stops at his desk, whether he admits to it or not.
If he was taking his time figuring out a strategy before engaging in a conflict, then I would, most likely, be completely understanding and supportive (it would depend on the situation). But right at this moment, the enemy is engaged, our troops are fighting, and our general in the field, with the situational knowledge that one gathers from being in the fight (and, for the record, the military invariably supports situational knowledge as superior to alternatives), is saying that our current numbers are going to be insufficient for even our current plans, much less future ones. If Our Glorious President wants the breathing room to make up his mind about the situation, then he should make the gorramed breathing room and not simply let his troops swing in the breeze while he bullshits with his advisors. As General Patton said, “A good plan, violently executed today, is better than a perfect plan next week.”
It is time to lead, follow, or get the frak out of the way. Our Glorious President is desperately trying to find the responsibility-shirking "none of the above" button, but it simply does not exist. Sadly, that speaks volumes about the character of the individual we elected to be our President, and your sycophantish, unquestioning support of him (even to the point of using patently fallacious arguments to do so) speaks even more about you, Marxy.
"What I'm saying is that the President's blazing ignorance of what the military is for and how they work is apparent in his decision making process."
How exactly are you intimately aware of the president's decision making process? Neither one of us are in the NSC meetings so anything we say is pure conjecture. In addition, your inherent bias precludes you from making a truly critical assessment of this process.
"The military does not operate off consensus. Stop pretending like it does."
Correct but the civilian leadership does somewhat...that's why the call it a national security COUNCIL. Our current president weighs the opinions of everyone and then gets to make the final decision.
I wonder, linoge, if perhaps you have been fantasizing about this a little too much of late...
"How exactly are you intimately aware of the president's decision making process? Neither one of us are in the NSC meetings so anything we say is pure conjecture. In addition, your inherent bias precludes you from making a truly critical assessment of this process."
How exactly are you intimately aware of the president's decision making process? You are not in the NSC meetings so anything you say is pure conjecture. In addition, your inherent bias precludes you from making a truly critical assessment of this process.
Goddamn, you blithering idiot, have you understood nothing you've read here? You've described yourself but you can't recognize yourself!
Our current president weighs the opinions of everyone and then gets to make the final decision.
*headdesk*
Jesus fucking Christ, Mark. Is it really so hard to click a goddamed link?
1. The National Security Council, itself, is not part of the military chain of command. Members of the Council are (specifically, the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), but the Council itself, as a whole, has absolutely no direct say, whatsoever, in the running or operations of the United States Military, nor any control of the same.
2. Making decisions based off information presented to you is not the same as operating by consensus, even when that information is opinions from coworkers or a specific organization/group. Now, if the National Security Council were to vote, and that vote would irrevocably determine the future course of the military, that would be consensus (as I type this, I realize the futility of trying to teach the meaning of a word to somone who does not comprehend the meaning of "verbatim" or "slavery").
I wonder, linoge, if perhaps you have been fantasizing about this a little too much of late...
Yeah, that is it. I put up specific explanations of how the military chain of command works, how the military works, and what the President is supposed to do, and you put up strawmen idiocy, based off a single comment of mine you did not even completely read.
If you ever wanted to demonstrate how weak your position is, that would be a great way.
Two and half years of the same mistakes, over and over and over again ...
Doofus boy, I gave up having any real interest in your political thoughts quite some time ago. It is the mechanics of what passes for thought on your part that interests me. I never imagined that a personality could be so pathologically self-destructive of it's own thought process as yours is.
I put up specific explanations of how the military chain of command works, how the military works, and what the President is supposed to do, and you put up strawmen idiocy, based off a single comment of mine you did not even completely read. - Linoge
Should I also mention that the central tenet of M's opinion, that the Afghan govt of the last 8 years is corrupt, is intended to tie it to the Bush admin. Karzai was appointed to head the interim govt as a result of the Bonn Agreement (under NATO sponsorship). I guess NATO was just a Bush puppet, eh?
What is absolutely hysterical is that M's opinions on what the U.S. can do in Afghanistan are IDENTICAL to the Bush administration (and the Obama administration, which hasn't changed course an iota there). Way to go M - you are a Bush supporter after all and just as apt to actually learn something as your bête noire.
"What I'm saying is that the President's blazing ignorance of what the military is for and how they work is apparent in his decision making process."
How exactly are you intimately aware of the president's decision making process? Neither one of us are in the NSC meetings so anything we say is pure conjecture.
No, we are not, nor should we be. Nonetheless, it is blatantly obvious from his actions (or rather, lack thereof) that he either has not learned the 3 D's of command, hasn't understood them and/or hasn't taken them to heart.
Dictate the mission.
Delegate the authority to decide how to accomplish it.
Disappear so it can happen.
My father, who died as a Colonel in the Army at age 45, taught me this as a child.
Did you note that, Mark? This is a lesson officers' children learn, just "by the way" as part of growing up as a military brat. Yes, it is that basic to understanding the purpose and functioning of the military. The President is making it plain that he has not learned this lesson. It's just that simple.
Therefore:
"...the President's blazing ignorance of what the military is for and how they work is apparent in his decision making process."
A+B=C. Does it make sense now?
Please understand that I'm not faulting you for not knowing this. You have no need. But it is flatly unacceptable for the overall commander not to know this. It increases the "clumsiness factor" of military action by an order of magnitude at least, with accompanying casualty rates on both sides. That doesn't make him a bad person or anything, but it does indicate that he is poorly suited to the job he's in.
And in this case, being "poorly suited" is likely to cost a fair number of lives.
Oh, as an aside: Gen. ________ (insert any name you like here, but currently serving either in the military or the Administration. Any Administration) can say all he likes that "President _________ is doing just as he should", and that actually means zilch-point-doodoo.
The actual translation of that comment is, "I'm a soldier, one of the first lessons I learned was not to badmouth my superiors."
That doesn't mean he agrees or disagrees, it means you won't find out for certain unless he breaks that protocol.
So let me try to get this straight. I put forward Obama's two choices in my previous comment and Marko answers that we need more intellegence.
Well, how are we going to get more intellegence unless we send more troops into Afghanistan? We would need more troops to support the intellegence officers and to act as support to infiltrate them into the areas where they would operate.
So I would gather that you support my option 2: increase the troops.
See, it's not really that hard.
Marko is already a better leader than President Obama.
As far as you support of Ambassador Eikenberry over General McChrystal, well as others have pointed out, McChrystal is the one in charge. Obama put him in charge. If Obama does not trust his judgement, he should replace him with a General he can trust.
And as Obama dawdles, our troops in Afghanistan swing in the wind.
Hell, a President Kucinich would be better at making a decision. But Kucinich has a value system.
In fact, if you are a soldier presently in the military then President Obama is YOUR supreme commander. If he says jump, you say how high? Am I right?
So,while you are busy ripping me I'm going to ponder how much that sucks for you.
Ouch. I've just gotten my first Markdelphia-headache.
OK, one step at a time:
Noble masters may have been known to mistreat their subject peasant conscripts in such manner, but only up to a point. Peasant conscripts made no bones about killing their noble masters if pushed too far.
Our citizen soldiers are not bound to jump up and down like a ninny when ordered, just to satisfy a juvenile desire to prove oneself "in command".
You see, adults (those are the big people doing all of those important things that you don't understand) understand the importance of showing proper respect to those other adults whom have been tasked, and have voluntarily accepted said tasking, with doing difficult and dangerous work.
While Authoritarians of all stripes (but most especially the Left, for some reason) seem to think that soldiers are nothing more than mindless automatons paid to do their master's bidding, no matter what that may be, in reality, soldiers are human beings. We think and act according to what suits us individually as best. Or have you never heard the word "desertion"? Push a soldier too far, and he'll leave. Men do not tolerate being treated like children.
I hate having to explain this. Someone like Markadelphia simply cannot understand the importance of respecting those who are actually doing the work necessary to continue civilization.
Men do not "jump" on command. Lackies and slaves and unrespectable nitwits do, and that group do not make good defenders. Men being asked to jump around like fools would simply quit the service.
For a good reason. Soldiers need good commanders to make effective use of military strength. A good commander will not attempt to humiliate his own troops by telling them to "jump" like a trained dog. Any commander who behaved in such manner would deserve what he had coming to him, and he'll be alone when it does.
This reminds me of when I told someone I would never support a draft under any conditions, no matter how desperate for soldiers we got. He wondered how I could advocate such a thing, being ex-military myself and knowing how badly the guys who are out there would suffer for lack of the support.
My reply:
"If they didn't choose to be here, if they didn't choose to be part of the same team as me, if they're not gonna hang with me when things get ugly, and save my ass because it's just as important to them as their own.... then I don't want em on my flank when trouble starts, and I don't fucking care how many of em there are. Half of what you really want and need is a better deal than any amount of what you really don't."
In fact, if you are a soldier presently in the military then President Obama is YOUR supreme commander. If he says jump, you say how high? Am I right?
So,while you are busy ripping me I'm going to ponder how much that sucks for you.
You want to know what sucks, Marky-boy? The fact that our troops are over there dying while the commander in chief that brain-dead fucknozzles like you elected sits on his hands.
And while I sit here trying to understand just how fucking dumb you have to be in order to come in and act as if you actually know what the military wants, I just want to point out that through your support of Obama's dithering, you are in fact supporting the deaths of the Soldiers that come from it. Your blind, mindless support of your Liberal Lord and Messiah has real world consequences, but the tragedy of it is that you won't ever face them. Other people will pay that particular bill.
So Marky - go fuck yourself. And once again, don't you ever presume to know what the military is thinking.
I never thought I'd say this, but I find myself pitying Hillary Clinton.
Follow what she does as Secretary of State. Love her, hate or or anywhere in between, you have to concede that she's at least in there trying to do the job.
I can imagine the hell it must be for someone who is that decisive, indeed that much of a control freak, to be working for someone as indecisive as President Obama.
It's ego, Grumpy. It might have been her last gasp at public office. Obamateur made a political master stroke by playing to her ego and offering her a job in which she would report to him, and which she would have a very difficult time turning down. It effectively neutralized her from being a threat to him in any way, at least until 2016.
Going into the nomination vote at the DNC, neither Clinton nor Obama had a plurality.
And only the first vote is pledged. Meaning that after the first vote, it's time for the bare knuckle brawls for votes until a plurality is achieved.
Also remember, after Clinton woke up and realized that Obama had decided that her VP wasn't a high enough pay grade for him, Obama hadn't won a single primary. Momentum is high for her.
So at that point, Clinton's in position of huge power. She can force a nasty fight - possibly winning it due to her ties to superdelegates. (I was afraid she'd be holding out for USSC.)
And she settles for .. Secretary of State? Really? She could be President, and she takes Secretary of State?
I don't think that was a masterstroke by Obama, and I wonder what the other parts of the deal that Clinton agreed to include.
Especially as he decides do to something as stupid as try KSM and others in NY... Which can't be anything but a sop to the International Left.
... Secretary of State's a damn cheap bid for what Clinton owned. And Clinton's no chump. I don't think, anyway.
I think Clinton bowed under to avoid an even nastier fight, that might damage the Dem ticket.
Frankly, I was shocked that she did -- given the Clinton's history (Hell, just look at the election cycle in question), I expected her to go all Samson in the Temple on the DNC and blame Obama from 2010 until her "regretfully forced" primary challeng to him in 2012.
Of course, once she took the Secretary of State job, I've been waiting for her to resign in protest, to do the same 2012 strategy. And Obama has been giving her a large enough shit sandwich (with his CONSTANT undercutting of the prestige and authority of her office) that she's almost to a point where such a protest resignation and primary challenge WILL come across as principled, honorable, and justified.
