{"contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"jackjacobs"}

A Busy Week

At the risk of being more superficial than usual, with so much happening this week a brief review may be in order.

There have been developments, some interesting and some important, in arenas not often noted by those interested in national security. They are amusing at least to the extent that they would be difficult to make up:

--Prurience: David Letterman announces that there was an attempt to extort money from him by someone who knows of Letterman's hitherto secret liaisons with staffers.

--More prurience: Senator John Ensign, already having admitted to having an affair with a campaign aide, allegedly uses his influence to find a lobbying job for his lover's husband.

--Let's Celebrate Communism: The operators of the Empire State Building light its spire red and yellow to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the victory of Chinese communism.

--Ethics: President Obama travels on taxpayers' money to Copenhagen to lobby the IOC to select Chicago as the next venue for the Olympics. Shall we assume that absolutely none of Obama's friends or contributors will benefit financially if his hometown is selected?

Far less entertaining but more important were these developments:

--Afghanistan: With the cohesion of the administration in open disarray, the first meeting with the president on the strategy was held this week. The result was exactly what one would expect: a decision to study the problem further. The American objective to destroy the influence of al Qaeda and the Taliban is mutually exclusive of doing so at little or no cost, a dilemma whose insolubility is exacerbated by the Congress's reluctance to make costly and long-term national security commitments in an election year. Before returning from Copenhagen, Obama summoned General McChrystal for a brief meeting whose substance is liable to be leaked by those with axes to grind, but we know where McChrystal stands: in a speech in London, he rejected calls to reduce America's effort against enemy forces in Afghanistan. Many national security experts agree with him, while others agree with Joe Biden, but the procrastinated, disorganized and inexpert manner in which our strategy is being formed is distressing.

--Iran: Those of us old enough to remember American negotiations with Hanoi have an unsettling feeling of deja vu. The United States and Iran are beginning discussions about Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and the result will be further delays and inaction. Because we have an unfortunate history of coupling tough talk with an inability or refusal to act, the robust threats issuing from the White House this week mean nothing. Even as we are fulminating about Iran's prevarications and intransigence, Russia and China (see "Let's Celebrate Communism," above)---the two nations whose assistance we need to enforce sanctions---say, in effect, that Iran should be left to do what it wishes. This will not end well.

--Pakistan: The only bit of good news in the region is Pakistan's assertion that it will soon mount an offensive against Taliban control in South Waziristan. We have heard this all before, of course, but there is some evidence to indicate that Pakistan means business this time. The problem, however, is that merely killing Taliban is an impermanent solution to the lack of Pakistani sovereignty on the border with Afghanistan. As most students and practioners of unconventional war can attest, Pakistan will also have to make a long-term commitment to redressing the problems that permit Muslim revolutionaries to flourish there in the first place, and that is unlikely to happen. Still, any progress from a fair-weather ally is welcome.

No matter what is decided, options that are selected for our commanders in Southwest Asia are likely to stick with Mr. Obama through the mid-term election and into the national campaign in 2012. Like Lyndon Johnson, the possibility that the president will be perceived as having lost a war---whatever that is construed to mean---will contribute to his decision. The realists among us know that domestic politics are a major component of national security decision. The idealists wish that they weren't.

{"contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"jackjacobs"}
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
{"commentId":9837376,"authorDomain":"farmer"}

I noted a comment some where on the meeting between POTUS and CG-Afghanistan. It seems the President summoned McChrystal to join him on Air Force One for a conference after Obama discovered the General would be in England. Some wonder why Obama went to Denmark, others wonder why McChrystal went to England. I once wondered why I was in Fort Hood, Texas, helping conduct an unusual exercise that produced electronic fodder that masked the mass movement of troops to RVN. Sound like I am making obfuscations? I am. I wonder who else is into misdirection. Yeh, I agree, tough week.

{"commentId":9837376,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"farmer"}
  • 5 votes
Reply#1 - Fri Oct 2, 2009 12:24 PM EDT
{"commentId":9853867,"authorDomain":"jackjacobs"}

Some people who ought to know say that McChrystal has a very difficult choice: renege on his public commitment to leaked force levels or quit. Tough times are about to become tougher.

{"commentId":9853867,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"jackjacobs"}
  • 5 votes
#1.1 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 8:19 AM EDT
{"commentId":9855169,"authorDomain":"farmer"}

My, my, the coincidence! I opened Newsvine this morning to a full body picture of McChrystal and Gordon Brown during their tete a tete in London on Oct. 1. I wonder what that was all about. I wonder why the President of the US had to find out about it as an after thought. Has McChrystal come out of his closet to become a pop in jay?

Where, oh, where are the Colin Powells, the Cider Joe Stilwells and the Creighton Abrams when you need them. It is beginning to appear it is time for Petraeus, the hermetic, and McChrystal, the hermitic, to make their genuflections to Hermes Trismegistus and move on into mythology. They both seem to be square pegs in round holes.

I am at the point where I may just get me a bottle of Japanese Hermes and join them.

{"commentId":9855169,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"farmer"}
  • 3 votes
#1.2 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 10:44 AM EDT
{"commentId":9855300,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

I don't think, were he alive, "Vinegar" Joe Stilwell would like you referring to him as "Cider". The rest of your post makes as much sense. Perhaps it escaped your attention but the Afghanistan war is a NATO op of which the UK has played an integral part. Why on earth would you think it odd that Gen. McChrystal would be meet with the UK prime minister?

{"commentId":9855300,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
  • 2 votes
#1.3 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 10:58 AM EDT
{"commentId":9855767,"authorDomain":"farmer"}

Bill, those of us who lived history tend to be a little more accurate than those who stood by and watched. Cider Joe Stilwell is chronicled here. Vinegar Joe is here. I was often in the office of Cider Joe in Saigon (Thon Son Nhut) in the very early 60's. He was a gentleman and a scholar but also a warrior of the first dimension. He was probably the true father of winning "hearts and minds" but his fame and favor drifted away in the debris left by Westmoreland and his golf course and arm chair staff at Bien Hoa.

To top it off I think Cider Joe would have appreciated me remembering him. He died (disappeared) in an aircraft mishap over the Pacific. I was in the Artillery Advanced Course with his Aide at the time of his loss. The General had just survived a parachute jump accident shortly before.

I don't think it so odd that McChrystal would meet with Brown. I do think it odd that POTUS was apparently unaware. I know it may irk some that I speak so irreverently of those many consider their superior but I have live my life close enough to the flag pole to know that there are those who swagger rather than apply themselves. I have coexisted with the would be Nero's who are often only the clowns of history turned into profits by those who can't stand the truth.

Now just to pique the ire of those so inclined. Let me tell you about one of my pet theories. Cider Joe was in RVN when JFK was assassinated. He was very upset about what happened to Special Forces RVN in the aftermath. He was subsequently kicked upstairs to command SF Training in the US. While in that position he nearly died when his parachute didn't open. Shortly thereafter he died when his aircraft disappeared. I think Cider Joe was trying to correct wrongs concerning conduct of the Vietnam War when he departed. I think he had inside knowledge of JFK's death. For a few years after his disappearance I had every hope that he would turn up suddenly in charge of some special operation somewhere in East Asia. When that possibility died I came to develop my current conspiracy theory. I am probably just a nut but what if there is a kernel of truth to my ideas?

{"commentId":9855767,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"farmer"}
  • 4 votes
#1.4 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 11:38 AM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":9837607,"authorDomain":"kpeltonen85"}

Thankfully Chicago won and was not selected to host that international boondoggle. South-side pollacks can breathe easy.

I typically don't usually jump on the blame Obama train but his actions say to me that this was a clear attempt at appeasing those who put him into power. But that is nothing new and isn't a reflection of him but of our very system.

On Iran, I'm baffled by the response of the international community to the point where I feel I'm either being fed complete misinformation by the media, or the UN is beyond inept. A belligerent religious fanatic running a country who, right after asserting his country's peaceful nuclear aims, lets medium-range missle tests be conducted. I'm willing to believe our media is leading us to believe something it wants us too, but if this how it's actually playing out then Iran is sending a clear message of intent.

