Afghanistan: no decision is itself a decision
I’ve written before about Obama’s Hamlet-like indecision on Afghanistan. Some call his approach thoughtful deliberation, and perhaps it is (although I don’t happen to think so).
But how long should pondering go on before it becomes procrastination? And never think that lack of a decision means no decision: failing to act, or postponing action, is a decision with consequences, too.
It is interesting that European leaders, who originally hailed Obama as a breath of intellect and fresh air after the cowboy Bush, are finding that there might be some pluses to dealing with cowboys after all. At least you know where they stand.
And you can expect them to stand firm where troops and military commitments are concerned. Don’t forget that during the campaign there was a lot of tough talk on Afghanistan from Obama, and back in March it appeared he’d done enough studying and had a strategic plan for that country. Why do I say that? Well, he said so himself; the following is from the speech he gave in March [emphasis mine]:
Good morning. Today, I am announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. This marks the conclusion of a careful policy review that I ordered as soon as I took office…
For three years, our commanders have been clear about the resources they need for training. Those resources have been denied because of the war in Iraq. Now, that will change….
Then in June, President Obama appointed a new commander in Afghanistan, General McChrystal. The stage seemed set.
But as the musical King of Siam once said, “Very often find confusion/In conclusion I concluded long ago.” And the sort of confusion—or dithering, or stalling, or lengthy deliberation, or whatever you want to call it—that has gone on since in the Obama adiminstration regarding Afghanistan is not without consequences, especially when a war is going on.
There’s an old saying in family therapy, and it goes like this: “you can’t not communicate.” So a lack of decision in Afghanistan—or a lengthy postponement of a decision—communicates something.
It sends a message to the troops who are fighting there, and it’s not that there’s now a firm and knowledgeable hand on the tiller. It sends a message to the enemy; one of weakness. It sends a message of disarray and discord to our allies.
And yes, we do have allies in Afghanistan. Here’s what some of them are thinking and saying, now that it’s been 76 days since Obama’s hand-picked General McChrystal requested more troops:
“Everyone is waiting for what is going to be decided in the Oval Office, without having any chance to have our say,” moans a senior commander in one European army…
And while they wait, they will stew. In conversations with senior European officials visiting Washington, and at a transatlantic conference sponsored by Italy’s Magna Carta Foundation last weekend, I heard an earful of Euro-anxiety about the strategy review Obama is conducting. Some of the concern is simply about the spectacle of a young American president hesitating about going forward with a strategy that he committed himself to just months ago — and what effect that wavering might have on enemies both in Afghanistan and farther afield.
But a surprising amount of the worry, considering the continental source, is about whether Obama will be strong enough — whether he will, in the words of one ambassador, “walk away from a mission that we have all committed ourselves to.”
European governments bought in to Obama’s ambitious plan to pacify Afghanistan when he presented it in March. Unlike the U.S. president, they mostly haven’t had second thoughts. By and large they agree with the recommendations developed by the commander Obama appointed, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who says that unless the momentum of the Taliban is broken in the next year, the war may be lost.
This reminds me of French President Sarkozy’s perturbed reaction to Obama’s Iran policy and UN speech on disarmament in late September. It is alarming when Europe has more commitment to the Afghan campaign than President Obama (who after all made it a centerpiece of his own campaign) does, and are more willing to hang tough. True, their troop numbers are small compared to those of the US. But they are clearly worried that the man who just got the motivational Peace Prize is not capable of fighting even a war to which he’d been strongly (if only rhetorically) committed.
Europe is used to relying on the US militarily. They may not have realized how much they relied on it, till now. Caught in the throes of Obamalove, they should have heeded that old admonition: be careful what you wish for.
[NOTE: There’s a lot of information in this article about the differing opinions on Afghanistan within the Obama administration. I wonder how much of it is true, how much is disinformation, and how much is guesswork. The meme that’s being spread is that Joe Biden is against more troops, and that Obama is leaning in the opposite direction. However, I doubt that respect for Joe Biden’s opinion is what’s keeping Obama. I think his indecision reflects the fact that he is far more focused on his transformative Leftist domestic and economic agenda, with Afghanistan a very distant afterthought; as well as the political quandary he finds himself in. If he sends more troops, he riles his left flank. If he doesn’t, he risks another instance of going back on his word, and offending much of the American middle on whom his election originally depended. The Right? He never had them to lose in the first place.]