Which may just go to show that Hillary Rodham Clinton is an even brighter cookie than anyone figured. . .
"The White House must stop dithering while America's armed forces are in danger" -Former VP Cheney."
Dither=Verbatim
Dave, clearly your response is well grounded in dispassion, logic, and well reasoned facts. I'm surprised you missed the obvious one that Dick Cheney dithered for 8 years regarding Afghanistan so much so that our own intelligence agencies have reported that Al Qaeda reconstituted itself to pre-9/11 levels. Oh, and they have comfortable bases inside of a country that has nuclear weapons.
So, no, Dave, I'm not going to fuck myself. Instead, I'm going to point out your complete hypocrisy on the matter of AfPak as well as the fact that my step brother has served three tours there (as well as two in Iraq). Normally, I'm not a big fan of the "I know someone" meme but since everyone else is doing it....
Normally, I'm not a big fan of the "I know someone" meme
Wait, is it "Normally", "not" "big" "fan" or "meme" that you don't know the meaning of?
How's Javier?
the obvious one that Dick Cheney dithered for 8 years regarding Afghanistan so much so that our own intelligence agencies have reported that Al Qaeda reconstituted itself to pre-9/11 levels
"Reconstituted".
What does that mean? What's the ramification of the meaning of that word in that context and what does it mean for the point you're trying to make?
(And what was "unhinged" about Neo-neocon's Vietnam analysis? Run away! Run away! Bravely Sir Ralph ran away!)
Dick Cheney was not in the chain of command during those eight years. He had no authority to do anything regarding Afghanistan. So, what do you think he should he have done during those eight years, and what authority do you think he had to do it? Remember, his authority as Vice-President is specified in the Constitution, so be specific and show us chapter and verse where the Constitution gives him the authority you think he has.
Hah. I crack me up.
Again you show an utter lack of understanding of such matters.
"I'm going to point out your complete hypocrisy ..."
There is no more extreme form of hypocrisy than for a hypocrite to complain about hypocrisy in others. That is YOU in a nutshell, liar boy. Have you no shame at all?
Dick Cheney was not in the chain of command during those eight years.
As DJ points out, once again, Tinkerballs adequately proves that he cannot be bothered to click a link, cannot be bothered to educate himself, cannot be bothered to read a remarkably simple flowchart, and cannot be bothered to even try to understand the topics he is so vehemently talking about.
The irony is that he is royally fucking himself, he is just clueless enough to somehow miss out on it... (Insert your own thoughts here.)
Again, note the hypocrisy, Linoge. He complained many times to the effect that Dick Cheney ran the show for George Bush but shouldn't have because that was George Bush's job. Now he complains that Dick Cheney didn't do enough.
I've said it many times: He suffers from the same malady that most pathological liars suffer from, to wit, he can't remember his lies.
The outgoing Amdinistration left their analysis as to the situation, and their suggested path forward, and AS REQUESTED BY THE INCOMING ADMINISTRATION, did not publicize it. We now know that part of the recommendations was to significantly increase boots on the ground in a surge. Similar in basic concept to the Iraq surge, but different in detailed execution.
Obama took office the end of January, and in the spring had a "bold new approach", which included HAND-PICKING a general with a proven track record of turning around "unwinnable" insurgencies. The guy who asked for a significant increase boots on the ground in a surge. Similar in basic concept to the Iraq surge, but different in detailed execution.
Obama has since done NOTHING that his hand-picked war fighter has requested, and until the public outcry grew too great to avoid, couldn;t even find the time to discuss it with his HAND-PICKED general.
Since taking office, Al Qaida has reconstututed itself to pre-9/11 levels. (Apparantly they HADN'T done so BEEOFRE Obama took office -- as "pre-9/11", Al Qaida was pretty busy carrying off attacks against US "soft" targets, and since 9/11, not so much.)
Remember, this is the Obama who insisted that Bush had ignored Afghanistan, and that not only did bold new action HAVE to be taken IMMEDIATELY, but that he ALREADY KNEW what that bold new action was -- over a YEAR before he even took office.
Yet Obama's dithering while AQ grows stronger, ignoring his HAND PICKED chief head stomper while the situation on the ground gets worse, is somehow CHENEY'S fault.
Look, by Obama's own words -- he's KNOWN what to do for two years now, and he's had nearly a YEAR to start ikmplementing it.
He has done NOTHING but continue the Bush plan THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN REJECTED BY BUSH BEFORE HE LEFT OFFICE.
Sooner or later, Obama has to just accept the fact that yes, he IS President, and yes, it IS HIS JOB -- not Bush's, not Cheney's.
I know, this will be a waste of time, and yet, I have to push that boulder up the hill. Again.
Marxy: "The "troops" as you put it are of many opinions and they don't just share McCrystal's views."
Part of your argument (as such as it was) is that they (the troops) don't share the General's views. Parsing the sentence you wrote you have a multitude of opinions from many servicemembers (true) then sum them all up into a total 'they'. You went from a plurality of opinions to a single opinion. And then you used this as a premise.
The viewpoint my brother provided counters that premise. Notice, I explicitly said who, where, and how limited the information was, just to the people he knows. This statement knocks your premise down, and renders the rest of your argument (ha! I'm killing myself here!) using that premise invalid.
It is not evidence, it is an anecdote, but since you didn't base your premise on anything but what you pulled out of your hat, I figure the standard you accept would be low enough to allow what I said as being germane and valid.
I find it very amusing that as your argument gets trounced and more indefensible, you become more emotional charged and try to be insulting. I think it's the only real acknowledgment we'll get from you that you've lost the debate and in some way, realize it. That, and when you run away. Again, I feel pity for you.
When I was in PLDC (Primary leadership Development Course -- the Army's school to teach Specialists how to be Sergeants), we had an inspection coming up, a significant lack of guidance, and a multitude of opinions (all of the students were technically peers) from the peanut gallery.
As teh platoon sergeant for the day, I laid out a plan -- which the rest of my peers immediately started arguing with.
About 30 seconds into this squabbling, I stood up and announced,
"That's lovely people -- but as long as I'm the platoon sergeant, I am in charge -- and we will BY GOD do it THIS way!"
My platoon was the only one in the company to ace the inspection.
Now, I had an unfair advantage over my "peers". Most of them were clerical or support Specialists who had never been in charge.
I was in that "other" category of PLDC attendees -- a Sergeant who hadn't had time to attend the course before being promoted to NCO. I was promoted directly from PFC (where I had been holding down an E6 billet) to Corporal, and then shortly sent to Drill Sergeant School, where I was promoted the day of graduation.
It doesn't matter if EVERY SINGLE SERVICEMEMBER in theater, with the exception of the Commanding General, agrees on a single plan that is contrary to the CG's. Only ONE guy is in charge -- it's HIS call. His subordinates (ESPECIALLY his staffers and senior commanders) can mention their concerns up the chain of command, but after they have voiced their concern, they get to STFU and drive on with a hard on.
If the President doesn't like the calls his hand-picked general is making, he is free to fire him for that, any other, or no reason at all. The general serves at the President's convienience.
n. pl. Sympathy and sorrow aroused by the misfortune or suffering of another.
Nope. Not pity. He doesn't deserve it. His misfortune and suffering are self-inflicted and easily corrected. He's been taught thus but he won't even try.
You know, DJ, I stand corrected. I felt sorry for his constant suffering, laboring under the burden of being wrong all the time. But, you are right, it is self-inflicted.
I'm now going to practice feeling epikhairekakia every time he gets curb stomped :)
Ragin' Dave sounds like a senior NCO.
Having been handed my ass by the best of them, I recognize the tone.
I won't even bother trying to explain the difference between lawful orders and unlawful ones.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/11/host-of-holy-horrors-to-direct-our.html (106 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Rush, Freewill
I knew there was something I liked about you!
Uh, and the link's pretty good, too!
Curious as to why you don't have much to say. I didn't hear any complaints at all on here about Bush's indecision/lack of complete interest in pursuing anything in Afghanistan. In fact, several of you here chided me for being more hawkish on AfPak.
The comments by Gerard and Neo are not surprising at all and just about the finest example of hypocrisy I've seen in awhile. Nowhere in their posts did I see what THEY would do, supported by logic and facts, in the president's position. Just more of the same "Obama is weak" meme which makes no sense at all considering he's put more effort, thought, and actual troops into Afghanistan then Bush ever did (8000 Marines from Camp LeJeune, 4000 Army from Ft Lewis and 5000 additional support troops). He has already increased troop levels in Afghanistan and now he's "weak" for not doing more? And how exactly does Neo know what the enemy thinks? Her last two paragraphs are completely uninformed, child like nonsense and are, sadly, yet another example of inner rage assertions...no logic...no facts. And quite an unhinged version of Vietnam, I might add. What exactly was indecisive about killing millions of people and bombing the beJesus out of that country in every possible way?
None of us are privy to the information that the NSC gets on a daily basis. So our opinions are not grounded in any sort of reality. My inclination has always been to send more troops but given what General Eikenberry has said and seen, I think coming up with a better plan might be a good idea. General Eikenberry is quite a problem for most of you in that a) He was in the military b) was the top guy in Afghanistan and c) he knows more than all of you. Put those two things together and, man, that really must suck for you guys.
Strangely, President Obama is also maligned for "thinking" and the left is smeared for supporting this. It's comforting to know that we shouldn't think at all in confronting what is currently the greatest threat to our civilization. Remember, too, that it was just dandy when George Bush sat there for 7 minutes and did nothing upon learning of the 9-11 attacks. I wonder what Neo would say if President Obama sat there for more than 10 seconds if there was another attack.
In fact, I wonder if Neo and others here support the symbolic attacks on President Obama (burning effigies, flags, posters etc) by the hirabis in AfPak. They are no different than the signs I saw at Michelle Bachmann's recent rally at the Capital. Actually, by your own assertions when Bush was president, protesters give aid and comfort to the enemy...making us look weak. Isn't that correct? Oh, that's right, it's not _______ when we do it!
Let's not forgot that it was President Bush that created this problem. I'm sure the cowards unable to take responsibility for their actions will come out of the woodwork now and scream BDS but this is a fact. By his own words, he didn't spend that much time on Afghanistan. Now, a rational, intelligent, and measured man has to deal with a giant pile of shit and you rip him for it. You should be thankful that we have a president that is going to think twice about sending more people who risk their lives to defend YOU.
Ooops..."three things"...added that one in at the end and forgot to change it.
"The comments by Gerard and Neo are not surprising at all and just about the finest example of hypocrisy I've seen in awhile."
Have you ever looked into a mirror, liar boy?
"So our opinions are not grounded in any sort of reality."
I'm still laughing out loud, teacher boy. When have your opinions ever been grounded in any sort of reality?
"Now, a rational, intelligent, and measured man has to deal with a giant pile of shit and you rip him for it. You should be thankful that we have a president that is going to think twice about sending more people who risk their lives to defend YOU."
See the above, little boy. You never learn, do you?
"Strangely, President Obama is also maligned for "thinking" and the left is smeared for supporting this".
Dude, he's been "thinking" (read "stalling")for over two fucking months. A lot can happen in theater in two months. Obama needs to shit or get off the pot. Either give the forces what they need, what they're asking for, or get the hell out. From what I've read, he's turned down EVERY option that's been given to him thus far and the troops there are still stuck in the "status quo" - apparently a bad thing here at home re healthcare, but just A-OK for the poor bastards getting shot up in Afghanistan.