{"commentId":9837607,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"kpeltonen85"}
    Reply#2 - Fri Oct 2, 2009 12:32 PM EDT
    {"commentId":9838538,"authorDomain":"amberneve"}

    I thought it was a mistake for President Obama to involve himself personally in the Chicago Olympic bid. Chicago was the FIRST city eliminated; so much for the unnecessary expenditure of humiliation.

    BTW, I favored Rio.

    {"commentId":9838538,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"amberneve"}
    • 2 votes
    #2.1 - Fri Oct 2, 2009 1:05 PM EDT
    {"commentId":9839521,"authorDomain":"victory-in-2012"}

    Once again Obama rolled the dice wagering your tax dollars and once again he lost!

    ************************************* Suckers! *******************************************

    {"commentId":9839521,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"victory-in-2012"}
    • 3 votes
    #2.2 - Fri Oct 2, 2009 1:36 PM EDT
    {"commentId":9839691,"authorDomain":"davepat2002"}

    It is rather a shame that Chicago lost, but they probably shouldn't have even been in the running in the first place. I would be interested to know what other U.S. city was under consideration for the games, that our President should have been lobbying for, or should he have been pushing for some foreign city to reap the windfall that comes with hosting the Olympic Games?

    Seems like a rather small matter to complain about, especially in a busy week.

    {"commentId":9839691,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"davepat2002"}
      #2.3 - Fri Oct 2, 2009 1:42 PM EDT
      {"commentId":9840003,"authorDomain":"jbdaad"}
      Seems like a rather small matter to complain about, especially in a busy week.

      INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE - ORGANISATION - FACTS AND FIGURES

      The IOC distributes approximately 92% of Olympic marketing revenue to ... The IOC retains approximately 8% of Olympic marketing revenue for the operational ...

      {"commentId":9840003,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"jbdaad"}
        #2.4 - Fri Oct 2, 2009 1:51 PM EDT
        {"commentId":9841956,"authorDomain":"amberneve"}

        The problem is as deep as one wishes to plumb it. Obama has demonstrated a pattern of falling back into campaign mode although he is not running for anything. He needs to remind himself that he is likely a one-term president. His political party will also likely suffer significant losses in the 2010 mid-term elections, further curtailing his agenda (whatever that is).

        I have repeatedly raised the question, What is Obama's Master Plan? No one has been able to provide an answer. This is frustrating.

        If Obama wants to be remembered for something other than the first African-American to be elected to the presidency, he should start thinking more about legacy. I do not think he is gifted in the area of foreign policy, something painfully apparent lately. The one issue thus far that could qualify as a memorable achievement, if passed, is universal health care.

        {"commentId":9841956,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"amberneve"}
        • 2 votes
        #2.5 - Fri Oct 2, 2009 2:57 PM EDT
        {"commentId":9843218,"authorDomain":"kpeltonen85"}

        There's the expectation of a Master Plan but I don't think there is one. Maybe Health Care. The rapid pace he's pushing it plus the amount of political capital he's spending attests to that. I'd wish he would focus his efforts on deflating the medical bureaucracy instead of crafting a brand new one but hey, he's a Democrat and they still set his agenda. It's amusing how even with seemingly no road blocks, they still manage to bungle their own policies.

        He has done a service to us in repairing our image abroad, something we sorely needed. We're stuck with the monniker of dumb, violent cowboys enough without sending out a dumb, violent cowboy to represent us.

        {"commentId":9843218,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"kpeltonen85"}
        • 1 vote
        #2.6 - Fri Oct 2, 2009 3:46 PM EDT
        {"commentId":9846810,"authorDomain":"amberneve"}
        There's the expectation of a Master Plan but I don't think there is one.

        A leader has two options: act or react. If he fails to act, he generally reacts, meaning he is not in control and an opposing power is driving the agenda.

        Now apply this principle to 1) domestic policy; and 2) foreign policy. What is your assessment of Obama's record thus far? Particularly, consider the nuclear standoff between the United States and Iran and their recent talks in Geneva.

        A leader who acts vs. reacts may not be popular, but history may be much kinder to him than the electorate. A true leader will mould the future in his own image according to a predetermined plan. The leader guides the formation of his plan via his reflection on and adoption of personal values, what in the past have been called principles, morals, or virtues. Some leaders succeed; some do not.

        Perhaps Obama's guiding domestic theme is social justice, which he construes as a redistribution of wealth.

        In terms of foreign policy, the only way to successfully deal with a bully is to stand-down a bully, personal or national.

        {"commentId":9846810,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"amberneve"}
        • 2 votes
        #2.7 - Fri Oct 2, 2009 6:37 PM EDT
        {"commentId":9850394,"authorDomain":"sgtriden"}

        Excellent thoughts, Neron.

        {"commentId":9850394,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"sgtriden"}
          #2.8 - Fri Oct 2, 2009 10:46 PM EDT
          {"commentId":9857356,"authorDomain":"another-colonel"}

          Neron,

          "In terms of foreign policy, the only way to successfully deal with a bully is to stand-down a bully, personal or national."

          Wiser words never written. Especially when those we fight view negotiators as weaklings deserving of attack.

          AC

          {"commentId":9857356,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"another-colonel"}
          • 2 votes
          #2.9 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 1:40 PM EDT
          {"commentId":9860970,"authorDomain":"amberneve"}

          Are you a real colonel? I looked at your bio page and did not see any information. The colonels seem to be coming from all quarters lately.

          {"commentId":9860970,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"amberneve"}
          • 1 vote
          #2.10 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 6:35 PM EDT
          {"commentId":9863994,"authorDomain":"another-colonel"}

          Yes neron, I am....been in 30 years now.

          Your words were right on target and I'll be sure to use them in the future...I liked the phrase alot.

          I don't put anything in my profile for a reason. Personal information on a blog can endanger our families when we deploy. Those we fight watch the net too.

          AC

          AC

          {"commentId":9863994,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"another-colonel"}
          • 2 votes
          #2.11 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 10:54 PM EDT
          {"commentId":9869531,"authorDomain":"amberneve"}

          Glad I could be of service.

          {"commentId":9869531,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"amberneve"}
            #2.12 - Sun Oct 4, 2009 12:54 PM EDT
            Reply
            {"commentId":9837743,"authorDomain":"jbdaad"}
            --More prurience: Senator John Ensign, already having admitted to having an affair with a campaign aide, allegedly uses his influence to find a lobbying job for his lover's husband.

            What a nice guy.

            --Let's Celebrate Communism: The operators of the Empire State Building lights its spire red and yellow to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the victory of Chinese communism.

            CHINESE GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER REFERENCES

            This what they`re celebrating? Yeehaw to the Empire of China.

            {"commentId":9837743,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"jbdaad"}
            • 2 votes
            Reply#3 - Fri Oct 2, 2009 12:37 PM EDT
            {"commentId":9838192,"authorDomain":"pennytool"}

            It seems through history the biggest changes occur during the last three months of the year and the first two months of the year , the middle months are spent wondering what the heck happened. Just my thought in the all of it.

            StarSmilesUSA

            {"commentId":9838192,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"pennytool"}
            • 2 votes
            Reply#4 - Fri Oct 2, 2009 12:54 PM EDT
            {"commentId":9850435,"authorDomain":"sgtriden"}

            Good insight. Absolutly correct. Maybe seasonal stress? :-)

            {"commentId":9850435,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"sgtriden"}
            • 1 vote
            #4.1 - Fri Oct 2, 2009 10:49 PM EDT
            Reply
            {"commentId":9839939,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

            Col. Jacobs, as Fred and Kimberly Kagan point out in a very well-reasoned essay, if the POTUS goes with the "over the horizon" approach being championed by Biden and the Democratic Party's left wing it will be a disaster for the United States not to mention Afghanistan and Pakistan.

