"Obama should fire generals who spoke out on Afghan surge"

[JackLuis]

By the way, the FBI isn't permitted, by law, from operating overseas just as the CIA is forbidden to operate in the Zone Interior. Now you understand why killing the jihadi's at a distance appeals to so many?

I guess that's why every embassy I've ever seen overseas has a FBI contingent as well as the "Cultural Integration Attache".

I have no problem killing jahhadis at a distance. Like we are doing in Yemen right now. It appears that the Yememies have realized that if they don't clean their own house, the Jehadies will unseat their government.

I say we just tell the Afghans and the Iraqi's that we are going home and if we see that they are back to attacking us, we will send our Air Force to end their obstruction.

Of course bombing the Afghani's back to the stone age won't take too many bombs.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I guess that's why every embassy I've ever seen overseas has a FBI contingent as well as the "Cultural Integration Attache".

I have no problem killing jahhadis at a distance. Like we are doing in Yemen right now. It appears that the Yememies have realized that if they don't clean their own house, the Jehadies will unseat their government.

I say we just tell the Afghans and the Iraqi's that we are going home and if we see that they are back to attacking us, we will send our Air Force to end their obstruction.

Of course bombing the Afghani's back to the stone age won't take too many bombs.

The FBI is in embassies to interact with foreign law enforcement services. Unless there was a change under Dubya, they aren't allowed to investigate without invitation. And I don't think there was. The CIA would throw tantrums.

 

[rgraham666]

War is always going to be big business until we learn that murder shouldn't be an industry.

~Paul

One of the problems with war being an industry is that it makes violence a more attractive proposition. When profit can be made from going to war it makes a war more likely.

Since war 'adds value' it becomes a good thing, rather than the last thing to be done.

 

[JackLuis]

Given these points, do you think that the next presidential candidate will run on an isolationism policy? I would, if I were campaigning. I think that a "fix our own house first" platform would do wonders if the right message got across.

Kind of like "feed our tired and hungry and homeless before sending foreign aid"

of course, that could backfire pretty easily as well, compromising our image of generosity. Thoughts?

(As long as Palin's not on board, I'm at least 50% happier)

I don't think that isolationism is in the cards. Minding our own business and dealing with the domestic threats to our country doesn't mean that we would ignore the world. There are a lot of places we can deal with in a diplomatic way.

Ah Sgt. W. you raise an interesting point. Now that Sarah is a "personality" and working the rubber chicken circuit I think she is out of politics for good. Even the Repugnicans want her raising hell not running for office. She's too easy a target, even Couric with softballs was too much for her to make sense.

Now if we can just do something about Liberman.

 

[JackLuis]

The FBI is in embassies to interact with foreign law enforcement services. Unless there was a change under Dubya, they aren't allowed to investigate without invitation. And I don't think there was. The CIA would throw tantrums.

I have no problem with the FBI cooperating with the foreign police, that's how it should be done. They can also pass the hint that if the perp's aren't caught there might just be an unexplained explosion or four or six. Just cause they are Foreign don't mean they are stupid.

Yeah the CIA is big on tantrums. If I was CinC, they would be screaming bloody murder when I cut off the Drug money.

 

[Guest]

I don't think that isolationism is in the cards. Minding our own business and dealing with the domestic threats to our country doesn't mean that we would ignore the world. There are a lot of places we can deal with in a diplomatic way.

Well, throwing money at it doesn't help, throwing soldiers at it doesn't help, and dropping bombs on it doesn't help. Sanctions are for countries that haven't discovered the joys of international shipping, and that really only leaves diplomacy. Diplomacy is, to me, akin to standing a child in a corner and telling them why they're wrong. It works, but only if both parties care.

I think that the solution to Iran is to punish the countries furnishing them their supplies, and turning them into a pariah. Just an example.

Ah Sgt. W. you raise an interesting point. Now that Sarah is a "personality" and working the rubber chicken circuit I think she is out of politics for good. Even the Repugnicans want her raising hell not running for office. She's too easy a target, even Couric with softballs was too much for her to make sense.