Kevin S, nothing is more important that remaking America. Ergo, the thundering cries to pass socialist laws NOW.
Afghanistan doesn't matter, therefore no action is to be taken beyond trying to pin the mess on someone else.
Vox Day's assessment:
If you can't make up your mind about such a relatively minor decision, then you clearly have no idea what you're doing in the strategic sense. If Obama doesn't have enough confidence in General McChrystal to grant his request without hesitation, he should either replace McChrystal or end the occupation and bring the troops home.
Personally, I suspect the troop request was a political CYA on McChrystal's part. He knows he can't win there because the US lacks sufficient loyalty from the famously fractious locals and he also knows Obama has zero desire to send more troops to Afghanistan, so the request for 40,000 troops is essentially McChrystal washing his hands of responsibility while hoping Obama has the balls to withdraw U.S. forces. I think he's miscalculated and that Obama will ultimately send the requested troops because, like most individuals with weak characters, Obama is terrified of being correctly perceived as weak. If the general is fortunate, Obama will send fewer troops and give him the ability to claim that he wasn't given the necessary forces required to do the job.
Marky Boy..... why oh why do you even open your mouth. There was a moment when I thought you were coming arround, but then you go and have to pour kerosene on a fire like this.
"Nowhere in their posts did I see what THEY would do, supported by logic and facts, in the president's position."
You want to know what i would do if I were the teleprompter n' chief? Given that I have absolutely no idea about war and how to manage one, I would first listen to my generals that did. And, when one of them tells me, and the others agree, that he needs more troops you do one of three things... of which, only two are respectable choices. You either give the man the troops he thinks he needs or you pull all troop out. The third choice is to do nothing, which is what is happening.
Let me put this another way for you Marky Boy.... why don't we air drop you in the middle of no where with a small fox hole to hide in. You are surrounded by 50 other men coming after you with automatic weapons firing at your position. They can't get you yet, but it is a very short time before they do. Are you honestly going to tell me you would want 2 months to decide what your nextr move would be in this situation?
Grow up man and stop provoking the local town folk.
Christ on a crutch, enough with the wah wah blame Bush, MArko.
Obama is the president.
He is in charge.
He has a choice to make.
He won't do it.
It is no one else's responsibility to come up with a better plan.
Obama wanted this job, now he has to pay for all those perks of office.
I am still wondering what the left thinks Bush should have done in that "huge" 7 minutes after hearing about the 9/11 attack. Run around in little circles, screaming, flapping his arms like a loon? He was in a school classroom full of small children and didn't really have much if any real information as to what was going on. Why panic a bunch of little kids?
Don't get me wrong, I am in no way a Bush supporter. I think he was a mushy do-nothing kind of President who relied upon others to do his thinking for him, but to make a big deal out of the fact that it took 7 minutes for him to decide on a proper reaction to something as shocking as 9/11 is just stupid.
s
"Now, a rational, intelligent, and measured man has to deal with a giant pile of shit and you rip him for it"
We're ripping him because he's NOT dealing with it.
I notice Marky puts a lot of emphasis on the statements of Ambassador Eikenberry, a retired general.
Who is now a member of the State Department and therefore likely to be more focused on their concerns and their mindset than on the needs and concerns of the active duty military. Who is actually on the sidelines as far as military operations are concerned.
This is not meant to slam a man who holds a Combat Infantry Badge, simply an observation of the reality that he may have a different institutional view and agenda than, say the active duty General (McChrystal, who I noticed you never even allude to, let alone mention by name) who is actually in command and therefore responsible.
McChrystal is in the hotseat. Eikenberry isn't. All other things being equal I'd lean towards the requests of the General, not the Ambassador, when it comes to warfighting decisions.
Editorial comment: The role of the State Department is to prevent wars, and to negotiate the enemy's surrender. During a shooting war they need STFU and let the experts deal with the fighting.
Afternoon, Ralph.
I didn't hear any complaints at all on here about Bush's indecision/lack of complete interest in pursuing anything in Afghanistan.
This is bullshit of the highest order. (so, Par for the course for a Markadelphia comment!) Which you know, and you peddle because you're in fact, unable to think without this sort of hyper partisanship.
Bush wasn't indecisive, nor did he lack interest. As I've explained to you several times, and you allowed to pass without comment, it's trivial to illustrate that the MMoorvian insults by way of analysis is incredibly flawed. There's a vast difference between making a choice you don't like, and being indecisive. Oh, wait, let me guess. You don't know what "indecisive" means.
Bush pursued a specific strategy in Afghanistan. It's possible to disagree with it with factual backing (but you've never demonstrated the intellectual chops to actually do it). 7 years ago the situation was radically different than it is now, something you keep ignoring. Situations change. Reactions change. You don't, you repeat the same discredited lines, over, and over.
The Bush plan was changing to deal with that, and they left Obama specific details as to their plans and intents. Obama repaid them by claiming they did no such thing, and in fact, well, sitting on his hands for almost a year with no announcement of his intentions. He's specifically shunned the man he named to the post to deal with it, something you damn sure can't accuse Bush of ever doing.
In fact, several of you here chided me for being more hawkish on AfPak.
No, we chided you for being ignorant and/or hypocritical. When Obama was running, he couldn't talk up military presence in Afghanistan and invading Pakistan and essentially declaring war on them. The actual likelihood of this was so low as to be laughable, which we told you, and you repeated Obama's campaign pronouncements verbatim. You might want to at least admit that we were right there, and Obama's campaign claims were worth that of a politician prior to election, and that we correctly accessed the likely outcome.
Just more of the same "Obama is weak" meme which makes no sense at all considering
... His constant capitulation to opponents and insult and damage to allies?
he's put more effort, thought, and actual troops into Afghanistan then Bush ever did
See, you say Neo-neocon can't read people's minds, and then you insist that you can. (Even though as just reminded, you were totally wrong about Obama's claims during his campaign.)
He has already increased troop levels in Afghanistan and now he's "weak" for not doing more?
Yes. Merely adding troops blindly isn't enough. Though you hate the military and think little of them, they're not interchangable, and they only proceed with what they're allowed to do - and Obama's been dodging their commander instead of telling him what his mission is.
And quite an unhinged version of Vietnam, I might add.
Says the guy who can't even get casualties into the same order of magnitude of reality?
What exactly was indecisive about killing millions of people and bombing the beJesus out of [Vietnam] in every possible way?
...
What exactly was indecisive about a policy with no clear goal, no timeline, hamstrung military, and political showings?
Are you serious? I'd ask that surely you didn't mean that, but sadly, I know you did.
Man, one day you will finally hit the bottom of your own stupidity, but I don't know how far you have to go to get there. You think that merely sending in troops/dropping bombs is decisive? Again, I think we're demonstrating yet again, you don't know the meanings of the words you're using.
None of us are privy to the information that the NSC gets on a daily basis.
Hey, wait, so now that The Won is in there you think so?
Remember, too, that it was just dandy when George Bush sat there for 7 minutes and did nothing upon learning of the 9-11 attacks.
You say this repeatedly, but you have never explained what phone booth he should have changed into SuperMan. It's a slanderous, stupid argument, worthy only of you and Michael Moore. Oh, wait.
I wonder what Neo would say if President Obama sat there for more than 10 seconds if there was another attack.
He's been President almost 11 months. He's still not decided. Maybe it's time to stop with the stupid 7 minutes of not panicking the kids.
Let's not forgot that it was President Bush that created this problem.
Created this problem? No, dumbass, you've got to get back to Carter for "creating this problem".
Now, a rational, intelligent, and measured man has to deal with a giant pile of shit and you rip him for it.
It's part of the pay grade for the job he decided to run for.
And yes, we'll rip him for doing a bad job of it and trying to pass the buck to his subordinates.
Kevin S., I suggest that you take a look at ALL of the information that is kicking around the Pentagon right now. The "troops" as you put it are of many opinions and they don't just share McCrystal's views.
"he also knows Obama has zero desire to send more troops to Afghanistan"
If that's the case, Sara, then why did he send 17K more? And why hasn't he declared a definitive "No" yet? Whatever he does, though, I'm sure you will immediately hate it. And that includes killing bin Laden, Zawahari or any sort of US victory.
"I would first listen to my generals that did."
Does that include Eikenberry? And what of the rest of the generals not commonly heard about it in the "liberal" media?"
"Are you honestly going to tell me you would want 2 months to decide what your nextr move would be in this situation?"
Yes. How about six months if it meant doing the job right? And what if that time was spent so well that the mission is more of a success? Will you give him credit? I doubt it.
"We're ripping him because he's NOT dealing with it."
So, all the NSC meetings, the extra troops he sent over in February, Eikenberry....that's not dealing with it? And since when did you become Rahm Emmanuel?
"Bush pursued a specific strategy in Afghanistan."
Sorry, Unix. I couldn't read past that line. My eyes were filled up with tears of laughter.
Pretty weak responses from most of you. I have to say I'm pretty disappointed. I really didn't expect much, though, since you really don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to this debate. What's going to happen when he does make a decision and (gasp!) might actually succeed at it? One shudders at the thought of a successful military mission carried out by President Obama. I can see the sleepless nights ahead in your future:)
The role of the State Department is to prevent wars, and to negotiate the enemy's surrender. During a shooting war they need STFU and let the experts deal with the fighting.
Yeah, and equally, once the shooting is done, it is the military's turn to STFU and let the politicians/diplomats make a hash of things (as they are wont to do).
So exactly where are we in Afghanistan? Still an active war, or counter-insurgency support to the current "govt"? I'm not asking that facetiously, I don't know, and I doubt anyone with power does either. We are in yet another operation where victory is indecipherable.
Hmmm...just like yesterday.
Markadelphia spews shit.
He's wrong in fact, wrong in conclusion.
My assessment stands.
"... I suggest that you take a look at ALL of the information that is kicking around the Pentagon right now. The "troops" as you put it are of many opinions and they don't just share McCrystal's views."
Just making shit up again, aren't you? You have no way of finding this out. Why do you insult our intelligence yet again, liar boy?
"And why hasn't he declared a definitive "No" yet?"
Because he can't make up his mind. Remember, he voted "present" 135 times as an Illinois State Senator. He is not a leader.
"Whatever he does, though, I'm sure you will immediately hate it. And that includes killing bin Laden, Zawahari or any sort of US victory."
Yeah, Sarah just hates it when our enemies die, doesn't she? Little boy, are you ever going to grow up?
"How about six months if it meant doing the job right? And what if that time was spent so well that the mission is more of a success?"
How about giving the initiative to the enemy? And what if spending six months does that, so the mission is more of a failure?
Teacher boy, don't try to act as if you are skilled in the operational art. You don't even know what it is.
"I really didn't expect much, though, since you really don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to this debate."
There you go again, with your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. You simply assert that the other side is what you don't like being accused of.
Go back to recess, little boy.
My brother is an Army Captain, Engineer Corps. He's about to begin training for deployment to Afghanistan.
As of a couple of weeks ago, he said the general feeling of the Army personnel he knows is in various states of being pissed off at the way Obama has been mishandling the situation. Many of them want to get there, now, to do their part and support the Army.
He's miffed because the Pentagon still has him lined up for a tour, but canceled his original orders to train Afghan troops (something he did in Iraq during his tour there) and haven't given him new ones.
Marxy is wrong, as usual, and like a true leftist, is putting words in the troops mouths and infantilizing them.
Wow, this guy will literally be the very last defender of Obama. A dead ender to the last. Even the Left is quickly tiring of the guy.
Seriously, what is so difficult about this decision?
Two choices. Pick one.
1.) Pull the troops out.