It’s no wonder that Europeans are mirroring our move left with their own rightward shift. They realize that, in the absence of a strong U.S., they are going to have to defend themselves – for the first time in 65 years. This means backing away from their unsustainable cradle-to-grave social programs and firing up long dormant capitalist ideas in order to fund their own defense.
Obama’s indecision is merely a reflection of his trying to find out how, as president, he can vote “Present”. This is pathetic. The only enemy he is willing to take on is Fox News!! And, conservatives.
I would normally hope that we would have quickly committed the troops requested by General McChrystal in order to win the war in Afghanistan, or at least diminish the will of the terrorists (there, I said it, terrorists) to continue the war. Our failure to act decisively gives heart to the terrorists. The damage is done, and irretrievably. I think we now have no other choice than to deal with the probable consequences of Obama’s indecision. One is that we will never again have allies in this or any other field during this administration. Our current allies will act as soon as they can to withdraw their troops and material support. It would be political suicide for them to remain more steadfast then we are. We will be leaving those who we have put in harm’s way with the justifiable feeling that they will not be supported in the field. (I remember Les Aspen, Clinton’s sometime Secretary of Defense, refusing to send a few tanks to Somalia at the request of our general in the field, leading to the Black Hawk Down firefight and Aspen’s soon disgrace. I don’t think this administration is capable of feeling disgraced.) And, Obama will be, at best, perceived to be a tepid supporter of the Pakistani government, which could fall as a result and leave fundamentalists in control of nuclear weapons.
I have lived most of my life under relatively good governments. (Even Carter and Clinton are rising in my opinion, as neither put our country at risk.) I can’t fathom the complete lack of wisdom and resolution in this administration. The worst part is that every day it gets worse.
Soon, it will be so bad that even the far left will be clamoring for the return of Bush 43.
It is not surprising, then, that Nicolas Sarkozy announced last week that he would not send one extra soldier to Afghanistan. This is yet another gesture by someone who has no confidence in Obama and refuses to place his soldiers under an uncertain and Hamletic command.
As an ancient and wise man once said, “The failure to make a plan is a plan.”
It is interesting that European leaders, who originally hailed Obama as a breath of intellect and fresh air after the cowboy Bush, are finding that there might be some pluses to dealing with cowboys after all.
This is exhibit A in support of my contention that Europeans are idiots. Considering that Europeans are weak and effete and incapable of defending themselves, why in God’s name would they want their defender to be weak and effete too? Would Woody Allen hire Pee Wee Herman as his bodyguard? And they’re only now realizing that there might be a small but noticeable flaw in their strategy?
“Considering that Europeans are weak and effete and incapable of defending themselves, why in God’s name would they want their defender to be weak and effete too?”
Because it makes them more diplomaticly accessible when they don’t have guns pointed at other nations, or walls between them. They truly do believe that, if they can not only reject the sword themselves but declare swords illegal for anyone in the whole world to own, they will finally be immune to being impaled on them, forever.
It doesn’t actually work that way, but then we are talking about people who are so convinced that “the pen is mightier than the sword” that they think they can abandon swords entirely, and forget that the pen’s true power is in supporting and directing the swords of others.
The need for more troops has been apparent even before General McChrystal was put in charge. He only made it official. The military always has a contingency plan if the current strategy does not appear to be accomplishing the mission. It’s incumbent upon the Commander-in-Chief to quickly authorize additional troops as requested.
Indecisiveness is indeed a sign of weakness.
Don’t forget that during the campaign there was a lot of tough talk on Afghanistan from Obama, and back in March it appeared he’d done enough studying and had a strategic plan for that country.
well, like having a 1000 plus page set of laws all in the ready no one has read. who prepared it?
well, the putting off choices and stringing them along, also called dickering, IS a strategy.
everything is protected in ambiguousness i said. you want to play this game as an expert then your going to have to make hard choices not postitivist collectivist ones when ambiguities start to pile up.