Now if we can just do something about Liberman.

I hope Palin's career tanks quickly. I'm tired of her.

 

[JackLuis]

I think throwing money at the Banks and not taking equity and a place on the board is just as bad.

Banks that are "too big to fail" should be broken up periodically, and Goldman Sac's should be the first to be fragmented.

I think Iran will be just fine, as soon as their revolution heats up a little more. Just let the Imman keep reacting the way he is and it will be Civil War time in Iran. We don't even have to say anything nasty. The Asshole In charge is doing God's work for us.

So it takes them a year or two to get it started, it costs us nothing to just make compassionate noises and drive the old man crazy. He doesn't have far to go.

 

[Epmd607]

I don't even know what to say about the OP or the Afghan surge. I think it's against everything Obama ran his campaign on for nomination and for president. We'll be in Afghanistan until it's acceptable letting the Former Northern Alliance and Taliban tear the country apart again. There are no positive native forces in Afghanistan, there's no one that wants a cooperative government. in Iraq I can almost imagine a cooperative republican style government, but that's a long way off. We'll be in Iraq for another ten years at least. When you think about it the first Gulf War never ended, cuz in '98 or whenever it was routine for Clinton to bomb the shit out of some Iraqi infrastructure, the re-escalation of a limited war. These same guys were flying in 91, 96, 99, and 03 over Iraqi air space, 'no fly zone' which basically covered 1/4 -1/3 of the country.

 

[Guest]

Forcing countries into a corner has never succeeded as policy as far as I can tell. Open trade, symbiotic economic relationships are the only way I know of preventing war. When your economies are so tied up in each other, like US and China, you aren't going to risk sinking your own economy over just any old slight or traditional alliance. Ending sanctions against Iran, N. Korea, whatever they're still doing to Cuba, and getting these countries in the global market will do much more than whatever diplomacy they try. Diplomacy didn't open up China, money flowing in, goods flowing out is what took China out of their self-imposed isolation.\

They're really basic things we can do, like accepting that Iran can have nuke power and even nuke weapons. N. Korea most likely has nukes and ways to deliver them. We could always end the Korean War and pull our guys out. China is in a better position to lean on N. Korea anyway.

As far as ending sanctions on North Korea, we need to leave that one alone. Their entire country is crumbling brick by brick. They don't have the infrastructure to run an attack against anyone these days. When you look across the DMZ, they don't even have power in most of their homes. Like not even generators.

They're going to crumble and the people are going to revolt before they can get a competent supply chain up to force an attack. China doesn't really even need to lean on them. If they attacked, their people are so desperate for food they would raid the supply lines themselves.

Cuba I agree with you about.

I don't even know what to say about the OP or the Afghan surge. I think it's against everything Obama ran his campaign on for nomination and for president. We'll be in Afghanistan until it's acceptable letting the Former Northern Alliance and Taliban tear the country apart again. There are no positive native forces in Afghanistan, there's no one that wants a cooperative government. in Iraq I can almost imagine a cooperative republican style government, but that's a long way off. We'll be in Iraq for another ten years at least. When you think about it the first Gulf War never ended, cuz in '98 or whenever it was routine for Clinton to bomb the shit out of some Iraqi infrastructure, the re-escalation of a limited war. These same guys were flying in 91, 96, 99, and 03 over Iraqi air space, 'no fly zone' which basically cover 1/4 -1/3 of the country.

I have an opinion piece (separate) that I can PM you on this topic (well, that and contractors)

 

[Epmd607]

...


I have an opinion piece (separate) that I can PM you on this topic (well, that and contractors)

The idea of Afghanistan still blows my mind. It's nothing but pretend, saying there's a plan and idea for transforming it. We went there to blow up Al Qaeda infrastructure and now we have to pretend like we're building a new civil society. You could get in trouble for talking about this stuff on the Internet. I really don't want to get too into it because it's just so mind boggling, it being 2010 and we're still running the operation like it's 2002.

