»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Obama's Vietnam
| The Alley |
|
Obama's Vietnam |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
. Conservative George Will wants us to get out of Afghanistan and solve any problems there with drones, air strikes and special teams. Some Democrats have made it known they don’t want to stay either much less give any green light to a “surge”. Seems to me that would mean we lose . . . now and later. Welcome to the real world of hard choices instead of speeches Mister President. . [This message has been edited by Ron (09-08-2009 12:04 AM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2009 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Hi everyone! As many of you are well aware, I recently took a hiatus from Passions In Poetry, but returned in mid-summer and even then was very busy with volunteering and so, needless to say, I haven't had time to contribute to discussions here and elsewhere, even while my news junkie inclinations haven't evaporated. Eerily enough, I do believe Obama's foreign policy in Afghanistan is quite similar to Bush's foreign policy in Iraq, in that nation-building was and is a primary component of both policies and, moreover, Obama has not offered any exit strategy or plan for victory in Afghanistan just like Bush failed to do so for Iraq. Moreover, Obama in late February of this year had proposed adding two brigade-sized forces in Afghanistan, one being a Marine Corps unit in the spring and the other an Army one for the summer, that numbered approximately 12,000, even going so far as to suggest the force would eventually be double the 38,000 already stationed there.............all while repeatedly insisting that it was time for a "new strategy" in Afghanistan despite being unwilling to go into detail over what the "new strategy" might be............which bears stark similarities to Bush's "surge" late in his second term as president and his reluctance to elaborate on a new strategy, as well as Obama using "progress" as a buzzword for how we determine success in Afghanistan despite lacking any system of measurement. Unlike Iraq, which was never the central front of terrorism to begin with, it's understandable why most feel we have to do something in Afghanistan since, after all, that is where the Taliban's main concentration of forces and Osama bin Laden's allies were based in the first place. And yet, it is utterly frustrating that the Obama Administration seems to be just as oblivious as many previous administrations over the history of foreign policy in the Middle East..........including the Soviets once having half a million troops in Afghanistan and even then failing to bring peace to the nation. I knew, regardless of who would be elected, that we wouldn't have any significant seismic shift in terms of foreign policy, but I did believe that Obama would provide a more pragmatic tone to our foreign policy............and if how he is operating Afghanistan is any indication, even that doesn't seem to be the case, and regardless of how much he promotes himself as an agent of change, Obama, Bush and many of their predecessors are joined much more closely at the hip than Obama will ever admit. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Campaigning is easy... ruling is an entirely different ball game. Wars, unfortunately, have never been won by a few small units and some technology. Regardless of the drones, and air strikes, it takes a substantial amount of feet on the ground in order to effect a win. The American people know thta, and that is why they line up either for a surge and all out butt-whoopin' or an all out retreat: Get it done as quickly as possible, or lose as few men as possible... President Obama, regardless of his decision, loses. Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. So what long term good does anyone imagine would happen if we just up and left? . |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Long term good? None. This is a case where people need to realize (some will like it, some won't. Some will agree some, some won't) that Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 definitely applies. quote: While I do not believe we need to bring every third world nation into the light of democracy and industrialism, we do need to fight those who started this war with us. President Obama has stated that we are at war with Al Qaeda... well, NO ONE is stating that they are not in Afghanistan. The liberal Democrats in Washington, who vilified the previous administration (and continue to do so, to their own detriment) have not come out and said any different. Fine, then... if we are, truly, at war with Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda are in Afghanistan, then let's get in there, let the military do its job of locating, closing with and engaging the enemy and get this over with. We are never going to erradicate Al Qaeda, or similar organizations. We would have a better chance of ridding the world of cockroaches. What we need to do is to locate, close with, and engage the particular cockroaches that are behind the attacks on the US and Americans around the world, and exterminate them without prejudice, and then allow the people of Afghanistan to keep track of themselves in the way they feel best. Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE [This message has been edited by Ringo (09-09-2009 07:14 AM).] |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Why do I hear crickets on this topic? . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “In an extensive June 22, 2009, interview with the network, Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid, general commander of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, prayed, “With the grace of Allah, the Muslims will gain control of these [Pakistani nuclear] weapons and we will use them against the Americans.” . . . Dr. Al-Nafisi went on to explain, “The WMD is a problem. The Americans are afraid that the WMDs might fall into the hands of 'terrorist’ organizations, like al-Qaeda and others. There is good reason for the Americans’ fears, because al-Qaeda used to have . . . laboratories in north Afghanistan. They have scientists, chemists, and nuclear physicists. They are nothing like they are portrayed by these mercenary journalists — backward Bedouin living in caves.” http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmI3NjhiN2E2NWJmNDM2NWM1ZmY5MGUwOGI4NjFjY2E=&w=MQ == . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “He also says that coalition forces will change their operational culture, in part by spending "as little time as possible in armored vehicles or behind the walls of forward operating bases." Strengthening Afghans' sense of security will require troops to take greater risks, but the coalition "cannot succeed if it is unwilling to share risk, at least equally, with the people." “ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/20/AR2009092002920_pf.html No General, with all respect . . . Afghanistan is not even Iraq much less Vermont; it’s Somalia. . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “Last spring, the president handed McChrystal an impossible mission: Turn Afghanistan into a prosperous, rule-of-law democracy cherished by its citizens. The general's doing his best. But we have zero chance -- zero -- of making that happen. Meanwhile, we've forgotten why we went to Afghanistan in the first place. (Hint: It wasn't to make nice with toothless tribesmen.) . . . What we really need is just a compact, lethal force of special operators, intelligence resources and air assets, along with sufficient conventional forces for protection and punitive raids. More troops just mean more blood and frustration. Those who suggest pulling out completely and striking from offshore don't understand the fundamentals, either: We still need some boots on the ground, within grabbing distance of Pakistan's wild northwest, to strike fast to kill or capture elusive targets. And cruise missiles can't bring back prisoners, DNA samples or captured documents. Our hunter-killer task forces should be deployed on a limited number of strategically positioned bases supported by air. Don't worry about the Afghan government -- Afghans don't. The other alternative -- sending still more troops to die for Washington's fantasy of a Disney-World Afghanistan -- is disgraceful. Stop building sewage systems. Take scalps” http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/afghan_agony_more_troops_won_help_DILbepkOZbQIHAyOXRocAM . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Ralph Peters makes a lot of sense. Targeting Al Qaeda, making that the strategy instead of nation building, seems like the way to go. But whatever strategy we adopt it needs to be done quickly. The foot-dragging has gone on long enough. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “On July 2, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, issued a directive restricting the military's use of airstrikes and artillery bombardments… As military operations intensified in Afghanistan this summer, the number of times that coalition troops came under fire increased more than 30 percent compared with the summer of 2008, but the number of air munitions used fell by nearly 50 percent, according to Air Force data. When troops are in firefights, warplanes often shoot flares or fly low in a "show of force" to temporarily frighten insurgents away. . . Collins asked Mullen, in particular, to respond to a letter she received in July from retired Marine Corps 1st Sgt. John Bernard, whose son was serving in the restive southern province of Helmand. In the letter, Bernard criticizes McChrystal's rules of engagement, calling them "nothing less than disgraceful, immoral and fatal for our Marines, sailors and soldiers on the ground." "The Marines and soldiers that are 'holding' territories of dubious worth like Now Zad and Golestan without reinforcement, denial of fire-support and refusal to allow them to hunt and kill the very enemy we are there to confront are nothing more than sitting ducks," Bernard wrote. He denounced "the insanity of the current situation and the suicidal position this administration has placed these warriors in." A month after Bernard wrote to Collins, his son, Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard, was killed by a rocket-propelled grenade when Taliban insurgents ambushed his platoon. Bernard said that in one of his last phone calls from Afghanistan, his son had complained that his unit had been denied supporting fire and that Marines had been wounded. "They are in between a rock and a hard place, with minimal support and maximum exposure," Bernard said in a telephone interview. "With 175 guys there and then to be denied fire missions is inexplicable," he said, describing his son's company, stationed near the Taliban sanctuary of Now Zad in Helmand. "We've hamstrung ourselves in fear of angering a population that hates us anyway." In Afghanistan, some U.S. commanders and troops say insurgents are taking advantage of the new rules, fighting from Afghan homes and moving unarmed between fighting positions. As thousands of Marines pushed into Taliban-held regions of Helmand in July soon after McChrystal issued his directive, Lt. Col. Christian Cabaniss, commander of 2nd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, remarked that the Taliban "know the directive better than we do." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/22/AR20090922042 96.html?hpid=topnews This must be great for morale . . . What next, dress ‘em up in red ? . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Huan Yi, quote: quote: quote: Huan Yi post # 6 is a verbatim post from the National Review, without comment. quote: Huan Yi post # 8 is a verbatim post from The New York Post, without comment. quote: I understand from the above at least a few things that you dislike. I do not feel that I could specify them with any certainty. I have no sense what your opinion on these matters may be, or what plans you may advocate. Insofar as I understand, 1) nobody has suggested that red is a good color for desert camouflage;2) Ralph Peters is still a pretty good writer of military fiction; 3) we remain unclear of our mission in Afghanistan and the Middle East in general, and we may be working at cross purposes to some of our own interests. The primary victims of this at present are our own troops, and you are right to call attention to this. If it was General Petraeus who literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency, it would seem that he should be a part of this discussion. If we are not fighting this sort of war, then what sort of war are we fighting there? And is the reason actually policy-sufficient to justify itself in terms of national self interest and in terms of lives and treasure? Does General Petraeus feel that we are doing a proper job of counterinsurgency, and what options would he recommend, given that this sort of warfare is highly specialized? And are you upset because the warfare is under a Democratic administration (I find this especially distressing, by the way, but for reasons that might be different than those you might feel, should you in fact feel that way. I don’t know, not being privy to your thinking on the matter.) and you might have something against actions performed by Democrats (not knowing enough about your opinions, I am certainly able to take this position, simply because you do give the appearance of partisanship). Or do you have a different strategic and tactical take on how counterinsurgency should be fought? Perhaps you believe this is not a counterinsurgency struggle between asymmetrical forces and should be fought along more traditional lines? Even though 4) Somalia was a counterinsurgency struggle as well. And so is Iraq. What is the point you are making here? If you believe that we should stay in Afghanistan, under what terms should we do so? What felt need do the Afghanis have, as a people, for us to remain?, and if we want to remain, how can we convince them that they’ll feel any good about it? As an American, we should share some understanding of business. The question I’m asking here is, if the Afghanis wanted to check out our references among their friends who’ve previously employed our services, would they hire us or Acme? Or are we like Microsoft: You’ve got to deal with us because everybody uses our operating system? And what are your opinions on Afghanistan, anyway? And quote: Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I think non-US NATO forces should pull out of Afghanistan and let the US carry on with Operation Enduring Freedom on their own. Running two separate operations with two distinct and contradictory aims under the banner and command of the ISAF and NATO is a recipe for disaster in my opinion. . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. I think anyone who enlisted without being fully informed and consenting as to the limitations that would be put on support of his surviving combat should be able to apply for and receive a full honorable discharge from military service. The original military mission was to go and kill bad guys before they through their organization with its allies could come to the U.S. and kill us. If the mission now is to turn Afghanistan into some Disney democracy at the expense of more American lives then send in Peace Corps or Obama Corps not Marine Corps volunteers. . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Limitations, John? The limitations haven't changed. Marines still have to follow lawful orders, often with little or no understanding of why those orders were given. They still have to trust the officers above them to weigh the costs and benefits of each battle with both compassion and courage. They still have to maintain faith in the integrity of their leaders, in the mission and ideology of their country, and in the dedication of their fellow grunts. Those are the same limitations, Johns, the Corps has faced for some 234 years. Mostly, I think, without a whole lot of complaining. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “In Afghanistan, our leaders are complicit in the death of each soldier, Marine or Navy corpsman who falls because politically correct rules of engagement shield our enemies. Mission-focused, but morally oblivious, Gen. Stan McChrystal conformed to the Obama Way of War by imposing rules of engagement that could have been concocted by Code Pink: * Unless our troops in combat are absolutely certain that no civilians are present, they're denied artillery or air support. * If any civilians appear where we meet the Taliban, our troops are to "break contact" -- to retreat. . . And what has our concern for the lives of Taliban sympathizers accomplished? The Taliban now make damned sure that civilians are present whenever they conduct an ambush or operation. So they attack -- and we quit the fight, lugging our dead and wounded back to base. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_rules_murderi ng_our_troops_u935ECKNWXpLK8C5D96pdN . Ron, I disagree. The Corps never knowingly left anyone behind and it had no problem doing whatever was necessary to make sure as many as possible made it back. These rules are killing men who otherwise would be going home not in a bag. Leaders can’t tell them to waste a village and everyone in it, nor set them up for a box and a flag and expect faith or loyalty. That’s not how it works They’re Marines, soldiers, not sheep; even the French made that point to their leaders in 1917. Theirs is but to do or die? BS! . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Huan Yi, I'd be interested in knowing how you disagree, and where. While I feel that the magazine's thoughts are interesting, I'm not clear exactly the point you are using them to illustrate, and without that context — the how, the what, the where and the why of your disagreement — I don't know how to connect the chunk of data you've presented in the quotation and what I actually care about — your thoughts on the matter. What you think and what you say can make me think or re-think because I can actually talk with you and you sometimes have ideas that are outside the usual talking points I hear on the radio or tv. I respect your committment to honor and to the military spirit, though I'm not sure how much of that I share, and I know I learn things when I can talk and listen to you in my own fumbling fashion. I'm grateful that you saw fit to make the expanded comments that you did a few postings above. I didn't see how the logic of them necessarily fit together, but I saw the sense of outrage and, I think, betrayal of the men on the ground clearly enough. That is, if I understand what you're saying as well as I think I do. I may not. I believe that the actual mission was originally clear when we went into Afghanistan. That we were going after people who had given refuge to the people who claimed responsibility for the World Trade Center. We had said that the Taliban's offer to turn Binladen over to a "neutral" third party was not acceptable to us because, I think, we didn't believe such a party could have been found. Therefore, the mission was to topple the Taliban government, capture Osama Binladen, hold free elections and get out. I thought the mission was acceptable and fair, the goals were limited and specific, and we had a causus belli. I hated the notion of war, but if we needed to accomplish these goals, this would have been a rational application of forces. Just before these goals were in sight, the forces were retasked. The situation in Afghanistan was allowed to degrade. NPR has been running steady reports on the subject during the intervening time detailing the growing corruption, the decline of trust among the people of the current government, its growing corruption, and the increase in the influence of the Taliban. We once had the trust of the locals, and we've blown that at this point. The man that apparently wrote the book on counterinsurgency warfare, General Petraeus, needs to be consulted about a counterinsurgency plan. A straightforward battle plan such as might have been useful in symmetrical warfare may work here, or it may not. I like to think I understand strategy at some very basic level, but I probably do not. What seems to me to be a logical approach toward warfare in one time and place or another, may be completely wrong. I'd be interested in knowing what your understanding is of the strategy folks are now following and why, and what the strategy is that you believe we should follow and why. Because my understanding is that for asymmetrical warfare, they seem to be following the correct strategy, though it would not be the correct strategy for winning a battle fought along traditional lines. I don't know, though, Huan Yi. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
They don't have a fighting chance under those rules of engagement. If those rules stand, then they should just bring everybody home. We shouldn't allow our people to be sitting ducks for political correctness. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Sorry John but I think you're getting a little confused. Those rules of engagement aren't Obama's - they're Nato's - they're dictated by the ISAF in Brunssum in the Netherlands. McChrystal reports to them as head of the ISAF. Your confusion is probably caused because as head of the OEF McChrystal also reports to Washington - but they haven't changed the American OEF forces' rules of engagement at all as far as I know. NATO should pull out of Afghanistan and let the OEF get on with whatever they're trying to achieve, there'd be far less confusion and Obama would be forced to either ship in another 40-60 thousand troops or pull the plug on the whole shebang. . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “On July 2, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, issued a directive restricting the military's use of airstrikes and artillery bombardments…” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/22/AR2009092204296.html?hpid=topnews . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Huan Yi, You have not addressed the question. You have simply cited a source without attempting to explain the point you are trying to make with the source. You may believe the connection to be obvious, but it is not. Was the direction issues to bring his command into compliance with NATO authorities or as a result of direct orders from the white house against the advice of the Joint Chiefs? Were The Joint Chiefs consulted? What is the interaction among the three and what other force vectors apply? Make your point, please, Huan Yi. I really would like to know what your thinking is on this. Your quotations don't really make much sense without the organizing principle of your own thinking to give them structure and intent that even people like myself can understand. Only at that point is an actual mutual exchange of views possible. Otherwise, it's simply not quite the same thing. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Really? I wonder where I was, John, when they nuked Vietnam? Dropping The Bomb, after all, would have been "doing whatever was necessary" to bring back "as many as possible" live Marines. You got an enemy? Boom. Enemy gone. Is that what you're advocating, John? The complete nuclear annihilation of Afghanistan? Because unless that's what you're arguing, then you've already agreed that the safety of American soldiers is not always the sole concern of war. Unless you're willing to kill wantonly and without conscience, you have to be willing to put some Marine somewhere in some danger. If, on the other hand, you believe as most people do that unnecessary killing should be avoided, it appears your only real complaint is with the current definition of "unnecessary." Is that an accurate assessment of your position? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. * Unless our troops in combat are absolutely certain that no civilians are present, they're denied artillery or air support. * If any civilians appear where we meet the Taliban, our troops are to "break contact" -- to retreat. . . Is beyond “some danger”. It means unnecessary KIAs. My position is you don’t back your troops pull them out, let them go home. I advocate leaving. . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Huan, McChrystal issued those rules of engagement to ISAF forces. The American OEF forces are not bound by the same rules. There are two wars being fought in Afghanistan, one is the ISAF mission to secure, rebuild and develop trust with the Afghan population - a security and hearts and minds mission centred on the populated areas. The other is OEF a mission to send Special Forces and regular combat troops out into the boonies looking for terrorists - they're on a seek and destroy mission. Either mission is valid, depending on what you're trying to achieve, but in Afghanistan they're mutually exclusive. The ISAF are building trust, that's shot down every time the OEF carpet bomb a village to wheedle out two terrorists armed with AK47's. That's why the Americans can't drum up any support and extra troops from other countries - everyone recognises that you have to do one thing or the other and if America is dead set on the seek and destroy mission the hearts and minds mission is seen as untenable. McChrystal knows that too, his suggestion to Obama regarding the OEF is almost word for word the orders that McChrystal is getting from NATO. The presumption must be that of the two conflicting tactics he prefers the NATO option and is trying to convince Obama to rein in the OEF and produce one hymn sheet that everyone can sing from. Personally I think it's too little too late, America has lost international support because of the gung ho tactics of OEF forces. Obama will have to either increase the number of troops in Afghanistan as NATO countries withdraw or admit defeat and hand Afghanistan back to the Taliban. . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Well Grinch, if staying means some Marine NCO would have to live with the death of Marines under him because they weren’t given the artillery and or air support that would have saved their lives in any other war I’m all for leaving. And if that means that 3,000 more die later in NYC or DC I can live with it. There are some things past word games and for me personally this is one of them. Semper Fi John . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Huan Yi, I believe I'm getting a better understanding not only of your opinion, for which I thank you, but of the situation. Grinch's explanation of the dual and conflicting policy demands clarifies the situation for me. I am not entirely clear of the extent to which it parallels the dual and occasionally conflicting lines of command situation that seemed to go on in Iraq with US conventional forces on the one hand under military command and Mercenary Forces under a different governmental chain of command on the other. The two often seemed to operate at cross purposes and against a single rational US foreign policy, it seemed to me. I don't know whether you agree with that or not, but it's the way I've recently come to formulate the contretemps in Iraq for myself. I don't know what to make of it, myself; I'm very far behind the curve on that one. And I could be completely off base. Other theories are welcome. There does seem to be a split in the sense of unified command here, however, in the Afghani adventure. Grinch makes sense to me so far. He often does. quote: Is this what staying means? I am not in favor of any war without a clear and definable goal and a clear strategy for accomplishing that goal already set up. This plan may not survive first contact, but it is there, and may be modified as the situation unfolds with the ultimate goal in mind. A set of goals that define winning and losing should be part of this plan, and a clear method of supply along lines of advance needs to be laid out. An exit plan needs to be in place. There should be a unified command structure and chain of command. It is not clear to me that I am saying anything much different than you are here, by the way. I am simply trying to nail down the details of what that might mean. Then I would ask, Are we willing to pay for it? If not, we need to pack up and go home now. Is it morally worth paying for? and then, do we believe, even if the answer is Yes, that we will be willing to do it? There are loads of morally worthy things that we don't at the bottom really care about. quote: This may be one of the morally worthy things — preventing the death of 3000 US citizens — that you believe you can give up. I am not so certain myself, and yet I have to admire the certainty with which you make the statement. As for me, I believe that there may actually be other options than the two options that you so starkly present, killing marines without necessity (if there is ever a necessity) or allowing US citizens to be killed by random terrorist attack. Among the possible other options might be a re-analysis of the situation. What is the problem we are trying to solve in that area of the world? What is its cause? Is the only possible solution a military solution? If there are other solutions, what might be involved in facilitating them? Might they be economic and social? might they involve political changes in the area? Can we get involved in political changes without stirring up military and religious conflict? What do these people need from us and what do we need from them? What are we prepared to offer? None of these questions or possible solutions are as straightforward as carpet bombing, but if we can try them first, they'd be considerably cheaper, and might even help our own country as well as other countries involved. If we still think it's unavoidable, and we absolutely have to kill each other, I suspect, like dessert, there's always room for that later. Or maybe we can find something else to try instead. That wouldn't be so bad either. quote: When one finds one's self locked into a set of binary choices, the first thing to do is to examine whether the structure of language and thinking itself hasn't jammed you into a word game despite your best efforts to avoid them. While the structure of thought and language often seems to leave us with sets of binary choices, it should be noted that the structure of reality is not obligated to conform to our way of thinking about it. All my best, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Eight young men died today . . . . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
