Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditLast week, the Congressional Progressive Caucus held its second of six scheduled forums on Afghanistan. It was the first non-classified public forum on Capitol Hill to address the Obama Administration's newly released Afghanistan/Pakistan strategy. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (Ret.) -- a Vietnam Veteran and former chief of staff for Secretary Colin Powell -- offered some powerful words of caution.
"My soldier's soul screams at me to get out," Wilkerson said. "Part of that is some 38,000 names on a Wall that I do not fail to visit twice a year every year for the last 25 years….Counterinsurgency is not a very optimal experience. It rarely is won, it rarely results in what we might call a viable civility, prosperity and dignity. Look at Iraq right now… We never solved the problems in the Gulf."
He spoke out against the use of bombs and predator drone strikes. He said that killing "a few" Al Qaeda or Taliban targets "coupled with 20 to 25 civilian deaths" was only helping the enemy's recruiting efforts.
"Research is now showing that the leaders that they replace them with are more radical than the leaders we hit," he said.
Although Wilkerson doesn't argue for withdrawal -- he said we need "to get this better" -- he nevertheless makes a pretty powerful case against escalation. "One thing I would not do is over-militarize our foreign policy," he said. "… We need to demilitarize as much as possible… Keep our sword sheathed, and only pull it out when it's absolutely necessary."
The next day a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee held a hearing on "Achieving Peace and Stability in the Graveyard of Empires".
Dr. Seth Jones, a political scientist with the RAND Corporation, also pointed to the seemingly impossible task of General Petraeus' counterinsurgency strategy. He said the ratio requirement "needed to win a counterinsurgency is 20 security forces per 1000 inhabitants… [Given] the population estimates in provinces where most of the insurgency is taking place, [this] translates into a force requirement of approximately 271,652 forces." (Other estimates are as high as 400,000 troops needed to execute the Petraeus Playbook.) So it really comes as no surprise that Petraeus already signaled he will ask for another 10,000 troops even before the dust had settled on Obama's announcement of an additional 21,000 troops.
Jones also warned that escalation by the US "may be interpreted by the population as an occupation, eliciting nationalist reactions…."
The soldier's soul had it right. This strategy won't work. We need to Get Out.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Ms vanden Heuvel,
Pres. Obama's strategy on Afghanistan has been announced, supported by the Congress, and even (admitted by most) LIBERAL groups like MoveOn and the Center for American Progress back him.
You may be right...but you're going to need to wait atleast a year before you get proven right or it starts influencing public policy, because right now there's no strong support for an abject and immediate withdrawal.
If there was, the plans wouldn't already be in motion.
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 12:23pm
mask, whether there is support (on capitol hill) for "an abject an immediate withdrawal" is irrelevant.
Posted by darladoon at 04/06/2009 @ 12:34pm
what is relevant is the combination of facts and logic utlized by katrina in her post to persuade the reader of the obvious problems of escalation.
Posted by darladoon at 04/06/2009 @ 12:35pm
Every time I hear this admitted liberal speak on foreign policy, I feel such relief that he was pushed out of the State Dept.
No longer can he push for more Neville Chamberlain approaches to US security.
I respect and honor his military service. However his political and foreign policy views stink.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/06/2009 @ 12:36pm
Pres. Obama's strategy on Afghanistan has been announced, supported by the Congress, and even (admitted by most) LIBERAL groups like MoveOn and the Center for American Progress back him.
You may be right...but you're going to need to wait atleast a year before you get proven right or it starts influencing public policy, because right now there's no strong support for an abject and immediate withdrawal.
If there was, the plans wouldn't already be in motion.
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 12:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Mask - do point out to us MoveOn's supporting policy statement on this issue. Silence = Support. David Sirota calls MoveOn little more than a DLC/DNC shill these days. They aren't even into war protests any more.
John Podesta and CAP - you've got to be joking? Podesta is an Obama advisor and astroturfer.
Stop such nonsense or prove your point.
Posted by OneVote at 04/06/2009 @ 12:42pm
"No longer can he push for more Neville Chamberlain approaches to US security"
why does neville chamberlain's name always come up when one questions our foreign policy?
and please tell us how wilkerson advocates a "neville chamberlain" approach to foreign policy when he specifically notes that he does NOT support withdrawal of forces in afghanistan?
antisocialist, your arguments are about as flimsy as the brain which produces them.
Posted by darladoon at 04/06/2009 @ 12:52pm
before you get proven right or it starts influencing public policy, Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 12:23pm
Katrina is correct on this issue. So is Colonel Wilkerson. And neither need to wait a year to be proven so.
The purpose is to get this idea in circulation. It strikes me as strange that the Truth has to be "proven". The truth should be evident to anyone who bothers to open their eyes.
Out of Afghanistan and Out of Iraq!
A while we are about it.. Out of Germany, Japan and all the many other countries that suck the life blood out of America for the sake of Imperialism and Empire!
Posted by chaoszen at 04/06/2009 @ 1:00pm
Re Neville Chamberlain--
Of course, Versailles had nothing to do with getting the ball rolling, did it?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/06/2009 @ 1:01pm
Re Neville Chamberlain--
Of course, Versailles had nothing to do with getting the ball rolling, did it?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/06/2009 @ 1:01pm
Certainly it has been the "progressive" posture of much of European leadership in the past 90 years to embrace defeat over victory whenever possible.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/06/2009 @ 1:12pm
WASHINGTON - Rep. John Murtha said Tuesday the situation in Afghanistan is so challenging that he estimated it would take 600,000 troops to fully squelch violence in the country.
The Pennsylvania Democrat, who chairs the powerful subcommittee that funds the military, said his figure was based on the country's history of rigorous fighting and its size.
"That's what I estimate it would take in a country that size to get it under control," Murtha said in an interview.
AP - updated 12:33 p.m. PT, Tues., March. 3, 2009
Note: country's history and size - the Rand estimate sounds like the same tired out insurgency "ratio analysis" that we got in the Bush administration, by an organization that is a war thinktank. Murtha's estimate equates to about 1 soldier/40 inhabitants (based on Afghan population).
What part of the country have we secured where we aren't going to need security forces? The Rand estimate is based on troublesome provinces, i.e., where forces are presently engaged. Any chance that increased US troop presence will cause spillover into other provinces?
'It was estimated by the Population Reference Bureau that 22% of the population lived in urban areas in 2001. The capital city, Kabul, had a population of 2,454,000 in that year. Other major population centers include Kandaha¯r, 339,200; Mazār-e Sharif, 239,800; and Hera¯t, 166,600. According to the United Nations, the urban population growth rate for 2000–2005 was 6.9%. These figures are unreliable, however, because many city dwellers have left their urban homes for refuge in rural areas. Approximately 20% of the population is nomadic.'
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia -and-Oceania/Afghanistan-POPULATION.html
Posted by OneVote at 04/06/2009 @ 1:16pm
Off topic. But in case anyone has noticed the Dow is down. Wallstreet is busy taking profits from the artificial gains of the last few weeks. They are playing the shell game of partially inflating the bubble and then sucking the last drops of profits from an economy that is toast.. They are draining the corpse now..
And the MSM who seems to think that the Dow is a barometer of the economy just play along. Not a word of truth. Pisses me off.