 

[JackLuis]

The idea of Afghanistan still blows my mind. --

we're still running the operation like it's 2002.

This is want comes of setting up a separate "Command Structure" for an area, particularly an active area.

First you need a Commanding General and then his staff and their support, then a political Officer needs to be included. Of course they need to be protected so there's a Brigade for Security and two for maneuver. "Don't let the situation get out of hand, we're gon'a subdue that heathen, Saddam Hussein."

The next thing you know the pitiful resources you provided can't handle the mess you left them in and you'd look like a fool if you withdraw, but it costs too much to keep going, so big time thinking is to reinforce failure so you don't upset anybody, and then say, "We're leaving in 18 months, so get your shit together Hammid."

Don't you just love Beltway Bullshit?

 

[Loring2]

Military rules and Protocol

And on the same note, I think that "Our friend Dennis K" should be voicing his objections behind closed doors as well. That's half of what is wrong with this country, people believe that they are entitled to having their opinions heard by everyone, regardless of who they are and what they do.

[/rant]

Sgt_W
You and I have talked privately and you know that my rank and Clout were probably enough so that my resignation mattered.

First the protocol , General officers can and do make political statements and are not reprimanded. Colonels & Lt. Colonels do the ' mea culpas' and partial withdrawals of intent and content. Their purpose and intent has been fulfilled.

The CINC while head of all military forces is not considered to be a Strategic or Tactical officer. No President (CINC) has ever done so successfully and few have tried, Only LBJ readily comes to mind and our present CINC show signs of trying. Big mistake if he does.

Second, any civilian can damn well say anything about the war that comes to mind. That includes members of congress. We don't have to make sense and we don't have to apologize for it and we can fight about it among ourselves and franky that's good. There are no experts except those who appoint themselves as such.

The CINC also has the final authority in that he can simply declare the war over. Finis. Noone has the authority to challenge him. Not the people, not congress. This is a Republic with charter called the Constitution. It is not a Democracy. Thank God

Truth is that as a real libertarian I subscribe to George Bernard Shaw's flippant
approach to government in that I would prefer "A sort of benevolent dictatorship with an occassional assassination"

 

[3113]

Having subjected yourself to the possibility of dying for your country (even if you served during peacetime) makes you able to understand the possibility of sending people to their deaths

Well, but certainly once a person is president they are subjecting themselves to the possibility of dying for their country, aren't they? All that secret service around them is about the fact that their lives are a risk every minute of every day that they are in office and perhaps for the rest of their lives.

Presidential assassination attempts are very real, very numerous, and even more likely and possible now than in the time of Lincoln, the first president to give his life for his country. I mean, maybe it doesn't quite count as the same, but isn't a president's life more on the line than any soldier in peace time who spends his entire tour of duty anonymously working in some state-side office?

 

[Guest]

Sgt_W
You and I have talked privately and you know that my rank and Clout were probably enough so that my resignation mattered.

Yes, and I completely respect your opinion in this matter.

First the protocol , General officers can and do make political statements and are not reprimanded. Colonels & Lt. Colonels do the ' mea culpas' and partial withdrawals of intent and content. Their purpose and intent has been fulfilled.

See, now that was something that I didn't know. It seems odd though. I guess I am not high enough up to see the political processes that go on at the General's level and for that I am grateful. I've seen a COL get his hand smacked once or twice for opening their mouth, thought the same applied one rank up.

Second, any civilian can damn well say anything about the war that comes to mind. That includes members of congress. We don't have to make sense and we don't have to apologize for it and we can fight about it among ourselves and franky that's good. There are no experts except those who appoint themselves as such.

I don't think that he should apologize for it at all, but I think that he owes it to the American people to keep the grandstanding to a minimum. I still stand by my assertion that their actions undermine the authority of the CINC. But, the ability to disagree on this is part of what makes this country great.