            Insofar as Iran is concerned, it would seem to me that the Iranians are playing a version of Saddam's partial compliance, "cheat and retreat" game knowing that the administration is keen to reach some kind of deal and knowing that Putin and Sergei Lavrov are unlikely to approve the type of gasoline import sanctions being talked about.

            {"commentId":9839939,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
            • 4 votes
            Reply#5 - Fri Oct 2, 2009 1:49 PM EDT
            {"commentId":9853930,"authorDomain":"jackjacobs"}

            As difficult as it will be to succeed in Afghanistan if we focus on counter-insurgency, destroying terrorism alone---Biden's focus---will be more difficult still. And most experts agree that the Biden approach makes the instability of Pakistan much more dangerous.

            {"commentId":9853930,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"jackjacobs"}
            • 4 votes
            #5.1 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 8:27 AM EDT
            {"commentId":9854323,"authorDomain":"davepat2002"}

            If we do what we went there to do in the first place, and leave after that, we can still support Pakistan, and not be locked into another war where we have no way to do anything of benefit for the Afghan people and bleed ourselves dry in the process. It hasn't been that long ago that we watched while the Russians made a similar mistake.

            {"commentId":9854323,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"davepat2002"}
              #5.2 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 9:14 AM EDT
              {"commentId":9855363,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

              We cannot "do what we went there to do in the first place" (stabilize Afghanistan to the point where it cannot serve as a staging ground for both regional insurgency and global terrorism) from "over the horizon". The Afghan army is nowhere even close to being able to stand up to the Haqqani network and other "Taliban" elements in Afghanistan. If we embark upon Biden's recommendations (withdraw US ground troops and concentrate on training the Afghan army) we'll be repeating the same failed strategy in Iraq pursued for far too long by Rumsfeld, Abizaid and Casey.

              {"commentId":9855363,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
              • 1 vote
              #5.3 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 11:04 AM EDT
              {"commentId":9855557,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

              Bill:

              The next Kagan who dies in a filthy foreign mudhole wearing the uniform of an American military service will be the first.

              "Well-reasoned" indeed. Good thing the Kagans are such close advisors of President McCain.

              {"commentId":9855557,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
              • 3 votes
              #5.4 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 11:20 AM EDT
              {"commentId":9855643,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

              Typically idiotic statement from someone who hasn't the slightest grasp of any of this.

              {"commentId":9855643,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
              • 2 votes
              #5.5 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 11:28 AM EDT
              {"commentId":9855712,"authorDomain":"davepat2002"}

              Bill, we went there to kill or capture the guys who sent planes flying into buildings in the U.S. If the Taliban, who was the government of Afghanistan at the time, had given them up, we probably wouldn't be there now. As far as stabilizing the Afghan government, why should we think we would be able to do something that no one has ever done in the past?

              In addition you may notice that we have lost a great deal more people and money during the after battle phase than we did in the actual war fighting phase of the conflict. This is similar to what has happened in Iraq in that respect. In other words, we could pack up and leave right now with the understanding that if, whatever government the locals choose to put in place, ever lets another organization like Al Quade have sanctuary in their country again, we will be back to clean up again.

              The overall savings in both money and personnel in fighting a new war whenever it becomes necessary, would probably be much less costly than what we have been doing for the last eight years. Besides, we don't seem to be very good at occupation, but we are really good at fighting a war.

              {"commentId":9855712,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"davepat2002"}
                #5.6 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 11:33 AM EDT
                {"commentId":9855802,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

                If we bug out, the "locals" aren't going to "choose" anyone. That choice will be made as a result of force of arms likely precipitating another all-out civil war as occurred after the Soviets were defeated. Classic COIN warfare always results in higher casualties initially as it requires that units live among the people protecting them and eschewing the heavyhanded tactics of airstrikes and the like that kill a lot of innocent people. It's not like the Taliban are that popular among the Pashtuns on either side of the Durand Line. The problem is that if you're a local village elder and you try and oppose them you find yourself missing your head in short order.

                {"commentId":9855802,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
                • 1 vote
                #5.7 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 11:40 AM EDT
                {"commentId":9855972,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

                Bill:

                Right. I'm sure the Kagans' memos to President McCain are being very carefully read in the WH Situation Room by President McCain since they have such a strong "grasp" of the situation.

                Nobody cares what the Kagans think. Grasp that.

                {"commentId":9855972,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
                • 2 votes
                #5.8 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 11:53 AM EDT
                {"commentId":9856065,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

                General Petraeus does since the Kagans along with Jack Keane were instrumental in designing the "surge" in Iraq. Again, you don't know the first thing about any of this.

                {"commentId":9856065,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
                • 2 votes
                #5.9 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 11:59 AM EDT
                {"commentId":9856121,"authorDomain":"davepat2002"}

                Bill

                WHEN we leave, there will be a civil war to see who comes out on top in Afghanistan, the same way that WHEN we leave Iraq, they will have one as well. It may be a blood bath situation, or it may be a small affair, but it will happen if we choose to leave tomorrow or if we were to leave ten years from now.

                {"commentId":9856121,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"davepat2002"}
                  #5.10 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 12:04 PM EDT
                  {"commentId":9860113,"authorDomain":"another-colonel"}

                  A few observations on the subject. This is a complex issue and simple answers are not there. Jack has the right idea and this blooms into the whole answer with a little historical data. Simple military intervention is not the whole answer, but is a significant part. This cannot be done "over the horizon" as responsive reaction is limited. The "State" and USAID parts are also required to stabilize the government...an absolute necessity if we are to deter (at least to a degree) a resurgence of the Taliban.

                  During the Sov occupation, we were very busy building up the Imams at the expense of the tribal elders. This helped in the war against the Sovs but left us with a religious fervor we may not have anticipated directed at the US. In any event, building the tribal elders back up on both sides of the border will help stave off the Taliban...it is already working in Pakistan with the emergence of tribal Lashkars against the Taliban.

                  Leaving is an assinine course of action. Afghans and Pakistanis alike will tell you that we abandoned them to the Taliban and religious extremists when the Sovs left Afghanistan and under the Pressler Ammendment in Pakistan. They have taken YEARS to even begion to trust us again...I suggest we not blow it.

                  AC

                  {"commentId":9860113,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"another-colonel"}
                  • 3 votes
                  #5.11 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 5:22 PM EDT
                  {"commentId":9865137,"authorDomain":"davepat2002"}

                  Col. They don't trust us now any more than we trust them. Both sides in both countries are corrupt to the point that the only thing outside of lining their pockets, that interests them is holding on to their power so that they can continue to line their pockets.

                  With this firmly in place, the only question is who is going to end up running the show there and that is something that will be decided there and we won't be the ones to make it happen.

                  Look at those we have supported in the past to try and maintain stability in that region. Failures all.

                  {"commentId":9865137,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"davepat2002"}
                  • 1 vote
                  #5.12 - Sun Oct 4, 2009 1:06 AM EDT
                  {"commentId":9871936,"authorDomain":"another-colonel"}

                  Dave,

                  Gotta agree on the corruptiuon of both governments.... The one common thread they have with us is they are killing Taliban and AQ. I'm all for letting them secure their own government after they have killed them all...

                  AC

                  {"commentId":9871936,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"another-colonel"}
                  • 1 vote
                  #5.13 - Sun Oct 4, 2009 4:25 PM EDT
                  Reply
                  {"commentId":9841188,"authorDomain":"pmags"}

                  In fairness to Letterman, its pretty much well known that he's hit on staff, how much of it happened after his fatherhood and marriage, I have no idea. But he did right by: 1) exposing the extortion attempt: 2) refusing to name names and dates; 3) finally, to come clean on the day after it was news when he was under no obligation to do so.

                  {"commentId":9841188,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"pmags"}
                  • 3 votes
                  Reply#6 - Fri Oct 2, 2009 2:28 PM EDT
                  {"commentId":9853979,"authorDomain":"jackjacobs"}

                  The Russians have a good observation about bad news: it doesn't get any better with age; after a while it just resembles a herring in the moonlight: it shines and it stinks. And the military establishment teaches this notion to everybody at a very early stage of training. The longer you wait to deal with a bad situation the more difficult it becomes to fix. Obama himself knew instinctively that releasing unattractive information early makes you almost impervious to criticism later. Remember that early in the campaign he admitted to all manner of reprehensible behavior, including snorting coke, and you never heard a discouraging word about it again.

