President Obama urgently looked for a way out of the war in Afghanistan last year, repeatedly pressing his top military advisers for an exit plan that they never gave him, according to secret meeting notes and documents cited in a new book by journalist Bob Woodward.
Frustrated with his military commanders for consistently offering only options that required significantly more troops, Obama finally crafted his own strategy, dictating a classified six-page "terms sheet" that sought to limit U.S. involvement, Woodward reports in "Obama's Wars," to be released on Monday.
**************
Woodward's book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger."
**************
An older war - the Vietnam conflict - does figure prominently in the minds of Obama and his advisers. When Vice President Biden rushed to the White House on a Sunday morning to make one last appeal for a narrowly defined mission, he warned Obama that a major escalation would mean "we're locked into Vietnam."
So, Obamatons, what say you? Is Woodward suddenly full of carp now that he's talking about your beloved?
Or do you believe there's nothing wrong with a President who barely had regular employment designing a critical military campaign exclusively for political purposes?
Or more pointedly, does any of this reportage even matter to you?|||You have upset me so much.|||Quote:
You have upset me so much.
It's a tough job, but someone's got to do it.
|||I do not really care for the word use-age of, "We can absorb a terrorist attack." I am sure he doesn't want terrorist attacks to happen, but that (to me) gives off an impression of being less preventive towards such....
As far as the President's involvement and ideas over the war so far in meeting with the military:
First, Obama is no military man (and as such (imo) does not know or have enough experience in handling the American military). If an objective is given to the military, they know (through their means) how to go at it/ or what needs to be done military-wise.
The problem imo is not with Obama nor the US military. If I were to point out the root of the problem it would be with the previous US leaders decisions and goals (I mainly blame Rumsfeld here). I do agree that the military should pull out; out of a war that should not have lasted this long (or have been initiated to begin with). The problem was the conditions of the war in the first place, giving the military an objective that was one to be endlessly sought for.
If there is a victory in this war at all, it is only a temporary one, in getting rid of the baddies the military has taken out so far. It will never be a permanent victory as in establishing democracy in Iraq/areas about.
The only way to achieve even somewhat of a permanent (yet constantly fought for) victory would be to absorb Iraq as a distant US state (which is out of the question, and crazy). There is no way what has been set up so far in Iraq is going to stay up, without US military assistance. Once the military pulls out, things are going to go back to some version of what they were before; eventually.
It would take forever to get Iraq to the self-sufficient point where even Israel is at currently with all the opposition wanting to do them in (imo).|||Er...CMEPTb, the OP's quote refers to the conflict in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Although the argumentation is still valid either way. By the way, does anyone else think it silly to call either engagement a "war"? The activity fits the definition, but there is no definitive threat we're facing, it's a mix of insurgents (Shiite or Sunni), Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and so forth, with the first group probably being partially funded by either of the two latter mentioned groups.
Personally, I don't see why the U.S. shouldn't back out. So it looks like a failure, and perhaps it is, is that bad? Maybe the U.S. could get some other nations to stop relying on them so much by making them realize we're not the unstoppable, perfect, rich nation of freedom. And it wouldn't hurt for the government's ego to take a blow (not just Obama, everyone that comprises the upper levels), which I honestly wouldn't be surprised to hear some European users agree on.
Besides that I'm fairly certain part of the economic downturn was a result of leaning a bit too much on the U.S. in some ways.|||Quote:
Er...CMEPTb, the OP's quote refers to the conflict in Afghanistan, not Iraq.
Oops.
Quote:
By the way, does anyone else think it silly to call either engagement a "war"? The activity fits the definition, but there is no definitive threat we're facing, it's a mix of insurgents (Shiite or Sunni), Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and so forth, with the first group probably being partially funded by either of the two latter mentioned groups.
Its a war on "Terror, Terror, Terror..."; no, I agree. More of a national bounty pursuit on terrorists.
|||Quote:
I am sure he doesn't want terrorist attacks to happen, but that (to me) gives off an impression of being less preventive towards such.
