-
Foreign Policy as Farce
June 17, 2013 | 88 comments
-
How Not To Buy a Fighter
June 13, 2013 | 95 comments
-
Are We Being ImPrism’ed?
June 10, 2013 | 168 comments
-
Hot Times for Holder
June 3, 2013 | 111 comments
-
Obama Declares Peace
May 28, 2013 | 38 comments
Loose Canons
Obama’s Wars: Revolt of the Generals, Part 2
Unlike the Democrat effort in 2006, this one was substantive — and Obama approves of Bob Woodward’s portrayal of his weakness.
How has President Obama mismanaged the Afghanistan war? Bob Woodward’s new book counts the ways. There’s a president retreating after a “generals’ revolt,” domestic politics overriding any concern with the war’s outcome and — according to the leaked portions of the book due out today — much more. But the White House is praising Obama’s Wars, not condemning it.
If you are confused, dear reader, take comfort in the fact that you are no more so than our president.
Before we get to the revealing parts of Woodward’s book, it’s time to pull back on the stick and gain a little altitude. What Woodward’s book reveals is a president whose sole concern — regardless of the issue — is how it will affect his domestic political position.
Obama’s 2008 campaign was an anti-war campaign reminiscent of George McGovern’s in 1972. When elected, Obama ordered an immediate review of our policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, to withdraw from Iraq and fight smarter in Afghanistan than Bush had. This review took two months and resulted in a new policy, released on March 27, 2009. It provided for new diplomatic “mechanisms,” more civilian assistance to Afghanistan’s government, and encouraged the Karzai government to seek reconciliation with the insurgents. (Reconciliation, assumed to be a mutual goal, didn’t attract the Taliban for the simple reason they believe they are winning. And they are right.).
Reality caught up to that policy in just 90 days. Defense Secretary Bob Gates ordered a new policy review on June 26, 2009. There ensued a five-month debate that resulted in Obama’s military advisors being divided from the president to a degree not seen since the MacArthur-Truman dispute in 1951.
In August 2009, Gen. Stanley McChrystal submitted a congressionally mandated report that said, in part, “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.” The report was released to the public almost instantly, possibly by McChrystal.
Those of us not privy to the internal debate saw that while the Obama team dithered, it was subjected to increasing and highly unusual public pressure from Gen. David Petraeus, then CENTCOM commander, and Gen. McChrystal, then commander in Afghanistan. In shockingly candid interviews and speeches, the two forced the president to surge troops into Afghanistan to support the counterinsurgency.
At this point, the press was mildly critical of the generals for trying to corner the president, which they obviously were. Was it insubordination? Perhaps. But Petraeus and McChrystal had direct responsibility to conduct the war, and had to choose between pressuring the White House and resigning. McChrystal was later fired for heavy-handed insubordination published in Rolling Stone. Petraeus chose to stay — for now — and is now stuck with pursuing a policy he knows will not succeed.
Contrast these actions with the 2006 media-manufactured “revolt of the generals” which quickly became a feeding frenzy. Six retired generals (without authority or responsibility for anything) were bashing then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, demanding his removal. The Washington Post, in April 2006, defended its earlier call for Rumsfeld’s departure. The revolt failed: Rumsfeld stayed through the 2006 election.
The new “generals’ revolt” put the media in a box: on one hand, they wouldn’t criticize the president they’d just created; on the other, they couldn’t take on Petraeus, who may be the most trusted man in America. The 2006 “generals’ revolt” failed because it was political. This revolt succeeded because it was substantive. Woodward’s book reportedly shows why.
According to the New York Times report of September 21, Woodward wrote: “The president concluded from the start that ‘I have two years with the public on this’ and pressed advisers for ways to avoid a big escalation.” The book quotes Obama imploring, “I want an exit strategy.” The report also quotes the book that, “Privately, [Obama] told Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to push his alternative strategy opposing a big troop buildup in meetings, and while Mr. Obama ultimately rejected it, he set a withdrawal timetable because, ‘I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.’”
The Times report on the book also quotes Obama as saying, “Get the forces in faster and out faster.… You tell me that the biggest problem we have now is that the momentum is with the Taliban and the reason for this resource request is that the momentum is with the Taliban. But you’re not getting these troops into Afghanistan’ for more than a year. I’m not going to make a commitment that leaves my successor with more troops than I inherited in Afghanistan.”
So Obama granted a “McChrystal Lite” surge — 30,000 rather than the 40-60,000 requested — and imposed the July 2011 date to begin withdrawal. Which made no sense to his military and diplomatic advisors. The September 21 New York Times report says that the book reveals that Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, held over from his service as “war czar” for Bush, harbors grave doubts about the latest strategy Obama has chosen. Woodward reports that Lute believes “that the president’s review did not ‘add up’ to the decision he made.” Amb. Richard Holbrooke, Obama’s special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, is quoted as saying Obama’s strategy cannot work.
The generals’ revolt against Obama’s political view of the war continues. In August, nine months after Obama’s new strategy was announced, Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway said, “In some ways, we think right now it’s probably giving our enemy sustenance…. In fact, we’ve intercepted communications that say, ‘Hey, you know, we only have to hold out for so long.’” Obama has since reaffirmed the July 2011 planned withdrawal, which means we will hear more from Petraeus, Conway, and others.
According to a September 22 Washington Post report on Woodward’s book, Obama granted Woodward an extensive interview. In it, he told Woodward that he didn’t think of the war in “classic” terms of winning and losing, only in terms of making Afghanistan stronger rather than weaker in the end.
About the Author
Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies. You can follow him on Twitter @jedbabbin.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (111) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jed Babbin
More Articles From Loose Canons
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/27/obamas-wars-revolt-of-the-gene
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Back in the Fray
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
- Odds and Ends
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
drudge ette obama| 9.27.10 @ 6:28AM
Woodward appealed to Obama's vanity which believes so highly in itself that granting private access could not possibly backfire.
Woodward knew this. The White House is pleased that the message conveyed is one of ending the war at all costs.
It all makes perfect sense.
Alan Brooks| 9.27.10 @ 9:09PM
There is hope for Iraq-- but not Ashcanistan.
Not all endings are happy endings, not all princes slay the dragon, marry the princess, and live happily ever after.
Sometimes the dragon wins.
Alan Brooks| 9.27.10 @ 9:13PM
... how COULD we win in Ashcanistan?
Invade Pakistan and use WMDs in both nations?
If there is a way, it has not been widely publicized; at this time we can't see light at the end of the tunnel.
Fredrick Ward| 9.29.10 @ 9:05PM
The only way to win any war is lay waste to the enemy with no regard for the bleeding hearts that this nation has been filled with. You know you have won when there is no one left standing to dictate terms and you are the one rebuilding the economy and molding it in your own image. That is winning, and there is no second place.
The Muslims know this, and they are utilizing any method they can to achieve it while this country is trying to redefine what winning is, or that war really isn't about winning. Reminds me of when Mr. Clinton tried to redefine what "is" is in a court of law. How ludicrous.
To win this we use whatever tools we must to conquer them. That means our entire force of troops, our entire arsenal of weapons. Yes, that includes nuclear options as well. Then when we have finished grinding their bones into dust we re-educate their young in our own image.
If anyone needs a lesson in winning just revisit how we handled Japan when it attacked us. We annihilated them, and then rebuilt their country into a Capitalistic society. That is winning, and that is how wars have and always will be won.
booger| 9.27.10 @ 7:12AM
From the desk of President B. Hussein Obama:
Dear Military Service Person,
It has come to my attention that some of you are as yet unclear on the purpose for your current deployment. This is a mystery to me, as I have communicated my intentions quite clearly for some time, but I suppose I must accept the fact that your education is not on par with the rest of us, so here it is again.