The CINC also has the final authority in that he can simply declare the war over. Finis. Noone has the authority to challenge him. Not the people, not congress. This is a Republic with charter called the Constitution. It is not a Democracy. Thank God

the fact that one man has the authority to end a whole was is comforting in a strange way. Frightening in another.

Truth is that as a real libertarian I subscribe to George Bernard Shaw's flippant
approach to government in that I would prefer "A sort of benevolent dictatorship with an occassional assassination"

If you don't mind, sir, I have some questions about what Libertarians actually stand for. they're a party I didn't hear about much until today.

 

[Loring2]

Fragments huh

I think throwing money at the Banks and not taking equity and a place on the board is just as bad.

Banks that are "too big to fail" should be broken up periodically, and Goldman Sac's should be the first to be fragmented.

I think Iran will be just fine, as soon as their revolution heats up a little more. Just let the Imman keep reacting the way he is and it will be Civil War time in Iran. We don't even have to say anything nasty. The Asshole In charge is doing God's work for us.

So it takes them a year or two to get it started, it costs us nothing to just make compassionate noises and drive the old man crazy. He doesn't have far to go.

I agree with you completely but the "too big to Fail" Banks and Insurance Co's, primarily AIG aren't "too big to fail". If we stop subsidizing them, and we are, they will fragment themselves.

We don't have anyone who knows how to fragment them. Certainly not Congress who knows only how to fragment itself. Anyone they appoint to do such a fragmentation would have to come from within those organizations. A recipe for disaster.

My experience says that reorganizations lead to chapter 11 anyway. Why waste the time?

 

[Guest]

Well, but certainly once a person is president they are subjecting themselves to the possibility of dying for their country, aren't they? All that secret service around them is about the fact that their lives are a risk every minute of every day that they are in office and perhaps for the rest of their lives.

Presidential assassination attempts are very real, very numerous, and even more likely and possible now than in the time of Lincoln, the first president to give his life for his country. I mean, maybe it doesn't quite count as the same, but isn't a president's life more on the line than any soldier in peace time who spends his entire tour of duty anonymously working in some state-side office?

Took me a minute and a couple rewrites to figure out what I want to say. I hope this comes out right.

When you sign up for the military, it is made very clear that you can go to war and die for your country. I joined and went almost immediately to Bosnia, where I watched a man get his head blown off in a crowd. it changed me. This, to me is an essential part of who I am and what I have to live with. I have had many many more experiences since then, and they tempered me and made me a bit less prone to kneejerk reactions. I just would like to know that my president has had at least the possibility of that before I elect him.

Still, though, it's all opinion.

 

[3113]

Took me a minute and a couple rewrites to figure out what I want to say. I hope this comes out right.

When you sign up for the military, it is made very clear that you can go to war and die for your country. I joined and went almost immediately to Bosnia, where I watched a man get his head blown off in a crowd. it changed me.

Yes, but this is not what you said. You said that even a president who'd served in the army during peace-time, never seen action, but had been willing to die for his country counted.

And I pointed out that every president is pretty much that. A man who is serving in the army during peace-time. He will likely never see action, but he is willing to die for his country because by becoming president he's putting his life in danger--and not just his. His wife, children and friends are in danger, too. He has to know this. And if someone does take a shot at him, he might well see someone's head blown off (imagine if Oswald had missed Kennedy and gotten Jackie instead--JFK would have seen his wife's head blown off--all because he had taken the office of president).

Now if you want a president to have served in a war and seen someone's head blown off, well, that's a very different criteria. There have been presidents who've seen such things, Washington, Jackson, Grant, Roosevelt (Teddy), Eisenhower, JFK. Some of them were awesome, some not so awesome as presidents. What did seeing people die in a war allow them to bring to the table that other great presidents who didn't, didn't?

 

[JackLuis]

To Loring2 and all;

I hadn't realized that Generals had the option,but I can see the Logic. I have a lot of respect for the Army Officer Corps and the traditions of the Army. I just hate to see our troops wasted on stupidity.