                  {"commentId":9853979,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"jackjacobs"}
                  • 2 votes
                  #6.1 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 8:33 AM EDT
                  {"commentId":9885453,"authorDomain":"lambchop"}

                  Bad news delivered quickly does nothing to remove the sting, and often doesn't allow others to formulate the questions and responses they might if given a chance. Especially when bad news comes before coffee. If our government spent less time focusing on what might or might not be considered "reprehensible" behavior and more time actually fixing real world problems, we'd all be better off. Wish I'd voted for the other guy.

                  {"commentId":9885453,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"lambchop"}
                  • 2 votes
                  #6.2 - Mon Oct 5, 2009 2:19 PM EDT
                  Reply
                  {"commentId":9845877,"authorDomain":"matthew-babiarz"}

                  Amateur hour at the Federal Government and they get to play with our money.

                  {"commentId":9845877,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"matthew-babiarz"}
                  • 1 vote
                  Reply#7 - Fri Oct 2, 2009 5:50 PM EDT
                  {"commentId":9853457,"authorDomain":"davepat2002"}

                  You would then describe the prior administration as the "Professionals"?

                  {"commentId":9853457,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"davepat2002"}
                    #7.1 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 7:03 AM EDT
                    {"commentId":9860166,"authorDomain":"another-colonel"}

                    Dave,

                    Treasury estimates the debt over the next 10 years at $23.7 trillion, a push for health care we cannot afford...a loss of ground due to neglect in Afghanistan and Iraq while trying to get the Olympics to Chicago to line the pockets of like-minded Chicago thugs....yes they are amateurs.

                    The previous administration made mistakes, but when it cam to the wars...they faired better than I ever expected.

                    AC

                    {"commentId":9860166,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"another-colonel"}
                    • 2 votes
                    #7.2 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 5:27 PM EDT
                    {"commentId":9865365,"authorDomain":"davepat2002"}

                    Finance two wars, one totally needless, off the books while granting tax breaks to the upper 5% of the income earners in the U.S. and that qualifies as "faired better than I ever expected." sounds like a rather low standard.

                    What exactly was the "loss of ground due to neglect" of which you speak? The fact that we haven't changed course completely in the previous 9 months? We ran head long into a war in Iraq, taking our collective eye off the ball in Afghanistan and are now mired in that one trillion dollar sand pile, that marks the graves of around 4500 U.S. military who shouldn't have been there to begin with.

                    I admit that I too have been disappointed in a number of areas since January, but I still think that we have improved vastly over the previous eight years.

                    {"commentId":9865365,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"davepat2002"}
                    • 1 vote
                    #7.3 - Sun Oct 4, 2009 1:40 AM EDT
                    {"commentId":9872055,"authorDomain":"another-colonel"}

                    Dave,

                    Evidently you have a tendency to look back on the Iraq war with the benefit of hindsight (although I think arguments then and now are valid). Virtually every intel organization on the planet agreed with the threat Iraq posed. Iraqis were shooting at coalition aircraft almost daily that were implementing mandates for the Iraqi government. Games with inspectors. Since the war...IEDs with sarin...don't tell me there was no WMD...102 tons of yellowcake...1.8 tons enriched that the IAEA requested we move. Nah...no reason there. Ties with terrorist organizations and payments to families of suicide bombers. Meets between operatives and AQ in Sudan...try some open reporting Dave.

                    McChrystals' predecessor requested more troops in June and was fired for the request in July. McChrystal made the request over a month ago and Obama ignored it as he tried to spend another $1.6 Trillion on health care the country does not want. Larger loss of life in both Iraq and Afghanistan while this guy travels around on the campaign trail and ignores the troops in the field and requests for help from their leadership...you mean thant neglect? Maybe you are not seeing it this way...but those of us who have worn the uniform sure do. The 2010 electiuons cannot come fast enough...we need to vote out his base.

                    AC

                    {"commentId":9872055,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"another-colonel"}
                    • 1 vote
                    #7.4 - Sun Oct 4, 2009 4:38 PM EDT
                    {"commentId":9877797,"authorDomain":"davepat2002"}

                    The Iraqis didn't even have the facilities to refine any yellowcake they might have had. The aluminum tubs were proven to be unsuited for the job of centrifuge components and the intelligence that Cheney and Bush used to cherry pick was from a guy that the Germans told them was full of @!$%#.

                    Had there been any WMDs the Bush administration would have waved it like a flag to try and justify the fiasco that is Iraq. All that was ever found and reported was a few shells that were left from the pre-first Gulf War period that were corroded and next to useless.

                    I can't see the benefit to having come here to start with and the cost of staying verses the benefit strikes a balance that resembles six o'clock on an analog watch.

                    The man hasn't done the kind of job that inspires a lot of confidence in my opinion either, but when you consider that he has only been in office for nine months, I am not really ready to write off his entire efforts just yet. Part of that may be the fact that he didn't have a tough act to follow, but we are used to seeing bad decisions made in great haste, so I am willing to wait and see what develops.

                    Who knows, maybe the idea of thinking prior to acting may catch on in government.

                    {"commentId":9877797,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"davepat2002"}
                      #7.5 - Mon Oct 5, 2009 2:12 AM EDT
                      {"commentId":9896592,"authorDomain":"matthew-babiarz"}

                      9 months into the term and still blaming the past administration? Was the last administration professional? Absolutely. Did they show sound judgement and craft balanced and effective policy? Absolutely not. My amateur comment was more targeted at the fact that there is public discord as to what the administration's direction is, and the fact that they would let such a large and potentially combustible report leak before the President has the chance to form his opinion. Now is it possible that this report was leaked intentionally? Of course. Again, if this is the case it serves only to show that the administration is unsure as to what the right course is, and wanted to float a trial balloon in the hopes of divining the national mood before setting a course. I find this eventuality extremely distasteful.

                      Call me naive but I am one of those idiots that believes that there is a right way to do most things. If you know where you want to end up, its not hard to figure the right way to get there. I find that this is the central problem with the administration's waffling on Afghanistan. They do not know what they want the endstate to be. That is what this boils down to. Until the President gives clear guidance as to what the mission in Afghanistan is, and what the desired endstate is, you cannot have a coherent strategy crafted. He has had 9 months in office to look at this problem. Certainly it is not unreasonable to expect that he have an opinion formed by now?

                      {"commentId":9896592,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"matthew-babiarz"}
                      • 2 votes
                      #7.6 - Tue Oct 6, 2009 1:14 AM EDT
                      Reply
                      {"commentId":9854023,"authorDomain":"jackjacobs"}

                      The unsettling thing is that you may both be right about the lack of professionalism. Those who are old enough to remember the last 50 years of presidencies---and those who study the ones before as well---are amazed that, given the means of selection, the complexity of the nation's interests, and the uninspiring level of leadership in high position, we ever get anything right.

                      {"commentId":9854023,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"jackjacobs"}
                      • 3 votes
                      Reply#8 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 8:38 AM EDT
                      {"commentId":9854353,"authorDomain":"davepat2002"}

                      It is amazing when it happens. Or at least I think it would be. I don't know that I am old enough to have seen the last time we got something right.

                      {"commentId":9854353,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"davepat2002"}
                      • 1 vote
                      #8.1 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 9:18 AM EDT
                      Reply
                      {"commentId":9855492,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

                      Colonel Jack:

                      More war more war more war more war more war.

                      After that, let's have some more war more war more war more war more war and then top it off with more war more war and more war.

                      Doesn't really matter that the conditions for "victory" are literally hallucinatory, or that the costs outweigh the benefits by any conceivable measure.

                      More war is the ultimate consequence.