First and foremost, I must insist that you dispense with any notion of "victory" immediately. This stubborn insistence on "victory", especially by those of you lunkheads in the Marine Corps and Army Infantry, is completely inappropriate, and if it continues, will be disciplined by court martial if necessary. You are NOT, I repeat NOT, to concern yourself with any type of "victory". This single-minded pursuit of the Western, hegemonic, racist, islamaphobic notion of "victory" will not win over the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. Furthermore, this misguided notion of seeking "victory" over supposed "enemies" will only continue to be a recruitment tool for various extremist groups who may perpetrate violence in response.
Furthermore, to those of you who are officers in command positions, I am sick and tired of hearing about "force protection" and "overly cautious" rules of engagement. It pains me to see that even though I have ascended to Commander in Chief your troops are still a bunch of trigger happy rednecks, no doubt mostly from inner Pennsylvania and Arkansas, probably bitterly clinging to some notion of "honor" along with their guns and Bibles. Quite frankly, it seems that most of you need some extensive re-education, especially those of you with the Marine Corps and Army Infantry. So make sure your troops get their minds right, and let go of some of these antiquated, hegemonic, racist, male-dominated notions, or I promise you there will be the New York Times to pay.
Other than that, please know that you have my full and unwavering support.
Your Commander in Chief,
B. Hussein Obama
Ned the Red| 9.27.10 @ 10:35AM
President Obama,
Mr. President your message was garbled during decoding.
Did you say you are sending us 30,000 Victoria Secret catalogs?
Yours truly, lunkheads in the Marine Corps and Army Infantry.
Ned the Red| 9.27.10 @ 12:16PM
Dear Military Service Person,
I did not send Victoria Secret catalogs (Bill tells me these catalogs do not have a burqa section), what I meant is, if you have victory we must keep that a secret. However you must not worry too much about the possibility of victory, I will do everything in my power to avoid such a George Bush cowboy like embarrassment.
Your Commander in Chief, The great big O.
Dixie Pixie| 9.27.10 @ 12:54PM
Sorry Ned, The Psi-Ops plan was to break the back of the Taliban by seducing the Afghans by the use of Victoria's Secret catalogs and other Western advertisements and products.
The ploy backfired when the Afghans made the understandable mistake that Victoria's Secret was selling nubile woman not woman's lingerie.
Ned the Red| 9.27.10 @ 1:54PM
"The ploy backfired when the Afghans made the understandable mistake that Victoria's Secret was selling nubile woman not woman's lingerie."
Not only that Victoria's Secret catalogs would have stiff competition from the local rags,
"Goat Nangerie"
"Cloven's Wovens"
"The Camel's Hump"
"Soddoms Bottom"
TR| 9.27.10 @ 11:16AM
addendum to above speech:
I just realized that I referred to your posession of Bibles. Bibles will not be tolerated. There will be no Bibles (hereafter known as islamicphoblc propoganda). If you are in posession of islamophoblc propoganda, burn it immediately, and have the burn witnessed by an officer who will fill out form 666 in triplicate.
I am shocked - yes shocked that you would bring an unapproved book. You will all be issued an iPod filled with my speeches. Required listening will be verified by assigned officers and documented as part of your re-education.
Remember to request your absentee ballot. It will be issued and ignored by the Dept. of Justice.
Best wishes and you better not win.
ObaMao the great.
al cameron| 9.28.10 @ 1:15PM
Obamao the Great.
I say, I say, he's got it. By jove he's got it.
Obamao the Great!
LT, Infantry| 9.27.10 @ 12:41PM
Ours is but to do and die...
Gretchen| 9.27.10 @ 3:38PM
booger
BRAVO!!!
Maddox| 9.27.10 @ 7:29AM
It is disgusting that American men and women are dying in "over seas contingencies" where victory is decided by how it benefits the commander and chief politically.
Ned| 9.27.10 @ 1:29PM
disgusting but not in the least bit surprising... for further reading and reference see US Congressional Record for the period 1973 - 75...
Kenny| 9.27.10 @ 7:38AM
Nation building is a fool's errand, especially in Third World hell-holes like Afghanistan and Iraq.
Robert Pinkerton| 9.27.10 @ 10:07AM
Sir, you have told far more truth than you know, because of just how indifferent to, and incompatible with, our culture are the Afghans of the hinterland. We are milking the he-goat into the sieve.
I have always maintained with invariant consistency that what the government should have done, was send in a small clandestine team tasked, tunnel-vision focus on the sole goal, with extracting Usama binLadin for a show-trial - or, failing the first objective, the fall-back objective of bringing back Mr. binLadin's severed head. (Yes, if I was not as serious as serious could be, at least I was -- and still am -- as serious as I can be when I said "severed head.") Evidence of revenge accomplished, is a persuasive deterrent: Terrorists who tried to do their thing against a Soviet entity in (I think it was) Syria(?) learned the hard way that they had messed with the wrong target. OTOH, galumphing in like a herd of elephants, might stomp a few rats, but it will send the rest into hiding until the elephants are past or distracted.
My question (for answer by someone better situated than I) is, did United States intelligence in any organizational incarnation, have the personnel for such a clandestine team? Just asking.
Al Cameron| 9.28.10 @ 1:22PM
No, No, No, if he is extracted he wins.
He is mirandized, housed in Joy Behars ten million dollar condo with the rest of the girls from the View as harem houri. He lives happily ever after. Off with his head!
Siegfried X| 9.27.10 @ 7:53AM
Maybe the White House WANTS Woodward's book to read this way for political reasons. Actions in Congress clearly show that the Democrats believe this is a "base" election. That means in order to win the Democrats have to govern from the far left in order to get their voter base to the polls. Given that, Obama would want to paint himself as a pacifist, which is exactly what Woodward's book does.
Christopher Holland| 9.27.10 @ 10:45PM
This has to be the dumbest strategy in the book - go so far to the left that you antagonise 80% of voters in the country and fall off an electoral cliff. Only 20% of voters identify themselves as liberals, 40% view themselves as conservatives. This strategy comes in a large can of stupid pills, you have to eat the lot before you find the paper at the bottom.
Danram| 9.27.10 @ 8:07AM
Lord, help us. How could we, as a nation, ever become so shallow as to elect this rank amateur? At this point, the only thing we can do is vote Republican on Nov. 2nd and then pray that the country can hold together until we have a chance to remove him from office in 2012.
RCV| 9.27.10 @ 1:33PM
Please! Let's not hear complaints about the conduct of the Afghan war from Republicans, after GWB let the conflict fester for 7 years doing nothing while he pursued his own personal little senseless war in Iraq. Whatever progress we've made in Afghanistan, it's been made in the last 2 years.
Steve851| 9.27.10 @ 3:21PM
AMEN! (tho I have no use for BO either)
KDW| 9.27.10 @ 8:06PM
So I can't criticize Obama about his conduct of the
war in Afghanistan because Bush allowed the war
to 'fester for seven years'? Really? No matter how
inane Obama's actions are I must remain silent?
Also, could you be a little more specific about
all the progress we have made with Obama at
the helm. Unless you are talking about increased
American casualty levels (due to the new idiotic
rules of engagement) or the renewed, invigorated
Taliban insurgency (due to Obama's planned
surrender in July, 2011), I just don't see it.
Bush's mistakes in Afghanistan in no way excuse
Obama's shocking level of incompetence as our
Commander in Chief.