Shut Down Wallstreet!
Posted by chaoszen at 04/06/2009 @ 1:19pm
Posted by OneVote at 04/06/2009 @ 1:16pm
Great post, but I doubt if those stats would be comprehensible in their meaning for many. Murtha probably has it right on numbers of troops to accomplish a mission that would do relatively nothing but pissing off almost everyone and making certain that we would be reviled and attacked.
In other words the repurcussions of spending trillions of dollars to put over a half million troops in Afghanistan to accomplish a Petraeus wetdream would ensure an insane result. So the whole idea is insane!
So does that mean that we just have another President that is pimping and pandering for the Military Industrial Complex??
Posted by chaoszen at 04/06/2009 @ 1:38pm
mask, whether there is support (on capitol hill) for "an abject an immediate withdrawal" is irrelevant.--------Posted by darladoon at 04/06/2009 @ 12:34pm
No, it IS relevant, as is the "deafening silence" (Yes, this part to you OneVote) heard on the Left from groups like MoveOn and Center for American Progress.
Where's the pressure on Obama? "The Nation" and a few sundry anti-war groups and Dennis Kucinich?
I'm sorry, you and OneVote and Katrina vanden Heuvel may be absolutely right...but you have zero chance of altering the Obama Afghanistan policy AT THIS POINT. Come back in 6 months to a year.
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 1:39pm
"Where's the pressure on Obama? "The Nation" and a few sundry anti-war groups and Dennis Kucinich?"
so you are basically reinforcing ou point that there isn't enough pressure. but yet, you scorn the very idea of putting pressure on obama. which is it?
you contradict yourself in less than 3 sentences.
and this is why your point is irrelevant.
continued pressure is what is necessary, and yet you criticize continued pressure.
is that great mask-ian paradox.
Posted by darladoon at 04/06/2009 @ 1:50pm
"Certainly it has been the "progressive" posture of much of European leadership in the past 90 years to embrace defeat over victory whenever possible."
how does one engage this without throwing up?
Posted by darladoon at 04/06/2009 @ 1:52pm
I'm sorry, you and OneVote and Katrina vanden Heuvel may be absolutely right...but you have zero chance of altering the Obama Afghanistan policy AT THIS POINT. Come back in 6 months to a year.
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 1:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
On the zero chance - can't argue, wheels are in motion.
However, let us not view BO's war as "our" war. He is not going to bamboozle the public into thinking such as his political cover. He does not have a mandate on this one, and he clearly does have alternatives such as OUT NOW.
He owns it. He will pay the political consequences for it. We will pay with our blood and treasure, and squandered opportunity costs such as healthcare, education, alternative energy, infrastructure, etc.
Posted by OneVote at 04/06/2009 @ 2:02pm
If BO persists in Afghan/Pak, BO will go in '12, either defeated by Hillary in the primaries, or by a GOP candidate who can buy the election from his own pocket (guess who). Unlikely that he'll "resign" like LBJ did, but Petraeus is pulling the snowjob on BO that Westmoreland & later Abrams did on the presidency re Nam.
Posted by sloper at 04/06/2009 @ 2:26pm
"Certainly it has been the "progressive" posture of much of European leadership in the past 90 years to embrace defeat over victory whenever possible."
how does one engage this without throwing up?
Posted by darladoon at 04/06/2009 @ 1:52pm
First you will have to get over your insane fear of facts and truth. Once you get past that fear, peace of mind comes easily from embracing truth.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/06/2009 @ 2:32pm
"so you are basically reinforcing ou point that there isn't enough pressure. but yet, you scorn the very idea of putting pressure on obama. which is it?"-----Posted by darladoon at 04/06/2009 @ 1:50pm
No, I'm scorning the idea that there IS any pressure on Obama...period.
Pressure him all you like, but RIGHT NOW, it's not a party balloon of atmospheric differential.
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 2:37pm
First you will have to get over your insane fear of facts and truth.----Posted by antisocialist at 04/06/2009 @ 2:32pm
"Facts and truth" like..."Most Iraqis aren't REALLY Muslims!"-
"While those statements are true of Islam, I have no idea how many Iraqis are devotees of the the religion. I would suspect that the number that actually 1)know the Qu'ran and 2) believe it completely is rather low
Some former Muslims I have read or listened to cite the figures throughout the ME as around 15-20%"----Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/29/2009 @ 5:26pm
Iraq's Elections: ISCI's View posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 01/29/2009 @ 09:59am
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 2:40pm
"Facts and truth" like..."Most Iraqis aren't REALLY Muslims!"-
"While those statements are true of Islam, I have no idea how many Iraqis are devotees of the the religion. I would suspect that the number that actually 1)know the Qu'ran and 2) believe it completely is rather low
Some former Muslims I have read or listened to cite the figures throughout the ME as around 15-20%"----Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/29/2009 @ 5:26pm
Iraq's Elections: ISCI's View posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 01/29/2009 @ 09:59am
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 2:40pm
Don't you ever tire of lying and distorting what others write?
You even post my correct statement versus your lie.
I said DEVOTEES. If you actually knew anything about religion, you would know that there are many people listed within any of the world's faiths that are of that faith in name only. They aren't true followers and practitioners of that faith. That is why I use the term devotee because it brings a different connotation; someone who is dedicated to following a specific faith rather than simply acknowledging it because they were born into it.
That is why with Christianity and this country, serious polls seperate out those who acknowledge the name Christian but don't actually practice the faith.
This is another great example of how you fill these blogs with distortions and lies about others, both left and right.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/06/2009 @ 2:46pm
This is another great example of how you fill these blogs with distortions and lies about others, both left and right.
Posted by GoldenBear at 04/06/2009 @ 2:46pm
i concur with you that few people are [insert adjective] to become "devotees" of any particular faith.
thus,
i've become interested in your figures for the united states...
what percentage of americans are "devotees" of
a) christianity?
b) islam?
c) pastafarianism?
d) judaism?
e) notreallycaringism?
gimme them numeros, please.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 3:05pm
If there was, the plans wouldn't already be in motion.
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 12:23pm
wouldn't want to violate any contracts.
humans really make me frustrated sometimes.
oh, well at least we've got golf.
hey, maybe we can tame the afghans with a few strategically placed links.
we all know they've got plenty of water.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 3:11pm
Afghanistan Golf Course Swings Back Into Business
By Cpl. Douglas DeMaio
American Forces Press Service
KABUL, Afghanistan, May 24, 2004 – With de-mining, a benefit of a U.N. program, and assistance from an effort called "disarmament, demobilization and reintegration," heavy weapons and mines no longer thwart those who wish to indulge in recreation at the Kabul Golf Club, Afghanistan's only operational golf course. After de-mining the full 18-hole course and removing three abandoned Soviet tanks, a few artillery pieces and a multiple-rocket launching system from the fairways, the in the 1960s-built golf course is now free of ordnance and open for business, providing Afghans a sport that hasn't been made available since before the Soviet occupation.
From the early 1980s Soviet invasion to the fall of the Taliban in 2002, golf in Afghanistan has been nonexistent. For Mohammad Afzal Abdul, the club professional, the return of golf to Afghanistan is a sight for sore eyes.