Yeah, seeing incoming tracers focuses your mind a good deal. But seeing your Government actively supporting a corrupt regime is just depressing. And that was in Viet Nam.

Armies are all alike. At the front you have the dedicated youngsters lead by the only slightly older who want like anything to get promoted and back ina staff job where the bullets aren't so thick and angry.

General Petraus at least was able to correct the tactics in Iraq and perhaps in Afghanistan too through McCrystal. I just think it is wishful thinking that will get more troopers killed and maimed for naught.

 

[Loring2]

To the Point

Yes, and I completely respect your opinion in this matter.



See, now that was something that I didn't know. It seems odd though. I guess I am not high enough up to see the political processes that go on at the General's level and for that I am grateful. I've seen a COL get his hand smacked once or twice for opening their mouth, thought the same applied one rank up.



I don't think that he should apologize for it at all, but I think that he owes it to the American people to keep the grandstanding to a minimum. I still stand by my assertion that their actions undermine the authority of the CINC. But, the ability to disagree on this is part of what makes this country great.



the fact that one man has the authority to end a whole was is comforting in a strange way. Frightening in another.



If you don't mind, sir, I have some questions about what Libertarians actually stand for. they're a party I didn't hear about much until today.

The rule on reprimanding Colonels and Generals in most situations is just that a slap on the wrist. Military PR saying "See He shouldn't have said that and we punished him" OK???


Higher Command Officers I must say are a bit different. West Pointers and presently all Generals (I think) are West Pointers who fall under what I will call the "JamesDSmith" rule of conduct. They fall on their swords. They resign. These men and now women are of highest integrity. They're not all are nice people but you can trust them with your life. They will risk all when they believe it's necessary

I will say to you Sgt_W from my heart that the authority of the POTUS is unassailable by the actions of a few. This authority is granted by our constitution not the people. We're a Republic, remember.

Dennis K can say what he wishes according to the First Amendment of the Constitution. He is also a politician 'res ispa loquitor"

As to 'grandstanding, it's always unwelcome in my book but that wont stop it because it's a political ploy and 'Politics' has often properly been called the 4th Branch of Government.

As far as defining Libertarianism, that's easy. Patrick Henry's idea of 'give me freedom or give me death' (he said it more eloquently) is my view of Liberty.
As for me there is no Libertarian Party. The very idea is anathema to me and the concept is oxymoronic.

The things I have done in my life I did not do for a membership in either the Democrat or Republican political parties

 

[Guest]

Yes, but this is not what you said. You said that even a president who'd served in the army during peace-time, never seen action, but had been willing to die for his country counted.

And I pointed out that every president is pretty much that. A man who is serving in the army during peace-time. He will likely never see action, but he is willing to die for his country because by becoming president he's putting his life in danger--and not just his. His wife, children and friends are in danger, too. He has to know this. And if someone does take a shot at him, he might well see someone's head blown off (imagine if Oswald had missed Kennedy and gotten Jackie instead--JFK would have seen his wife's head blown off--all because he had taken the office of president).

Now if you want a president to have served in a war and seen someone's head blown off, well, that's a very different criteria. There have been presidents who've seen such things, Washington, Jackson, Grant, Roosevelt (Teddy), Eisenhower, JFK. Some of them were awesome, some not so awesome as presidents. What did seeing people die in a war allow them to bring to the table that other great presidents who didn't, didn't?

You're right in that I didn't originally say that. I kind of have a hard time pinning my feelings down on this one. For that I apologize.

However, I never said that a President had to see someone get shot, either. I spoke from my own experience, said I saw someone get shot and then said that it tempered me. I followed that by saying I wanted the president to have the possibility of that.

In that, I was speaking of a tempering experience, not necessarily that specific act. Again, if I was unclear then I apologize.