John Samford| 9.27.10 @ 11:24PM
Iraq was a Hail Mary pass. If it had worked, there would be no campaign in Afghanistan today. Nor Somalia, Sudan or Pakistan. Bush tried to strike for the center of gravity and sort of missed. He hit it but not hard enough to win the war.
BTW, this is one war, not 2 or 3 or 4 or however many the idiots of the MSM count.
The war is Islam against the world and it has been going on in fits and starts for about 1400 years. We are in an active phase now. That is because the Islamic world has woken up to how seductive Western civilization is and are fighting back the only way their little 7th century brains know.
Americans think 100 years is a long time, so they have trouble getting their heads around a thousand year war. Euros think 100 miles is a long way, so they cannot grasp a world wide war.
England is the only Euro state that thinks in world spanning ways. Habit.
Tim*| 9.27.10 @ 8:07AM
Field Marshall & President For Life Obama is worried more about The 2012 Election than his Warriors in the field in Afghanistan.
Campaign On , Oh Fearless Leader !
Patrick| 9.28.10 @ 5:22AM
Aide: Mr. President, the generals are revolting!
Obama: You got that right, they stink on ice.
Sorry, it just had to be done. Too bad his first name is Barak and not Louis.
Mark Kraft| 9.27.10 @ 8:29AM
Jed Babbin, the author of this article, and a former deputy undersecretary of defense in the Bush administration, comes off as an arrogant, opinionated, biased drum-beater, without pointing out that the military's "plan" for Afghanistan, was basically to offer President Obama one basic plan as far as troop levels, love it or lump it, that would've kept troop levels at current levels until 2016.
This, to me, seems nuts. It makes you wonder just how incompetent the military general were, in that they had been fighting this war for almost a decade with far fewer troops. Surely, this problem of troop levels wasn't a new one... did they honestly think that the US public would have more of a stomach for higher troop levels after the Bush administration?!
The basic truth is, I don't know whether this surge will work... and neither do they. Their "plans", such as they were, were obviously locked in failure mode well before President Obama took office.
If the outcome of this war is successful, the POTUS deserves credit where credit is due, for helping strengthen the Afghan government's position to the point it could defend itself. And if the outcome of the war is unsuccessful, the POTUS deserves credit for ending it as mercifully quickly as was militarily feasible to do. We, the public, should hardly complain about an end to a war we really don't want to keep on supporting.
And if that's political.... well, so what?!
Mightycline| 9.27.10 @ 9:22AM
Mark Kraft: In a street rumble, if the gang leader sez do not use chains, knives, or pistols and leave the fight before midnight, just what do you think happens when they win? Mark, they lose and people on his side die. They do not win. Can you understand that our POTUS will never receive credit for what will not happen anymore, he is out of pretend time. It is over, Mark. Your man IS the straw man of his own invention. He is a weeny of a hot dog. Nobody should call O a dog, but a simple, skinless variety, cheap weeny. Men fight wars and win or lose. Weenies send others and pray they do not have to go. Let us ponder? What was it that O said during the debates as to "I thought about military service but did not pursue it......" What a weeny. His biggest problem in life now is his wife, have met many like her and O carries that cross to bear. O may never even run for re-election, but it no longer matters if he runs or not. He is a weeny to 55% and that is a landslide victory for his any-name opponent. Do not worry. Just go outside and apply for a job Mark. You need to stop leeching off of your folks. Grow up and get on with it.
ds80| 9.27.10 @ 9:46AM
Thanks for reminding us, Mark Kraft, of the old adage:
"Never trust a liberal with our national defense".
Ned| 9.27.10 @ 1:32PM
too many words... try this version:
"Never trust a liberal."
RCV| 9.27.10 @ 1:35PM
FDR and Truman did pretty well. Quite a lot better than GWB as a matter of fact.
CRS| 9.27.10 @ 2:33PM
FDR and Truman's Liberalism balanced out the order of things I'm assuming. Today's Liberalism is full speed ahead attempt at overturning everything that ever was America. Including the dream, which Obama has no problem asking you to give up. Only that you buy his hope rather than our own dreams.
CARNOT| 9.27.10 @ 6:43PM
awesome! so you approve of Dresden-like tactics and atom bombs!
get to it boys and girls!!!
Nunya| 9.28.10 @ 11:23AM
Carnot, the atom bomb, while devastating in its release, saved the lives of over a million American soldiers, plus millions of Japanese. Those were the estimates of an invasion of Japan at the time the decision was made to drop the bomb.
Horrific? Yes, absolutely. Though it killed an maimed thousands, it saved the lives of millions. One needs to remember history.
KDW| 9.27.10 @ 8:28PM
If I can remember correctly, Truman committed
us to a war in Korea, fought it to a stalemate (he
had no idea how to win it or end), got over 40,000
troops killed ( which is close to 10 times higher
than the American death totals in Afghanistan
and Iraq), then left the mess for someone else
(Eisenhower) to clean up.
Truman's performance in Korea is something
he couldn't nor you shouldn't be bragging about.
Bush certainly did as well as that.
Steve A| 9.27.10 @ 9:54AM
Remember back when BO was contemplating what to do on troop levels in Afghanistan? This went on for months & finally someone asked McChrystal about his discussinons with Obama & he revealed that he had spoken to the President a total of 1 time. If this does not illustrate the incompetence of BO then you need to re-evaluate your judgement.
JeffW| 9.27.10 @ 10:55AM
"It makes you wonder just how incompetent the military general were, in that they had been fighting this war for almost a decade with far fewer troops"
A. You have never heard of a "holding" action
B. And your more expeirenced/competent, how?
C. Your an idiot.
Martin| 9.27.10 @ 11:03AM
The President of the United Sates should resign immediately if he has committed America's young men and women to fight a war he has no intention of winning. This not merely a violation of his constitutional obligations. It places the United States of America in extreme peril. If there is one thing history teaches is the kings, prime ministers and Presidents have been over thrown for far less by a professional military that feels it's been used and manipulated by power. Check out Rome, Sparta, Weimar, France, England, Spain, and Japan for starters.
Gretchen| 9.27.10 @ 3:45PM
Martin
Two words: President Biden.
LT, Infantry| 9.27.10 @ 12:49PM
First off, if we wanted to leave, we could've just packed up and left. Nothing from a military perspective prevents us from doing so.
Secondly, to paraphrase one of my favorite "Murphy's Laws of Combat": "Don't fight fair, FIGHT TO WIN!" We attack with overwhelming strength, technology, and violence because that's how you win with few casualties. We've been limited by this administration to merely showing up. The rules of "engagement" specifically forbid us from shooting back if there are non-combatants present. Guess what? The enemy now takes women & children wherever they go because we can't shoot back!
Warfare requires the guts, perseverance, and determination to win. We soldiers have it...
Siegfried X| 9.27.10 @ 2:49PM
"We attack with overwhelming strength, technology, and violence because that's how you win with few casualties"
No, that's how to LOSE a guerilla war.
Christopher Holland| 9.27.10 @ 10:51PM
There is an easy way to end a war, and you can do it at any time - you wave a white flag and surrender, or your simply pack up and go home. Obama is going for the worst outcome possible, he is not ending the war now, by going home, but neither is he going to win. All he is doing is wasting money, time and lives to delay an outcome - defeat - that is going to happen anyway. Obama is an incompetent, gutless loser, he can't lead homing pigeons. It takes genuine stupidity to think up a plan like this, and then imagine that it will work.
John Samford| 9.27.10 @ 11:43PM
ALL WAR is political. War is part of politics. Or as Mao said;
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"
- Chairman Mao Zedong (Tse-tung)
The problem in Afghanistan is one of which strategy will produce the best results. The Army High Command wants an "Ink Blot" or "fortified hamlet" strategy. The Air Force wants to bomb 'em back to the stone age. The Navy wants billion dollar PT boats.