"I have been playing golf since I was 10," the 47-year-old Abdul said. "I was taught the game by American instructors in the old days."
In the 1970s, prior to the assassination of U.S. Ambassador Adolph Dubs, staffs from the various embassies would come and play golf, except for the staff of the Soviet Embassy, Abdul said. Because of his association through golf with Americans, Abdul said several years later the Taliban beat him and burned down his house.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 3:12pm
help!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 3:13pm
now we know where the billions are going:
Type Public
Style Desert
Holes 9
Year built 1967
Guest Policy Welcomed
Golf Season Year round
Tee Times Welcomed Yes
Price Range Weekdays $15
Price Range Weekends $15
http://www.worldgolf.com/courses/afghanistan/kabul-golf-club.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 3:15pm
why does neville chamberlain's name always come up when one questions our foreign policy?
....as flimsy as.....
Posted by darladoon at 04/06/2009 @ 12:52pm
it's fear of the ol' neville "flimsy".
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 3:18pm
Shut Down Wallstreet!
Posted by chaoszen at 04/06/2009 @ 1:19pm
no way!
move it here:
http://www.wdwinfo.com/wdwinfo/guides/magickingdom/mkmain.htm
after all, it's in the magic kingdom.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 3:21pm
Come back in 6 months to a year.
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 1:39pm
after mid-terms.
gotta prove the dumbocrats got foreign policy firmness.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 3:22pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 3:15pm
You left out cart rental/availability.......and what's Par? After all, the Kabul Golf Club has a golf pro.....:~)
Posted by Happy at 04/06/2009 @ 3:23pm
how does one engage this without throwing up?
Posted by darladoon at 04/06/2009 @ 1:52pm
with nevillian policies that's never a problem.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 3:24pm
treasure
Posted by OneVote at 04/06/2009 @ 2:02pm
if you can find it.
i hear it's buried in rubber.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 3:25pm
So does that mean that we just have another President that is pimping and pandering for the Military Industrial Complex??
Posted by chaoszen at 04/06/2009 @ 1:38pm
I think his methodology smacks of "selling" the war incrementally to a war weary public. The President isn't leveling with us on the vast commitment it is going to take to achieve his goals. Another 10,000 called for already. First we get 17,000, then another 4,000, and now the call for another 10,000.
None of this looks like it is designed to "get us out" but rather to "get us in" deeper.
We are still paying monumental cost for Iraq, and now we are escalating in Afghanistan. The military needs rebuilding and reequiping - a bonanza for MIC. I have yet to hear an articulated goal by the administration that I believe.
Posted by OneVote at 04/06/2009 @ 3:26pm
You left out cart rental/availability.......and what's Par? After all, the Kabul Golf Club has a golf pro.....:~)
Posted by Happy at 04/06/2009 @ 3:23pm
for a cart they give you an old british era carriage drawn by a headless skeleton horse,
as to par,
no one has figured it out yet.
once you start playing there, you never leave.
it's like the hotel california except with unexploded ordinance.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 3:29pm
hey, maybe we can tame the afghans with a few strategically placed links.
we all know they've got plenty of water.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 3:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Speaking of pipeline opportunities! From the mountains on the Pak border to dry and desolate plains - "we will make the desert bloom, and then we will call it our own." golly - where have I heard that before?
Posted by OneVote at 04/06/2009 @ 3:31pm
ov,
it's just to get to the midterms.
win the senate over sixty
(hopefully voters still won't have figured out who tim geithner is)
and then they'll let afghanistun rot.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 3:32pm
it's all a plot to take the litani river in order to keep palm springs green FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 3:35pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 3:22pm
A year would be March 2010, FROSTY.
Our mid-term elections take place in November 2010, eight months later. If Afghanistan is an over-riding issue in 20 months, by all means, hold the Dems accountable.
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 3:44pm
yes, emile, i know where it is.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 3:44pm
Prioritizing the Movement over the Party by: David Sirota Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 21:30 Openleft.com
'In my book, The Uprising, I wrote an entire chapter about the state of the antiwar movement, and the chapter included a look at Moveon.org. The chapter examined an organization that had - at the time - become a reflexive appendage of the Democratic Party (as opposed to a more movement-based organization focused on progressivism). I experienced a bit of backlash from Moveon partisans for the book, but that was to be expected. Talk about a taboo subject - in this case, the problem of movement-branded organizations becoming megaphones for anyone with a D behind their name - and you are bound to get people pissed.
I consider a lot of the Moveon.org leadership friends, I think they are solid progressives, and my book's chapter was meant as an honest look at both the success and failure of the organization. And I didn't enjoy writing the part about the book that explored Moveon's behavior in early 2007 - specifically, when the organization backed off pressuring congressional Democrats to take a strong position on ending the war....'
Looks like we need another grassroots organization regarding anti-war protestation - this one has already sold out to the highest bidder - it is an astroturfer now.
Posted by OneVote at 04/06/2009 @ 3:45pm
it's just to get to the midterms.
win the senate over sixty
(hopefully voters still won't have figured out who tim geithner is)
and then they'll let afghanistun rot.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 3:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Goodness - the cost of a senate seat or two today.
So - where do the Dems pick up a seat or two based on support for BO's Afghan Plan?
Posted by OneVote at 04/06/2009 @ 4:00pm
i've become interested in your figures for the united states...
what percentage of americans are "devotees" of
a) christianity?
b) islam?
c) pastafarianism?
d) judaism?
e) notreallycaringism?
gimme them numeros, please.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 3:05pm
Devotees?
a) maybe 20%
b) less than 1/2 of 1%
c) devotees of pasta? got to be around 25-30%
d) approx 1-2%
e) 50% or more
Posted by antisocialist at 04/06/2009 @ 4:29pm
and then they'll let afghanistun rot.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 3:32pm
So, you prefer to see them die?
Posted by antisocialist at 04/06/2009 @ 5:03pm
Now that Iraq has been 'pacified' it's time for a troop build-up on the Afghan side of the Iranian border. Lawrence Wilkerson is one of the few with the courage to discuss the Neocon's War for Israel agenda. Search for "The Israel Lobby" on youtube.
Read philipweiss.org for the naked truth on the Neocon, AIPAC, War for Israel agenda
Listen to Phil talk about the Neocons and the Israel Lobby: antiwar.com/radio/2008/07/12/philip-weiss/ antiwar.com/radio/2009/03/18/philip-weiss-2/
Posted by NoMoreWarForIsrael at 04/06/2009 @ 6:36pm
Look, you thought you were getting change? That's your problem. Now what are you gonna do about it?
Do some push-ups, learn how to shoot, and go the way of Johnny Taliban.
Those burqas aren't oppression. That's the orientalist, whitesupremapartiarchacapitalist's eye view. Those burqas are cultural primacy, something we soulless white devils lost long ago. All we have is fishsticks and navel rings.
Redeem yourselves! Stop the theft of Afghanistan's secret sorghum caches! No more blood for molasses!
Posted by gangpapist at 04/06/2009 @ 7:00pm
The troops are designed to keep the Taliban in Pakistan. Then it is their problem. I think we have a chance of saving Afghanistan without destroying it.
Posted by jonnirae at 04/06/2009 @ 7:14pm
I'll pay you with links to 1980's cute kitten posters with slogans like "Hang in There."