2.) Increase the troop strength to the level that his hand picked general determined was necessary.
Both choices fraught with risk. There are valid arguments for either one.
My guess is that he will try to split the difference and send half the troops that were requested.
Trying to make a third choice when there are only two to make never works.
Yosemite, thank God you aren't in charge. We had eight years of someone who thought the world was black and white and look where it got us.
Russell, nice try on the "I know someone" rag. People said the same thing about Bush.
DJ, there are a variety of opinions on what should be done in AFPak. Avoid the MSM (includes the right wing media) and you can find quite a bit from reliable sources.
Geek, is Eikenberry "spewing shit?"
OK, General Marko, what other choices does he have in Afghanistan besides the two I indicated? Wow us with your strategic acumen.
Thinking a President should make a bloody decision is not seeing the world in black and white.
During Pericles rule, he wanted to punish Megara for some slight to Athens.
He had two choices, one to invade, the other to leave them alone. Invading them would break the treaty between Athens and Sparta and start a war.
In 432 BC, he came up with a third way, the Megarian decree, which was in effect a trade embargo.
It did hurt Megara and sent out a signal to the rest of the Greece that Athens could hurt a state without invasion.
Alas, the Spartans used the degree as a reason to start the Peloponnesian war. The war destroyed the Athenian Empire and Athens never fully recovered. It also seems probable that Phillip II of Macedon was able to conquer Greece because of the damage the Peloponnesian war did to the Greeks.
Obama isn't worthy to carry Pericles' sandals. I doubt any third way Obama can come up with would work any better than Pericles'.
Yosemite Sam has the right of it, creating a third way doesn't work the way you intended.
"Russell, nice try on the "I know someone" rag. People said the same thing about Bush"
God will you let Bush go!
HE ISN'T THE PRESIDENT ANYMORE!!!!!!
"Bush pursued a specific strategy in Afghanistan."
Sorry, Unix. I couldn't read past that line. My eyes were filled up with tears of laughter.
Laugh if you want, it demonstrates how ignorant you are. (Vietnam? A decisive conflict? And you're laughing at anybody else?) "Shame" is another concept you lack.
There's an old saying about tactics and logistics. It's incredibly true. And it's one you'd never possibly understand.
You don't have enough ability to follow the discussions we've had prior - where you wanted to rush in 80 thousand troops who would have starved to surround Tora Bora where we might have had Osama cornered.
Yes, we know he was there now, but we, Bush, nobody knew that for certain then. As you seem to understand that Obama's decisions aren't easy ones. But they're his. They're made with imperfect information, with people and situations that are fluid, and yes, you sneeringly made much fun of Bush for dealing with these situations, and are objecting when Obama freezes for months, makes excuses (what does the election have to do with our troop numbers or direction?)
Bush did have a strategy, and it worked wonderfully - for the time. It wasn't a single-step solution. This isn't the movies, and shooting the Death Star reactor doesn't fix everything magically.
You can disagree with Bush's strategy, but what proves you a contemptible fool is that you argue with his success. Remember the Brutal Afghan Winter that was going to strand us like the British and Russians?
8 years overdue now.
Bush succeeded - at his goal to destroy Al Queda's base, to demolish the control of the Taliban. There was one of a line of goals and achievements, that were interlocked with what military capacity we have, what military capacity we can use, and the political sphere. The situation had changed in Afghanistan, that's true. (In large part due to your bureaucrats (who are registered Democrat 85% of the time) in the State Department and DEA.)
In large part due to the successes in Iraq.
But he succeeded at the time. Brilliantly. Before you laugh too much more, find a Russian vet from the '80's occupation and ask him about his opinion.
Your automatic sneering of anything Bush does, and automatic cheering of anything Obama [doesn't do] demonstrates why you've a childish mentality.
Bush did have a strategy, and a plan, and a vision. I might not agree with it, but I accept that he had one.
Have you tried to find out what the word "decisive" (and it's contra "indecisive") mean yet? It's obvious you haven't, but have you tried?
We had eight years of someone who thought the world was black and white and look where it got us.
Dead terrorists and lower taxes?
That's a feature, not a bug.
Russell, nice try on the "I know someone" rag.
Yes, you crying with Juan or Jose or whoever certainly did it much better.
Russell: you don't have the ability to pull that off. You actually gave more detail. And didn't talk about them getting SPIT on and being ENSLAVED in the military! You totally missed the emotional overload and gave facts instead!
Marxy, I offered his perspective as a first hand account of what he is seeing at the base he stationed at, talking to the troops he knows.
You are a moron.
(whoops, thanks, LabRat)
Javier!
I'm sorry! All! Weep for Javier! Forced to work at a job for mere wages! Only able to see his family for mere hours, and weekends.
OH, JAVIER! Don't weep for me, Javier, we are weeping for you you poor, enslaved soul with the too-small house and the aged car with the torn... seats... Oh, I can't go on! It's too.. unbearable! If only someone Just Like Al Queda Could put him out of his misery! Oh! Hope! Change!
U-J: I bet he lives in place just like Dafur!
I'd disagee with Mr. Vanderleuns assessment that the likes of Obama has not been seen in Politics before.
Kevins comment that Britain is a petri dish for what happens in a fully socialised, left wing, right on, politically correct State run by ("Ex") Marksist/Leninist/Trotskyite people who never got out of the University Students bar is entirely correct.
For a look at what will (hopefully NOT) be the future of the US over the next 4 to 10 years, kindly examine the career and behavior of Mr Tony Blair.
Been there since 1997, got the T Shirt, wore it out and washed the toilet floor with it long since ..
The grinning jackanapes Blair is currently desperately trying to resurrect his bid for the unelected and dictatorial position of President of the European Union (A.K.A. The United States of Europe, EUSSR etc.).
Just because the British people kicked him out of office doesn't mean that he won't be back as the supreme overlord of the EU and inflict more of the same on the Country.
As a parallel, I'd say that Obama is probably looking to head the UN when he is finished as President. I'll bet ANYONE $10 to a pinch of pigs**t that that's what he's got his sights on .. World Government via the UN? Why not?
The dithering and consequent demoralisation of the Armed Forces is (surprise, surprise)exactly in line with Lenins tenets - The Armed Forces must be demoralised and rendered incapable of functioning effectively (including the Police).
It's all part of the Grand Plan, people.
The "troops" as you put it are of many opinions and they don't just share McCrystal's views.
"I would first listen to my generals that did."
Does that include Eikenberry?
No offense Mark, but this suggests to me that trying to explain any concept having to do with military service to you (and expecting you to actually understand it) is like trying to explain something to a doorknob. The above suggests to me that you are genuinely incapable of grasping the concepts involved.
But I'm going to try, anyway:
they don't just share McCrystal's views.
So what? Is McChrystal in command or isn't he? The idea of "better a poor commander than a divided command" goes back beyond Alexander the Great. No one gives a shit what anyone else's opinion is, they aren't in the hotseat.
Does that include Eikenberry?
No, it does not. Eikenberry is not in line of command, he is an advisor.
McChrystal was sent there with the authority of theatre command. He has been on the ground with the troops to a much greater degree than any other American with the authority to make such assessments.
It's a simple decision for any military officer. When people are dying, doing anything constructive right now does more good than thinking of the perfect response hours after you lost the battle.
You have put someone on the ground to assess the situation. They have come back, been debriefed, you have a sitrep and his recommendations. Now you either trust his sitrep and his recommendations, or you trust his sitrep and it sparks an entirely new idea which you then hammer out the operational details of with him, or you do not trust his sitrep and/or his recommendations so you replace him with someone whose judgement you do trust.
It's a hard decision, but not a complicated one. The problem is that it's a decision that requires courage.
But one thing the greenest, most still-wet-new officer knows is that you do not sit on your hands and dither when your people are out there in the crosshairs. Your career will end if you do it for minutes, much less months.
You give people here grief over "giving Bush a pass" for seven whole minutes when he didn't have any solid information. Are you seriously telling me no one has a right to gripe over Obama not making up his mind for 100,000 minutes when he has his information already?
I put it more simply, Grumpy. He knows nothing of the operational art, in fact he doesn't even know what it is.
"DJ, there are a variety of opinions on what should be done in AFPak. Avoid the MSM (includes the right wing media) and you can find quite a bit from reliable sources."
Golly, teacher boy, you sound like, so totally safistakated, and stuff.
I note that you have not cited any sources, much less reliable sources, such that we can verify your vomitus about who thinks what. Your behavior is indistinguishable from making shit up and is just as reliable.
You aren't fooling anyone, liar boy.
Markadaffya, when you give a student a test with a true/false answer do you give credit to a student who says neither? [Oh, if he answers this is going to be fun]
YS put forth a clear, simple and unambiguous choice that the President must make. He also noted that good arguments could be made for either case, and you throw Bush at him? If you don't have something even half-way intelligent to say, do everyone including yourself a favor, and say nothing.
Remember, too, that it was just dandy when George Bush sat there for 7 minutes and did nothing upon learning of the 9-11 attacks.
Well, golly, let's look at this from the other angle.
If it was inexcusable for Bush to not have By God Done Something within seconds of hearing there's been some sort of attack on American civilians, why is Obama's behavior justified?
Bill Clinton was calculating, but D'ohBama is working it at the graduate level.
He is trying to find a way to not do anything and do something on the matter at the same time.
Very typical of the Left - have one's cake and eat it too...
"The desire not to 'be anything', is a desire not to be." -Ayn Rand
"He is trying to find a way to not do anything and do something on the matter at the same time."
Obamateur doesn't know what to do but he wants credit for having done it. Markaphasia gives it to him and wants credit from us for having given it to him.
"what other choices does he have in Afghanistan besides the two I indicated?"
Well, the central problem as I see it is that the government we have supported for the last eight years is corrupt. This needs to change. Keeping troops there or pulling them out (your two choices) will not assist in this endeavor. Do we just pay people off like we did in Iraq? Eikenberry is clued in on many of the problems in the country and we should follow his lead.
From the military side, we need more human intelligence. We just don't have enough. There needs to be a national consensus on our part to learn as much as we can about AFPak and use that to our advantage. We need people who know the region infiltrating the ranks of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We don't have much of that now and we need more. Understand, this is hard for me to say because a big part of me just wants to bomb the shit out of large areas of Pakistan. But that would accomplish nothing. See also my Patraeus quote below regarding counter insurgency.
"Dead terrorists and lower taxes?"
bin Laden/Zawahari still alive and economy in shambles is a more accurate description of reality.
"I offered his perspective as a first hand account..."
"You are a moron."
Hmm...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1104/p08s04-wosc.html
"'If you bring more troops it will speed up results, but it can be done with what we have,' says US Army Lt. Gabe Lamois of Alexandria, Va., echoing the common sentiment here in the river valley.
A surge in US troops could even hinder another goal here, of putting an Afghan face on security efforts, some soldiers point out."
See below for another soldier's point of view.
GOF, one thing I did not see in your comment is the fact that the military is commanded by civilian leadership. President Obama is in charge of the military and thus, his ambassador to Afghanistan, Gen Eikenberry, is part of that decision making process. It sounds to me like you would rather have our country run by the military. Am I wrong? I hope so.
"you have not cited any sources"
See the above link, DJ. But, since you are extra special.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=56689
"The time President Barack Obama is taking to nail down the strategy in Afghanistan is time well spent, the commander of U.S. Central Command said today.
Army Gen. David H. Petraeus spoke at the Navy Memorial here as part of the American Veterans Center Annual Conference. He based his words not only on his current experiences, he said, but also on his experiences as the commander in Iraq.