What was it that you'd hoped to communicate beyond the death notice in this thread named "Obama's Vietnam?" I caught the information in The Washington Post. I don't want to try to puzzle out the implications here, John; I'm not very good at guessing, and I'd actually rather hear you say anything beyond the headline — which I'd actually caught earlier — yourself. Were you simply offering us information, or was there something more you wanted to communicate? All I understood was the information. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
No one has EVER won a war by being wishy-washy. You can, however, waste 1000's of men's lives while waiting till the polls come out on what to do. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: What about an armed occupation? . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: So, you're accusing Dick Cheney of waiting for the polls? Oh right... the election poll of 2008.  Silly me... of course he was. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
You do know, Local Rebel, that at Obama's request, the 2009 troop surge was Bush/Cheney's plan that Obama 'cabbaged onto' as his own. It wasn't until this past week's speech that Cheney finally got fed up with Obama: a) seeking credit for the initial 2009 troop increase b) and at the same time blaming Bush for not increasing troops and fixing Afghanistan's undermanned situation. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
You mean TB?: Bush and Cheney planned it all along, while they had carte blanche, but waited until Obama could implement it so that he could get the credit? That's really swell of them. How did they do that exactly? Did they whisper it into his ear on the campaign trail so that shifting the focus to Afghanistan would be a campaign pledge, he would get elected, and then implement it? That would mean, gosh, that -- they wanted him to win all along and were secretly against John McCain. This is making my head spin. I just love conspiracy theories. Please! Tell me more! With citations! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: If Mr. Cheney or Mr. Bush still wish credit for the Iraqi troop surge, they should feel free to it. It may have had some effect in dialing down the destruction of that war. If that's true, I am happy. I would rather that the war not have started. I would rather that they not have lied our way into it and not been responsible for the death of 3-4,000 Americans and what may be up to 750,000 Iraqis, however. That I don't see them taking such credit for, though they certainly deserve credit for that as well. As to Mr. Obama taking credit for the surge, perhaps you have heard him say things I haven't heard about the matter. I was personally against the surge, and to the extent it worked, I was surprised. I am also happy to be wrong, to whatever extent I was wrong in that case. Any steps to a more peaceful situation in the area are more than welcome to my mind. I also blame Bush for the undermanned situation in Afghanistan and for his support of the situation there. There have been reports of graft and corruption coming out of that area now for several years on PRI. There have been reports of growing strength of the Taliban and the loss of support of the government on that radio network that the Government has been ignoring. The switch from the original emphasis from Afghanistan to Iraq is something that remains to be explained, and is unlikely to be explained to anybody's satisfaction in the near future. Trying to shift blame onto President Obama for failed Republican policy is understandable, given the upcoming 2010 election cycle and the hopes of regaining some ground that the Republicans have. They are even likely to achieve some of their ambitions, I suspect, unless the President makes some more clearly defined decisions in the near future as well. My thinking remains that the President should probably have a reasonably clear notion of his game plan before he starts in. Having an exit strategy is also a good idea, as Mr. Bush has demonstrated as well. Following Mr. Cheney's advice may not be such a good idea. He tends to give advice that is full of booby traps and diversions and is often more expedient for himself and his buddies than what may prove to be the actual long term American interest. The truth of this would be simpler to assess if Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush would get their stories straight. Six days, six weeks weeks or — despite Mr. Rumsfeld's doubts and Mr. Cheney's assurances, six months have long passed us by. The limits of expenditure have long been surpassed. The links with Al Qaida in Iraq have all been disproven despite Mr. Cheney's loud and frequent re-assertions. It is refreshing to hear that somebody suggests that we should retain our faith in the Republican counsel on War. He has been very very good to his former employees, who have prospered from Mr. Cheney's time as Vice President. If the original mission to Afghanistan had been pushed to its end, I have no idea what the conclusion would have been. Many of my fellow Democrats feel that it might have resolved the current conflict swiftly and clearly. I think they are probably wrong. Twenty-five hundred years of history suggests that they are probably wrong. It is a miserable part of the world for military adventures. I suspect that finishing things in the Tora Bora mountains, though, might have brought things to the point where we might have been able to withdraw from the region with some sense of a limited mission having been completed. Especially if we'd have been able to capture Osama Binladin. This may simply be wishful thinking; I'm willing to think the wishful thinking theory as a plausible one, too. Instead, it was off to Iraq and to further adventures in futility. Threadbear, you're going to have to make some sort of alternative sense of this to me sometime. The ruminations I have on the matter are dark and unsavory, and are not ones that I feel are fit to share with man nor beast at this point. "Everybody's crying peace on earth when they don't know the meaning of the word. " Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: quote: quote: Sorry TB, the facts just don't bear out your assertion. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear LR, Thanks for the update of facts. My memory for current history is not as good as I'd thought, and I appreciate the lesson in research as well the the information. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Perhaps it is just my silly notion that people make the best decisions (especially that "I" make the best decisions), when I have the correct information and that if misinformed poor choices are the outcome. But -- it is possible that this was an opinion based on incorrect information: quote: |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. So to whom does this war belong now? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Easy, John. When it goes well, it's Obama's. When it goes bad, it's all Bush's...a no-brainer. Funny thing is that Obama and others speak about how well things are going in Iraq but somehow none of that goes back to anything Bush did, although Obama hasn't done a thing there. Interesting how that works, isn't it? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