Posted by gangpapist at 04/06/2009 @ 7:16pm
First you will have to get over your insane fear of facts and truth. Once you get past that fear, peace of mind comes easily from embracing truth.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/06/2009 @ 2:32pm
I love when you conflate opinion with fact LVL. While you may think that it is "fact" that Europe has accepted defeat over victory for the past 90 years it is still just your opinion. Now if you have proof that they always lay down arms before a ifght instead of fighting back, because pushing defeat over victory would mean not bothering to fight back, then I would like you to cite every European war for the last 90 years and it's winner.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/06/2009 @ 7:41pm
So, you prefer to see them die? Posted by antisocialist at 04/06/2009 @ 5:03pm
i can't take this question seriously coming from you.
sorry.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 7:51pm
I love when you conflate opinion with fact LVL. While you may think that it is "fact" that Europe has accepted defeat over victory for the past 90 years it is still just your opinion. Now if you have proof that they always lay down arms before a ifght instead of fighting back, because pushing defeat over victory would mean not bothering to fight back, then I would like you to cite every European war for the last 90 years and it's winner.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/06/2009 @ 7:41pm
Lighten up CCC. It was somewhat tongue in cheek. However, unless you've been living on another planet, there is an element of reputation that goes with my comments.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/06/2009 @ 7:52pm
Posted by darladoon at 04/06/2009 @ 12:35pm: | "what is relevant is the combination of facts and logic utlized by katrina in her post to persuade the reader of the obvious problems of escalation."
General Katrina is rather predictable - "cut and run" - "it will never work" - "do what the Taliban wants" - "it's not worth it". Pick the liberal push button.
Just because the soldier is a Colonel doesn't mean he knows much about foreign policy. There is a reason General Katrina likes this guy. They are both marshmellows.
Posted by pyeatte at 04/06/2009 @ 7:58pm
Posted by snowball666 at 04/06/2009 @ 9:14pm
No, I understood you. Just another joke. Libs, kittens, cuddly, haha, you know?
Posted by gangpapist at 04/06/2009 @ 9:32pm
Lighten up CCC. It was somewhat tongue in cheek. However, unless you've been living on another planet, there is an element of reputation that goes with my comments.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/06/2009 @ 7:52pm
Maybe with the French sure, but the Germans are European and they tried very hard to take over the world.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/06/2009 @ 10:15pm
actually,
the french, spanish, germans, portugese and english tried to take over the world.
ever heard of louisiana?
how about los angeles?
what language is this question written in?
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 10:54pm
<i>Posted by pyeatte at 04/06/2009 @ 7:58pm </i>
Ohhh, dear. So, I'm not sure I entirely agree with Colonel Wilkerson's position here. That said, though, to suggest that he "doesn't know much about foreign policy" reflects a singular lack of background knowledge. Suffice to say that the times I have had the chance to talk to him (and those were great), I left convinced that he was a virtual encyclopedia of military policy knowledge.
Posted by Thrawn at 04/06/2009 @ 10:57pm
"My soldier's soul screams at me to get out," Wilkerson said. "Part of that is some 38,000 names on a Wall that I do not fail to visit twice a year every year for the last 25 years….
I could have sworn it was 58,000. but who can question such a memorable authority on how to defund, cut and run from a war without really trying to achieve the objective the blood of American servicemen paid for?
Highschool buddies and friends are all over that exspanse of black marble soon to be forgotten and their efforts continually maligned and their history forgotten or revised for political convenience and expediency. The really sick thing is that all the left memorizes them in Mai Lai taking direction from wastes of existence like Murtha.
Posted by comancheamerican at 04/06/2009 @ 11:46pm
"Highschool buddies and friends are all over that exspanse of black marble soon to be forgotten and their efforts continually maligned and their history forgotten or revised for political convenience and expediency. The really sick thing is that all the left memorizes them in Mai Lai taking direction from wastes of existence like Murtha."
and the Right just sends them into unnecessary wars, without proper equipment, food and water; and then, when they return home, they slash their benefits and let them rot in rat-infested hospitals.
i guess the Right really, really "supports the troops."
Posted by darladoon at 04/07/2009 @ 12:44am
"General Katrina is rather predictable - "cut and run" - "it will never work" - "do what the Taliban wants" - "it's not worth it". Pick the liberal push button."
it's funny, but general wilkerson NEVER ADVOCATED ANY OF THESE STRATEGIES.
Posted by darladoon at 04/07/2009 @ 12:47am
pyeatte,
p.s. wilkerson isn't a "liberal"
Posted by darladoon at 04/07/2009 @ 12:47am
wastes of existence like Murtha.
Posted by comancheamerican at 04/06/2009 @ 11:46pm
For a "waste of existence" you need look no further than the bathroom mirror Rio..
Posted by chaoszen at 04/07/2009 @ 12:57am
"We need to demilitarize as much as possible… Keep our sword sheathed, and only pull it out when it's absolutely necessary." -L. Wilkerson
Words to live by.
Abroad and at home.
I know why anti has so much hatred for Larry, Larry has been right more than anti. Rev's hate that!
Posted by crabwalk at 04/07/2009 @ 06:29am
Even Army recruiters are comitting suicide along with recruits. See the Times article. I can't post the URL. The Nation says it is too long or some B.S.
The greatest loss in American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan is now suicide. Soldiers are killing themselves en masse. The MSM does not report this, and the soldiers that die in this manner are not reported. Military honors may be accorded by a local VFW, otherwise they are swept under the rug..
These men and women are the casualties of an immoral war/occupation. It is the sad result of a volunteer Army that is stretched to its limits. If we had a draft these casualties would not be as endemic.
If we had a draft these wars of imperialism and empire would have been shut down by protest and civil violence long ago.
Now we have a President that wants to continue these insane policies. Obama will burn in a hell of karma for his decision to continue these failed policies and sacrifice the lives and treasure of our country.
Posted by chaoszen at 04/07/2009 @ 06:41am
Neither Col. Wilkerson nor Dr. Seth Jones argue as pacifists. Both stand firmly within the Just War tradition. If you combine Wilkerson's arguments against escalation -- which make perfect sense and correspond to the facts -- with Jones's argument that our troop numbers are too low, what you get is a call to increase the number of troops without increasing the amount of violence, above all without increasing the violence against civilians.
This is probably the plan that is likely to provide the best results for as long as our occupation of Afghanistan continues. However, I don't believe it will be implemented, because it risks increasing the casualties that truly matter to most of the US-American public: OUR casualties.
So perhaps the most practical strategy, the one that is likely to do the least damage, is indeed to call for a rapid withdrawal. I don't know this for certain, but it is likely. There is of course the argument that what you break, you must buy, which makes me feel guilty, as one who failed to oppose the war on Afghanistan when it began. But Afghanistan was broken before we went there (the Taliban's hegemony notwithstanding), and I suspect it will still be broken when we leave. Perhaps allowing the Taliban and their enemies to fight each other over the pieces of this wretched country is the best outcome we can expect.
There was an economic proposal that a helpful person posted on one of these threads: Give some friendly people in Afghanistan a temporary monopoly on opium-based narcotics production. That is certainly worth trying.