normally there arent that many, so if you have a lot of them, your being played. (failure to detect ambiguities you brush off, is failure to detect your being conned. once is an accident, twice is cooincidence, three times is on purpose. amiguity lets 230 times be an accident)
a LONG while ago i said turkey, iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, make a one country line in the sand preventing movement of the material that destabilizes and manufactures crisis!!!! and i said that since bush was threatening to spike the door shut, by removing the three players iraq, afghanistan, and finally iran, that everything was going to heat up so much, we are all going to want to get out of the kitchen.
hot enough yet?
the keepers want afghanistan to be used as a conduit, so that they can play games in iran. that is, iran is too closely being watched. and without afghanistan, the public would start picking up on the transports of goods. particularly since those goods might contain nuclear junk.
after all… they cant continue to exterminate whites in zimbabwe, the congo… etc.
of course nelson mandella and obama both being peace price recipients, and on the left, must love the communist ANC genocide of white boer famers. majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/a_genocide_in_south_africa/
I put up a piece that described what this decline was like, and it too was from africa. did anyone read it?
This could develop into full scale racial genocide and ethnic cleansing like in Zimbabwe and the Belgian Congo before it which was another of the richest Nations in Africa but is now war torn. The elites know the history but keep doing it to African countries.
The killings show savagery and brutality as most are tortured and die slowly and in agony yet in many of the murders, no property is stolen. This shows a savage, uncivilised hatred for fellow humans that we can not comprehend but the authorities and international media pass it off as “crime related” when it is racial genocide.
the point here is that there IS a plan for such countries, and a world communist governmetn woudl rather they stay third world and can be swept from the table later than be built up and be a problem in concert with other free states. keeping africas wealth in resources off the table is critical too.
what about afghanistans wealth?
so with iraq down, turkey refusing transports due to being in the middle, russia recent take over of key parts of georgia needed to continue the games, the refusal of passage causing our stuff to be allowed to go through russian points so as to be open to examnation and redirection, etc.
look what they did to us as a nation because we lost veitnam… losing afghanistan would make us equal with russia again.
and i see no mention about what happened in june…
what is the CRRF?
Collective Rapid Reaction Force (CRRF)
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9B2UBOG0&show_article=1
and the othe part of this is
Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)
Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan finalized the CRRF in June.
and
US forces have used bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan to support military operations against the (Soviet-backed) Taliban in Afghanistan.
Russia funding resurgent Taliban
(there are news articles that they are funding this the way we funded the mujahedin. this is old news though)
Russian military denies existence of new ‘super-tank’
en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090913/156108570.html
unlike our under supplied people, all these things are nuclear ready and parallel the new line on using nuclear bombs in pre-emtive attacks.
Russia’s new military doctrine allows pre-emptive nuclear strikes
en.rian.ru/russia/20091014/156461160.html
“An option is stipulated for the possibility of using nuclear weapons depending on the situation and the intentions of a potential enemy,” Nikolai Patrushev said in an interview in the Wednesday edition of the Izvestia newspaper.
so now there is this shadow in afghanistan that the regular people dont pick up on. if afghanistan falls, and there is a huge military presence there, then it will be hard to disprove the false idea that the military will now move to iran or the stans..
meanwhile, in south american chavez has started an arms race to get weapons here for the comming turmoil… this is all in violation of the central american democratic secuiryt treaty…
a lot of this is coordinated through the new CSTO and the SCO… and the SCO is coordinating the new world order and seems to be the ones making the moves whiel we are watching other things.
the SCO shared logos with obama.
eldib.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/sco_logo.jpg
under the SCO, russia and china have been running military exercises all over the place, and a lot of them.
Caucasus 2009 (near Georgia)
Ladoga 2009 (near Finland)
Zapad 2009 (near Poland and Lithuania)
(troops have forgotten to go back home
““Several thousands of Russian soldiers and officers who took part in Zapad-2009 maneuvers in Belarus haven’t returned to Russia. The Belarusian Ministry of Defense informs that the Russian troops, in particular motor-rifle, tank, and artillery troops, remain in Belarus.”)
Cooperation 2009 (Kazakhstan)
so its them that is creating the new CRRF (Collective Rapid Reaction Force).