FACTCHECK checks out Obama's speech... WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's speech Tuesday night did not always match the reality on the ground in Afghanistan. The president raised expectations that may be hard to meet when he told Americans his troop increase in Afghanistan will accelerate the training of that country's own forces and be accompanied by more help from allies. A look at some of his claims and how they compare with the facts: OBAMA: "Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead." THE FACTS: When Obama says he is confident that allied countries will provide more troops in the weeks ahead he is setting aside years of mostly empty-handed American efforts to get others, including allies in NATO, to deepen their commitment to combat in Afghanistan. One reason, which Obama did not mention, is that other countries, particularly those in Europe, have viewed the conflict — and its likely solution — much differently than Washington. They have seen it primarily as a humanitarian and reconstruction mission, rather than a counterinsurgency fight. And they have pushed for greater nonmilitary means of addressing Afghanistan's instability. For a time there also was a European sense of hangover from the U.S. invasion of Iraq and a perceived go-it-alone bent by the Bush administration. Obama is technically correct in anticipating that some allies will offer more assistance, possibly as early as the coming week during a series of NATO consultations about how the troop requirements of commanders in Afghanistan might be met. But history has shown that these troop contributions often are incremental, sometimes slow in materializing and frequently with conditions attached. ___ OBAMA: The extra U.S. forces for Afghanistan "will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans. " THE FACTS: The problem with Afghan forces is not just their lack of numbers. And it's not an unwillingness to fight. The problem too often is their effectiveness, once trained for combat. Too many get into the fight but don't remain or don't perform. A major change of approach promised by Obama's new chief commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, is to partner entire U.S. and NATO combat units with newly fielded Afghan units — large and small — so the Afghans get more exposure to professional military leadership practices and combat tactics. This is an approach that was used to good effect in recent years in Iraq. ___ OBAMA: "In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy." THE FACTS: It's true the Pakistani army this year has launched offensives against extremist elements in the areas cited by Obama. What he did not mention, however, is that the groups being targeted by the Pakistanis are those that threaten the Pakistani government — not those, also based in Pakistan, that are focused on attacking U.S. and Afghan forces on the other side of the porous border with Afghanistan. Obama administration officials have publicly praised Pakistan for taking on the extremists in Swat and South Waziristan. But they also have made clear that they want Pakistan to put more military pressure on the Afghan-focused extremist groups, which have so far not been confronted on the Pakistan side of the border, other than by airstrikes from unmanned U.S. drones. Among the groups not yet confronted directly by the Pakistani army is al-Qaida, whose top leader, Osama bin Laden, is believed to be hiding on the Pakistan side of the border. ___ |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: And, in direct response, we have: quote: I don't know how to answer that question, John. I wish I did. It's our war, meaning the war the United States walked into and hasn't gotten out of as yet. That makes me responsible for it. I did not want to go in and I don't want to be there now, but I'm responsible for it. I pay taxes here. I'm not withholding them. I feel the guys fighting over there deserve all the support we can give them, and that we should get them out as quickly as possible. Is it a Republican war. Yes it is. Is it a Democratic war. Yes it is. Both parties have been voting monies to support it, and we haven't found a way to get out yet. We own this war. I think that it's a terrible mistake to be there. That's a quarrel that I have with most of the Republican party and a good part of the Democratic party as well. I think it's done bad things to and for this country in any number of ways. If you'll look over my posts, I haven't been exactly secretive about them. Do you want to play a blame game. I think you can blame everybody, including me for not being more obnoxious and forthright about my opposition and my reasons for opposing the thing. There are Democrats that are as much to blame for the thing as any Republicans. The Democrats, by and large, seem to be afraid of being called weak on any sort of military spending, and are afraid of being voted out of office for not being protective enough. The Republicans seem to be well aware of this and have scheduled votes at times when elections were pending where Democrats had either to show that they were weak on- fill-in-the-threat-of-the-day or be voted out of office. It's a real Democratic weakness, and it accounts for some of the spectacularly bad votes that Democrats have made over the years. Like the vote on authorizing use of force in Iraq which Mike is fond of quoting. This was a brilliant piece of political work, and it caught the Democrats really badly. That's my party, the Democrats. We've been paying for it ever since. It was simply brilliant political work, terrible for the Democrats, and — in my opinion — terrible for the country as a whole. I still admire the skill of it. I don't think we should be there now, in Iraq or in Afghanistan, but that doesn't mean we're less responsible for what we're doing there. If you want somebody to blame, look into your mirror, and I'll look into mine. If you want a party to blame, we can take turns blaming each other, or we can spend time blaming ourselves or do both. It really doesn't matter. Here we are, and it's a problem, or series of problems, we have to solve together. The war belongs to everybody. It was stupid to get involved, and more than stupid. It's horrible to remain there. Especially without a clear set of policy goals that gives us some sort of justification for putting the lives of American troops and other personnel on the line. These are guys we've been given a really cynical deal in this business from the beginning. They didn't need to be there, and real care was not taken in protecting their safety. Advantage was taken of their willingness to lay everything on the line for us by exaggerating their ability to address the threat to America by going over in the first place. Nobody has corrected that in the meantime, and it's only gotten worse. The guys who are making profits on their wish to help the country and to defend the helpless here and abroad should, in my opinion, be put on trial for treason. President Obama worked hard for the right to bear responsibility for ending the war in Iraq. It's my opinion that he seems to be making a solid effort to do that. But I understand that both you and Mike see things a lot differently than I do. If what he does works or doesn't work, the country will make up it's own mind at the polls how and where that responsibility was carried