Both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, we need an effective, mostly nonviolent counterinsurgency strategy with a strong economic component. In Pakistan, what is most needed is public education, above all for girls.
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/07/2009 @ 06:51am
and the Right just sends them into unnecessary wars, without proper equipment, food and water; and then, when they return home, they slash their benefits and let them rot in rat-infested hospitals.
i guess the Right really, really "supports the troops."
Posted by darladoon at 04/07/2009 @ 12:44am | ignore this person | warn this person
The ONLY sourse wanting to SLASH the benefits and let them rot in rat infested hospitals is Obamanation himself, until he got caught suggesting it you fool! You want his exact quote? Be glad to furnish it!
Posted by comancheamerican at 04/07/2009 @ 06:53am
Give some friendly people in Afghanistan a temporary monopoly on opium-based narcotics production. That is certainly worth trying. Posted by JakobFabian at 04/07/2009 @ 06:51am
That person would be me.. Thanks.
Posted by chaoszen at 04/07/2009 @ 06:56am
you fool! You want his exact quote? Be glad to furnish it!
Posted by comancheamerican at 04/07/2009 @ 06:53am |
No comancheass, you are the fool. When Obama suggested that it was in reference to a universal health care program. With a universal health care system, veterans would automatically be covered. The VA could be scaled down to only addressing health issues specific to Veterans and save the economy billions of dollars.
You should really just go away.. To the cornfield with you...
Posted by chaoszen at 04/07/2009 @ 07:04am
I will admit however that Obama is not in favor of a single payer system and will likely cobble up any universal system with private for profit healthcare. That is why anyone who voted for him should consider this, and that the President will pander to the for profit health care industry and we won't get a single payer system.
So with Obama we get nothing but business as usual. Hard pill to swallow. But with McCain and Palin, we would have even worse.
Obama sucks..
Posted by chaoszen at 04/07/2009 @ 07:30am
Dennis Kucinich/Bernie Sanders 2012!
Posted by chaoszen at 04/07/2009 @ 07:34am
and let them rot in rat infested hospitals is Obamanation himself, until he got caught suggesting it you fool!------Posted by comancheamerican at 04/07/2009 @ 06:53am
RIO, the scandal at Walter Reed Hospital's Building 18....Obama was President then????
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 07:41am
Now we have a President that wants to continue these insane policies. Obama will burn in a hell of karma for his decision to continue these failed policies and sacrifice the lives and treasure of our country.
Soldiers are not the treasure of any country, no matter how honorable their intentions. Enough with 'the soldiers are our best and brighest' mantra.
Posted by boing007 at 04/07/2009 @ 08:29am
Soldiers are not the treasure of any country, no matter how honorable their intentions. Enough with 'the soldiers are our best and brighest' mantra.----Posted by boing007 at 04/07/2009 @ 08:29am
Okay...what are they?
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 08:38am
'BAGHDAD -- A series of six car bombings in and near Baghdad killed at least 33 people and wounded scores on Monday, according to witnesses and the police, in a convulsion of violence that underscored the heightened tensions between Sunni fighters and Iraq's government.'
Six Car Bombs Kill at Least 33 in Iraq NY Times 04/06/09
Oh yes....we have won in Iraq and now on to Afghanistan....
Posted by OneVote at 04/07/2009 @ 09:28am
Posted by OneVote at 04/07/2009 @ 09:28am
Shhhhhhhh....don't tell PONTI, he thinks Baghdad is "Tokyo in the 50s"!
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 09:31am
Shhhhhhhh....don't tell PONTI, he thinks Baghdad is "Tokyo in the 50s"!
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 09:31am | ignore this person | warn this person
I think Ponti has got Japan confused with Korea. We may end up with a divided Iraq after all. One thing for certain...."our" work there is far from over.
Posted by OneVote at 04/07/2009 @ 09:47am
Posted by boing007 at 04/07/2009 @ 08:29am
Hey fk you! I was talking about money, not soldiers. Jesus, what a moron.. I got no time for idiots. We have a Volunteer Army. These troops are signing up for a job to kill and conquer and should know full well what they are getting themselves into. These are not wars and occupations for any noble cause. Soldiers that are maimed and die for the corporate good deserve no more recognition than any other employee who dies in the preformance of their job requirements.
But maybe that was what you were getting at?
Posted by chaoszen at 04/07/2009 @ 10:07am
If we gave a "war" and nobody came. We would not have a "war".
Bring back the draft!
Posted by chaoszen at 04/07/2009 @ 10:09am
Posted by OneVote at 04/07/2009 @ 09:47am
Like a lot of things (the Dow, unemployment, etc.), I have a feeling the formerly neo-conservative "Stay until 'victory' in Iraq" Right?...
don't care if Iraq collapses since they can blame it on Obama now and pretend that things were "just about swell" there under Dubya.
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 10:11am
don't care if Iraq collapses since they can blame it on Obama now and pretend that things were "just about swell" there under Dubya.
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 10:11am | ignore this person | warn this person
Absolutely!
Posted by OneVote at 04/07/2009 @ 10:25am
Soldiers are not the treasure of any country, no matter how honorable their intentions. Enough with 'the soldiers are our best and brighest' mantra.
Posted by boing007 at 04/07/2009 @ 08:29am | ignore this person | warn this person
Funny that so many cultures revere the sacrifice of their soldiers. Ever hear of the notion of "ultimate sacrifice"? If this isn't treasure, I don't know what is. I doubt very much you have the courage to walk in their shoes.
Posted by OneVote at 04/07/2009 @ 10:32am
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 10:11am
As far as I am concerned we can start blaming Obama. What the hell is wrong with him? I mean with Dubya I could understand this crap. I could rationalize the behaviour as just another right wing flakey wingnut.
But now we have a leader who should know better. No excuses for him. He is pursuing the same failed policies as his predecessors. Backing away from his campaign promises like a healthy person confronted with a leper. How dissapointing. And a Democrat no less. He is more to the right than his colleagues in Congress.
This President is setting us up for a great come down. Like a junkie with a spoonfull of overly cut heroin.
As far as I am concerned the honeymoon is over..
Posted by chaoszen at 04/07/2009 @ 10:38am
Enough with 'the soldiers are our best and brighest' mantra.
Posted by boing007 at 04/07/2009 @ 08:29am
Who said that? The war mongers, AKA "The Finger Fighters For Fantom Freedoms"?
http://www.military-network.com/articles/
new-recruits-face-softer-standards.html
Posted by crabwalk at 04/07/2009 @ 10:41am
Mask and OneVote. Don't you know that there is a gigantic, secret "Reset" button--like the one on those old pinball machines--that the Democrats push each time they win the Presidential election. With that button, all reality, all economic and military, diplomatic, environment, and social disasters perpetuated from the previous administration were eliminated, zeroed out. January 20th, 2009 was a "Begin New Game" moment. I'm surprised that you guys don't know of this secret.
Posted by theo51 at 04/07/2009 @ 10:44am
As far as I am concerned the honeymoon is over..
Posted by chaoszen at 04/07/2009 @ 10:38am
Phew!
Now I can get the image of our Sec of State in her honeymoon lingerie OUT OF MY HEAD.
May the FSM bless you with endless breadsticks!