                      {"commentId":9855492,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
                      • 3 votes
                      Reply#9 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 11:15 AM EDT
                      {"commentId":9860251,"authorDomain":"another-colonel"}

                      jfxgillis,

                      Given your post, I suppose you are in the position of grabbing your ankles. The enemy we fight today thrives on your weakness. They negotiate to buy time and then they move forward, relentlessly trying to take ground. Trying to talk to them will only ensure your grandchildren get to fight them from an even more tenuous position.

                      If you are a bit too gentle to stand your ground...there are people better suited to the task...you need only ensure they have the tools.

                      AC

                      {"commentId":9860251,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"another-colonel"}
                      • 1 vote
                      #9.1 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 5:33 PM EDT
                      {"commentId":9860470,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

                      Colonel:

                      You don't mind killiing millions of brown people and thousands of America's sons and daughters and wasting trillions of dollars of treasure just to make sure your sensitive little ego doesn't get bruised. That's not strength, it's ignorant and self-destructive bravado.

                      Now. Here's what people with brains--obviously, that doesn't include you--found most significant in McChrstal's recent assessment of Afghanistan:

                      A foreign army alone cannot beat an insurgency; the insurgency in Afghanistan requires an Afghan solution. This is their war and, in the end, ISAF’s competency will prove less decisive than GIRoA’s; eventual success requires capable Afghan governance capabilities and security forces.

                      To translate for low I.Q. jingoists. We can't win. Only an Afghan army can win. And an Afghan army can win only with capable and effective governance in Afghanistan.

                      And that's not going to happen for the foreseeable future.

                      Hence, by McChrystal's own assessment, we have to fight this war for the indefinite future with no chance of winning. So why bother? We can fight a war and not win, or we can not fight a war and not win. Same outcome, the only difference is the cost of fighting versus the cost of not fighting.

                      {"commentId":9860470,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
                      • 4 votes
                      #9.2 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 5:52 PM EDT
                      {"commentId":9860884,"authorDomain":"farmer"}

                      jfxgillis, I am so proud to have known you.

                      We can fight a war and not win, or we can not fight a war and not win.

                      Ever notice in past military coups it is always the Colonels who get blamed? Ever wonder why? (Host Colonel excepted, he has proven his patriotism and valor.)

                      {"commentId":9860884,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"farmer"}
                      • 4 votes
                      #9.3 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 6:27 PM EDT
                      {"commentId":9864150,"authorDomain":"another-colonel"}

                      jfxgillis,

                      My ego is just fine...thank you for commenting. Check out some of my other posts to see how I believe the situation should be prosecuted. And keep your accusations of racial murder to yourself...you're showing your a$$. Here's what I have posted before on the subject...

                      The military is a part of the required solution in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Combat operations in Afghanistan and training/advice to the Pakistanis. Afghanistan was never an elective...the Taliban harbored AQ and decided to deny the request they turn them over after 9/11...no option.... I believe more Special Operations forces from all Services are required as the solution rather than heavy units....how about you? Got an opinion? I sure as hell would never deny a commander the forces he is requesting...harkens back to Mogadishu. Who pulled our bacon out of the fire on that little outing jfxgillis?

                      State has a play in the success of this endeavour. As we did with Germany and Japan after WWII...we owe the future a stable government... I am not one that believes democracy is achievable in Afghanistan...but a stable government is possible with the right amount of help and training. Help in the formulation of an overall vision for the country and training for a military and police force. In the case of Afghanistan...it's time to turn the leadership roll over to the village leaders again...rather than the Imams.

                      And here's the real key...USAID needs to be involved with building schools as education is absolutely the key in the region.

                      Now...I've thought about it during my three tours to the region...how about you?

                      Fogey...clarify.

                      AC

                      {"commentId":9864150,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"another-colonel"}
                      • 2 votes
                      #9.4 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 11:10 PM EDT
                      {"commentId":9864282,"authorDomain":"farmer"}

                      Another Colonel, I don't know whether I could get my self to stoop to the level where I could make anything clear to those who seem to be bottom feeders. I think I was here first, and I quit smoking a few years ago. Butting out sometimes is the best part of valor. Maybe you should consider that advice as to our little puppet propping procedure we have been endorsing in Afghanistan.

                      On top of that, those that hide behind some false sense of duty to family or career or whatever so they can roam around incognito and belittle the open efforts of others have little standing with me.

                      I wonder if your three tours were like mine. I helped start, conduct and then end our little tour of RVN. I can't imagine things have changed that much.

                      {"commentId":9864282,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"farmer"}
                      • 2 votes
                      #9.5 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 11:23 PM EDT
                      {"commentId":9864955,"authorDomain":"another-colonel"}

                      Fogey,

                      I actually quit smoking when I returned in March from the last tour. Muslim military members view smoking as a social event and opened up more in their discussions and you get to know them better. I provided training as well as guidance to modernize...all while running a tactical air operation in support of TICs.

                      Strange...but I wish I were still there...given their resolve, they have a fighting chance.

                      Can't butt out....it's not in my nature....and I was hoping for a response like this one from you.

                      Cheers,

                      AC

                      {"commentId":9864955,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"another-colonel"}
                      • 1 vote
                      #9.6 - Sun Oct 4, 2009 12:45 AM EDT
                      {"commentId":9866645,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

                      Colonel:

                      And keep your accusations of racial murder to yourself...

                      Why should I? Do you think you get to cast aspersions on me while I don't get to cast aspersions on you? No sir, I am not weak and No, I'm not grabbing my ankles.

                      Got an opinion? I sure as hell would never deny a commander the forces he is requesting...

                      Yeah, I got an opinion. "More" anything of a military nature isn't the answer. And of course you wouldn't deny a commander. You're a military guy and that's why we have civilian control of the military. You militarily folks are single- and narrow-mindedly focused only on the military aspects. Presidents and Congresses have to think of the policy outcome.

                      but a stable government is possible with the right amount of help and training.

                      Now see, there's the kicker. I don't think that's possible, or of it is it's decades away and I don't think decades of commitment to war is in American interests. Moreover, I think the delusion belaboring you that it is possible is in fact a result of those three tours.

                      {"commentId":9866645,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
                      • 3 votes
                      #9.7 - Sun Oct 4, 2009 7:51 AM EDT
                      {"commentId":9872193,"authorDomain":"another-colonel"}

                      jfxgillis,

                      I'll only include the parts of the post from you in my response:

                      Your comment: Why should I? Do you think you get to cast aspersions on me while I don't get to cast aspersions on you? No sir, I am not weak and No, I'm not grabbing my ankles.

                      My response: You may be a wimp bent over a barrel by our enemies, that does not mean there are not better people than you willing to sacrifice to ensure you have the ability to call others rascists when you find yourself incapable of sound argument.

                      Your comment: Yeah, I got an opinion. "More" anything of a military nature isn't the answer. And of course you wouldn't deny a commander. You're a military guy and that's why we have civilian control of the military. You militarily folks are single- and narrow-mindedly focused only on the military aspects. Presidents and Congresses have to think of the policy outcome.

                      My response: You evidently are either too young or too dense to know the military of today. One involved in a three pronged approach to the issues at hand. That being military, State and USAID. In a meet between State and mil reps overseas, I made the first comment about education of the locals as a requirement for change....and I am certainly not unique in the military. Combat operations ARE required if we are to ensure new threats do not eminate from that cesspool over there. Maybe you need another large scale attack to understand the threat...a large portion of the country knows they don't need to be bent over that barrel to understand what they will get if they do not confront the evil.

                      Your comment: Now see, there's the kicker. I don't think that's possible, or of it is it's decades away and I don't think decades of commitment to war is in American interests. Moreover, I think the delusion belaboring you that it is possible is in fact a result of those three tours.

                      My response: That's because you lack vision and staying power...you are a product of a sound byte society where everything is solved in an hour, less commercial breaks. This is a three generation war. Those three tours taught me a lot about those we would support in the region...while they need a lot of help, the vast majority of their populations would rather live in peace and raise their families. The evil confronts them too which is why they fight within their own borders. I may be wrong...you actually may need to lose something valuable to you in the form of friends or family in an attack to understand the absolute evil that confronts us.