I doubt Berry know the difference between a Garter belt and a link belt, so he is at the mercy of all the clueless "experts".
The Army strategy requires lots of boots on the ground. 672,000 pairs of boots according to the Counterinsurgency manual ("FM 3-24 - Counterinsurgency") that Petraeus co-authored.
http://docudharma.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=15978
So while the USA has more troops in Afghanistan today then the Soviets ever had, according to all the "experts", it still isn't enough. I'm not sure the entire US Army has 672,000 grunts. Maybe if we took all the Colonels out of the Pentagon and gave them rifles......
Anyway, something is bogus there. Just exactly who is doing what to whom is unclear at the moment. I just hope my son's tour is up before it becomes clear.
Fredrick Ward| 9.29.10 @ 9:20PM
"And if the outcome of the war is unsuccessful, the POTUS deserves credit for ending it as mercifully ..."
This is the problem with all you Liberals. You still think there is a second place. You swallowed that foolish line that there are no losers. Well, when we lose this war Obama will get all the credit for that he deserves. You can count on it.
Louis Jenkins| 9.27.10 @ 8:32AM
Woodward sets upon Obumar with the task of King Maker. But Kings live in luxury and die glorious deaths. Well, Obumar's got the luxury thing down pat. Would the voters elect a war-president? That remains to be seen. One thing is clear to me, that Woodward writes science fiction with the best of the them, and The Commander n Thief will do his best to please what's left of the Democrat party. Go ahead Obumar, pull your wagons in a circle, there's not much left for you.
blackknights1802| 9.27.10 @ 8:36AM
Adolf Hitler rose to the rank of corporal. He went on to rule a country and began to dictate to his military generals on how to maneuver their troops in battle. He lost.
Barrock Obama was a community organizer and rose to the rank of Jr. Senator. He went on to rule a nation and dithered when advised by his military generals.
Will history repeat itself?
RCV| 9.27.10 @ 1:37PM
This may be the dumbest analogy ever posted here.
Steve A| 9.27.10 @ 1:48PM
It makes the Top 5 anyway.
Sandy Kofaux was left handed. So is Obama. Will history repeat itself & Obama win the Cy Young award for the Dodgers next year?
Anthony| 9.27.10 @ 2:14PM
Steve A, You think you're being funny don't you? Obozo winning the Cy Young is a distinct posibility Steve, seeing that Obozo got a Nobel Prize 2 weeks into his presidency simply on the basis of "hope". See my other post on the elite Left's expectations of Obozo.
Obozo as the darling of the Left will never have to accomplish a damn thing, all he has to do is show up and be a good little leftist.
However, having seen Obozo throw a baseball, this sissy might have a tough time winning the Cy Young, but as is the case with the Left, accomplishments don't mean squat. He can still win it by rolling the ball to home plate.
Steve A| 9.27.10 @ 2:26PM
Anthony, You are correct sir. He chucks the biscuit like a complete chick. No offense to chicks.
carnot| 9.27.10 @ 6:47PM
far fetched? the prez won the nobel prize for nothing!!!!!
blackknights1802| 9.28.10 @ 7:32AM
What part of the statement do you not understand?
Hitler: Socialist.
Obama: Socialist.
Hitler: Narcissist.
Obama: Narcissist.
Hitler: Can not take advice from his generals.
Obama: Can not take advice from his generals.
Hitler: Grandiose visions.
Obama: Roman columns.
Hitler: It’s his way or the highway.
Obama: It’s his way or the highway.
Hitler: Lost the war.
Obama: The question is-Will history repeat itself?
Fredrick Ward| 9.29.10 @ 9:26PM
Yes, it will repeat itself, and I whole heartedly agree.
RacerJim| 9.27.10 @ 8:57AM
Mark Kraft's POTUS deserves credit whether his actions/policies in Afghanistan are successful or unsuccessful post comes off as pure and utter Obama mania. Period.
Timothy L. Pennell| 9.27.10 @ 9:09AM
Don't ever forget WHO we're dealing with, here. This is a guy who began his Political Journey in the living room of the FOUNDERS of the WEATHER UNDERGROUND. The living room of DOMESTIC TERRORISTS.
Perhaps if the Generals had recommended that they BLOW UP Recruiting Stations, or BOMB the Pentagon? We know that he doesn't seem to have any problem with that.
He's a MUSLIM. He was born to a Muslim FATHER. That makes him a MUSLIM. He lived in Muslim Countries for YEARS. He attended Muslim Schools, Muslim Mosques, and he knelt on his PRAYER RUG, facing MECCA, and prayed to ALLAH 5 times a day. These are FACTS.
In FACT, he told George Stephanopoulos that "The Muslim call to prayer is the most beautiful sound on Earth".
He doesn't want to KILL his own kind. he never utters the word VICTORY. He seeks to DECIMATE our Armed Forces, because he sees them as a vehicle of OPPRESSION. There aren't any surprises in this book. He's a FAR LEFT RADICAL, with a long list of Communist, Socialist, Marxist, and Maoist MENTORS. He has surrounded himself with people who HATE THIS COUNTRY, his whole adult life. It would be impossible to expect anything else from this THING in the White House. He's LEFTS' Wet Dream. Higher Taxes, Redistribution, Government Takeover of the Private Sector, and the DECIMATION of the IMPERIALISTS' Military.
Everybody has always known that America could only be defeated from WITHIN.
Ladies and Gentlemen. I give you BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.
Destroyer of Worlds.
The FREE World.
Robert| 9.27.10 @ 9:41AM
The American mainline media robot minds controlled by Wall Street and ideologues along with their boot lickers in US politics with dither away American prestige until Wall Street and the United States becomes meaningless to planet earth's peoples.
As the Soviets learned corruption and not paying attention to reality will bit you in the backsides.
JohnR22| 9.27.10 @ 9:49AM
Once you realize that Obama's Prime Directive is to leap the US into european style socialism, all this begins to make sense. He truly does not care about foreign policy; he wants out of Iraq and Afghanistan because he views it as imperialism and because he wants to downsize the military in order to pay for new entitlements. I want us out of foreign entanglements too; but not because I want more socialism.
carnot| 9.27.10 @ 6:48PM
may be closer to the truth.
Mattled| 9.27.10 @ 10:30AM
Odingo is not running in 2012. Axelrod leaving to run re-election campaign? Hardly. He's leaving to run Rahm's election campaign. Odoogie was never going to run again. He will step aside for another historic "first" (woman president---Hillary).
After he announces he is not running, every lying media outlet will go into overdrive touting how unselfish he is. Then Odingo will blame Republicans for not getting anything done and those racists ran him out of Washington forcing him not to run. He will be called Mr. president all his life, Secret Service all his life, special travel, vacation for life, and will collect all the money he is owed for all the handouts---unions, unions, unions, trial lawyers, Soros, Muslims and Petrobas (among others---feel free to add).
Hey---he earned it I guess by running and winning the WH. So be it---just hurry up and leave.
The MSM will be the only ones praising him for life----just like they do Carter. The only difference is Carter is in better health.
Anthony| 9.27.10 @ 2:45PM
An interesting senerio Mattled. It's very possible that Obozo will become the first black Jimmy Carter.
Yes, he and Michelle Antoinette will become the king and queen of the UN, and as such, they will replace this woman that the UN has recently appointed to act as liaison with Extraterrestrials.
If the Obozo's agree to accompany the extraterrestrials back to Uranus, we will agree to the building of a mosque anywhere there, and the MSM can accompany them to observe.