out. Blame him or not, as you will, and vote your conscience when the time comes. Who does it belong to now. My answer is that it still belongs to everybody. If you want to blame President Obama, you should go right ahead. He's the President, for heaven's sake; that's at least part of what he's there for. If you want to blame President Bush, I think that's a fine idea too. Certainly he's done his share and more in setting the thing in motion. If you want to blame me, go ahead. I'm a tax-payer; if I was courageous enough, I probably should have withheld taxes and gone to jail. I simply lack the courage to do so. If you want to blame yourself, I reasonably certain any reasonably searching self-inventory would probably turn up something. Perhaps not. I don't think it really matters. I think what matters is a clear policy understanding of what our goals are in that neck of the woods, whether those goals are necessary to our national self interest and are worth the sacrifice in blood and treasure, and then the formulation of a clear and understandable national strategy for exactly what we are going to do, why we are going to do it, and how we are going to know when we're done, so that we can get out. Then a plan for doing so that leaves us clean as a broomstick coming out of a finished loaf of bread. That's what matters. Figuring out who to blame is is a grubby and useless business in comparison. It only helps you feel good until the other person comes back with their rebuttal, and in the it simply supplies a new series of provocations. At least that's what I think. But then I'm at least partly to blame myself, so what do I know? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Figuring out who to blame is is a grubby and useless business in comparison. Translated, that means that if there's a chance a Democrat is to blame, figuring it out is grubby. On the other hand, should a Republican be at blame, they are fair game to be castrated...like Iraq, the economy, Hurrican Katrina, Abu Ghrab, Gitmo, all of which Democrats (and, yes, you, Bob) showed no hesitation in placing blame. Funny how it works out that way.......... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: The US. You broke it - you own it. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, I said what I thought, then and now. I pretty much always make a point of doing that. If I think Democrats have a role, I say so. I also try to say how much a role. If I think the Republicans have a role, I say that as well. I said, not all that long ago, that I thought President Bush Senior may have sacrificed his chances for re-election by raising taxes during his term in office, but that he also laid the groundwork for much of the prosperity in the 90's. I said I admired him for that. I felt when I said that President George Herbert Walker Bush had courage. I still feel that. I admire the fact that he knew when to stop in Iraq. I have never let somebody's party get in the way of my expression of admiration for them or for my expression of upset for them when I felt that was deserved. I have criticized and praised Democrats and Republicans in the things I've said in these pages and privately as well. I've had about enough of you suggesting otherwise. It demonstrates that you often don't read what I write, and that those times when you bother, you don't pay attention to what I say. Otherwise, for example, you'd know that I've criticized President Obama for what I see as his lack of action on torture, and for his defense of people who've been responsible for committing it, either now or in the past. You would know that I don't regard him as being liberal enough, and that I think of him as Republican Lite. You would know that I think that he hasn't pushed the public option on health care anywhere near hard enough, and that I think the country is getting the short end of things because of that. quote: Indeed I did not. In each of these situations I placed blame where I thought it should be placed. Mostly it was with the administration in charge at the time these things happened, where the blame is customarily placed, but if you'll recall in all or almost all of these situations I had words for the part that various Democrats had to play in the matter as well. Especially around the issues around torture, I was clear that I thought the Democrats had not stood up as they should have. Around the war in Iraq, I was upset about the Democrats being afraid to take more of a stand because of being over a barrel around the upcoming elections at the time. I also gave credit to the Republicans for some very clever political work. Not simply in the piece just above. I don't like it, but it's true. I was not hesitant about laying blame wherever I thought it should go. I never had the illusion my comments could castrate anybody. Nor that any laying out of somebody's honest opinion of the truth could do so. The truth may not always set you free, but it's generally a decent place to start a conversation about what to do about a difficult situation. The utility of saying what was going on in the situations you mentioned above was that at least opened the possibility of knowing where and how some sort of solution might be pursued. That is, in terms of Gitmo and Abu Grahib, for example, stopping the use of torture and getting back to the use of interrogation techniques that have worked well for us in the past, and which don't tend to alienate potential allies. And which don't lose support at home, by the way. Do you want me to say what the Democrats did wrong? Would that help? A lot of The PATRIOT ACT was off the shelf from stuff thought up from Joe Lieberman and some other rightward leaning Democrats. So was a lot of the Homeland Security stuff. And those Democrats got a lot of other Democrats to support it. And they should all be ashamed of themselves. And I'm ashamed to have been a Democrat around that stuff. Does that make you happy? I'll bet not. Because I've never heard you disapprove of any of it, and I've only heard you speak approvingly of all of it. Perhaps I'm wrong, though. I hope so. quote: Remember what I said about you not reading what I wrote? This would be an example of that. "Figuring out who to blame is is a grubby and useless business in comparison[. . .]" did not suggest it was useless to figure out who to blame, or that fixing blame wouldn't provide entertainment for those who wish to pursue it. It does. It doesn't even suggest that the Democrats are very much to blame or that their culpability should be ignored. Should you find that sort of things rewarding, by all means, go right ahead. You may have held back in the past; no need to continue, please go ahead. What it does suggest is that there is something that's actually more important for the country. I am silly enough to go ahead and state what that is, the thing that may actually be more important than scoring points for the Party. quote: I don't know which I find more upsetting. You may have read that and understood it; or that you may have read that and not understood it. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I've had about enough of you suggesting otherwise Sorry, Bob, your chickens are coming home to roost. You have set a world record in using the phrase "the past eight years". Your blame-laying on Bush has been relentless and constant. I could easily list your accusations and insults here but why bother? You know them. Whenever you have said anything against a democrat, it has been a handslap or with the tone of disappointment, nothing even similar to what you have used in your republican accusations. If you are tired of my suggestions, imagine how tired I am of your constant barrage against Bush AND the military. Now that a situation has come up where Obama just MIGHT be making the wrong decision, your tone is basically like "Let's no waste time laying blame", a complete reversal of your actions of the past. In the previous thread where I listed all of the lies Gore has been caught in, instead of responding to them, you simply ignore them and revert to Bush/Cheney bashing. Your "blame game" goes one direction only and that's the way I call it. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