Posted by crabwalk at 04/07/2009 @ 10:44am
Posted by theo51 at 04/07/2009 @ 10:44am
GWB had that button renamed...
In his reign of error it was the "EASY" button.
Just click, click, click and presto magico.... Freedom and liberal demcoracy in the Middle East!!!!
Just that Easy. A cakewalk, if you will.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/07/2009 @ 10:46am
But maybe that was what you were getting at?
Posted by chaoszen at 04/07/2009 @ 10:07am | ignore this person | warn this person
No difference between Blackwater and US military personnel?
How many US troops killed in action were actually enlisted prior to start of the preemptive wars? Include the reserves.
Read any stories lately about recruitment problems and never ending deployments? The "candy"....sign up today and the mortgage goes away.....or get an education, or a $40,000 sign up bonus when you sign on the dotted line.
If you were dirt poor and this was your only way to get ahead....might you be tempted to take the risk and play the odds? The US military understands the psychology and the socioeconomic dynamic. It is a little more complex than you've made it out to be.
Posted by OneVote at 04/07/2009 @ 10:51am
I'm surprised that you guys don't know of this secret.
Posted by theo51 at 04/07/2009 @ 10:44am | ignore this person | warn this person
Can't argue Theo that these are going to be BO's wars - both of them. BO is pulling troops from Iraq from Bush surge level, whereas he is escalating in Afghanistan. BO also has stated clearly his disapproval for Iraq War (at least getting involved in the first place)and his belief the Afghanistan was the right war - however nebulous that statement might be.
So - in the public's mind, the secret is well known. But in the case of Iraq, right now, Obama was left with a simmering pot of civil war that was set to boil over at any time. It is unfortunate that the public bought into the Repub/Media misinformation that things in Iraq were going much better and that the light at the end of tunnel was seen. These are the facts. But facts don't matter - ah....."the secret."
Posted by OneVote at 04/07/2009 @ 11:01am
The Army ads say "Be all that you can be" which sounds a little Marxist to me. In any case, from early childhood onward, the "message" the military services put out for recruitment never mentions the killing.
Posted by theo51 at 04/07/2009 @ 11:04am
"the public bought into the Repub/Media misinformation that things in Iraq were going much better and that the light at the end of tunnel was seen. These are the facts. But facts don't matter - ah....."the secret." Posted by OneVote at 04/07/2009 @ 11:01am The problem is that it's a long, long tunnel. Stretching all the way from Saigon to Kabul to Baghdad to Tehran to the Swat Valley to Islamabad to Palestine to Khartoum to Pyongyang to..........
Posted by theo51 at 04/07/2009 @ 11:17am
Posted by theo51 at 04/07/2009 @ 11:04am
The only other group that is close to the level of socialism of the military is the Christian Church, including the rigthwing fundies versions.
The irony is lost on them.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/07/2009 @ 11:21am
Posted by theo51 at 04/07/2009 @ 11:04am | ignore this person | warn this person
The Clinton to Bush transition. Day turns to Night. I would venture to say that none of these kids were told - 'oh by the way, the CIC is taking on a new philosophy about war - preemptive war. This means that your likelihood of seeing active combat jumps from virtually nil to a high degree of probability. Still want to sign up?
Posted by OneVote at 04/07/2009 @ 11:24am
I alway thought that before they sign on to the military all potential recruits should be shown a list of "Possible Effects" just like is required for drug prescriptions. Anti-birth control folks even want to mandate that birth-control providers list "effects" of birth control to their clients. In the case of military, the list of negatives would be way longer--and more physical and permanent-- than the "benefits."
Posted by theo51 at 04/07/2009 @ 11:31am
The problem is that it's a long, long tunnel. Stretching all the way from Saigon to Kabul to Baghdad to Tehran to the Swat Valley to Islamabad to Palestine to Khartoum to Pyongyang to..........
Posted by theo51 at 04/07/2009 @ 11:17am | ignore this person | warn this person
Been down that road before, just can't remember when. And it is a very long road, and who knows, I may still be on it. No exits along the way - just refueling stops at service islands along the toll road. Once you enter, seems like you can never leave. Destination signposts along the way without mileage to travel yet information - just keep on driving, follow the road, you'll get there....someday.
Posted by OneVote at 04/07/2009 @ 11:36am
Posted by chaoszen at 04/07/2009 @ 10:38am
Fine, chaos....what's your plan for 2012? Push a nearly-80 Ralph Nader for "one more run at it...and THIS time, it'll work!"?
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 11:38am
In the case of military, the list of negatives would be way longer--and more physical and permanent-- than the "benefits."
Posted by theo51 at 04/07/2009 @ 11:31am | ignore this person | warn this person
Yeah like "Warning This Occupation May Be Hazardous to Your Health & Life."
Posted by OneVote at 04/07/2009 @ 11:40am
"The ONLY sourse wanting to SLASH the benefits and let them rot in rat infested hospitals is Obamanation himself, until he got caught suggesting it you fool"
right. (yawn).
Posted by darladoon at 04/07/2009 @ 11:50am
hope or change
http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles/muzzle-
archive-2009/#item01
congats to the duopoly for your 2009 Muzzle Award!!
Posted by crabwalk at 04/07/2009 @ 11:51am
The Army ads say "Be all that you can be" which sounds a little Marxist to me. In any case, from early childhood onward, the "message" the military services put out for recruitment never mentions the killing.
Posted by theo51 at 04/07/2009 @ 11:04am
That anyone would enter the military and not think that it's about training to kill would make that person delusional.
When I entered back in the 60's, not only was I fully aware that I was going in to probably kill, I went in with no expectation of surviving.
My sons entered knowing there was a high likelihood of combat. The number 4 son did go to Iraq in the first wave. 1st Marine Unit to go into Baghdad.
The youngest, was in Marine counter-terrorism unit and had no deceptions about his risks.
The more I read many leftists here, the more I know that too many of the past few generations have been raised as wimps and lacking any sense of duty and honor to country.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 12:09pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 12:09pm
Yet, you object to the politics of many of those who have seen the MOST war...like Eisenhower, MacArthur, even Colin Powell.
Somehow your "double-nought Navy Seal spy missions" in Vietnam (which of course are still so classified after 40 years you "can't talk about it") qualify your politics.
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 12:57pm
The more I read many leftists here, the more I know that too many of the past few generations have been raised as wimps and lacking any sense of duty and honor to country.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 12:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The bold assumption here is that imperialism equates to sense of duty and honor. Wrong Liv. Many Leftists here would gladly fight to DEFEND this country, but not corporate sponsored imperialism. You are confusing the two, again.
Posted by OneVote at 04/07/2009 @ 1:07pm
Why Are Army Recruiters Killing Themselves?