There are conservative cynics who think he'd be fine with it, as with the Executive "never let a good crisis go to waste" motto. I don't really agree; I think it's sufficient for socialists to have the <threat> and to have a crisis <approaching> a wartime footing. If it's actual warfare, not only does that mean there's real fighting but it tends to bring the sort of moronic stuff into focus. People tend to lose their alarmist mentality about [strikeout]Global Warming[/strikeout] [strikeout]Climate Change[/strikeout] Global Weather Disruption when there's a raving goon screaming "Allahu Akbar" and waving an AK around.
Quote:
First, Obama is no military man (and as such (imo) does not know or have enough experience in handling the American military). If an objective is given to the military, they know (through their means) how to go at it/ or what needs to be done military-wise.
His actions indicate that he doesn't care. It's along the same sort of line that <caused> Vietnam, where the politicians become so enamored of their own ego that they believe they are smarter than the professionals. (See below to Leon about "Vietnam was a good thing")
Quote:
It would take forever to get Iraq to the self-sufficient point where even Israel is at currently with all the opposition wanting to do them in (imo).
Hate to tell you this (particularly after your foot->mouth), but Iraq's working despite Iranian sabotage. Part of this is because Iraq had one of the most sophisticated populations in the region, despite Saddam's oppression. I kind of suspect it's also because the Sunni nations have a lot vested in keeping Iran penned in...
Quote:
By the way, does anyone else think it silly to call either engagement a "war"? The activity fits the definition, but there is no definitive threat we're facing, it's a mix of insurgents (Shiite or Sunni), Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and so forth, with the first group probably being partially funded by either of the two latter mentioned groups.
No - it's a conscious political decision, in part because you can readily see the Left's suicidally stupid response in continually trying to define Low-Intensity Conflict as "Police Action". This allows them to make the false extrapolation that it's really just a law enforcement issue, resulting in the reading of Miranda rights to combatants, collection of evidence that meets American courtroom standards, extensive ambulance-chaser employment, and other mind-wiltingly destructive concepts involved in extending the peacetime rights of a nation's citizens to an international battlefield.
Quote:
So it looks like a failure, and perhaps it is, is that bad?
Well, if you don't mind the fate of women and children returning to abject misery, Osama Bin Laden returning to fame/credibility, and the Talibs being able to return to domination of the drug trade, then perhaps not. As an American, or even if one was a Westerner who doesn't approve of European Islamicization, I'd say it's really bad.
Quote:
And it wouldn't hurt for the government's ego to take a blow (not just Obama, everyone that comprises the upper levels), which I honestly wouldn't be surprised to hear some European users agree on.
That's from the "Vietnam was a good thing" school. The problem is that we have to take the bad with the good, and when looking at the 1960's in a historical context, it was a disaster.
The reason Obama decided to come up with his own blue-sky plan was that he believed all of the Generals were warmongers, in that they weren't giving him any plans that would immediately start withdrawing troops. That's not only because he had run against Bush with the despicable "Good War/Bad War" falsehood (Iraq = bad, Afghanistan = good). It's because having hung his hat on the falsehood, he asked for a plan that would be successful while drawing down immediately - in other words, HE DEMANDED THE IMPOSSIBLE from his military, and then didn't like the result.
That's pretty much why we've been losing troops at levels similar to that of the bad periods in Afghanistan (while the media busily runs Cat-in-Tree stories), and why the Executive had to try to produce a miracle with Petraeus like a rabbit out of a hat, despite having trashed the General previously. Petraeus, God bless him, isn't a filthy Marxist and is concerned about the National welfare - he will give his life for a despicable cadre that wanted him destroyed. However, one can easily recognize that giving your life for people who have the opposite interests leads to disaster.
Quote:
Besides that I'm fairly certain part of the economic downturn was a result of leaning a bit too much on the U.S. in some ways.