12/4/09 Dear Mike, I see that you almost made it halfway through paragraph two. Good on you! Would you care to come up with things that I've said about the military that haven't been said by the military itself? I'd like you to show me, in context, five or six things that I've said against the troops, with appropriate references: I support the troops and feel they've been cynically used by the politicians. I wanted them to get appropriate weapons and supplies so that they could at least defend themselves well while Rumsfeld was prevaricating on the matter. That I thought was a betrayal of the troops. Where was your voice on that matter, Mike? Are you going to cite your comments on that matter for us? Or did you give that one a pass? When the President was giving orders about treatment of prisoners that the JAG was saying weren't in the best interest of the troops, where were you, Mike? On the side of the troops or on the side of the folks who were making things more difficult for them, The Pols? quote: Chickens? I wasn't asking you to go light on Democrats Mike. If you'd actually read what I wrote, you'd know that. If you actually read this, you'll know that. My hopes aren't high. I was asking that everybody consider what we should have considered about Iraq when we went in originally. What we were going to do, why we were going to do it, etc. In the unlikely even that you want some more details, I laid them out in the previous postings here. I'm not asking for forgiveness. I said what I thought about Bush and the Republican administration. There is no difficulty at all in using the phrase “the last eight years” as frequently as I have. The events that have occurred in that time frame have, from my point of view, not been happy ones, and they’ve had considerable effects on current events. Work on a parachute makes no sense unless you’re willing to admit that you’re in free fall. It also helps to understand how you got there in the first place, so you don’t cut the chute cords when the thing’s opened. That’s why I talk about the last eight years. I’ve spoken about other reasons at other times as well. They haven’t gone away either. I’d better be relentless and constant. There are guys around who are in a hurry to pretend it didn’t happen, and who want people to look other places. If I shut up, I have no assurances that somebody will take my place. You won’t. You don’t even appreciate that I call our last President “President Bush” instead of some dismissive or obscene excuse for a nickname. You routinely use that sort of language around Presidents Carter and Clinton. I don’t feel the need to make you happy with the amount of abuse I heap on my own party members. I do feel the need to acknowledge responsibility for having done stuff wrong, where and what. When Rep. Washington was caught with his money in his freezer, I said that he should be tried like anybody else. I wasn’t in a hurry to see him railroaded, nor did I wish to stick up for him. Sorry, I figure that justice is okay with me: Same with Abramoff — trial, the man didn’t need to be crucified, but a trial definitely. I thought that a really active prosecution might well have reached into the White House. I didn’t need that. I would have liked to see some actual action on some of the mess around the Vice-President’s office. I think there was some actual extra-legal stuff going on there. It might have, though, turned into a case where the guys would have “gotten off on technicalities.” I think that’s a decent outcome. I think it’s a constitutional outcome. If I think that it should be available to people who are poor and underprivileged and who may occasionally be snakes and guilty in addition, then I have to say that it should apply to people who are rich and very privileged and who are occasionally snakes and guilty in addition. The constitution is a document that should have stuff in it that offends everybody. It not there to be popular, it’s there to give a set of decent guidelines. I think there are as many snakes who are Republicans as there are Democrats. I simply feel more comfortable with the Democratic snakes. At least thats the way its been for a lot longer than the last eight years. When I say “I’ve had about enough of you suggesting otherwise,” it’s about this assertion of yours — quote: Please show me where I’ve said that when a Democrat is to blame that figuring it out is grubby. I have blamed Democrats and even myself as a Democrat for things here in the past. And I have praised Republicans. Nor have you been able to show otherwise. I have been critical of President Obama on those issues where I have disagreements with him. I have done that in discussion with you, I believe, in reference to Obama’s position on torture and on his lack of action on the Patriot Act. I have frequently called the man “Republican Lite.” This is a criticism of his lack of political liberalism. My criticisms of the man and of my party don’t have to meet the Mike Mack political correctness test. I actually reserve the right to have my own differences with the people of my own party. What is grubby for either of us to pursue partisan politics to the exclusion of getting the important questions answered. Partisan away, Guy, so long as there’s enough time left for discussion of how to protect the troops. You know, the people you say are important and whom you are now throwing under the bus to score some points? Those folks. Unless we get some real answers to these questions, we’re going to get extra troop killed. Where do we want our troops? What purpose will they serve there? No feel-good answers allowed. No “world peace” or “better over there than over here” vagueness. Unless we have a clear answer that ends in troops can do this and investment can’t or bombing can’t or blockade can’t or tractors can’t, then we need to do the things that don’t involve troops. How badly do we want them there? Are we willing to pay for them to be there, and support them with money, goods, and a supply of fresh soldiers, or are we simply running our mouths until the debt burden and the loss of life gets too high? Are we really serious? How will we know that we’ve done the thing that we said we wanted to do, and that we’re done. We can’t do that now. We don’t have any actual clear markers that will tell us that we’re done. There’s nothing that says, “finished!” There’s no quitting bell, there’s no time clock with the big hand on 12 and the little hand on six, there’s no specific amount of oil flowing into the tanks of any single country, there are no particular towns that have fallen to any particular set of troops. We don’t know. That means that there are yahoos that can drag this thing out forever so that you can’t change horses in the middle of the stream. And there are many more. Don’t you think that the troops deserve to have those dealt with? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