“For us the main lesson from those events is the need to hold full-fledged, permanent and highly effective exercises for all arms and branches of Russia’s armed forces.” Dmitry Medvedev
this month they tested launches of their nuclear missiles again. Russian subs successfully test ballistic missiles in Pacific en.rian.ru/russia/20091009/156410038.html
they launched SS-N-18 Stingray which is the RSM-50… if you read about it, you will read this sentence. “The SS-N-18 missile carrying seven MIRVs was not deployed. In compliance with the START-1 treaty all missiles are considered to carry four MIRVs.”
anyway… the RSM50 has an 8000 mile range…
we do not know how many missiles were in this test. but prior tests have seen 12, and up to 18 are possible in the old versions.
submarine games near Teikovo just completed (oct 9 thru 14). so what? Teikovo is the home to the 54th stratigic missle divison and these were SMS (strategic missle forces) practices. the games saw SS-27 Stalin road mobile nuclear ICBM systems. this missle has a range or 7000km.
so while obama is promising to gear down, they are both gearing up in preparation.
recently they reorgnaized the military which was too top heavy for peace time, and SMF camander Solovtsov was replaced with Andrei Shvaichenko.
so to think of afghanistan, the average us person will have no thoughts of all of the bigger picture.
will any of our musings look at afghanistan in conjunction with all these other interested players?
of course not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
take a look at all the words in neo’s piece, and look at all the words in the linked pieces.
not one of them mention the stuff happening around the issue outside of just the gold fish bowl of the us and afghanistan.. if there is outside looking, it is not to russia, china, the sco, and other players, its to the french and europe, and their bs.
we are not noticing the new communism in the soviet area through CIS, europe through the european union (who now is controlled by a body that isnt elected), Eurasia through CSO (the logo sharing guys), africa through the african union, and south america through the union of south american nations and the bolivarian alliance for the americas.
looks like obama has to do the work to get america on the same program.. otherwise the US, Canada, will be about the only ones not ruled by a meta power over them.
it will be interesting to read the analysis of posters here, especially the regulars. for they will not include the world in the analysis, except in passing deference.
they will not consider all these other moves going on. mostly because they have no idea that they are going on!!!
to americans afghanistan is a rock and poor place worth nothign. they ahve similar attitudes about africa.
but china and russia have been buying up raw materials sources like crazy. as the wolf would say, the better to weaken you my dear.
Afghanistan copper deposits worth $88 billion attract Chinese investors
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3941656.ece#
like africa, if they can keep em off market, their supplies are worth a lot more, and if they can control them like they do africa, then they will sell afghanistans resources as theirs for profit, as they do in africa. (and this in vast excess of american and uk companies).
anyone remember this?
U.S. President Barack Obama said Tuesday that dismantling the al-Qaeda network in Afghanistan is not American battle, but “the most important NATO mission right now.”
he is waiting… to either lose and use the crisis, or till nato comes in and does something. like they do in africa.
i would take time to read the new piece by li quinggong… “Afghan Peace Needs a Map” in china daily.
Since taking office as president, Obama has been under pressure from the Pentagon for military reinforcements in Afghanistan. The calls of war opponents over that of supporters will give the young US president the best chance to extricate himself from the Pentagon’s pressures. If Obama resolutely decides to stop the war, that would not only meet the US public expectations and save more American lives, but also help recover the US’ peaceful image and enhance the president’s personal political prospects.
so basically he has to end it but do so in a way that he is not blamed for the consequences of ending it. that the people are blamed, the other coutnries are blamed, etc.
However, Obama can exploit the public and political mood in the US to salvage his presidency from the Afghan war. The article points out that from the time he assumed office as president in January, Obama has been under pressure from the Pentagon to step up the war effort. Now, “the young US president [has] the best chance to extricate himself from the Pentagon’s pressures” if he chooses to tap into the rapidly growing anti-war sentiments in the country.
Obama should factor in that, if he decides to stop the war, “that would not only meet the US public expectations and save more American lives, but also help recover the US’s peaceful image and enhance the president’s personal political prospects”.
The article stops short of drawing any historical analogy with the Lyndon Johnson presidency or the Vietnam war, but the warning comes out loud clear that the war can seriously damage Obama’s political career and demolish the prospects of a second term as president.
M K Bhadrakumar
the truth is that the other players dont want an american only win with nato diminished.
why?
because like iraq, they wont be able to be in the ground floor to play games to turn things over again.
this is what they do not when your going to lose, but when your going to win.
the point being that if you lose, they could play and get the prize… so why would they actyually interfere with a loss?
ah, but if your going to win, and they havent been participating from the begining, there is little opportunity to gain free advantage, position your people from day one in the administration, control resources, etc.
so when they say that things have to be stopped so that an international team takes over, that is the cue that your going to win if you push it, and your going to get unilatiral control with the west.