Thursday, Apr. 02, 2009
By MARK THOMPSON / Time
When Army Staff Sergeant Amanda Henderson ran into Staff Sergeant Larry Flores in their Texas recruiting station last August, she was shocked by the dark circles under his eyes and his ragged appearance. "Are you O.K.?" she asked the normally squared-away soldier. "Sergeant Henderson, I am just really tired," he replied. "I had such a bad, long week, it was ridiculous." The previous Saturday, Flores' commanders had berated him for poor performance. He had worked every day since from 6:30 a.m. to 10 p.m., trying to persuade the youth of Nacogdoches to wear Army green. "But I'm O.K.," he told her. No, he wasn't. Later that night, Flores hanged himself in his garage with an extension cord. Henderson and her husband Patrick, both Army recruiters, were stunned. "I'll never forget sitting there at Sergeant Flores' memorial service with my husband and seeing his wife crying," Amanda recalls. "I remember looking over at Patrick and going, 'Why did he do this to her? Why did he do this to his children?' " Patrick didn't say anything, and Amanda now says Flores' suicide "triggered" something in her husband. Six weeks later, Patrick hanged himself with a dog chain in their backyard shed. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are now the longest waged by an all-volunteer force in U.S. history. Even as soldiers rotate back into the field for multiple and extended tours, the Army requires a constant supply of new recruits. But the patriotic fervor that led so many to sign up after 9/11 is now eight years past. That leaves recruiters with perhaps the toughest, if not the most dangerous, job in the Army. Last year alone, the number of recruiters who killed themselves was triple the overall
Posted by Mad As Hell at 04/07/2009 @ 1:13pm
"The more I read many leftists here, the more I know that too many of the past few generations have been raised as wimps and lacking any sense of duty and honor to country."
this comment pretty much encapsulates the entire 8 years of the bush presidency. if you don't agree with bush, and his insane missions, then you are a wimp and you don't love america.
on the other hand, if you make any attempts to diffuse the insanity of bush's foreign policy, you (clearly) are working for the enemy and cannot bench press your weight.
Posted by darladoon at 04/07/2009 @ 1:41pm
Why Are Army Recruiters Killing Themselves?
But that was what occurred on March 5, 2007. In the week before his suicide, Andersson was ordered to write three separate essays explaining his failure to line up prospective recruits. A fellow recruiter later told Army investigators that commanders "humiliated" this decorated battlefield soldier during a training session: "He was under a constant grind -- incredible pressure. He just became numb." Andersson, 25, stopped by his recruiting station hours before he died and said he had gotten married that morning to Cassy Walton, whom he had recently met. He seemed in a good mood. "Before leaving, he played a prank on the station commander that made everyone laugh," a fellow recruiter told investigators. But the newlyweds argued that night, and Andersson, inside his new Ford pickup, put the barrel of a Ruger .22-cal. pistol to his right temple and squeezed the trigger. His widow, suffering from psychiatric problems of her own, killed herself the next day with a gun she had just bought. "That double suicide should have stopped everything," an officer who was in the battalion says privately. Instead, he reports, the leadership in Houston said, "We're just going to keep rolling the way we've been rolling." Inflated Requirements The way things rolled in Houston, it turns out, was especially harsh. Until recently, the Army told prospective recruiters they'd be expected to sign up two recruits a month. "All of your training is geared toward prospecting for and processing at least two enlistments monthly," the Army said on its Recruit the Recruiter website until TIME called to ask about the requirement. Major General Thomas Bostick, USAREC's top general, sent out a 2006 letter declaring that each recruiter "Must Do Two." But if e
Posted by Mad As Hell at 04/07/2009 @ 1:46pm
Perhaps those who drag our boys into poorly planned conflicts on foreign soil are the ones who need to have their sense of duty refreshed.
How many Reps sitting in Congress or the Exec since 2000 served (in a war)?
Posted by snowball666 at 04/07/2009 @ 1:14pm
I know you are fairly new to this site; I have long advocated bringing back the draft because I believe so much in required service to country.
And I do agree that if more members of govt served in the military as it used to be, they would have a better perspective in their judgments for both war and the members of the military themselves. And certainly it would ensure that more of the elite in this country served,. With a qualifier on women. I have never been an advocate for women in combat.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 1:52pm
"I have never been an advocate for women in combat"
perhaps you should let women decide, instead of deciding for them. we do have decision-making capabilities.
Posted by darladoon at 04/07/2009 @ 1:58pm
Posted by darladoon at 04/07/2009 @ 1:58pm
Sorry, DD, God says you're supposed to stay home, get preggers, and raise the next generation of those when send into the Charge of the Light Brigade!
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 2:17pm
Obama in Baghdad, tells troops Iraq must take over
By JENNIFER LOVEN, AP White House Correspondent Jennifer Loven, Ap White House Correspondent 1 hr 44 mins ago
'BAGHDAD – Cheered wildly by U.S. troops, President Barack Obama flew unannounced into Iraq on Tuesday and promptly declared it was time for Iraqis to "take responsibility for their country" after America's commitment of six years and thousands of lives.'
Wild cheers. Looks like our CIC has the approval of the troops, and total agreement on the need for Iraq to stand on its own. It is their civil war now, not ours. Good move BO. Keep hammering that idea home here at home.
Posted by OneVote at 04/07/2009 @ 2:55pm
As long as the Obama govt, like the Bush govt, avoids mentioning the pipeline, we know we're being scammed re Afghanistan.
Keep Taliban in Pak?
Probably not a prudent objective, if indeed it is an objective.
The plan is for the pipeline to pass thru faghan & into Pak to exit from a Pak port.
Some plan.
How many dead Afghanis & Paks is it worth? How many trillion$? How many dead Yanks?
Posted by sloper at 04/07/2009 @ 3:15pm
Regarding suicide among military recruiters, have there been any recent posts from CPT? He claimed that he was a recruiter...
Posted by BlackFrancis at 04/07/2009 @ 3:24pm
Wild cheers.----Posted by OneVote at 04/07/2009 @ 2:55pm
"Wild cheers"? Dang, this means RIO and PONTI and SJCHER and of course Larry just found out the Army is full of "liberal socialist surrender monkies who want America to lose!"!?!?!??!
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 3:24pm
Army is full of "liberal socialist surrender monkies who want America to lose!"!?!?!??!
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 3:24pm
DOD went the way of the CIA and the State Dept?
On to Nicaruagua.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/07/2009 @ 3:36pm
Funny, anti is agin women in the military...but he drives his wife to work daily!
National put your woman to work day.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/07/2009 @ 3:37pm
What would Thom Jefferson say?
"Off wit those fancy panties"?
Posted by crabwalk at 04/07/2009 @ 3:39pm
"Wild cheers"? Dang, this means RIO and PONTI and SJCHER and of course Larry just found out the Army is full of "liberal socialist surrender monkies who want America to lose!"!?!?!??!
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 3:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Guess the recruiters need to get that check mark box on the recruitment form changed to:
__ Republican
__ Democrat
___ Liberal
Good measure of the sense of duty and honor don't you know.
Ought to put a damper on all the talk about "cut and run" isn't what our troops want.
hehehehe
Posted by OneVote at 04/07/2009 @ 3:44pm
Funny, anti is agin women in the military...but he drives his wife to work daily!
National put your woman to work day.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/07/2009 @ 3:37pm
I didn't say against women in the military; I said against women in combat.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 3:52pm
I didn't say against women in the military; I said against women in combat.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 3:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Ever hear the story about the best sniper the Soviets had during WWII? More dead Nazi at longer distance than any other?
Hint: not a man.
Posted by OneVote at 04/07/2009 @ 4:02pm
ver hear the story about the best sniper the Soviets had during WWII? More dead Nazi at longer distance than any other?