                      When you see it up close...there are two types of people that emerge...those outraged and those that cower...which are you?

                      AC

                      {"commentId":9872193,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"another-colonel"}
                      • 1 vote
                      #9.8 - Sun Oct 4, 2009 4:53 PM EDT
                      {"commentId":9872250,"authorDomain":"another-colonel"}

                      On a side note jfxgillis, I noticed you never addressed the points made in post 9.4....

                      {"commentId":9872250,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"another-colonel"}
                      • 1 vote
                      #9.9 - Sun Oct 4, 2009 4:59 PM EDT
                      {"commentId":9872511,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

                      Colonel:

                      My response .....

                      See now, that's interesting.

                      Just so's ya knows, I've had ignorant murderous militaristic fascist thugs like you hit me with some version or other of your "I'm a better man than you, you commie faggot" for going on forty years now and I've learned how deal with it. I won't stand for it, mother@!$%#er.

                      You want to make an argument, make an argument, but as far as I'm concerned whatever insignia you wear confers not a shred of authority to either your arguments or your insults. I spit in your face and piss on those Oak Bars or Clusters whatever the @!$%#ing @!$%# you @!$%#s wear when you're a "Colonel."

                      We clear now?

                      Good. So I will continue.

                      you are a product of a sound byte society where everything is solved in an hour, less commercial breaks. This is a three generation war.

                      Although that happens not to be true in my particular case--or no more or less so than in your case--I think that's a reasonable description of contemporary American society. In which case, all your railing and screaming in the world doesn't change the fact that that's the society we live in now. The American public doesn't want three generations more of this war. They probably don't even want three years more of this war.

                      It matters not a whit if your argument is rationally based in terms of logic and evidence, which is why I translated Colonel Jack's article as I did, as "More war, more war, more war, etc." because no matter how closely argued the case, the public is sick of it.

                      One of the reasons the public is war-weary is that the previous administration basically wasted seven years of policy both in Iraq and in the Af/Pak theater. I, for one, wish they hadn't wasted those years because American interests would be greatly advanced by now otherwise, but the fact is, they did waste those years and the public is now thoroughly disillusioned. And since we live in democratic republic, it's ultimately the public's call.

                      When you figure out some way to un-disillusion them, lemme know. Meanwhile, any prescription for indefinite war is going to founder on the rocks of public opinion.

                      {"commentId":9872511,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
                      • 1 vote
                      #9.10 - Sun Oct 4, 2009 5:25 PM EDT
                      {"commentId":9873754,"authorDomain":"another-colonel"}

                      jfxgillis,

                      I understand your points...and here's the solution. The only thing that will get them off their collective s$$es is another attack on American soil AFTER the current administration walks from the fight. Similar events unfolded in Spain...railway bombing and the surrender monkeys walked from Iraq....six months ago, they broke a terror ring that was going to hit them again. Pacifism does not work with these guys...they have courage and staying power...they also understand our leftists and use them as a tool...another attack is probably what we need to get folks back where they need to be. They are coming...ready or not.

                      Regards your initial rant...spitting on me would be the last thing you did for a very long while....but I digress.

                      AC

                      {"commentId":9873754,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"another-colonel"}
                      • 1 vote
                      #9.11 - Sun Oct 4, 2009 7:17 PM EDT
                      {"commentId":9874070,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

                      Colonel:

                      spitting on me would be the last thing you did for a very long while..

                      No doubt. And I thank you for your concern for my safety.

                      The only thing that will get them off their collective s$$es is another attack on American soil AFTER the current administration walks from the fight.

                      To your substantive point, that puts you in a rather anomolous position. Since you've already stated what you think it will take militarily, "three generations of war," and since you seem to acknowledge that my point about public disillusionment is accurate, then the inexorable conclusion is that you think the USA needs another attack on U.S. soil to get us off our collective asses.

                      In other words, you're rooting for the bad guys to have a resounding success. And I'm the ankle-grabbing weakling according to you and you're the hotshot super-patriot according to you. Right.

                      Actually, there's a much better way to cure war-weariness: A resounding victory. Now ... the Af/Pak theater isn't really set up for that kind of brilliant and uplifting victory. As you yourself have argued, the strategy there is excruciatingly incremental. We aren't going to wake up some day and see that NATO forces there have executed some brilliant manuever that has routed the enemy at one fell swoop.

                      The only instant yet brilliant victory I think we could pull off that would change attitudes is to get bin Laden and al Zawhiri. That would at once demoralize the Islamists while it raised our spirits. I don't want to hear "bin Laden doesn't matter." Yeah, he does, because he's the public face of the enemy and public sentiment is the critical issue.

                      {"commentId":9874070,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
                      • 2 votes
                      #9.12 - Sun Oct 4, 2009 7:46 PM EDT
                      {"commentId":9874693,"authorDomain":"another-colonel"}

                      jfxgillis,

                      To start, should you choose to spit (very feminine by the way)...I have no regard for your safety...but promise to perform the trach you will need.

                      Rooting for the bad guys? You really aren't that bright are you. I tell you they are coming despite your pacifist rhetoric...despite all your good intentions and you grasp at that tack used by the left over and over to smear those who disagree? What a maroon. What I am telling you, simply put so even you can understand, is all the rhetoric you spew is useless until the other side BELIEVES thay cannot win. Right now, they believe they can win because those like you, weak of will and afraid of a fight, will turn the tide for them whenever they slide out a big attack somewhere in the world other than the US. They recognize cowards when they confront them.

                      Getting bin Laden and al Zawahiri would be a start (I corrected the spelling so you would know who #2 really was)...and then you have to get all their children...because they are a vendetta society and they have a long memory...you work on the grandkids...thus the three-generation war. Cinch that skirt of yours up...the fight is coming your way....

                      AC

                      {"commentId":9874693,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"another-colonel"}
                      • 2 votes
                      #9.13 - Sun Oct 4, 2009 8:34 PM EDT
                      {"commentId":9875111,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

                      A C:

                      Let me remind you of something: You started the smears. If you don't want to get smeared, don't smear.

                      I tell you they are coming

                      Oh. Right. You told me, I forgot, oh, that changes everything now that I remember.

                      The question isn't "Are they coming?" it's when, where and how hard they're coming and what's the best strategy for stopping them and at what costs.

                      They also recognize blowhard loudmouths who write checks with their mouths that their asses can't cash. You still don't get this, do you:

                      because they are a vendetta society and they have a long memory...you work on the grandkids...thus the three-generation war.

                      I know that. I happen to agree with it in broad outline, but what I think and what you think doesn't matter. The fact is, the public won't sign on to a three-generation war, at least not as its currently being fought. The public is already extremely sceptical of Afghanistan by majority and since we live in a republic, in the end, it'll be the public that decides.

                      Your boot camp speechifying won't work because the USA isn't a military society and you can't make people support a war they don't want to support just by shrieking like an @!$%# drill sergeant. Or Lou Holtz at halftime of a Notre Dame football game.

                      I'm serious. We don't have three generations. We got three years at most--more like two-and-a-half considering there'll be another presidential election in three years.

                      {"commentId":9875111,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
                      • 1 vote
                      #9.14 - Sun Oct 4, 2009 9:07 PM EDT
                      {"commentId":9875154,"authorDomain":"farmer"}
                      What a maroon.
                      {"commentId":9875154,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"farmer"}
                      • 1 vote
                      #9.15 - Sun Oct 4, 2009 9:10 PM EDT
                      {"commentId":9875648,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

                      Col.

                      A fruitless attempt engaging Pvt. "Pyle" Gillis on this 'un. He's a "Biden, cut 'n' run to Cafe Milano" man.

                      {"commentId":9875648,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
                      • 2 votes
                      #9.16 - Sun Oct 4, 2009 9:57 PM EDT
                      {"commentId":9875837,"authorDomain":"another-colonel"}

                      jfxgillis,

                      Thus my comment that you and those like you are simply grabbing your ankles and waiting for the next attack...you got it! No heart, no courage and not an ounce of remorse that your attitude supports those we fight.