Oh, sure. And we're not going to recover from it soon, either.|||Quote:
No - it's a conscious political decision, in part because you can readily see the Left's suicidally stupid response in continually trying to define Low-Intensity Conflict as "Police Action". This allows them to make the false extrapolation that it's really just a law enforcement issue, resulting in the reading of Miranda rights to combatants, collection of evidence that meets American courtroom standards, extensive ambulance-chaser employment, and other mind-wiltingly destructive concepts involved in extending the peacetime rights of a nation's citizens to an international battlefield.
If I'm understanding properly, then, you're saying that it's being called a war to avoid the extension of peacetime rights to those being fought against in the international battlefield, correct? While I don't disagree that this would be a bit (well, actually, probably quite) inefficient, I find it to be equally inefficient to paint those that you could possibly negotiate with as being terrorists, and while I'm not familiar with any good examples regarding the situation being discussed, it seems very likely to have happened on several occasions.
Technically, the entire no negotiation policy seems rather poor in general to me. It leads to more polarization of the combatants' mindsets to the point of dehumanizing one another, which, while one side already may be doing, we should attempt not to. It results in all manner of crimes and abuses that needn't happen.
Quote:
Well, if you don't mind the fate of women and children returning to abject misery, Osama Bin Laden returning to fame/credibility, and the Talibs being able to return to domination of the drug trade, then perhaps not. As an American, or even if one was a Westerner who doesn't approve of European Islamicization, I'd say it's really bad.
If it isn't Osama Bin Laden and members of the Taliban, it'd be some other manufactured hero and corporate CEOs in peacetime. In my opinion, first-world countries are simply in tolerable misery, but misery nonetheless. The difference lies in the extremity of the misery, of course, and either way, say we stabilize them, wouldn't you say the chances of sending them a load of money every so often (each year?) would be high? It's really a lose-lose situation, you leave without stabilization, the ones you were fighting off return to power, you stabilize it, you have to send a large check to maintain that stabilization (or so they say anyway).|||I am still too upset to speak of this.|||Quote:
If I'm understanding properly, then, you're saying that it's being called a war to avoid the extension of peacetime rights to those being fought against in the international battlefield, correct?
More or less. It's not some sort of malevolent plot, but a recognition that war is inherently a suspension of civil society's behavior. The concept of the Law of War is oxymoronic, because in reality the victor punishes the loser in any way they see fit, and the fallacious construct of a League of Nations only exists as long as the member parties continue to claim agreement. That's why you see rampant corruption, double standards, and scandals from U.N. member countries on a constant basis.
Quote:
I find it to be equally inefficient to paint those that you could possibly negotiate with as being terrorists
It's war, and it's ugly. The example you're searching for is the Iran-Contra scandal under Reagan.
Quote:
It leads to more polarization of the combatants' mindsets to the point of dehumanizing one another, which, while one side already may be doing, we should attempt not to.
Not really; war always involves demonization of the opposition because otherwise only true barbarians would go to war. Teaching a civilized person to kill someone out-of-hand isn't an easy task, which is why Islamists and other barbaric groups use child soldiers.
Quote:
If it isn't Osama Bin Laden and members of the Taliban, it'd be some other manufactured hero and corporate CEOs in peacetime.
Speaking of demonization, consider the Left's claims about the Right. The converse really doesn't hold, but I'll paraphrase where I read it well-stated recently:
- The Left believes that they are inherently good because their motivations are better than those who don't agree with them.
- The Left believes that they are inherently smarter because it is nonsensical for people who aren't evil not to agree with them.
Quote:
In my opinion, first-world countries are simply in tolerable misery, but misery nonetheless.
That's a depressing viewpoint, but if you go with the whole "life is pain" stance then you make sense. Afghanistan is and always has been a shytehole, and the only times when this was somewhat ameliorated was when the British occupation wasn't being contested through the reign of the Afghan King (prior to his being dethroned).
Quote:
I am still too upset to speak of this.
But not too upset to type, apparently?
No comments:
Post a Comment