John Samford| 9.27.10 @ 10:39AM
Babbin is wrong losing in Afghanistan. When the Taliban is chasing POTUS around with UAV's we will be losing. Until then we are not.
While the argument can be made that we are not winning, Kissinger's saying that the guerrilla wins if they don't lose is wrong. Guerrillas have goals and objectives also. Unlike the establishment they are fighting they must accomplish those goals to win. The establishment just has to survive. Heinz had it exactly backwards. Not even a man as brilliant as Dr. K is right all of the time. Look how often Churchill tried the 'soft underbelly' of Europe. He was wrong every time and never learned from any of those experiences. Great men have blind spots too.
Winter is coming in the 'stan. In winter the edge in technology held by the USA gives us a tremendous military advantage. It is possible Petraeus can force the Islamic terrorists off the battlefield in the 'stan.
That just means they will move someplace else. If this administration was serious about fighting this war, they would get ready for that move. I assure you the terrs are.
duffy| 9.27.10 @ 10:46AM
*war president in waiting? think about this from every angle and there's only one candidate that would b
Falcon 78 in Northern Virginia| 9.27.10 @ 10:54AM
For all the 'generals' who signed the very publicized document supporting Obama in the campaign--how's that Obama guy working for you? Colin Powell obviously supported Obama because he was black--pretty well had to on principle, but he (like others) threw out every semblance of judgment they would have used to decide what officers to promote in the military, and elected Obama in a beauty pageant rather than a job interview. Ask those same generals now who signed the letter--How's that Obama guy working out for you? Let's see what they say.
duffy| 9.27.10 @ 10:56AM
(cont.) that would be unbeatable in '12 . he would have be appealed to on the basis of his sworn oath to defend the constitution overriding fealty to his commander in chief.
Charles Cipolla| 9.27.10 @ 11:24AM
There is an overarching theme to all of the anti-Obama comments on pretty much every political article I see these days.
Rep=Good and Dem=Bad. This is much too simple to be the answer to our problems. Please don't be stupid.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Americans soured on the wars and Democrats are just taking political advantage of the shift. If the situation had been reversed and we were bogged down in the Balkans after 9 years of a war initiated under a President(Dem) the Republicans would be doing the same thing.
You all seem to forget that these are ALL politicians we are talking about. They (Rep/Dem/Ind) simply do what they think will help their bottom line.
George W. Bush to his credit, sought to finish the job he started and paid a huge political price.
Our men and women in harms way are simply pawns in the politician's scheme to pander to fickle Americans.
We Americans have a very short attention span and the thousands of troops that have been killed or wounded or will so in the next few years, did so in vain. There can and will be no Victory unless it can be achieved in a very short period of time. That time has long passed.
Any enemy of the United States knows that they can wait us out and eventually we will tire of the distraction and fold up our tent. A few years is all we got. This has been true since the 60's.
The wars are lost. Not because of Obama, or the Democrats. They are only a symptom of the larger disease. The wars are lost because we Americans have found other distractions more worthy of our attention. Lindsey Lohan comes to mind.
If we as a nation were honest with ourselves, we would cut our losses now. Instead, when congress changes hands again next year, the Republicans will support our troops by extending the mission until Lindsey Lohan has a relapse.
This is also true of our collectivist government. We collectively have ourselves to blame. Clearly enough Americans want a nanny state or the Democrats wouldn't be pandering to them. Educate yourself and then try to inform/persuade others.
And no, ranting about Obama on some comment board or to your facebook doesn't count.
Siegfried X| 9.27.10 @ 2:31PM
"We Americans have a very short attention span and the thousands of troops that have been killed or wounded or will so in the next few years, did so in vain"
I must disagree. The problem is that not with the American people (nor with the soldiers and Marines who fought bravely), but with the way the last two Presidents and their generals managed the wars, and especially how they communicated about them.
In many ways managing a war should be like managing any other project: the people should be told how long the war is going to take, what the strategy is to win it, and what milestones will show that we are making progress towards our targets. If generals are unable to accomplish what they promised, they should be replaced. If the battle plan is failing, then a new one should be chosen and announced.
Is Afghanistan any better today than shortly after the Taliban collapsed? If not, then why hasn't someone taken blame and said was done wrong?
Siegfried X| 9.27.10 @ 2:41PM
I'll make up an imaginary example to prove my point that the American people are NOT unwilling to fight a long war.
Imagine that shortly after the initial liberation of Afghanistan President Bush had announced that it would take 20 years to fully pacify that country. And imagine he said that we would on average pacify 5% of Afghanistan in a measurable and verifiable way each year.
Further imagine that today, nine years into the war, everyone agreed that we were about half way finished with the war, with just under half of Afghanistan restructured as we promised.
If all of that happened, would the American people be saying "Get out because we are tired of waiting"?
The answer is "No, obviously not". What citizens are saying is that we've been fighting nine years with only very limited progress, and they are looking for a plan to win the war. It is unacceptable to just send troops over without a plan for winning. We should be told why the War in Afghanistan is necessary in order to defend ourselves, and we should be told how we are going to win.
Nunya| 9.28.10 @ 11:37AM
Amen. Fight to win, or don't fight at all. That is the only decision to make.
chris haynes| 9.27.10 @ 11:50AM
Who is more incompetent?
The generals who didnt have an exit plan or the President who didnt fire them?
Petreus, who has been talking about the next generation of cannon fodder, or the President who doesnt fire him?
Fredrick Ward| 9.29.10 @ 9:57PM
The only exit plan that a general should have is the one that comes after conquering the enemy. However, if the general does not have the support of his own administration then it is impossible to do naught but watch your men die needless, and pointless, deaths while waiting for the jerks to pull them out.
Perusha| 9.27.10 @ 12:15PM
Jed, Jed, Jed. I’ve been a fan of you for years, but with this heart felt blast of Obama concerning Iraq and Afghanistan seems to me to be over the top, and contains some totally foolish statements.
First, you claim Iraq “will have been lost” and that things will also turn out for the worse in Afghanistan.
I’ll give you the benefit of a polemicist’s need to over exaggerate, but, absolutely, of course, neither you nor I “knows” what will happen in the future = the unknown.
Also, what is the definition of “failure”?
I’m pretty sure I know what you mean, but you know what? Maybe there’s a longer perspective we can apply to this white hot war of the moment.
If mankind avoids falling into utter chaos, brought on by either natural disaster---dinosaur wipe out like---or the final tipping point leading us into WW III, and America remains free and strong, there is a bright way to understand all the present day assumed “failures”.
I served in Vietnam, so, without a doubt, ever since departing that benighted land, and kissing the runway when landing in the USA, I’ve been a careful student of all things written and said about the subject.
CW says we failed there, but that is doubly false. First, WE were gone when the north conquered the south, so how could WE have lost? Too, it was the Democrats in congress who failed to pay for the south’s defense, so if anyone “failed”, it was the progenitors of today’s anti-war and anti-defend-America leftists, epitomized by Obama.
Secondly, the willingness of America to sacrifice so many precious warriors and so much hard earned money for so long, in that assumed “domino”, DID result in a successful outcome, for all the other “dominoes” that DID NOT fall. After the debacle in Cambodia, southeast Asia was awakened to the threat of totalitarianism as evidenced by what Ho Chi Min brought on, and the latter’s wannabe followers around that part of the world were held in check, while the Asia “tigers” got on with their economic successes.
So, perhaps, under the radar and ignored by CW news, much the same kind of thing is happening as America at least FIGHTS in such poor places in the Middle East as Iraq and Afghanistan. In this regard, remember that old silly movie with Peter Sellers, “The Mouse That Roared”?