This is the first time that a Chinese commentary has openly called for the withdrawal of US and NATO troops from Afghanistan in immediate terms as a pre-requisite of peace. What the article doesn’t say becomes equally important. One, it differentiates the Afghan problem from the so-called “AfPak” approach. The article doesn’t make a single reference to Pakistan, either.
However, it must be assumed that the Chinese perspective disfavors a US military presence in the region as a whole and that includes Central Asia as well as Pakistan. Two, the article puts the primacy on an intra-Afghan search for settlement with the Taliban implicitly as a legitimate Afghan faction. Nowhere does the article even remotely suggest that the Taliban are propped up by Pakistan.
they dont want a west favorable country in the middle near all the games they play.
russia games are played in locations closer to the baltics and artic… china shares a huge border with russia, and so where can they put their stuff? well, putting it closer to india and pakistan was a good place. but not if the US gets to build monitoring stuff after the conflict and can then use sigint and things from up close.
also those who are helping and funding the opposition to the west, they have little fear of the people they control and inform and train.
The geopolitics of the war have been completely left out
just as geopolitics has been left out of any concept of the US changing its political system.
Gen. Boris Gromov’s view: “Afghanistan taught us an invaluable lesson … It has been and always will be impossible to solve political problems using force.” “One can increase the forces or not–it won’t lead to anything but a negative result,” Gromov said.
and put that all together with this announcement two days ago.. after all the obama unilateral disarm talk.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,564480,00.html
A top Russian general says Russia will deploy multiple-warhead missiles in December, the same month a nuclear arms control treaty expires.
so i guess the new test of the nuclear missles was with 18 heads and the reason they didnt want missle protection in europe, was that in a few weeks treaties run out and they can put them there. especially since they said they droped the pact keeping them from building up troops. they have been building htem up in areas under war games.
due note that in feb there was a push by communists to come to the table and negotiate with the taliban (this before we recently foud out itally has been paying them money which resulted in a huge set of deaths when repalced).
I think we should follow the path of dialogue, there is no other way,” said Victor Korgun, head of the Afghanistan department at the Russian Academy of Sciences.
it will be an interesting read to hear what people include in their assesments. it will just end up being a BYO ideas party..
Tatterdemalian, thank you for contributing “exhibit B.”
Because it makes them more diplomaticly accessible when they don’t have guns pointed at other nations
Not having guns pointed at other nations may make Europeans more accessible (an arguable proposition), but it diminishes the motivation of other nations to bother with engaging them diplomatically. Who wastes his time pursuing diplomacy with Lichtenstein?
The good news is that Obama is running out of people to blame and places to hide.
With Afghanistan and Iran, Obama is ducking the hard decisions that real leaders have to make and it is becoming embarrassingly obvious even to those sympathetic to Obama.
“Because it makes them more diplomaticly accessible when they don’t have guns pointed at other nations”
It certainly makes them more accessible, not necessarily diplomatically.
“As an ancient and wise man once said, “The failure to make a plan is a plan.” (vanderleun)
Wait for the Demorats to make a big splash in the news soon with some contrived alternative, ie. a new approach to more aggressive negotiations. Obama and company have bigger fish to fry (literally) in the mideast than the Taliban, Israel for starters…
By keeping enough troops in Afghanistan to appear like he is fighting, but not providing adequate body armor, vehicles, helicopters, munitions, and logistics, he ensures the war will go on long enough to bleed and break the US military. That is part of their objective.
More soldiers die, the better things look to Obama.
Everything the Left accused Bush of, was always true of the Left first and foremost. That rule hasn’t changed and won’t change any time soon.
Ymarsakar Says:….
Exactly, its emotionally difficult to accept for the public who are not well informed or intuitively aware of the far reaching consequences of so much time elapsing under these consequences; but it seems obvious that we have a traitor in the White House, and a combination of political opportunists and fools promoting and supporting him.
Oops, should have read: “consequences of so much time elapsing under these circumstances”…
More soldiers die, the better things look to Obama.
Ymarsakar: And you would know that how?