'The real key in Iraq was the surge of ideas, not just the surge of troops,' Petraeus said. 'Yes, the 30,000 additional troops that ended up being deployed during the surge enabled us to … implement time-honored counterinsurgency concepts more effectively and more rapidly than we could have.'
Americans going to the country must understand the local customs and culture and the local power structures. 'We are trying to help Afghanistan re-establish traditional ruling structures: the traditional [religious leaders], the traditional tribal leaders, who in many areas have been pushed aside, or killed, or run off by the Taliban or the more extreme leaders,' he said.
So, DJ, by my count I have the formal General in charge of Afghanistan, the current commander of CentCom and troops on the ground in Afghanistan. Would you like some more sources?
Owned.
Yes, Mark, we would like more sources.
For the 50 other threads you've run away from.
Come on people. Democrats are great at running wars. Just take a look at Nam.
Democrats gave us "rules of engagement". A fantastic way to prolong violence and suffering.
The biggest war criminal of modern times was a democrat---Lyndon Johnson. From my personal observations, at least 20% of the casualties on BOTH sides of the Nam war were directly attributable to LBJ and Robert Strange McNamara policies.
My fear now is that this Obama will get all of us killed. This boy is a complete incompetent.
"Dead terrorists and lower taxes?"
bin Laden/Zawahari still alive
So?
See, Mark, this is why we laugh at you. You've now set the bar at 100% or 0%. Pass/Fail. Either you kill ALL the terrorists (that you can name) or you fail. You fail to note all the terrorists who are now dead. The networks that have been uprooted, the jihadi's who won't be wanting to shoot up a mall in your home town ... because they were shot by a US or allied serviceperson.
What task can you find that Obama completes 100%?
Not 95, but 100%. That is your measurement. If we can name any part that he doesn't succeed at, then he fails! By your measurement!
and economy in shambles is a more accurate description of reality.
Which has what to do with tax cuts? More money flowed into the Treasury.
The economy in shambles, as a result of what, exactly? Oh, yes. The nice, "progressive" or liberal, or whatever you want to call it subsidization of the housing market for people who were poor risks.
So, have we fixed it? Oh, no, we're still doing the same thing, even more so.
Thus you've "owned" yourself. Again.
Oh, and after the real estate crash and since the start of the current Administration we've demonized small business, promised to regulate more, add more fees, taxes, penalties, started trade wars, borrowed so heavily that the Bush deficit seems minor...
Again, not something you really want to be bringing up. But you're happily ignorant of anything other than your slander of the moment. You can in one hand condemn the lack of US jobs, and in the other, insist on huge tangled and arbitrary regulatory webs for environmental issues, personnel, capital...
President Obama is in charge of the military and thus, his ambassador to Afghanistan, Gen Eikenberry, is part of that decision making process.
No, he's not. I don't think you really want to get into a pissing match.. with... uh, vets.
What the hell am I saying? Of course you do. You don't have the sense to understand how much you don't understand, of course you want to argue with servicepeople about how the military works and lecture them.
Sorry, Ralph, it's getting late. You working the weekend?
"No, he's not."
Um....what? Unix, are you saying that President Obama is not charge of the military? Or that the former commander of the operation in Afghanistan (2 years), now ambassador to said country (i.e. owns your ass like a cheap whore), is not part of the decision making process?
"Yes, Mark, we would like more sources."
Adam, I'd like to see you respond to these two. And you are done with the shit giving regarding my "lack" of responsiveness. 16 words....sheesh.
Unix, are you saying that President Obama is not charge of the military? Or that the former commander of the operation in Afghanistan (2 years), now ambassador to said country (i.e. owns your ass like a cheap whore), is not part of the decision making process?
While I admit there's a possibility it wasn't clear, there's a much more likely possibility.
No, the ambassador is not in the chain of command. GOF already pointed that out.
"As part of the decision making process" is, though strained, possible, but you are using "decision making process" to be synonymous with "chain of command".
They're not.
Apologies for any confusion I engendered there.
(i.e. owns your ass like a cheap whore)
Only Verbatim Boy (who doesn't know that 22 is more than 15, or that a job isn't slavery, nor is a mortgage), would want to be tossing around slanders like that.
But at least if my ass was owned like a cheap whore (which it's not, as noted above, you hadn't proven any point, and it's just par for your course that you thought you did) I could get some help and money from ACORN.
Adam, I'd like to see you respond to these two.
Why? You of all people have no ability to critique those who would just leave.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/khbaker/1503790346953031557/
Compare:
Markadelphia: I am not advocating seizing large quantities of cash from the most wealthy of this country.
Markadelphia: They pissed it away ... They used to to pay their CEOs insane sums of money for failing and invested it in unicorn farts. I think we have seen what they do with breaks and I think they should have less of them.
Only one of those can be true.
And you are done with the shit giving regarding my "lack" of responsiveness.
Suck it up, Verbatim Boy. Your bed. You made it. You get to lie in it. Or you've got a lot of threads to get back active in.
Notice all those threads above, in just this one URL that you've left dangling?
Hell, how about you correct even ONE of your slanders of Bush you've made in this thread. One. Should be easy enough for you to admit it, right?
...
I'll be nice and not note what people said when people who worked for Bush opined on his plans and efforts. Seems that made them unreliable, to some people.
By the way, Mark, adding to things you'll run away from...
Neo-neocon said: That was a huge part of the calculation by the enemy in Vietnam, and it worked very well for them. Vietam was a war of attrition; the enemies there calculated that they had more tenacity than we did, and they were correct.
What, exactly, (which means to be specific, which means to explain what) is "unhinged" about that?
Marky Boy, you stupid fucking turd, don't you ever presume to know the thoughts of the military. Ever. You're nothing but a fucking tool, a dipshit who's been used and doesn't even know it. Obama has done nothing in Afghanistan, and the military doesn't seem much good coming from the White House. General McChrystal has put out his plan, and Obama has ignored it, because Obama, like you, is a fucking retarded piece of shit who is so mentally diseased with Leftism that you can't even begin to think logically.
So take it from this Soldier, Marky Boy - you're a clueless fuck, and you don't have the right to even think about what the military wants. YOU are part of the problem, Marky. Not the solution.
If there's an Internet version of wall-to-wall counseling, I think we just saw it.
"And you are done with the shit giving regarding my "lack" of responsiveness. "
No, I'm not, you motherfucker, and here's why:
I've watched you, for the last two fucking years, run from thread after thread.
I've engaged you on your own blog and you've run away.
I've engaged your friends and fellow bullshitters on your own blog, and they've run away.
And I've watched, again and again, as you have lied, misled, and thrown down complete nonsensical shit here and been outright mocked and proven wrong about it.
You keep coming back, and you never back up your statements.
So, yes, supposing you could even prove *one* of your statements wrong, it would never excuse the massive amounts of lies and bullshit you've thrown down here.
Fuck you.
You're not really here for the hunting, are you, Markadelphia? :lol:
From http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1104/p08s04-wosc.html
'"The Taliban is not scared of the Afghan Army or Afghan police because we don't have heavy weapons. But there's enough US soldiers here to make us safe," says Raheem Hamdard, an Afghan policeman.'
And that was what my brother was going to help change. He was going to help train the Afghan Army to become dangerous to the Taliban until Obama but the brakes on it by his indecision.
"ut for many of the soldiers at Combat Outpost Penich, top commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal's stark warning – to send more troops or risk failure – sounds too dire. At least in the eastern Kunar River Valley, where their company-sized force (about 100 soldiers) is posted, they say the challenges aren't quite so insurmountable. Yes, they say, major results may take time, and soldiers here face difficult living and working conditions, but they say they can get the job done."
Um,a general like McChrystal sees more than just one small outpost. The 100 troops there maybe able to handle what they have, but that doesn't speak for the rest of the country.
My previous statement still stands, you are a moron. Further more, you still have no way of assessing and evaluating information that hasn't been predigested for you.
Although, I did look deep into my shriveled, black lump of a heart, and I am actually starting to pity Marxy. Being so wrong so often and so long must really be a hard burden to bear.
"a general like McChrystal"
And yet no comment about my link and quote from General Patraeus? Does he see more than "one small outpost?" That link was from the defense department web site. I guess they don't know anything and secretly hate President Obama for his pinko faggotiness.
"So take it from this Soldier, Marky Boy - you're a clueless fuck, and you don't have the right to even think about what the military wants. YOU are part of the problem, Marky. Not the solution."
Well, you are correct. I don't have the right but the people I listed above do. In fact, if you are a soldier presently in the military then President Obama is YOUR supreme commander. If he says jump, you say how high? Am I right?
So,while you are busy ripping me I'm going to ponder how much that sucks for you.
And yet no comment
Wrong, yet again, Ralph.
What was that you said?
Owned?
Yep, you been p3wn3d.
Oh, and you've got a fine sense of irony to try and call anyone here out for abandoning threads. I counted no less than 10 you've already dropped. In this one URL. Then I ran out of fingers.
In fact, if you are a soldier presently in the military then President Obama is YOUR supreme commander. If he says jump, you say how high? Am I right?
So,while you are busy ripping me I'm going to ponder how much that sucks for you.
Thank you Mark, for your constant state of doltishness.
If he says jump, you say how high? Am I right?
Speaking for those in the service, no, not really. But I suppose someone as classless as the Democrats keep nominating might try that. Obviously you have no problem with it.
So,while you are busy ripping me I'm going to ponder how much that sucks for you.
Gods of the machine abend, you are a clueless dolt.
While you're enjoying the idea of torturing those sworn to protect you who you disagree with, you might want to just think about what would happen if they were to take exception to you and yours sneering disdain. There are many historical examples of exactly that. History? That class you slept through? Oh well...
Luckily for those of us who have exceeded a elementary school level of pique, they're far better people than you are.
"Kevin S., I suggest that you take a look at ALL of the information that is kicking around the Pentagon right now."
I'm not privy to ALL the information kicking around the Pentagon, any more than you are.
"The "troops" as you put it are of many opinions and they don't just share McCrystal's views."
So what? The military is not a democracy, nor is it a committee. McChrystal's the commander.
"So, all the NSC meetings, the extra troops he sent over in February, Eikenberry....that's not dealing with it?"
Um, no. Talking is not doing. You can have all the committee meetings and focus groups in the world, but they will all add up to a puddle of bunny piss if you don't actually IMPLEMENT something.
El presidente has been apprised of a problem in theater, has turned down ALL options offered to him, and has refused TO MAKE A DECISION. Not for seven minutes, BUT FOR OVER TWO MONTHS.
This is serious stuff, Markadelphia.
Your guy's in over his head - he's to arrogant to admit it, and you're too stupid to realize it.
And yet no comment on what was "unhinged" about neo-neocon's Vietnam comparison.
Speaking of...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/post_23.html
Is Obama's specific error about Hirohito important? Not really; it's quite minor. But it's another indication of Obama's view of history: a lot of dramatic images (or, as he said, "notions") and very little detail or understanding of what's going on, or the need to do so. And I suspect Obama is ignorant in the worst way: he's ignorant of the extent of his ignorance. Or perhaps he's not ignorant at all, but purposely twisting the truth. Or maybe each, at different times.
This tendency of Obama's has been in evidence in many of his speeches: his summary of the Cold War, which he got entirely wrong. His Cairo address to the Muslim world on their history and that of the West, in which "almost every one of his references was either misleading or incomplete." On the campaign trail, when he showed astounding historical ignorance (or prevarication; take your choice) in his mischaracterization of the Berlin airlift.
Obama's errors are not random; they fit a certain pattern:
...
