In other news, President Soros Hussein Obama recently announced $2 billion in loan guarantees to mineral giant PetroArgs, a giant mineral mining company based out of Argentina, for the development of deep and I mean deep mineral mines in that country.[/quote]
I’m not surprised that our Dear Leader would go this route. Fulfills the let’s make the rest of the world rich while we still suck promise.
How does this actually work? Like once the minerals are mined…where do they or the resulting profits go? I would assume giving it straight to the Afghanistanians would just result in more of those idiots killing each other.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
It’s all just kind of depressing.
Look, I’ve always sympathized with Obama – I think I’d have the same failings in his place. They’re the kind of failings I understand. But they are failings. You get yourself a good job, and you could almost believe that you’re good enough, that you deserve this honor. But you don’t actually know what you’re doing; you just got lucky. So you have to brazen it out. I know the feeling – I’ve been there. But it’s not good for any of us when the president’s in that position.[/quote]
For the first time since I’ve known who Barack Obama was, on a simply human level I felt genuinely sorry for him the other day. Surprisingly it was during the health care thing after he had yet another woman give her heart wrenching (truly) story. He was halting in his delivery and simply looked worn out, lacking the confidence that has thus far characterized his handing of his domestic agenda. I could see it in his eyes.
Man to man I felt for him. I mean it. I told my wife. “look at im. even he’s beginning to wonder if this whole president thing was such a great idea.” He’s a bookworm. He should be visiting the whitehouse on a class trip, not living there.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
<<< and considered “over-their-heads” rise to the occasion and become some of the greatest examples of determination and perseverance in History. >>>[/quote]
There’s a difference between being considered in over your head and actually being so. Like Colonel North said “so far over his head you can’t find him with sonar”
Come on buddy. This is no longer neutral optimism. It’s denial. The man is not a president. He’s an ACORN. Even his allies on the left are reluctantly recognizing that.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
In regards to this topic does this administration remind anyone of Johnson/McNamara and their mistakes in Southeast Asia?[/quote]
Oh god yes. i’m just reading about this now (Stanley Karnow’s “Vietnam,” great book) and the deja vu is pretty intense.
Of course, I’m coming at this from the perspective of someone who thinks the US should be in as few wars as humanly possible. So what I see is a liberal president, not in principle that much of a hawk, but desperately trying to sell an ambitious progressive domestic agenda, and getting dragged into a long war because he needs the political cover. Which means that he inevitably clashes with generals, underestimates the cost and length of the war, is less than candid with the public, but isn’t wholehearted enough to even help the military succeed.
The interesting thing is that the pattern is similar even with the French in Indochina, for nearly a century. The prime ministers who really doubled down on foreign adventurism in Indochina were always those who had ambitious domestic policy goals.
Another interesting thing: in the part of the press you guys probably don’t read (The Nation, The Atlantic, stuff like that), Obama used to be described as a Cold War liberal. It was a roughly positive characterization: you know, liberal, but tough-minded, cool-headed. These days I’m thinking: did you guys really want a Cold War liberal?
We’ll see. I’ll judge the sum-total of Obama’s Presidency when it’s over.[/quote]
Problem is, in order to “rise to the occasion” - assuming he (or anyone else) can - they have to be invested in success to see it through despite the darkest hours. Lincoln was committed to victory in the Civil War. FDR was committed to victory in WWII. These wartime leaders “rose to the occasion” because they had vision and resolve - because they actually believed in the cause they were sacrificing for.
No such with Obama. Prior to his election, it was clear he had no truck with the wars (ahile he referred to Afghanistan as the “necessary war” to contrast his disdain for Iraq, no one with any common sense believed he was genuinely hawkish about Afghanistan), and having been elected, he simply realizes he can’t just pull up stakes and go home.
His heart isn’t in it. He is a creature of the academic Left - he sees war as an aberration, he sees a reversion to war as a means to solving problems as some lack of social evolution. For him, there is nothing to rise to in pursuance of war in Afghanistan (or anywhere else).