I agree that Obama will likely make the worst choice — support the war enough to keep it going without losing in the near term with the effect that more soldiers die and for nothing. But I think he will do that for political expediency, not because it looks better to Obama.
Neither of us reads minds.
Neither of us reads minds.
I knew you were going to say that. /g
Amir Taheri predicted shortly after Obama was elected that sooner or later he’ll encounter a crisis he can’t fudge, after which he’ll be seen for the empty suit he is. I wonder if this will be that crisis, and I wonder how good people we will lose while he thinks up excuses not to act.
Amir Taheri predicted shortly after Obama was elected that sooner or later he’ll encounter a crisis he can’t fudge, after which he’ll be seen for the empty suit he is.
Taheri and about 48% of the voting population predicted that. I don’t think that Afghanistan will be that crisis, no matter how badly he bungles it, because Obama, the MSM, and the true believers will lay it off on Bush in any case.
The fatal crisis for Obama will be the one that he bungles after generating it himself, out of whole cloth, without any chance of laying it off on Bush or anyone else. No amount of squirming, spinning, speechifying, prevaricating, triangulating, releasing sealed records, or throwing an army of people under a fleet of buses will get him off the hook then. He’ll have to man up and take responsibility, for the first time in his life.
That’s gonna be some day when that happens.
Whoa…. SecDef Gates shows some sack:
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=65507
“We’re not just going to sit on our hands waiting for the outcome of this election,” Gates said.
We can’t read minds, but we can evaluate incentives and the way that specific outcomes lead to desired goals. We can sometimes infer the desired destination from the path chosen, though not always. Ymarsakar, say more.
An astounding piece from Spengler at Asia Times (Hat tip David Kahane).
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KJ20Ak03.html
I’m not sure I agree because I’m not sure I understand it. I will have to read it again when my head quits hurting.
Anyway, here’s the money quote:
Let me sum up what ARTFLDGR is trying to say in his wordy way: The Nations of the world are being cobled up into blocks.
Like I said on the other post- Treaties…Treaties…treaties
Study up on the Lisbon treaty in Europe.
Look at the up and coming Copenhagen Treaty.
We should have taken Washington’s advice and avoided foreign entanglements.
Artfldgr:
You know Vincente Fox admitted there had been talk of the “Amero” . I bet you know this.
When our dollar does callapses with all this debt-it or something like it is coming. Or maybe they will just go ahead and merge us with the Euro pushers.
artfldgr,
Rush is picking up on the Globalist push behind the Copenhagen Treaty now.
Rush Limbaugh speaking about Gordon Brown: “…We think his comments are aimed at the votes in UK. I think it’s aimed at his fellow globalists who will have the power to enrich him personally by putting him in charge of something very powerful if he is defeated. So he’s covering his bases both ways. I mean it’s a den of thieves, Micah, the way these people operate. They go in and out of government, from their think tanks, to their UN agencies, to the media. It’s a giant revolving door. …”
Wow, this is the first time I am aware of Rush speaking of “globalist”. This was part of a talk on Copenhagen.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_101909/content/01125110.guest.html
“They truly do believe that, if they can not only reject the sword themselves but declare swords illegal for anyone in the whole world to own, they will finally be immune to being impaled on them, forever.”
I think this is mostly true of Europeans in general, however I think thier leadership (elected or not) is smarter than this.
I think they thought they could run both lines against each other. That is they could play that pacifist card and let the Americans be the aggressors. They could get their cake and eat it too.
I think they never really believed Obama in what he said, they also bought the koolaid so many did that Obama was playing some complex game of Rope-a-Dope and that his soft rhetoric was just that.
As the realization comes in that he was, well, not so much playing that game and his consistent rhetoric that was “obviously” the rope-a-dope game was truthfully his ideas we are seeing several different stages.
We have seen the amusement and ridicule as we fall, yet we are starting to see the realization that without the police Bad Things can Happen. France is a great example – it took how many months for it to turn from mirth to real worry? I do truly think people like Sarkozy never truly internalized the idea that Obama who is who he is – he still thought that any American is still that “cowboy” and is starting to realize what the world with no super-power(s) is.
It is still a slow thing for many to see it here in the US – too many are enamored of the idea that our President can not be that way. I hope it doesn’t take Obama getting a second term where he cares *nothing* about re-election given how he has done whilst still worried about it.