Obama's reluctance to pursue victory in Afghanistan is not just about that country and the peculiar challenges of combat there. Obama is quite explicit about that. In fact, he says he is "always worried" [emphasis mine] about using the "v" word because of the negative associations it conjures up in his mind: Hirohito coming down to sign a surrender to MacArthur.
Why that image (which never occurred in reality) would be so highly negative to Obama is a bit unclear; after all, wouldn't it represent the end of a long war and our victory over an aggressive enemy, as well as the beginning of that nation's rebirth and rebuilding under a democratic system? And note that Hirohito was allowed to live out the rest of his natural days in peace, continuing to reign over the new Japan until dying in his late 80s in 1989.
So, what might Obama find so terrible about all of that? ... to what he sees as the humiliation ("coming down") of a non-white (in this case, an Asian) at the hands of a white American ... but to unconditionally surrender, and then to have his country occupied by the morally despicable US.
That is what American victory means to Obama. And he's determined to avoid it.
And on contrast, we probably should in all fairness bring up the real bombshell today.
The decision to move Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York and try him in the criminal justice system.
http://blog.american.com/?p=7158
Trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian court will be an intelligence bonanza for al Qaeda, tie up our courts for years on issues best left to the president and Congress, and further cripple our intelligence agencies’ efforts to fight terrorists abroad.
KSM and his co-defendants will have all of the benefits and rights that the U.S. Constitution accords those who live here, most importantly the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it was obtained.
Arrested spies commonly use this right to get a better deal out of the government,...
This is no idle prediction. All one has to do is look at what happened in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the twentieth hijacker who was captured before 9/11 in the United States—his desire to learn how to take off but not land jetliners while at flight school tipped off the FBI. His trial never reached a single proceeding before a jury, and he tied up the court in knots for four years ...
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTVkN2ZhMTU0NzcwYWVmYTNmODI1ZTJjMTA1ZDFiODQ=
It would be too politically explosive for Obama/Holder to do the dirty work of charging Bush administration officials; but as new revelations from investigations and declassifications are churned out, ... Thus, administration cooperation gives Obama's base the reckoning it demands but Obama gets to deny responsibility for any actual prosecutions.
Today's announcement that KSM and other top al-Qaeda terrorists will be transferred to Manhattan federal court for civilian trials neatly fits this hidden agenda. Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials. They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses — intelligence sources — must expose themselves and their secrets.
... KSM and his confederates wanted to plead guilty and have their martyrs' execution last December, when they were being handled by military commission.... The Obama administration could still accommodate them. After all, the president has not pulled the plug on all military commissions: Holder is going to announce at least one commission trial (for Nashiri, the Cole bomber) today.
Moreover, KSM has no defense. He was under American indictment for terrorism for years before there ever was a 9/11, and he can't help himself but brag about the atrocities he and his fellow barbarians have carried out.
So: We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America. Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it. The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts. And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.
....
I'm sure Mark sneers at these predictions (by men who know the criminal justice system well, and unlike The Won, have actually argued - and won - cases.)
But I know which way I'm betting. Too bad Mark won't put his money where his mouth is - we'd be rich.
"In fact, if you are a soldier presently in the military then President Obama is YOUR supreme commander. If he says jump, you say how high? Am I right?"
Saying "how high" when the "Supreme Commander" says "jump" sounds more like your fantasy, son, not to mention being a more apt description of the Milice de Volontaires de la Sécurité Nationale than the U.S. armed forces. Perhaps you don't understand the difference; perhaps you'd prefer the MVSN.
"Owned."
No, dipshit, you've simply done what you should have done without having to be kicked in the ass first.
We've been trying for two and half long, frustrating years to get you to understand that making uncorroborated (look it up, teacher boy) statements is indistinguishable from making shit up, that if you want people to believe what you say is true, then you should provide evidence that people can verify on their own. You are the slowest learner I have ever had contact with, but you have now actually shown very slight evidence of learning this.
Now, try doing it without having to be prodded.
"Would you like some more sources?"
Of course we would.
The next thing for you to learn is what I've been telling you all during those same two and half years. The truth cannot be contrary to observable fact. Thus, you should never stop gathering evidence and testing the truth against it.
You behave like a one-trick pony; you stop looking when you find one fact that supports what you believe and then you ignore all the facts you stumbled over in the process that don't. So, yes, by all means, keep looking and show us, but show us all the facts, not just the pretty ones.
"Or that the former commander of the operation in Afghanistan ... is not part of the decision making process?"
That's right, he is not.
Teacher boy, you don't know what you don't know about how the military works. Decision making in the military is not done by committee. Decisions in the military are made by those who have command authority. Advisors to the President, regardless of their history, do not have command authority. They can make suggestions to the President, but they cannot make decisions that have binding authority over others.
"... now ambassador to said country ... is not part of the decision making process?"
Yet again, you don't know what you don't know.
Ambassadors to foreign countries are figureheads. Their job is to carry messages to and from the President and to formally represent the President as his agent. They are not in the chain of command and they do not have command authority.
The State Department runs embassies through its permanent staff, who are career professions and are highly trained for the job. Ambassadorships are political perks, i.e. rewards for contributors and such, and are generally very short term in nature. Ambassadors are trained in the protocols of receptions and photo ops, but little else.
Now, how do I know this? My former employer served as one. He could not even come and go as he pleased because he was under strict travel orders issued by the State Department. For a wealthy person who owned and ran his own business, this was intolerable. He served for only a bit over two years because he could not tolerate being a puppet. He was not a commanding officer, he was not a decision maker, and he was not an advisor; he was a gopher in a pretty suit.
Well, the central problem as I see it is that the government we have supported for the last eight years is corrupt. This needs to change.
I'm not going to claim to be "up on" Afghan politics, but okay, so stipulated.
Keeping troops there or pulling them out (your two choices) will not assist in this endeavor.
Not directly, no. What they do accomplish is to have an armed, unified force in the area basically saying "You guys don't get to use things that go 'bang' in your decision making process until we leave. Now go and work out yer issues." In other words, it is a stabilizing force much more often than not.
Does it increase the danger to the people over there (ours and theirs)? Ours, of course it does. But that's still an improvement over those who are there being 'hung out to dry'. Support them or pull them out, anything in the middle increases casualties without increasing effectiveness.
Theirs? In some ways yes, in others no. The overall stabilizing effect increases overall safety. But of course, this makes those whose purpose is chaos go to yet greater lengths. This is not exactly news, either.
Eikenberry is clued in on many of the problems in the country and we should follow his lead.
That's not up to you or me. Eikenberry is welcome to advise the President (as I'm sure he does, that's his job after all) and the President is welcome to listen to him or not. But as others have pointed out better than me (sorry, I didn't realize it was necessary), the only two people with command authority in this process are President Obama and Gen. McChrystal. Eikenberry can be, and is, part of the information gathering process. He is not, nor can he be, part of the chain of command.
From the military side, we need more human intelligence. We just don't have enough. There needs to be a national consensus on our part to learn as much as we can about AFPak and use that to our advantage. We need people who know the region infiltrating the ranks of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We don't have much of that now and we need more.
I'm glad you understand that part. Do you understand that increasing the size of the force in the area not only increases the basic stabilizing effect of a military "police action" presence, it also provides an even larger crowd of "rather new to the area" people for those doing intel gathering to hide among?
GOF, one thing I did not see in your comment is the fact that the military is commanded by civilian leadership. President Obama is in charge of the military and thus, his ambassador to Afghanistan, Gen Eikenberry, is part of that decision making process.
See above.
It sounds to me like you would rather have our country run by the military. Am I wrong? I hope so.
Yes, you are wrong, and I'm very glad you are. What I'm saying is that the President's blazing ignorance of what the military is for and how they work is apparent in his decision making process. While Eikenberry should be ready to advise him, he has no command authority and should know it.
A Marine Corps Lt. Colonel once told me the secret of successful command lay in "the 3 D's":
Dictate
Delegate
Disappear
In other words, if you are the President, and therefore Commanding Officer Present in any possible variation on this theme, you have gotten your information, from McChrystal, from Eikenberry, from many others. Now make up your fucking mind. Snap out your orders, delegate the people you want to execute those orders, and get the hell out of the way.
"If you bring more troops it will speed up results, but it can be done with what we have..."
Sure, in theory. Assuming your opponents don't succeed in changing the boundary conditions of the game, which is something you never assume in a war, much less in politics.
Given the nature of the US elective process, it's not completely out of left field to think that if the AfPak theatre isn't "won" by 2016, we've lost, period. What will conditions there have to be like, at a minimum, for US voters to support a candidate backing a continuation of action there?
And, regardless of how much or little time you spent, how many or how few people you sent, if you went in at all and didn't accomplish your mission, in many ways all you did was throw away lives, both ours and theirs.
Well, the central problem as I see it is that the government we have supported for the last eight years is corrupt. This needs to change.
Considering the state of our own government, both now and for the last several decades, I feel I must express support for anyone who is skeptical of anything we say or do on this subject.
"Dictate
Delegate
Disappear"
My father, who died as a Colonel in the Army at age 45, taught me this as a child.
Dictate the mission.
Delegate the authority to decide how to accomplish it.
Disappear so it can happen.
He didn't use those three words, but that is what he taught.
Good examples of this are Tommy Franks, Norman Schwarzkopf, David Petraeus, Dwight Eisenhower, Chester Nimitz, and Omar Bradley.
The worst example of this is Lyndon Johnson.
We don't know how well Obamateur will follow these rules. He hasn't decided yet.
Markadelphia, we know you are 100% ignorant on any topics concerning the military, but why do you have to be so ironically militant about your ignorance?
This quote, though, just blows my mind:
Keeping troops there or pulling them out (your two choices) will not assist in this endeavor.
You know that your only choices are to keep troops in Afghanistan, or to take them out? If you do not take them out, you have to keep them there. If take them out, you cannot keep them there. If neither is "helpful", then what, exactly, will be helpful? You just described a binary situation, and said neither 1 nor 0 is the right answer - I hate to break it to you, but that is a non sequiteur of the highest order.
...thus, his ambassador to Afghanistan, Gen Eikenberry, is part of that decision making process...
Taken at face value, this statement is entirely false. For the sake of education (assuming you understand the concept, which is a frightening thought, considering your supposed teacher-ness), you might want to take a look at the military's chain of command. Yes, there are civilians at the top - namely, the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the various branches' Secretaries. But there are no ambassadors, no advisors, no close personal friends, no other civilians in the military's chain of command.
Yes, the ambassador can advise the President, and that may affect the President's decision-making process, but the ambassador is not, in any way, shape, or form, actually or directly involved in that decision-making process. Hell, to put it in tremendously simple terms (that you still will probably violently misunderstand), the ambassador reports to his own chain of command through the Department of State, a Department that has no say, sway, or control over the Department of Defense.
Do you even comprehend how our government operates on a daily basis on the grand scheme, much less the specific details of military operations?
...by my count I have the formal General in charge of Afghanistan...
Funny, by my count, the formal General in charge of Afghanistan (namely, General McChrystal) is the one asking for more troops. I suppose you meant "former General in charge of Afghanistan", but his opinion, to be perfectly frank, is completely meaningless at the moment. General McChrystal took over almost six months ago - effectively an eternity in terms of warfare, especially the kind of warfare our troops are encountering in Afghanistan. Sure, the previous General can make his opinions known, but when it comes to a choice between listening to him, and listening to the man on the ground, in the fight, only a pure-bred idiot would go with the former.
...and troops on the ground in Afghanistan...