Obama is very much interested in his historical legacy - and I think he would be damned and tarnished in his own mind if he were regarded as a warfighter and winner of Afghanistan rather than a Lightworker/ocean healer who brought peace and calm through dialogue and tolerance. I think, ultimately, that is why he cares not to get too interested in this part of the job.
Oh god yes. i’m just reading about this now (Stanley Karnow’s “Vietnam,” great book) and the deja vu is pretty intense.
Of course, I’m coming at this from the perspective of someone who thinks the US should be in as few wars as humanly possible. So what I see is a liberal president, not in principle that much of a hawk, but desperately trying to sell an ambitious progressive domestic agenda, and getting dragged into a long war because he needs the political cover. Which means that he inevitably clashes with generals, underestimates the cost and length of the war, is less than candid with the public, but isn’t wholehearted enough to even help the military succeed.
The interesting thing is that the pattern is similar even with the French in Indochina, for nearly a century. The prime ministers who really doubled down on foreign adventurism in Indochina were always those who had ambitious domestic policy goals.
Another interesting thing: in the part of the press you guys probably don’t read (The Nation, The Atlantic, stuff like that), Obama used to be described as a Cold War liberal. It was a roughly positive characterization: you know, liberal, but tough-minded, cool-headed. These days I’m thinking: did you guys really want a Cold War liberal?[/quote]
Very good observations.
Obama can’t compromise his all-important domestic agenda by being “radical” on Afghanistan (withdrawing troops, ending the war there, etc.). Such a bold move - even though I think he’d prefer it - would cut the legs out from under his domestic agenda, which is already precariously placed.
This “Cold War liberal” taxonomy is fascinating - never heard that label attached to him and I will Google for more reading. That strikes me as odd, for two reasons: (1) why would anyone, after seeing his resume, come to that conclusion?, and (2) even if they thought he was a “Cold War liberal”, why would the current Democratic be interested in such a person, given the current posture on the wars (and foreign policy generally)?
Somewhere around here I have some of LBJ’s speeches on VHS. I haven’t seen them in a long time, but one stuck with me where he was addressing the war. He went to considerable length to emphasize that the strategy was to “avoid the impression of the United States being the aggressor” (a paraphrase, but that was the substance). While even now I understand his point, that is exactly the wrong primary objective in warfare and it was that that spawned all the flawed wartime decision making in that administration.
If the campaign doesn’t justify overwhelming force and denies a clear definition of decisive victory, stay home.
This is one area I’ll give Powell credit for in the prosecution of Desert Storm. His doctrine of absolutely overwhelming force was a raving success. Too bad we stopped it short of taking Hussein out then. Oh the heartache that can be caused by trying to please others. (another thread).
[quote]JackDanials wrote:
After reading and re-reading the article in RS. I’m not so sure the good general violated article 88. [/quote]
Not the point. He allowed disdain for civilian command to be showcased before the world. This cannot be permitted. Period.
[quote]JackDanials wrote:
After reading and re-reading the article in RS. I’m not so sure the good general violated article 88. [/quote]
Not the point. He allowed disdain for civilian command to be showcased before the world. This cannot be permitted. Period.[/quote]
Do we allow Civilian command so that the military can never lead the country or become a Dictatorship? I am just wondering. You all bring up good points about topics I really never thought about.
Somewhere around here I have some of LBJ’s speeches on VHS. I haven’t seen them in a long time, but one stuck with me where he was addressing the war. He went to considerable length to emphasize that the strategy was to “avoid the impression of the United States being the aggressor” (a paraphrase, but that was the substance). While even now I understand his point, that is exactly the wrong primary objective in warfare and it was that that spawned all the flawed wartime decision making in that administration.
If the campaign doesn’t justify overwhelming force and denies a clear definition of decisive victory, stay home.