Yes, reality IS stranger than fiction, or life imitates, or both! Anyone who isn’t blind and deaf can easily understand the following thought experiment---
Take any human alive right now, even including the most committed (insane?) guys like the top growling dogs in Iran and China, and imagine them having lived two lives, one as a successful American and the other as their real one, and then being given the choice of one or the other. You know, two forks of parallel lives meet, sort of the inverse of a branching of the evolutionary tree. Well, since people eschew pain and desire pleasure, it is obvious what sane people would do.
And, so, as the Internet and social media etc spreads the real truth about the freedom still extant in America, despite the death dealing subversives like Obama and his other third world loser infiltrators, isn’t it apparent that we might be on the verge of a Great Awakening, for the entire human race?
One of the arrows in our “defend the rightness of America” quiver is the shafting point, that people from all over the Earth want to COME here, and as many as can DO!
Well, could it be that, since everyone can’t possibly do that, instead, with the spreading of America’s lucky economic and political freedom Reality as a FACT into the awareness of more and more heretofore brainwashed “others”, what will happen is that a growing number of people will EFFECTIVELY move here, by staying in place?
That is, the IDEA that is America, epitomized in her brilliant founding documents, IS washing through the noospheric realm, and THAT is the ongoing and almost unstoppable “success” we are still not seeing.
Think about this---despite the best = worst efforts of the supreme leftists in D.C., in both the political and the economical dimensions, America is still standing, and even with 10% official unemployment, there still exists a solid basis for a quick turnaround, if only a large enough majority of people are able to throw the killer bums out and replace them with American WINNERS.
As a 68-year-old “senior citizen”, I always wondered what it was like to live through the Great Depression, and how, if it was so bad, my mother had a job in an insurance agency the whole time. Now I can grasp the greatness of this country.
Ever the critic, the parasitical media ALWAYS have to sell bad news! So, we forget that even in the 30’s, some 80% of the country had jobs. And, NOW?
Ninety percent of us are still working and producing quite enough to keep the American experiment going, and the bad news is truly only recently getting to a point of no return. By 2020, supposedly 75% of us will be either obese or overweight!
Now, that is the next WAR, America! I hope I live long enough to be able to witness the following---when this happens, “overweight” could become the new norm, and this ruling class of fatsos will get on the case of their obese brethren, admonishing them to get back to being “normal” and ONLY overweight!
Kung Fu| 9.27.10 @ 2:06PM
"As a 68-year-old “senior citizen”, I always wondered what it was like to live through the Great Depression..."
Patience, Grasshopper, ....patience.
Thom| 9.27.10 @ 3:16PM
Perusha, a small bone to pick there. If a COP is called to a street fight where two gang members are beating one smaller guy to death with ball bats, intervenes and saves the guys life does the COP have any responsibilities to deal with the aggressors or is just driving them off and out of sight around the corner of the nearest building all that is required of the COP? After 10 minutes the guy on the ground seems to be recovering and the COP remembers he has an important date at the local donut shop across town and his shift if just about up so he leaves the guy figuring he will be ok. The next morning that same COP reads in the paper that the same guy was found beaten to death an hour after the COP left the scene. Does this COP have any moral responsibility for what happened after he left the scene? Under our laws he certainly does not have any legal responsibilities.
The point here is that that COP is this Nation and we volunteered to save the smaller guy in this scenario and then walked away when it was the end of our shift. We’ve got 58,000 valid reasons on a wall in Washington DC why you don’t just step into a fight like this and then just walk away when the thugs disappear around the corner of the nearest building. The US military, composed of mainly my generation won every major engagement including TET 69 but not once went on the offensive in all the years we were there. Not once did we seek out and destroy the enemy wherever or whenever we could. Not once did we seek to destroy the enemy’s will, means to continue to fight or deprive them of sanctuaries from which to retreat and rebuild after everyone of their offensives. My generation did what was asked of it but we were never asked to “win” and naturally we did not win. If our military won that war as you seem to think then why did the bulk of the military spend the next decade soul searching how to rebuild it reputation and moral after what you call a “win”. Vietnam and Korea share a lot in common but the important part is that we lost both in military terms and have tried every which possible to turn a military defeat into a political win. It doesn’t work, never will. A free and prosperous Korea and Vietnam were the missions Perusha or the victims we let down just as the COP did above.
Perusha| 9.27.10 @ 6:54PM
Thom,
Do you think I'm happy with the outcome in Vietnam? Hell NO!
As you note, mostly due to the successful efforts of liberals, America wasn't able to use as much power as needed, and so "lost" the war, which was indeed terrible for the people in that region.
So, of course, I much regret this "failure", and would have preferred a complete victory, so that Vietnam became one, with the South absorbing the North. Same same in Korea!
However, given this didn't happen, we all have to live and learn from what DID follow from the fall of the South.
Just imagine what would have happened if the USA had NOT stood up for freedom in Korea and Vietnam. Nature abhors a vacuum, so bad old Mao Tse Tung and Joe Stalin and their ilk would have surely flooded troops into every vulnerable "country" in SE Asia, leaving Japan and Australia quite ripe for takeover, themselves.
So, in this counter factual sense, despite the fact---(or, rather, because) 58,000 in Vietnam and many thousands of us in Korea died, the result could have been much worse.
In my view, all those who fought, were wounded, or died did NOT serve and suffer their "fate" in vain. In fact, it's always the truly good who do so, and we are ever faced with getting through the aftermath of so much hell, what with so many people who did NOT even serve eventually getting into power.
Picture myriad clones of Ted Kennedy, after getting away with causing that poor woman to drown, running the country---THAT'S our current problem!
Thom| 9.27.10 @ 7:26PM
Perusha, I’ve never suggested or felt that doing nothing was the better alternative but the aftermath of Vietnam made us impotent as a Nation to exercise our military might when necessary effectively. I served during the “Peace with Honor” phase and the aftermath and I remember how it was right through the Iranian hostage situation and Desert One with regard to funding and effective training.
Korea set the template for Vietnam and what was a real failure of resolve by Truman was morphed into a enlighten strategy of containment which is now the new “victory” definition at the political level anyway. At the grunt level things really haven’t changed that much but repeated “political victories” that don’t resolve the matter have a very negative impact on the willingness of Americans to bear the burden of wars even when necessary.
Success breeds success and failure, well you know the drill. The French haven’t won a meaningful military contest since June 16th, 1815 and the outcome of the 18th of June of that same year in now engrained in their blood and best practices. They don’t know what victory is any longer and can’t be counted on as allies as a result. The Germans seem to have caught that disease too.
I would never ever say there weren’t positives to Korea and Vietnam but there were positives from Gallipoli and the British contributions of same on the first day of the Somme too. No one wants to repeat those lessons thus my sole point here is that the lessons of Korea and Vietnam from a military point of view is overwhelmingly negative, not positive. The little stuff matters to the people who lived through it and to the relatives of those that died. The big stuff is what harms this nation as a whole and that is my overarching concern here. Afghanistan could easily become a “mini” Korea/Vietnam thing because too many people running the show think the outcomes of both Korea and Vietnam were acceptable at the margins.
They were not.
james wilson| 9.27.10 @ 12:32PM
It is not that lessons were not learned in Vietnam. They were. It is that they have been forgotten.
Dixie Pixie| 9.27.10 @ 12:38PM
Given Bob Woodward's veneration of the Democratic Party and his outright adulation of Democratic Party leadership, why should anyone consider anything he wrote anywhere close to reality.
Woodward's methodology is to flatter those who give him information and disparage those who don’t.
This methodology guarantees the resulting reporting will be biased and the information hopelessly distorted.