Rove shreds Rahm Emmanuel for blaming current Afghanistan problems on GWB. Rove has inside info, and spills it. Rove, who frequently counseled GWB to not engage the criticism of Iraq WMD and of Iraq policy, is no longer holding back on answering critics and making a case in public.
Rove notes a WaPo photo of Obama’s “War Cabinet” included images of Axelrod and Robert Gibbs in the meeting. Rove calls it “highly unusual” to have a political aide and a Press Secretary inside such a meeting. Re Press Secretary, Rove points out that you don’t want your Press Secretary having to lie about information he may not need to know.
Something else I didn’t know: Obama Admin. sent a political aide to try and help Karzai’s opponent get elected President. Chicago Rules? Yes. Dignity, integrity, honor, wisdom? No.
Just found out that Obama changed the ROE (rules of engagement) to a point that makes carrying out the war pretty impossible to win.
Doug Macgregor, a retired Army colonel and military historian, says the emphasis on having conventional forces trying to win over the population is futile.
“You surrender whatever military advantage you have by compelling the U.S. conventional soldier or Marine to fight on terms that favor the enemy, not the American soldier or Marine,” Macgregor said.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Dashing from boulder to boulder, diving into trenches and ducking behind stone walls as the insurgents maneuvered to outflank us, we waited more than an hour for U.S. helicopters to arrive, despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five minutes away.
U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines – despite being told repeatedly that they weren’t near the village.
“We are pinned down. We are running low on ammo. We have no air. We’ve lost today,” Marine Maj. Kevin Williams, 37, said through his translator to his Afghan counterpart, responding to the latter’s repeated demands for helicopters.
they are reconstructing vietnam by shifting the war to the office of everything, as it was in germany, russia, cuba, etc. that is, in such cultish power structures, everything comes from the leader, including how to fight battles as the leader is the omniscient one with lesser partially omniscients right in his office.
they do what such despots allways do when not faced with actual problem (or wanting the opposite outcome than what theya re there for), and that is hobble things with their own choices and pet theories of how things should be.
that those with the communist socialist bent have some inner idea that they have simplified the world so much they can clearly see how to add blue dots and improve everything. (marketing always adds blue dots when they want to make something improve and have nothing to improve it with. from certs with retsin, tide, to new undarm antipersperant. blue dots are their secret 🙂 )
imagine that you elected religious fanatics who decied to make choices from their religion. who feel that because they are the leaders they are the gods of men and that through some divine something (carefully acted on but seldome noticed), they know what answers and how things work (even though thtey cant explain how they work) and that every idea that comes to their head that is different than what is actually being done is an improvement.
all one has to do is look how kids do division in school to say wtf, and understand this process of never settling on best anything as something different is always better (even if it isnt).
the brain trust of FDR improved the economy, and extended the depression and really hurt american people.
the bean counters in teh basement trying to administer a war by the only eyes they have, which are reports. and so war ended up being a practice of fighting to the report, not fighting to win. (if war is about dead people, then body count becomes a proxy for winning. problem is that unless your going to eradicate everyone body count does not mean what they assume it means)
and now in this war, the idea is to have a completely clean war. however they are not even positioned to fight such. while smart bombs and our techniques visited and designed by us, have creaetd the situation of the most separation of civilians and combatants ever in wars history, they have not made war perfect.
however, i dont think most here can see the trend. the trend has been to suggest anything and push our ideals to a point of ridiculousness in the effort to make a fighting force that cant fight and win.
however the frustration for the ruling class as to individualism, is that we did what they thought was impossible on any level. we cleaned up war and raised the bar of action to a point no other nation could compete morally.
however if you look this is a constant practice. after all, what do you think putting women in combat is for? better combat? they cant carry the same pack weight, run the same distances, and on and on. period. this doesnt mean that they cant take jobs in the military, it means that unlike the men they cant fill a lot of them, especially front line situations. they also suffer more somatic deseases, and problem than the men do. they suicide more often than the men do. they kill themselves with the equipment more than the men do.
so in essence the left keeps raising the moral bar of our own ideals to the ridiculous and absurd, then they restrict the money needed to do that since like any LUXURY, such wasteful choices cost more.