You just do not comprehend how the military is run, do you? The troops are there to follow orders, do their jobs, and make the other guys die for their countries. Yeah, more often than not, the opinion of those individuals in the foxholes will differ, often greatly, from the opinions of those guys who have the charts and maps laid out in front of them. Which one do you think has a better picture of the situation? Which one do you think will have a better idea of how the strategy is coming together? Which one do you think will have a better understanding of how the fight is tending?
The military does not operate off consensus. Stop pretending like it does.
Now, back to the top...
Now, a rational, intelligent, and measured man has to deal with a giant pile of shit and you rip him for it.
1. Calling him those words does not make him worthy of them.
2. The only thing of Our Glorious President that has been "measured" is his astonishing willingness to dawdle, dally, and delay when it comes to making the important decisions abou things that actually matter, rather than things that simply give him and his compatriots more power/popularity.
3. We are ripping him because he is not dealing with it. He is pissing and moaning while our servicemembers are fighting and dying. No, he did not start this war. No, it probably was not his choice (though I will point out that he actually managed to vote "yes" for a good number of bills providing monetary support to the Afghanistan operations).
But by God, he is the gorramed President of the United States and the Commander in Chief of our military, and it is about frakking time he start acting like it. Bush is no longer in office. He has not been in office for almost a year now. Your window for blaming him for current situation has well and truly expired. This situation, and every other situation that we are currently engaged in, is President Barack Hussein Obama's responsibility - the buck stops at his desk, whether he admits to it or not.
If he was taking his time figuring out a strategy before engaging in a conflict, then I would, most likely, be completely understanding and supportive (it would depend on the situation). But right at this moment, the enemy is engaged, our troops are fighting, and our general in the field, with the situational knowledge that one gathers from being in the fight (and, for the record, the military invariably supports situational knowledge as superior to alternatives), is saying that our current numbers are going to be insufficient for even our current plans, much less future ones. If Our Glorious President wants the breathing room to make up his mind about the situation, then he should make the gorramed breathing room and not simply let his troops swing in the breeze while he bullshits with his advisors. As General Patton said, “A good plan, violently executed today, is better than a perfect plan next week.”
It is time to lead, follow, or get the frak out of the way. Our Glorious President is desperately trying to find the responsibility-shirking "none of the above" button, but it simply does not exist. Sadly, that speaks volumes about the character of the individual we elected to be our President, and your sycophantish, unquestioning support of him (even to the point of using patently fallacious arguments to do so) speaks even more about you, Marxy.
"What I'm saying is that the President's blazing ignorance of what the military is for and how they work is apparent in his decision making process."
How exactly are you intimately aware of the president's decision making process? Neither one of us are in the NSC meetings so anything we say is pure conjecture. In addition, your inherent bias precludes you from making a truly critical assessment of this process.
"The military does not operate off consensus. Stop pretending like it does."
Correct but the civilian leadership does somewhat...that's why the call it a national security COUNCIL. Our current president weighs the opinions of everyone and then gets to make the final decision.
I wonder, linoge, if perhaps you have been fantasizing about this a little too much of late...
http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/pdf/newsmax-20090929-perry_coup.pdf
"How exactly are you intimately aware of the president's decision making process? Neither one of us are in the NSC meetings so anything we say is pure conjecture. In addition, your inherent bias precludes you from making a truly critical assessment of this process."
How exactly are you intimately aware of the president's decision making process? You are not in the NSC meetings so anything you say is pure conjecture. In addition, your inherent bias precludes you from making a truly critical assessment of this process.
Goddamn, you blithering idiot, have you understood nothing you've read here? You've described yourself but you can't recognize yourself!
How exactly are you intimately aware of the president's decision making process?
Funny, we've been asking you that for 2 years, and your answer was you "knew the right questions" to ask.
Well, apparently we know the right questions to ask.
You're so oblivious that you don't even realize when you've undermined your own argument and set charges in the tunnel under it, do you?
Our current president weighs the opinions of everyone and then gets to make the final decision.
*headdesk*
Jesus fucking Christ, Mark. Is it really so hard to click a goddamed link?
1. The National Security Council, itself, is not part of the military chain of command. Members of the Council are (specifically, the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), but the Council itself, as a whole, has absolutely no direct say, whatsoever, in the running or operations of the United States Military, nor any control of the same.
2. Making decisions based off information presented to you is not the same as operating by consensus, even when that information is opinions from coworkers or a specific organization/group. Now, if the National Security Council were to vote, and that vote would irrevocably determine the future course of the military, that would be consensus (as I type this, I realize the futility of trying to teach the meaning of a word to somone who does not comprehend the meaning of "verbatim" or "slavery").
I wonder, linoge, if perhaps you have been fantasizing about this a little too much of late...
Yeah, that is it. I put up specific explanations of how the military chain of command works, how the military works, and what the President is supposed to do, and you put up strawmen idiocy, based off a single comment of mine you did not even completely read.
If you ever wanted to demonstrate how weak your position is, that would be a great way.
Two and half years of the same mistakes, over and over and over again ...
Doofus boy, I gave up having any real interest in your political thoughts quite some time ago. It is the mechanics of what passes for thought on your part that interests me. I never imagined that a personality could be so pathologically self-destructive of it's own thought process as yours is.
Well, the central problem as I see it is that the government we have supported for the last eight years is corrupt.
Followed by:
Americans going to the country must understand the local customs and culture and the local power structures.
The Afghan govt has ALWAYS been corrupt - at least by OUR standards. Therefore these two statements are contradictory.
Way to go M!
Juris:
The Afghan govt has ALWAYS been corrupt - at least by OUR standards
Wait, which standard? The Chicago standard? They're still pikers compared to that.
I put up specific explanations of how the military chain of command works, how the military works, and what the President is supposed to do, and you put up strawmen idiocy, based off a single comment of mine you did not even completely read. - Linoge
Standard Response #6
Should I also mention that the central tenet of M's opinion, that the Afghan govt of the last 8 years is corrupt, is intended to tie it to the Bush admin. Karzai was appointed to head the interim govt as a result of the Bonn Agreement (under NATO sponsorship). I guess NATO was just a Bush puppet, eh?
What is absolutely hysterical is that M's opinions on what the U.S. can do in Afghanistan are IDENTICAL to the Bush administration (and the Obama administration, which hasn't changed course an iota there). Way to go M - you are a Bush supporter after all and just as apt to actually learn something as your bête noire.
"What I'm saying is that the President's blazing ignorance of what the military is for and how they work is apparent in his decision making process."
How exactly are you intimately aware of the president's decision making process? Neither one of us are in the NSC meetings so anything we say is pure conjecture.
No, we are not, nor should we be. Nonetheless, it is blatantly obvious from his actions (or rather, lack thereof) that he either has not learned the 3 D's of command, hasn't understood them and/or hasn't taken them to heart.
Dictate the mission.
Delegate the authority to decide how to accomplish it.
Disappear so it can happen.
My father, who died as a Colonel in the Army at age 45, taught me this as a child.
Did you note that, Mark? This is a lesson officers' children learn, just "by the way" as part of growing up as a military brat. Yes, it is that basic to understanding the purpose and functioning of the military. The President is making it plain that he has not learned this lesson. It's just that simple.
Therefore:
"...the President's blazing ignorance of what the military is for and how they work is apparent in his decision making process."
A+B=C. Does it make sense now?
Please understand that I'm not faulting you for not knowing this. You have no need. But it is flatly unacceptable for the overall commander not to know this. It increases the "clumsiness factor" of military action by an order of magnitude at least, with accompanying casualty rates on both sides. That doesn't make him a bad person or anything, but it does indicate that he is poorly suited to the job he's in.
And in this case, being "poorly suited" is likely to cost a fair number of lives.
Oh, as an aside: Gen. ________ (insert any name you like here, but currently serving either in the military or the Administration. Any Administration) can say all he likes that "President _________ is doing just as he should", and that actually means zilch-point-doodoo.
The actual translation of that comment is, "I'm a soldier, one of the first lessons I learned was not to badmouth my superiors."
That doesn't mean he agrees or disagrees, it means you won't find out for certain unless he breaks that protocol.
So let me try to get this straight. I put forward Obama's two choices in my previous comment and Marko answers that we need more intellegence.
Well, how are we going to get more intellegence unless we send more troops into Afghanistan? We would need more troops to support the intellegence officers and to act as support to infiltrate them into the areas where they would operate.
So I would gather that you support my option 2: increase the troops.
See, it's not really that hard.
Marko is already a better leader than President Obama.
As far as you support of Ambassador Eikenberry over General McChrystal, well as others have pointed out, McChrystal is the one in charge. Obama put him in charge. If Obama does not trust his judgement, he should replace him with a General he can trust.
And as Obama dawdles, our troops in Afghanistan swing in the wind.
Hell, a President Kucinich would be better at making a decision. But Kucinich has a value system.
Marko answers that we need more intellegence.
Isn't that a bit like zombies needing more brains?
Yeah, I know, Kevin... I was trying to argue/reason with an individual who could not even pass a Turing Test. Rub it in some more... ;)
Unix mentioned tactics and logistics, and I thought I'd look for a few quotes. I found a treasury of such:
http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/logistics-quotes-t511.html
In fact, if you are a soldier presently in the military then President Obama is YOUR supreme commander. If he says jump, you say how high? Am I right?
So,while you are busy ripping me I'm going to ponder how much that sucks for you.
Ouch. I've just gotten my first Markdelphia-headache.
OK, one step at a time:
Noble masters may have been known to mistreat their subject peasant conscripts in such manner, but only up to a point. Peasant conscripts made no bones about killing their noble masters if pushed too far.
Our citizen soldiers are not bound to jump up and down like a ninny when ordered, just to satisfy a juvenile desire to prove oneself "in command".
You see, adults (those are the big people doing all of those important things that you don't understand) understand the importance of showing proper respect to those other adults whom have been tasked, and have voluntarily accepted said tasking, with doing difficult and dangerous work.
While Authoritarians of all stripes (but most especially the Left, for some reason) seem to think that soldiers are nothing more than mindless automatons paid to do their master's bidding, no matter what that may be, in reality, soldiers are human beings. We think and act according to what suits us individually as best. Or have you never heard the word "desertion"? Push a soldier too far, and he'll leave. Men do not tolerate being treated like children.
I hate having to explain this. Someone like Markadelphia simply cannot understand the importance of respecting those who are actually doing the work necessary to continue civilization.
Men do not "jump" on command. Lackies and slaves and unrespectable nitwits do, and that group do not make good defenders. Men being asked to jump around like fools would simply quit the service.
For a good reason. Soldiers need good commanders to make effective use of military strength. A good commander will not attempt to humiliate his own troops by telling them to "jump" like a trained dog. Any commander who behaved in such manner would deserve what he had coming to him, and he'll be alone when it does.
This reminds me of when I told someone I would never support a draft under any conditions, no matter how desperate for soldiers we got. He wondered how I could advocate such a thing, being ex-military myself and knowing how badly the guys who are out there would suffer for lack of the support.
My reply:
"If they didn't choose to be here, if they didn't choose to be part of the same team as me, if they're not gonna hang with me when things get ugly, and save my ass because it's just as important to them as their own.... then I don't want em on my flank when trouble starts, and I don't fucking care how many of em there are. Half of what you really want and need is a better deal than any amount of what you really don't."
In fact, if you are a soldier presently in the military then President Obama is YOUR supreme commander. If he says jump, you say how high? Am I right?
So,while you are busy ripping me I'm going to ponder how much that sucks for you.
You want to know what sucks, Marky-boy? The fact that our troops are over there dying while the commander in chief that brain-dead fucknozzles like you elected sits on his hands.