                      Fogey and Bill...good to see you.

                      AC

                      {"commentId":9875837,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"another-colonel"}
                      • 2 votes
                      #9.17 - Sun Oct 4, 2009 10:15 PM EDT
                      {"commentId":9876185,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

                      A C:

                      Thus my comment that you

                      "Thus" what? Utter non sequitur.

                      Bill:

                      And what's your rank?

                      {"commentId":9876185,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
                      • 3 votes
                      #9.18 - Sun Oct 4, 2009 10:46 PM EDT
                      Reply
                      {"commentId":9861043,"authorDomain":"amberneve"}

                      On Afghanistan and McChrystal see "Generals and Politics",

                      http://tom-carter.newsvine.com/_news/2009/10/03/3345363-generals-and-politics

                      {"commentId":9861043,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"amberneve"}
                      • 1 vote
                      Reply#10 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 6:41 PM EDT
                      {"commentId":9864194,"authorDomain":"tom-carter"}

                      There's a lot of wishful thinking going on regarding Afghanistan and, for that matter, Pakistan. Neither is likely to ever become a peaceful, democratic country that shares Western values. It's clear, at least to me, that pursuing Obama's initial strategy and McChrystal's plans in furtherance of that strategy will stick us firmly on a path to failure. We can back out now and focus on finding and killing Al-Qaeda and other terrorists who present an actual threat to the U.S. and our allies, or we can go all-in and then back out 10 years from now. The results will almost certainly be the same. The difference will be the pointless sacrifice of many American and allied soldiers and the expenditure of many billions of dollars in vain. We're at a critical crossroads now. We can take the road Lyndon Johnson followed in Vietnam, or we can learn from history and take the road less traveled.

                      It troubled me to see McChrystal publicly advocating his policy preferences in London. He was, in effect, going over the President's head to try to influence a political decision through public pressure. McChrystal knows better. If he can't live within the confines of his legitimate role, he should resign. Otherwise, he might find himself fired.

                      Neron Kesar, thanks for the nod.

                      {"commentId":9864194,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"tom-carter"}
                      • 2 votes
                      Reply#11 - Sat Oct 3, 2009 11:14 PM EDT
                      {"commentId":9870855,"authorDomain":"amberneve"}

                      Tom,

                      I read your column on a regular basis and value your research. I usually learn something useful.

                      Colonels are an interesting breed of people.

                      {"commentId":9870855,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"amberneve"}
                      • 1 vote
                      #11.1 - Sun Oct 4, 2009 2:47 PM EDT
                      Reply
                      {"commentId":9880984,"authorDomain":"cookaerospace"}

                      Meanwhile, in the Kamdesh region yesterday 8 soldiers killed in outposts on the border of Pakistan "that we were planning to abandon anyway."

                      Hmmm, the Obama people expect Pakistan to go "all in" on cleaning the Taliban out of Wajiristan but we are going to back off the border and leave the Taliban a nice sanctuary to hide out until things cool off in Pakistan. Sounds like a winning strategy to me. . .not.

                      Besides which, defending strategic ground at great cost only to give it up sounds a lot like the tactics of Vietnam. Retreating can be part of sound military strategy, if a sound military mind is running things. I am betting that McChrystal went to Britain because he kinda works for NATO and he is desperately seeking a political leader who will actually be a leader.

                      Our forces in Kandesh watched the enemy pour out of a mosque on one flank and out of a village on the other to attack them. After many hours, enough gunship helicopters were found to allow the Americans to get away with their wounded and their dead. In the meanwhile 20 of our loyal Afghan forces that we have been training on our dime were captured, which means they are either dead or now switching sides. All other Afghans fighting with us must really be having doubts whether siding with the Americans is going to work out in the long run. I can't blame them for wondering.

                      {"commentId":9880984,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"cookaerospace"}
                      • 1 vote
                      Reply#12 - Mon Oct 5, 2009 10:44 AM EDT
                      {"commentId":9883579,"authorDomain":"farmer"}
                      I am betting that McChrystal went to Britain because he kinda works for NATO and he is desperately seeking a political leader who will actually be a leader.

                      I think, if you look, this would be treason under our laws. US laws.

                      {"commentId":9883579,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"farmer"}
                        #12.1 - Mon Oct 5, 2009 12:51 PM EDT
                        Reply
                        {"commentId":9881149,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
                        Our forces in Kandesh watched the enemy pour out of a mosque on one flank and out of a village on the other to attack them.

                        The enemy knows what we won't attack mosques and that's why they marshal forces in them. And that's been true since the beginning of this war witness this AC 130 guncam video from some years back.

                        {"commentId":9881149,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
                        • 1 vote
                        Reply#13 - Mon Oct 5, 2009 10:54 AM EDT
                        {"commentId":9890819,"authorDomain":"cookaerospace"}

                        Now if I were running things I do think I would abandon the forward positions on the border with Pakistan in the district of Kamdesh for the moment. Further, I would let the Pakistani government know exactly that I was doing so in order that when Pakistan commences their operations against the Taliban and al Qaida in Wajiristan, the jihadists will not have to make a bloody last stand against the Pakistani army, but will flow right into Kamdesh and take up residence in Afghanistan again.

                        Before the Pakistani army leaves Wajiristan to go back to their home barracks, however, I would turn on Kamdesh with my 40,000 new troops of the McChrystal request plus I would add a number of sorties by B-52 bombers loaded out with whatever napalm remains in the U.S. arsenal.

                        Next we would do this disastrous battle of a day ago all over again, only with proper air support, artillery support, and at least Stryker brigades to conduct the ground advance all the way back to the Pakistani border. The Pakistanis then have to decide whether they will let the nuisance sneak back into their country that they just chased out. While they are deciding the Taliban are going to be out in the open trying to hide under rocks and the tonic for that is more smart weapons, all the drones available, and more napalm from on high.

                        I would like to think that the Obama administration is smart enough to seize this opportunity. About the worst thing we could do is to pull back to the population centers, allow Kamdesh to become a Taliban sanctuary, all while we annoy the heck out of Pakistan with continual drone attacks on what we imagine is the "real" enemy.

                        {"commentId":9890819,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"cookaerospace"}
                          Reply#14 - Mon Oct 5, 2009 6:19 PM EDT
                          {"commentId":9894403,"authorDomain":"amberneve"}

                          President Obama was elected primarily on a platform of domestic issues -- especially fixing the economy -- so it is not surprising that foreign policy is not his strength. Irrespective, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT OBAMA IS INEPT.

                          Obama has delayed responding to General McChrystal's request for additional troops for a deliberate reason, a reason unknown to me. Secretary of Defense Gates recently said the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is the epicenter of global jihad. Perhaps this is the reason. Gates explained that jihadists were emboldened by their defeat of the Soviets, so the jihadists would be further emboldened by defeating a second superpower.

                          I myself have written that militant Islam stepped into the void vacated by Communist Russia, but unlike Gates I claimed the epicenter is Iran. I have not changed my position because unlike Sunni Al-Qaeda, militant Shia Islam enjoys state sponsorship and thus has staying power. Al-Qaeda will die out along with its leadership as do all violent fascist groups, so the objectives are time and containment.

                          The current heated debate arose because of the general's request for increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan. Before this the military operation in Afghanistan had all but fallen off the radar of public interest. In view of the foregoing and in response to General McChrystal's request for additional troops, I recommend:

                          "Request for additional troops DENIED. Rework strategy in accordance with current troop levels. Destroy Al-Qaeda; contain Taliban."

                          I would issue separate directives to the Department of Defense and the State Department. I would direct the former to redraw its policy regarding militant Islam to depict Iran as the chief threat to global stability. I would request contingencies for dismantling Iran's nuclear program sooner than later.

                          I would direct the State Department to explore and advise regarding state-federal political power sharing in Afghanistan. Is there a need for de-federalizing the concentration of power?