I was not surprised the White House liked the book. Woodward wrote just what the White House wanted Woodward to write.
Woodward is a firm believer in the concept of what he writes will become political reality as he is writing the “First Draft of History” Of course the White House wants that reality to be a Democratic reality.
Bill from WV| 9.27.10 @ 12:54PM
Of course he does not think in of war in the "Traditional "sense of winning or loosing?
Is this man an idiot? If you are going to stay in a war, you'd damned well be willing ti win it! Obviuously, the Democrats are slow to learn from from but quick to repeat the history of Lyndon Johnson and the Viet Nam experience of fighting a war with your generals hands tied! Not willing to "win"!
Rear Admiral Blowhard| 9.27.10 @ 2:11PM
I just finished taking quite a refreshing DOD course entitled, "Fighting the Next War with a Transgendered, Feminized, Islamic, and Marxist Military. The course was conducted by Van Jones. It was primairly for field grade officers. The afternoon seminar went into the many ways a commanding officer can negociate surrender.Van Jones invited a large number of French officers to conduct that particular course work. Like I said, it was quite refreshing.
Paul Milenkovic| 9.27.10 @ 3:53PM
Maybe this book, for now, is a "win-win" for both the Left and Right in America. The Right reads into this the utter unseriousness of Mr. Obama and the Left reads into it as Mr. Obama being the champion of their world view.
The real damage this book will do to Mr. Obama is 5, 10, maybe 20 years into the future.
Anthony| 9.27.10 @ 1:59PM
Obozo recently opined that the unspecified "they" "treat him like a dog". Having reflected on our empty suit's comments, I have concluded that Obozo is correct.
The "they" however, are the liberal elite establishment, that treat all Blacks as wards of the state, to be controled, minipulated,
and thrown the occasional bone.
Obozo has spent his adult life like the family dog of the Left. He is loved without conditions, he's pampered and adored. All that is required is that he show up, no heavy lifting is required, he gets loving compliments simply by showing up and performing the standard leftist's tricks.
It's really no wonder that Obozo is a complete failure as a president. Achievement and success have never been part of any quid pro quo to get to where he has gotten. He looks good and obeys his leftist master's commands without hesitation.
Obozo's war record reflects this inability to act on behalf of America. He is to committed to a philosophy that will endanger America and the troops. He employs his master's cynical political machinations that will only result in getting more brave American men and woman killed.
It's time America pulled on his leash and sent both he and his masters packing.
NavyBrat | 9.27.10 @ 2:26PM
This is simple. There's a wall with 58,000 names in DC that stands as a testimony to what happens when we let politicians run wars. My Dad was on the Saratoga in the Tonkin Gulf in '72. He had friends who flew off that boat & never came back. The first, and one of the ONLY times, I saw my Dad cry is when he went to that wall & touched the names of his lost shipmates. He looked at me & said, "Sonny Boy, its a damned shame they didn't build this thing to face Congress." With THIS bozo at the helm, I can only pray that we won't have to erect another wall to the monumental stupidity of fighting a "PC" war.
Steve A| 9.27.10 @ 2:34PM
Does anyone know if the ROE have changed in Afghanistan since Patraeus took over & troop surge?? thanks
NavyBrat | 9.27.10 @ 3:00PM
Not that I'm aware of.
Thom| 9.27.10 @ 3:23PM
Steve, the ROE has been changed somewhat. There is one less lawyer involved in every call for fire support and air power is allowed if it only involves gun fire with non toxic ammo. There is a rumor that even that is limited if there is the possibility of a Koran being within 500 meters because of concern one might catch fire..... all is is the same. Both arms are still required to be tied behind the back of our guys in every engagement.
Emma| 9.27.10 @ 2:54PM
The comments thread actually does contain references to Bush's responsibility in setting up things so they were just toooooo hard for poor Baaawwwwwy. Un.be.liev.a.ble. These people must be drowning in the koolaid.
RCV| 9.27.10 @ 6:00PM
So, Emma, give us your enlightened analysis of the Bush performance in Afghanistan. Please.
carnot| 9.27.10 @ 6:57PM
he drove the Taliban out. Obama is bringing them back.
RCV| 9.27.10 @ 10:36PM
He drove the Taliban out, and then let them come back in and take over large swaths of the country he virtually abandoned due to his distraction in Iraq.
Siegfried X| 9.27.10 @ 3:16PM
"It is bizarre and revealing that the White House is supportive of Woodward's book"
Are they? Or did the White House just decide to spin whatever Woodward released? Given how much access Woodward was given, I don't see what else Obama could have done.
Mojo Risin| 9.27.10 @ 3:37PM
Yep, 'Community Organizing' is the overriding criterion for Obonehead's philosophy on America's defense. Who feels secure???
Douglas| 9.27.10 @ 4:02PM
You said, "was it insubordination? Probably so." It absolutely was not. You can disagree all day long and move people to your cause and speak your mind until told to shutup. It seems that's all they did.
They are also responsible to their troops in the field and the constitution of the US. They have to guard those responsibilities which are sometimes at odds with what obama is trying to do.
Thom| 9.27.10 @ 4:35PM
Regarding “generals” revolts, I think the Truman/MacArthur situation will bear more comparison to King Obama’s war strategy here ultimately. Korea and Afghanistan have a lot in common, both the battlefield and the conflicts. Both are mountainous and rugged places to operate in. Neither lends themselves to massed formations of troops moving over ground. Neither supports large scale mechanized formations which is our strength. Korea was limited in seaboard support due to having only two ports in the South, the northern most one was overrun early on. Afghanistan is completely land locked with very few and limited land routes in for supplies. A great deal has to be flown in using the most expensive means of transportation per pound available. All this makes both places difficult for ground based maneuver warfare which is also our strength. The general high altitude of much of Afghanistan makes the use of the bulk of our helicopter born forces unavailable. All these battlefield factors brings the fight down to more of our infantry forces against their irregular infantry forces which we would win if there was a front line like we had in Korea. We really don’t have that kind of battlefield in Afghanistan thus it will take a lot more of our people to defend against Taliban attacks then it would otherwise take in a stand up conventional fight and of course the Taliban know this and choose to fight in civilian clothes to compound this even more.
History has been very kind to Harry Truman but the facts of his presidency differ quite a bit from the myths that have grown up around him just as has happened with FDR. It should be remembered that Harry won the 1948 election, the first time he actually ran for President, by a hair. What possibly could have Harry done between 1945 after winning WWII and the 1948 election to have half the people vote against him? By the time he left office in 1953 his approval rating was down to 22%. If Harry Truman was half the man that legend purports him to be and the man who famously said the “buck stops here” meaning the White House and “him”, then the historical record and they myths are out of synch a bit. The number 38,000 comes to mind.
In a couple of ways Harry and King Obama share some traits that bear on the current conflict in Afghanistan than no student of military history would want to repeat. Harry Truman rushed into a conflict he had neither the forces for nor willingness to follow through on. MacArthur saved his behind at Inchon and turned a route of the South Korean and US forces into a route for the North Koreans. Any competent “general” will strive for “victory” over an enemy so the sacrifice of his men is not in vain and he does not have to face the same threat again. Politicians in uniform have a different set of priorities and the men in their command are way down that list. When 300-400 thousand Communist Chinese sneaked across the Yalu river to save their Communist brothers in the south without being “detected” the balance of power on the battlefield turned into a stalemate or war of attrition and the man who dropped two atomic bombs on Japan and would have a third without blinking an eye punted that buck to the UN command and allowed Korea to end up being remembered for us “losing it” rather than “winning” it. It is called the “forgotten war” because we lost and did not resolve the matter we volunteered for. That is what got Truman the 22% approval rating and MacArthur remembered as a hero. MacArthur’s public insubordination cost him his job but the bulk of the public backed his desire to finish the job so that our sacrifice would not be in vain. Truman had every right to fire him under our system of government but Truman would have went down to massive defeat had he been able to run for reelection in 1952 as FDR had three times before. He would have been fired for his incompetence as a Commander and Chief.