This is one area I’ll give Powell credit for in the prosecution of Desert Storm. His doctrine of absolutely overwhelming force was a raving success. Too bad we stopped it short of taking Hussein out then. Oh the heartache that can be caused by trying to please others. (another thread).[/quote]
Agreed. That was, IMO, the major flaw of the Iraq strategy authored by Rumsfeld - he wanted to win the war (or see if he could, truthfully) by experimenting with new, “smaller” fighting forces rather than pull out the stops and win with overwhelming force. That was a major error - don’t experiment, win.
Experiment in preparation for war. Once the bell is rung, knock your opponent out as quickly as you can with everything you have - don’t find out if you can beat him with a hand tied behind your back.
He allowed his aids, people who are normally behind enemy lines, to make off the cuff remarks. I didn’t see many qoutes from the general himself. I read plenty from some reporter trying to make a name for himself. They trusted this guy enough to feel comfortable around him. If there was a mistake that was it.
Who in their right mind would even allow or permit the Rolling Stone to be embedded with this guy?
This story is far from over and until I see more of it, I will reserve the urge to throw the general under the bus.
[quote]JackDanials wrote:
He allowed his aids, people who are normally behind enemy lines, to make off the cuff remarks. I didn’t see many qoutes from the general himself. I read plenty from some reporter trying to make a name for himself. They trusted this guy enough to feel comfortable around him. If there was a mistake that was it.
Who in their right mind would even allow or permit the Rolling Stone to be embedded with this guy?
This story is far from over and until I see more of it, I will reserve the urge to throw the general under the bus.[/quote]
The Mistake by the General was allowing his staff to talk freely infront of a reporter and not stoping it once it started (its why I keep harping on Bad Judgment). The rest of the items were the fault of his Staff mostly his Aids and the PA assigned to the Star. It is there Job to protect there Boss the General from stuff like this.
However in the military the Buck stops at the top. While it was stupidity being done below him mostly at least. The man at the top will be and must be the one to except the blame. His skill with dealing with this is why I think he should take some time off and get use to the Public as a whole and then if he wants to right a book or tell his side he should.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
<<< Agreed. That was, IMO, the major flaw of the Iraq strategy authored by Rumsfeld - he wanted to win the war (or see if he could, truthfully) by experimenting with new, “smaller” fighting forces rather than pull out the stops and win with overwhelming force. That was a major error - don’t experiment, win.
Experiment in preparation for war. Once the bell is rung, knock your opponent out as quickly as you can with everything you have - don’t find out if you can beat him with a hand tied behind your back. [/quote]
The thing about this is that it’s so nakedly logical one need not a be a military expert to figure it out. Vietnam started as a “police action” and escalated gradually in reaction to the north so that by the time of Tet in 68 we were up to our thighs in quicksand.
With the first gulf war we sent land, sea and air forces sufficient for back breaking decisive victory almost from the start. By the time desert shield became desert storm everything was in place culminating in a ground campaign that didn’t even require a week.
There isn’t much to ponder in which of these two approaches should be preferred. Unless of course politics are allowed to dictate strategy though to be fair it is never possible for there to be NO politics in wartime.
[quote]Eli B wrote:
This kind of counter insurgency requires a functioning local government with lets say less than rampant corruption. Afghanistan is a fucking NARCO-STATE. Good luck with that.
[/quote]
Not for long.
See thread on mineral deposits/extractive resources.
China will have Afghanistan for supper.[/quote]
I’ll check out the thread but I dont see how raw minerals are gonna change afghanistan. What have they done for Africa?
I just have to ask (and I may regret it ;): Why not be happy that very a competent man is in charge now? IMO Obama made the right decision on that one.
[quote]Carl_ wrote:
I just have to ask (and I may regret it ;): Why not be happy that very a competent man is in charge now? IMO Obama made the right decision on that one.[/quote]
Mine too. Who says they’re unhappy about Gen. Patreus stepping in?