Hint: not a man.
Posted by OneVote at 04/07/2009 @ 4:02pm
I didn't say that women had no combat abilities. I maintain that the close quarters of combat and the conditions in combat and some other duty posts (like Submarines) work against having the cohesion necessary and also relating to privacy needs that mixed sexes make difficult.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 4:27pm
False universal statements about the troops cut both ways.
If it's pure imperialism you're looking for, maybe try to figure out what the hell the UN Provisional Force, and a few Marines, are doing in Haiti.
You'll have a hard time convincing me that we are sucking dry the resources of a country (Iraq) with a budget surplus.
You would also have a hard time finding a more disciplined military, than that of the US. This infantry, combat OIF vet served in a unit that lost more lives than we took.
I'm waiting for the new Lincoln Brigade to show the young American idealist how it's done. Lefties fucked that one up, as Orwell attested to, but at least some of them meant well. Show me something near the level of courage and sacrifice shown by the troops. Go to Congo and set up mobilized rape-prevention teams. Show the same contempt for the true butchers of the world that you do for your own troops. Spare me the few aberrational atrocities you can scour from the headlines. My Company got hit by IEDs dozens of times and NEVER got trigger-happy.
There are a few posters here that truly do not deserve to be safe, or free. Ironically, the more you can conform the world to your own designs, the less free and safe you will be.
Posted by gangpapist at 04/07/2009 @ 4:33pm
"I maintain that the close quarters of combat and the conditions in combat and some other duty posts (like Submarines) work against having the cohesion necessary and also relating to privacy needs that mixed sexes make difficult"
Sexism 101
Posted by darladoon at 04/07/2009 @ 4:36pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 4:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Can't argue with your opinion there Liv....hand to hand combat, and close quarters.....the reality is the reality.
But it is of interest to note that women do and are expected to be part of the combat group in guerilla groups - and that leaders do find ways to utilize their skills for killing effectively where brute force and strength isn't necessary.
Posted by OneVote at 04/07/2009 @ 4:39pm
Am a Veteran For Peace with a Vietnamese and a Korean in my family. Have lived mostly abroad. What is super uncomfortable living in America, to say the least, is this war promoting media sponsored idea on putting American military casualties as primary interest. WWII was a long time ago.
Since then the innocent people we veterans, ,in their own country, dispatched to the next world are of no interest to Americans who follow the commercial America the Great line.
However, in their personal lives, Americans are not so rude as to put their problems foremost and above other peoples problems, most especially others they have hurt or worse.
Hard to stomach this strange idea of condemning imperialist wars but HONORING those who were stupid or naive enough to have followed criminal orders (Like myself and six bunk mate buried in North Korea).
It is to be expected from conglomerate owned military conplex following mass media to make ourselves look good. Make soldiering look honorable enough for to attract more gullible kids to sign up to get that HONOR.
Not so understanable that even people in the peace movement fall for this absurdity.
Einstein did not HONOR warriors, he had compassion for them and grieved for them as victims of ignorance and he loved all mankind, and grieved for those collaterally killed and maimed as well as those that did the killing.
Honor is by the dictionary is bestowed for achievement, like going to jail or Canada rather than participate in homicide.
Jay Janson
Posted by jayjanson at 04/07/2009 @ 9:11pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 4:27pm </i>
What about an all-woman military?
Posted by Thrawn at 04/07/2009 @ 9:49pm
To 'antisocialist': You seem so eager to have our soldiers deployed for a foreign policy action that is unlikely to acheive elimination of Islamic/Taliban extremists. I would be curious to know what your combat experience has been - although certainly not a rule but common nonetheless is the instance of the avid war supporter that has never been in combat themselves where someone is doing their deadliest to kill your ass. For many of us that have been there, like the Colonel above, too, there is a strong relunctance to go to war unless it is absolutely necessary to protect this country and its citizens. An escalation in Afghanistan does not meet that test in my view.
Posted by StevePAllen at 04/07/2009 @ 11:05pm
Posted by StevePAllen at 04/07/2009 @ 11:05pm
Larry was a double-nought undercover secret agent Navy super-spy in Vietnam code-named "Agent Orange". He could tell you about all his still-classified-after-40-years missions against the Commies?...but then he'd have to kill you!
Posted by Mask at 04/08/2009 @ 08:08am
To 'antisocialist': You seem so eager to have our soldiers deployed for a foreign policy action that is unlikely to acheive elimination of Islamic/Taliban extremists. I would be curious to know what your combat experience has been - although certainly not a rule but common nonetheless is the instance of the avid war supporter that has never been in combat themselves where someone is doing their deadliest to kill your ass. For many of us that have been there, like the Colonel above, too, there is a strong relunctance to go to war unless it is absolutely necessary to protect this country and its citizens. An escalation in Afghanistan does not meet that test in my view.
Posted by StevePAllen at 04/07/2009 @ 11:05pm
I am not "eager" to have our soldiers deployed; but I do feel strongly about confronting evil. Males in my family (including myself) have served in the military in this country for over 250 years. We have not lacked a generation of men who have served.
Despite Mask's cynicism, I have a Purple Heart with 2 clusters and am partially disabled due to some of my injuries. While Mask is partially correct about my service, I spent it mainly in Navy intel which included Southeast Asia and other conflicts during the 60's. My Purple Hearts actually came from conflicts that were outside of SEA.
My father lost his sight in Europe during WWII. My grandfather was shelled and gassed in France in WWI. My great-great grandfather lost a leg leading a Union calvary charge. So my family does know and appreciate the sacrifice of military service.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/08/2009 @ 09:23am
Just as in most things, knowing a little bit about a complex situation can lead to seemingly boneheaded decisions.
I believe this to be the case with not only for the entire Afghanistan project, but with Pres. Obama's recent decisions on Afghanistan that, arguably, locks us into the same policies and strategies that time and experience should have shown us are abject failures.
The reasons for the failures are a study in themselves. A far better explanation than this article provides can be found in a recent Jane Stillwater post, "The Taliban for Dummies," (http://tinyurl.com/bdx8oh).
Posted by SamThornton at 04/08/2009 @ 10:12am
My Purple Hearts actually came from conflicts that were outside of SEA.-------Posted by antisocialist at 04/08/2009 @ 09:23am
Given the US was not "officially" (i.e. authorization via a Congressional resolution, like "Gulf of Tonkin") at war anywhere outside SouthEast Asia in the mid-1960s, you're admitting you were involved in armed conflict not approved by the Congress?
That would explain your view on the Constitutional "declaration of war" power and its irrelevancy, wouldn't it?
Posted by Mask at 04/08/2009 @ 10:45am
Now I can get the image of our Sec of State in her honeymoon lingerie OUT OF MY HEAD.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/07/2009 @ 10:44am | ignore this person | warn this person
Hey, hey, could be worse, Crab. Could've been Maddie Albright, you know.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/08/2009 @ 12:27pm
That would explain your view on the Constitutional "declaration of war" power and its irrelevancy, wouldn't it?
Posted by Mask at 04/08/2009 @ 10:45am
A serviceman's duty is to obey orders from their chain of command. I received no orders that I felt would be in violation of the constitution and my oath of service.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/08/2009 @ 5:38pm