Enter King Obama who ran on making Afghanistan the “just war” and the proper place to be. Enter his handpicked first General “Grant” Gen. Stanley McChrystal who was undercut by the President and his staff every which way possible until he had enough and followed MacArthur’s route. King Obama’s next “Grant” is an open question at this point since I don’t think he or any competent “general” can work miracles in Afghanistan between now and next summer and King Obama plans to take this matter off the table before his reelection bid in 2012, the consequences to the Afghan people and those that have died to fill his chest of vanity be damned. Before King Obama made this his Waterloo, the strategy had been to just conduct a “holding action” or “rear guard” until more forces were available to conduct offensive operations on a wider scale outside of Afghanistan. Like Korea, Vietnam and now Afghanistan if all you intend to do is circle the wagons and not make offensive war against the enemy where every and whenever you can find them you should expect to ultimately lose such a contest. By all rights there should be two monuments in Washington DC to commemorate our lost “conflicts” not one.
Seems to me we are going to stimulate the economy with more monuments to incompetent Commander and Chiefs.
RCV| 9.27.10 @ 5:58PM
The notion that the US would have been better off had we taken MacArthur's advice on Korea rather than Truman's is too frightening even to take seriously. Had we dropped an atomic bomb or two on China to deter further Chinese "volunteers", we would have gotten American troops into a ground war in Asia that would have made Vietnam look like a cake walk and the result would not have been pretty. China had millions of citizens imbued with revolutionary fervor at the time, more than willing to overrun the Korean peninsula. Had we attacked the Chinese mainland as MacArthur so recklessly proposed, we would have unleased a new world war at a time when our allies in Europe were hardly in a position to help us, and the Soviets could have used the opportunity to overrun West Germany as well with little fear of a massive US response. What a foolish notion.
Thom| 9.27.10 @ 6:32PM
RCV, I didn’t endorse anything MacArthur said or may have said, I merely pointed out that it was Truman’s decision to jump into something he could not handle and 38,000 American service men died for nothing in the grand scheme of things because he didn’t have the courage to follow through on his decision. As for the Chinese Army over running the Korean peninsula well not really. You apparently haven’t taken a real detailed look at their losses in that war and they tried repeatedly to push us off what became the DMZ with overwhelming advantages in numbers and failed with massive losses every time. How is a nuclear weapon’s use and say 100,000 less massed Chinese Communist troops going to improve upon that? What are they going to do better? Triple down on massed human wave attacks shoulder to shoulder across the Peninsula? They kind of did that repeatedly.
I don’t endorse the use of nuclear weapons in this situation because we had the conventional power to get the job done but refused to use it. That’s a political decision not a military decision. The numerically inferior Imperial Japanese Army wiped the ground up with the Chinese Army for most of 9 years they were in China and we wiped the ground up with the Japanese Army from Guadalcanal on. By 1945 the Japanese Army was losing 6-10 to 1 against us. If you want to win a war you don’t let the other side choose the place, time and method of attacks. That is precisely what we did which is why we lost and the victor in that mess has nuclear weapons today and just might use them in desperation.
MacArthur at least understood you finish the fight and don’t engage in half assed wars of attrition like some chess game. He was as much a politican as Truman don't take everything he said in public as the true measure of his thoughts. He wanted to win; Truman only understood politics and wanted to cut his losses after making a series of very bad half assed decisions. He only to not lose but we did anyway.
If the most powerful military force left standing after WWII can’t kick the Chinese Communist back across the Yalu river after 9 years of getting slaughtered by Japanese then it is because someone high up in the command structure decided to not win hence 38,000 dead and the Communist still hold the ground 60 years later.
RCV| 9.27.10 @ 10:34PM
Our servicemen hardly "died for nothing". They preserved the independence and relative freedom of the Republic of South Korea, which has developed into one of the most dynamic and prosperous democracies in the world. I'm proud of what we accomplished.
RCV| 9.27.10 @ 10:59PM
I'm also proud that I support the islamic people in their struggle to be free of the racist imperialists, so that they may worship the one true god in peace. I love our muslim president.
RCV| 9.27.10 @ 11:05PM
Obviously not my post. It's past three, and junior high is out.
Don| 9.27.10 @ 10:29PM
Trying to argue that Obama is an adequate Commander in Chief is a weaker argument than one that Obama is an adequate President! He is a community organizer, and we have absolute proof now!
Colin Foy| 9.28.10 @ 4:18PM
To understand this prec-ident and his administration you have to apply Orwellian/Saul Alinsky rules of logic and application. These two undeclared and unconstitutional wars have achieved the main objective of the one world, UN-american traitors who run this country.
Which was to bankrupt this nation, enslave us and future generations with foreign debt and give republican chicken hawks and liberal chickens an opportunity to both bitch and sound jingoistic at the same time.
I am amazed that there hasn't been an attempted military Coup D'eta, then again the military is run by gutless yes men (With the exception of the wonderful USMC and look at what D-Sec Gates is trying to do to them) chosen by the loons in congress, who have been thoroughly corrupted and neutered by political correctness and liberal thought control.
What's happening to this country has been quietly building over the last 100+ years and was put into hyper-drive by the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama cabal. A pox on all their houses.
chris haynes| 9.28.10 @ 4:40PM
Come on. Were not in Afghanistan because of a grand conspiracy. We're there for domestic politics. President Obama is just trying to avoid it blowing up in his face. Otherwise he could care less.
The only political leader who could afford to get us out would be a perceived warmonger like McCain. I mean, who would yell if he said time to quit.
But a liberal political leader would be blamed for being weak when our friends were beheaded, the schools burned down, and if terrorists attacked anywhere. So its safer, by far, for the President to kick the can down the road. You send over 100,000 lifers, either gung-ho or looking for a pension, and pay for it with a few more billion from China. You dont win, you dont lose. you manage it. What professional political leaders do all the time.
csnarnia| 9.28.10 @ 8:58PM
Well as history shows...it is the Democrats, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy/Johnson who are the war presidents. War is perhaps Obama's only way to save his hold on the Whitehouse...Obama will not go away quietly.
Robert Gilbert| 9.29.10 @ 6:08AM
How can it not be criminal to set a firm deadline for withdrawal from Afghanistan while continuing to send our sons and daughters for no more worthy objective than covering Obama's political ass? If we're not there to win, we need to be out.
Oldefarte| 9.29.10 @ 11:58AM
Let me put this situation in basic terms. This country's COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF is nothing more than a community organizing STREET MERCHANT with a Harvard law degree.This translates into total incompetency or ineptness. Additionally, due to his radically extreme liberalism, he [like Clinton previously] wants to gut the military/intelligence network and its governmental funding in order to have more funding for his domestic share-the-wealth theft-agenda. The truly sad part of all of this is that probably large numbers of our military personnel in the middle east are going to be killed/injured because of his policies/decisions. WAKE UP and VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
china elscooter green | 11.21.10 @ 10:07AM
we supply Electric bike,Electric motorcycle,Electric scooter, ,mobility scooter, mobility, scooter,with EEC DOT approval with 2000w 3000w ,200W,500w 1000w 1500w 5000w motor
Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 6:25AM
If you are confused, dear reader, take comfort in the fact that you are no more so than our president.