Now to get to the heart of what I wanted to say but apparently dropped the ball on. I want a president who has served. Time frame irrelevant. To have volunteered to serve, even knowing what could come of it. Whether they see combat or not, whether they have their tempering experience(s) or not, but someone who volunteered to go serve their nation. To me that means more than you could possibly know. That is the point I was trying to get across, and maybe I fucked it up at first. The willingness to serve and put the good of the nation or the public before yourself without having the goal of becoming a president or a politician or what have you. That desire for selfless service.

Knowing what it is like to serve before you ask others to go out and serve for you, before you ask others to go overseas and die for their country. Is it a shallow point of view? Quite possibly. I admit that. But for me, joining the military was to become part of something larger than myself. to put others before me and to become a better person than I was. Maybe being good for goodness' sake?

I never said that the other presidents weren't willing to die for their country. You are absolutely right on the assassination attempts. And no, seeing someone die does not necessarily make you a better person. But it is how I feel. I want someone who was willing to serve their country before they got important. When I see them in their big white mansion making these decisions that affect people who are boots on the ground in some of the worlds most inhospitable places I want to know that they served, too. Admission is not very difficult for my job. All it takes is a general physical and a willingness to lay your life down for your nation.

If I were a police officer, I would probably want a president who had some sort of law enforcement background. There aren't necessarily any rational reasons for how I feel. I accept and admit that. But what I am asking for is a character trait, and for me it is a character trait that is kind of hard to define.

So there it is.

 

[JackLuis]

I know just how you feel Sgt W. If the president has worn the uniform and done his duty he has probably been tempered by the experience. I do draw the line at GWB however, oh not because he served with the Air National Guard in a time of war, but because he didn't fulfill his duty and deserted his duty.

But I think Dick Chaney is a perfect example of the negative of your argument. All hell fire and go get em, but when he was called it was, "Oh I'm going to school and married and oh I have a kid coming, don't draft me." Fucken pussy.

Jimmy Carter was a sub sailor and didn't start many wars.

Old daft Ronnie was "in the Big one" but all he did was stay in Hollywood and look sincere.

George H.W. Bush did his duty and got shot down for the effort. He did let the Generals fight the '91 War and pulled out just a bit too early, but better early than too late like his idiot son.

Even Tricky Dick was in the Navy for a while, like LBJ. I think because of the uniform. The Navy has classy uniforms and if you want to gain attention in Washington DC you just can't beat a Navy uniform. It got Dick elected after the war.

So I agree with you but realize that some will 'see the elephant' but not all.

 

[Guest]

So I agree with you but realize that some will 'see the elephant' but not all.

I know. It's like the debate between Atheists and Christians. For me this is an argument based on emotion and not logic. You can point to all the facts and figures that say what I believe is not so. You can tell me all day why I am wrong. I won't care. I will still believe it, because to go against it goes counter to who I am as a person.

That is not a pretty statement, nor is it rational. Got it. It's my one emotional holdout. I reserve the right to dig in my heels on this one and be obtuse.

~Paul

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You guys need to read what Napoleon said about command, R.E.Lee said pretty much the same thing: I WANTED TO GO TO LONDON, MY ARMY WANTED TO GO TO MOSCOW. COMMANDERS FOLLOW FROM THE FRONT.

I came across a fascinating anecdote about Napoleon, it says it all. On the way back to France Napoleon's train was attacked by Cossacks; everyone fled but Napoleon. He sat his horse facing the horde, and when the first Cossack reached him Napoleon thrust his sword into the Cossack's horse. And he waited for his cavalry to get its shit together.

 

[rgraham666]

George HW Bush was acting according to the powers granted to him by the UN.

For the senior Bush was trying to help make the UN the center of 'The New World Order', an order of international law. He had no mandate to invade Iraq, only to kick Iraq out of Kuwait.

His son invaded Iraq to destroy international law. He and his cronies wanted to return to the days when a country could do what it wanted to anybody as long as it had the power to get away with it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ROB proves once again that he knows as much about fighting as he does fornicating and football.