And while I sit here trying to understand just how fucking dumb you have to be in order to come in and act as if you actually know what the military wants, I just want to point out that through your support of Obama's dithering, you are in fact supporting the deaths of the Soldiers that come from it. Your blind, mindless support of your Liberal Lord and Messiah has real world consequences, but the tragedy of it is that you won't ever face them. Other people will pay that particular bill.
So Marky - go fuck yourself. And once again, don't you ever presume to know what the military is thinking.
Dave, just read the gibberish he has crapped in Kevin's parlor for two years. He doesn't even know what he is thinking.
He doesn't even know what he is thinking.
Interesting. He probably thinks he knows what he is thinking. Certainly he must feel something that he interprets as thought.
It's too bad we aren't the Nazi vivisectionists he imagines us to be; at least then we could open up that skull and poke around in it.
juris:
But I don't think there are any geologists amongst us.
It's been done, I have pictures.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1175430/British-explorers-discover-worlds-largest-cave-deep-Vietnamese-jungle.html
I never thought I'd say this, but I find myself pitying Hillary Clinton.
Follow what she does as Secretary of State. Love her, hate or or anywhere in between, you have to concede that she's at least in there trying to do the job.
I can imagine the hell it must be for someone who is that decisive, indeed that much of a control freak, to be working for someone as indecisive as President Obama.
It's ego, Grumpy. It might have been her last gasp at public office. Obamateur made a political master stroke by playing to her ego and offering her a job in which she would report to him, and which she would have a very difficult time turning down. It effectively neutralized her from being a threat to him in any way, at least until 2016.
DJ:
I don't think the evidence supports that.
Going into the nomination vote at the DNC, neither Clinton nor Obama had a plurality.
And only the first vote is pledged. Meaning that after the first vote, it's time for the bare knuckle brawls for votes until a plurality is achieved.
Also remember, after Clinton woke up and realized that Obama had decided that her VP wasn't a high enough pay grade for him, Obama hadn't won a single primary. Momentum is high for her.
So at that point, Clinton's in position of huge power. She can force a nasty fight - possibly winning it due to her ties to superdelegates. (I was afraid she'd be holding out for USSC.)
And she settles for .. Secretary of State? Really? She could be President, and she takes Secretary of State?
I don't think that was a masterstroke by Obama, and I wonder what the other parts of the deal that Clinton agreed to include.
Especially as he decides do to something as stupid as try KSM and others in NY... Which can't be anything but a sop to the International Left.
... Secretary of State's a damn cheap bid for what Clinton owned. And Clinton's no chump. I don't think, anyway.
Wait a second... I can't believe it's taken this long to point out that Kevin finally is quoting Rush verbatim.
That's some quality snark, right there!
And Quote of the Day, too!
Well here's a "Moment of Zen" for tomorrow.... or maybe "Moment of Snark", whichever.
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh112/tedm82/MOTsarahp2.jpg?t=1258300907
Unix,
I think Clinton bowed under to avoid an even nastier fight, that might damage the Dem ticket.
Frankly, I was shocked that she did -- given the Clinton's history (Hell, just look at the election cycle in question), I expected her to go all Samson in the Temple on the DNC and blame Obama from 2010 until her "regretfully forced" primary challeng to him in 2012.
Of course, once she took the Secretary of State job, I've been waiting for her to resign in protest, to do the same 2012 strategy. And Obama has been giving her a large enough shit sandwich (with his CONSTANT undercutting of the prestige and authority of her office) that she's almost to a point where such a protest resignation and primary challenge WILL come across as principled, honorable, and justified.
Which may just go to show that Hillary Rodham Clinton is an even brighter cookie than anyone figured. . .
"I just want to point out that through your support of Obama's dithering"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/22/pelosi-jumps-obama-cheney-feud-afghan-war/
"The White House must stop dithering while America's armed forces are in danger" -Former VP Cheney."
Dither=Verbatim
Dave, clearly your response is well grounded in dispassion, logic, and well reasoned facts. I'm surprised you missed the obvious one that Dick Cheney dithered for 8 years regarding Afghanistan so much so that our own intelligence agencies have reported that Al Qaeda reconstituted itself to pre-9/11 levels. Oh, and they have comfortable bases inside of a country that has nuclear weapons.
So, no, Dave, I'm not going to fuck myself. Instead, I'm going to point out your complete hypocrisy on the matter of AfPak as well as the fact that my step brother has served three tours there (as well as two in Iraq). Normally, I'm not a big fan of the "I know someone" meme but since everyone else is doing it....
Normally, I'm not a big fan of the "I know someone" meme
Wait, is it "Normally", "not" "big" "fan" or "meme" that you don't know the meaning of?
How's Javier?
the obvious one that Dick Cheney dithered for 8 years regarding Afghanistan so much so that our own intelligence agencies have reported that Al Qaeda reconstituted itself to pre-9/11 levels
"Reconstituted".
What does that mean? What's the ramification of the meaning of that word in that context and what does it mean for the point you're trying to make?
(And what was "unhinged" about Neo-neocon's Vietnam analysis? Run away! Run away! Bravely Sir Ralph ran away!)
I guess we can at least be assured that Obama is definitively not "The Decider".
"Dick Cheney dithered for 8 years ..."
Dick Cheney was not in the chain of command during those eight years. He had no authority to do anything regarding Afghanistan. So, what do you think he should he have done during those eight years, and what authority do you think he had to do it? Remember, his authority as Vice-President is specified in the Constitution, so be specific and show us chapter and verse where the Constitution gives him the authority you think he has.
Hah. I crack me up.
Again you show an utter lack of understanding of such matters.
"I'm going to point out your complete hypocrisy ..."
There is no more extreme form of hypocrisy than for a hypocrite to complain about hypocrisy in others. That is YOU in a nutshell, liar boy. Have you no shame at all?
Dick Cheney was not in the chain of command during those eight years.
As DJ points out, once again, Tinkerballs adequately proves that he cannot be bothered to click a link, cannot be bothered to educate himself, cannot be bothered to read a remarkably simple flowchart, and cannot be bothered to even try to understand the topics he is so vehemently talking about.
The irony is that he is royally fucking himself, he is just clueless enough to somehow miss out on it... (Insert your own thoughts here.)
Again, note the hypocrisy, Linoge. He complained many times to the effect that Dick Cheney ran the show for George Bush but shouldn't have because that was George Bush's job. Now he complains that Dick Cheney didn't do enough.
I've said it many times: He suffers from the same malady that most pathological liars suffer from, to wit, he can't remember his lies.
Let's see,
The outgoing Amdinistration left their analysis as to the situation, and their suggested path forward, and AS REQUESTED BY THE INCOMING ADMINISTRATION, did not publicize it. We now know that part of the recommendations was to significantly increase boots on the ground in a surge. Similar in basic concept to the Iraq surge, but different in detailed execution.
Obama took office the end of January, and in the spring had a "bold new approach", which included HAND-PICKING a general with a proven track record of turning around "unwinnable" insurgencies. The guy who asked for a significant increase boots on the ground in a surge. Similar in basic concept to the Iraq surge, but different in detailed execution.
Obama has since done NOTHING that his hand-picked war fighter has requested, and until the public outcry grew too great to avoid, couldn;t even find the time to discuss it with his HAND-PICKED general.
Since taking office, Al Qaida has reconstututed itself to pre-9/11 levels. (Apparantly they HADN'T done so BEEOFRE Obama took office -- as "pre-9/11", Al Qaida was pretty busy carrying off attacks against US "soft" targets, and since 9/11, not so much.)
Remember, this is the Obama who insisted that Bush had ignored Afghanistan, and that not only did bold new action HAVE to be taken IMMEDIATELY, but that he ALREADY KNEW what that bold new action was -- over a YEAR before he even took office.
Yet Obama's dithering while AQ grows stronger, ignoring his HAND PICKED chief head stomper while the situation on the ground gets worse, is somehow CHENEY'S fault.
Look, by Obama's own words -- he's KNOWN what to do for two years now, and he's had nearly a YEAR to start ikmplementing it.
He has done NOTHING but continue the Bush plan THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN REJECTED BY BUSH BEFORE HE LEFT OFFICE.
Sooner or later, Obama has to just accept the fact that yes, he IS President, and yes, it IS HIS JOB -- not Bush's, not Cheney's.
Rick:
Well, in all fairness to Obama, that decision might be above his pay grade.
I know, this will be a waste of time, and yet, I have to push that boulder up the hill. Again.
Marxy: "The "troops" as you put it are of many opinions and they don't just share McCrystal's views."
Part of your argument (as such as it was) is that they (the troops) don't share the General's views. Parsing the sentence you wrote you have a multitude of opinions from many servicemembers (true) then sum them all up into a total 'they'. You went from a plurality of opinions to a single opinion. And then you used this as a premise.
The viewpoint my brother provided counters that premise. Notice, I explicitly said who, where, and how limited the information was, just to the people he knows. This statement knocks your premise down, and renders the rest of your argument (ha! I'm killing myself here!) using that premise invalid.
It is not evidence, it is an anecdote, but since you didn't base your premise on anything but what you pulled out of your hat, I figure the standard you accept would be low enough to allow what I said as being germane and valid.
I find it very amusing that as your argument gets trounced and more indefensible, you become more emotional charged and try to be insulting. I think it's the only real acknowledgment we'll get from you that you've lost the debate and in some way, realize it. That, and when you run away. Again, I feel pity for you.
When I was in PLDC (Primary leadership Development Course -- the Army's school to teach Specialists how to be Sergeants), we had an inspection coming up, a significant lack of guidance, and a multitude of opinions (all of the students were technically peers) from the peanut gallery.
As teh platoon sergeant for the day, I laid out a plan -- which the rest of my peers immediately started arguing with.
About 30 seconds into this squabbling, I stood up and announced,
"That's lovely people -- but as long as I'm the platoon sergeant, I am in charge -- and we will BY GOD do it THIS way!"
My platoon was the only one in the company to ace the inspection.
Now, I had an unfair advantage over my "peers". Most of them were clerical or support Specialists who had never been in charge.
I was in that "other" category of PLDC attendees -- a Sergeant who hadn't had time to attend the course before being promoted to NCO. I was promoted directly from PFC (where I had been holding down an E6 billet) to Corporal, and then shortly sent to Drill Sergeant School, where I was promoted the day of graduation.
It doesn't matter if EVERY SINGLE SERVICEMEMBER in theater, with the exception of the Commanding General, agrees on a single plan that is contrary to the CG's. Only ONE guy is in charge -- it's HIS call. His subordinates (ESPECIALLY his staffers and senior commanders) can mention their concerns up the chain of command, but after they have voiced their concern, they get to STFU and drive on with a hard on.
If the President doesn't like the calls his hand-picked general is making, he is free to fire him for that, any other, or no reason at all. The general serves at the President's convienience.
"Again, I feel pity for you."
Pity?
Hmmm ...
pity
n. pl. Sympathy and sorrow aroused by the misfortune or suffering of another.
Nope. Not pity. He doesn't deserve it. His misfortune and suffering are self-inflicted and easily corrected. He's been taught thus but he won't even try.
You know, DJ, I stand corrected. I felt sorry for his constant suffering, laboring under the burden of being wrong all the time. But, you are right, it is self-inflicted.
I'm now going to practice feeling epikhairekakia every time he gets curb stomped :)
Been there, done that, and I'll keep on keepin' on.
Ragin' Dave sounds like a senior NCO.
Having been handed my ass by the best of them, I recognize the tone.
I won't even bother trying to explain the difference between lawful orders and unlawful ones.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>