[if we only wanted to sweep in and kill indiscriminately and really use force, we would not need such a large military industrial complex. but guided munitions, robotics, sensors and all that stuff geared for making distinctions, cause the beast to have to be bigger and more funded than otherwise]
this is a war that the left wants to lose because losing a war you can win against people who cant really fight, and fight so dirty emboldens others to fight for communism and win, and creates a malaise that they can keep alive and polish and visit on us constantly for the next 50 years.
if they were around at the time we would probably still be hearing about other failures of ours magnified and carried forward way beyond their significance for a purpose.
MC Crystal has decided that he will lose the war while trying to make it look that they are reaching higher standards. in essence, we cant fight and win, because our standards are so high, that a large gang with no country can beat us.
this is about as good as when the US womens hockey team was beaten badely by a high school boys hockey team…
As I used to tell young officers regarding handling traffic situations at sea, you can choose to turn to port, you can choose to turn to starboard, you can choose to slow down, you can choose to stay the course until you have better information or a more opportune time to maneuver. However, not making a decision is a decision and is usually the worst decision. For it is certain that, barring the stand-on vessel taking action, you will have to take action to avoid catastrophe.
As for Europe, well they appear to be teenagers, who’ve been eager to expound their theories on how the world should be, but now faced with the terrifying prospect that dad has had a breakdown and the time has come when they have to step up to pay the mortgage and keep the world at bay and the family safe.
jon baker,
thanks for summarizing me… though to tell you the truth, i do not pay much attention to rush, or the other person your mentioning.
mostly i read the releases of new laws, other papers to get a thread to follow on my own, etc.
i read the copenhagen thing after reading lord monckton, who is like me. incredibly educated, but unlike me, he can talk to others and convey better. (top education and such can do that, when lower education with similar skills leads to ostracism, alienation, and no one to work and learn your skills from. adults are very impatient)
again. i thank you for your comment.
however if i say things that short, for some reason it leaves me open to challenge, and if i say them long, i am challened by length so they dont have to read the piece that boxes the point in.
either way, i lose the discussion, either by not making a point due to brevity and incredulity, or by making the point to which the challenger refuses to listen to it and moves on pretending they won, acting like they won, etc.
be warned though, i do not listen to tin hat places, or do i listen to the people who populate them. they are shills mostly… (ever notice how they have very little as to the other sides, but always have something nasty on us?)
i just read history, tons of news, lots of technical science papers, and so on.
the fact that so many facts fall into seeming tin hat territory tells me they serve a purpose to create a falsifier factory… that is if you cant falsefy the big picture by argument, swaying, propaganda, etc. then let the tin hatters run with it all over, and no one will pay attention to the key information.
if the north american union actually happens thanks to copenhagen, it means that they, the tin hatters, have been running interference…
As for Europe, well they appear to be teenagers, who’ve been eager to expound their theories on how the world should be, but now faced with the terrifying prospect that dad has had a breakdown and the time has come when they have to step up to pay the mortgage and keep the world at bay and the family safe.
Extremely well put, JKB.
Ymarsakar: And you would know that how?
Same way you know he’ll do it for political expediency.
Maybe even the same way you know both of us can’t read minds. I know no such thing, of course, and I wouldn’t presume to say, especially lacking evidence.
Ymarsakar, say more.
I came across an interesting historical incident in American past. Read up on the election of the 6th US President and the role Andrew Jackson played in it.
Very interesting for modern times.
No force on Earth can defeat the US military, except the democrat party.
our military is easy to beat…
just keep holding on to them, and dont let go…
then wait…
thats all you need to do to beat them…
[if they wanted us to leave, they only have to cease fighting for 5 months. i explained this long ago when the main thing we worried about was what bush was doing in iraq]
how do you beat them here?
easy..
one nuke way out off the coast on each side…
all our electronics shuts down, including obamas blackberry…
the crisis for the biggest cities and feeding them, and the lack of ability of the people, with gangs whose numbers nationally are in 100k range slugging it out.
how could they defend?
remember, we have only a couple of weeks of munitions for full scale stuff.
we havent enough manufacturing capacity, nor experience and even worse its supporting infrastructure..
as i said in another post, we have been stripped of our manufacturing capacity, intellectual property, expertise, capacity, and now the last part… capital.
who would loan us enough to win a world war? we spent that money now.