                          {"commentId":9894403,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"amberneve"}
                          • 1 vote
                          Reply#15 - Mon Oct 5, 2009 9:58 PM EDT
                          {"commentId":9895972,"authorDomain":"cookaerospace"}

                          Is the USA unable to deal with two Third World countries at the same time? Pressure on Iran does not depend on boots on the ground (well, it could, but that's another of my wild thoughts.) Denying the Taliban any kind of a sanctuary in Afghanistan does not depend on any of the diplomatic, economic, or military resouces we need to deal with Iran.

                          {"commentId":9895972,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"cookaerospace"}
                            Reply#16 - Tue Oct 6, 2009 12:08 AM EDT
                            {"commentId":9898400,"authorDomain":"farmer"}

                            It appears to me that denying sanctuary to the Taliban in Afghanistan would be very like denying Republicans who happened to be fundamentalist Christians entry into Texas. The Taliban are a result of war and so now we want to eradicate them with war? Read how they came about, who they are and why they might never go away.

                            My greatest epiphany during the Vietnam war was when I looked down at a poor hard scrabble farmer shooting up at me with an antiquated rifle. He was standing on the edge of a corn field and his little hut home with breakfast cooking smoke coming from it showed signs of containing a wife and children. He was trying to swat away the fly, me and my Birddog and an incognito senior officer who was just there for the excitement. We were way too high for him to hit. Then it dawned on me. Had I been harassing someone on a mountainside in my native West Virginia I would probably have been shot at there as well.

                            {"commentId":9898400,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"farmer"}
                            • 2 votes
                            #16.1 - Tue Oct 6, 2009 8:10 AM EDT
                            {"commentId":9907387,"authorDomain":"jbdaad"}

                            Hi oldfogey,

                            The Taliban ("Students of Islamic Knowledge Movement") ruled Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001. They came to power during Afghanistan's long civil war. Although they managed to hold 90% of the country's territory, their policies—including their treatment of women and support of terrorists—ostracized them from the world community. The Taliban was ousted from power in December 2001 by the U.S. military and Afghani opposition forces in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the U.S.

                            Would seem to me we accomplished our primary mission...what`s the holdup in getting our soldiers back home?

                            Politics?

                            {"commentId":9907387,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"jbdaad"}
                            • 2 votes
                            #16.2 - Tue Oct 6, 2009 4:08 PM EDT
                            {"commentId":9907527,"authorDomain":"farmer"}

                            Good question.

                            {"commentId":9907527,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"farmer"}
                            • 1 vote
                            #16.3 - Tue Oct 6, 2009 4:15 PM EDT
                            {"commentId":9907896,"authorDomain":"jbdaad"}

                            Col. Jack Jacobs

                            Obama summoned General McChrystal for a brief meeting whose substance is liable to be leaked by those with axes to grind, but we know where McChrystal stands: in a speech in London, he rejected calls to reduce America's effort against enemy forces in Afghanistan.

                            he rejected calls to reduce America's effort against enemy forces in Afghanistan

                            On what grounds?

                            The Taliban was ousted from power in December 2001 by the U.S. military and Afghani opposition forces in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the U.S.

                            I hope he`s on the frontlines!

                            {"commentId":9907896,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"jbdaad"}
                            • 2 votes
                            #16.4 - Tue Oct 6, 2009 4:32 PM EDT
                            Reply
                            {"commentId":9900733,"authorDomain":"cookaerospace"}

                            That's a nice hill-billy analogy, but the brand new leader of the Taliban this morning expressed in an AP story how much he loves and appreciates his brethren, the al Qaida.

                            So I would guess a sanctuary for the Taliban is going to be a sanctuary for al Qaida as well, particularly as al Qaida is the better-funded organization. Money makes them welcome.

                            There is a big difference between the patriot farmer defending his hut and the organized Viet Cong who infiltrated into the urban centers in 1968. Most of those trained and idealistically motivated VC were actually killed in the Tet offensive, which is why South Vietnam was able to survive until 1975 when it was invaded by conventional armored columns coming down highways. The VC sacrifice, however, had totally defeated America mentally, which then caused the abrupt abandonment of a project in which 58,000 American lives had been invested, not to mention all the treasure.

                            Not only that, but all the Vietnamese who were partial to the Americans (many were French speakers and Catholic) had to get out of Dodge immediately. At the least they faced years of re-education working as slave labor, at the worst a quick bullet in the back of the head. How many of the more educated and Westernized Iraqis and Afghanis face exactly the same thing today?

                            Well, they can come live in this suburb of Seattle with all the Somali and Serbian refugees. They can have doughnuts in the bakery/latte bar of my old Vietnamese friend who is Catholic and still speaks a little French, and listen to us swap stories about an abruptly lost cause of 45 years past.

                            {"commentId":9900733,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"cookaerospace"}
                            • 1 vote
                            Reply#17 - Tue Oct 6, 2009 10:55 AM EDT
                            {"commentId":9902327,"authorDomain":"farmer"}

                            MLCook, we would agree 99%. Although I will point out that many of the RVN refugees had to leave because of the way they treated or allowed their fellow Vietnamese to be treated. The lowlanders came across with us but the mountain people never really showed up. Go around the world and you will find the same divide. Lowlanders against mountain people.

                            Sticking with my West Virginia analogy, what do you think a young man from Hog Hollow would do to a Wetzel County Commissioner if the commissioner had told the authorities they could shoot up anything they saw in the hollow? A free fire zone is not a pretty thing!

                            {"commentId":9902327,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"farmer"}
                            • 1 vote
                            Reply#18 - Tue Oct 6, 2009 12:22 PM EDT
                            {"commentId":9902771,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
                            . . .but the mountain people never really showed up.

                            Lots of Vang Pao's Laotian Hmong would disagree. Huge community in Minnesota. Most of the Montagnards from VN's central highlands who fled after the communists won went to Cambodia which has forcibly repatriated many of them.

                            {"commentId":9902771,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}
                            • 2 votes
                            #18.1 - Tue Oct 6, 2009 12:44 PM EDT
                            {"commentId":9903110,"authorDomain":"farmer"}

                            I am aware of the Minnesota Hmongs, it was a member of that community that went berserk and killed a bunch of hunters, wasn't it? The Hmongs in America have become basic Americans, they are just a part of us now. The Laotian Hmong was more of a mercenary and drug runner. They got to RVN following their American trainers, advisers, commanders who had fled the undercover war going on in Laos. In RVN they made up the cadre of US Special Forces trained military and paramilitary groups.

                            On the other hand, few of the Montagnards made it to the US. They learned not to trust either side or anyone. As far as fleeing to other countries, I think you will find that the Montagnards moved easily throughout SEA and China. They stuck to the mountains.

                            Sorry, I am sure you know all this, just had to get some thoughts out while they are still fresh. My greatest military regret is that I did not carry my fight to protect the mountagnards into the notice of the American Public.

                            {"commentId":9903110,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"farmer"}
                            • 1 vote
                            #18.2 - Tue Oct 6, 2009 1:00 PM EDT
                            Reply
                            {"commentId":9910031,"authorDomain":"cookaerospace"}

                            The history of the Gurkhas in the British army also recalls a Christianized bunch of mountain people who were abandoned by a British Labor government in 1946 into the control of lowlanders who were religiously intolerant and socialist in a plunder-thy-neighbor kind of way. Nevertheless, Gurkhas kept up their association with the British army because the Brits, after all, are a warlike people so there is sure to be excitement if you hang out with them. Makes sense to me, McChrystal going to London.

                            I thought that Obama showed promise when he let the U.S. Navy Seal sniper team take out some Somali pirates. Maybe this will be a president who grows in office.

                            {"commentId":9910031,"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491","authorDomain":"cookaerospace"}
                              Reply#19 - Tue Oct 6, 2009 6:27 PM EDT
                              {"canLink":false,"threadId":"691423","isPrivate":false}
                              Leave a Comment:
                              You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                              As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                              {"threadId":"691423","contentId":"3341491"}
                              Start TrackingStart Tracking
                              Stop TrackingStop Tracking
                              Col. Jack Jacobs's Latest Comments
                              Comments & Feedback
                              – Show More