
![]() | |
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
|
Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! July 13, 2009 The (unpaved) road from hard to hopelessBy Greyhawk"Hard is not hopeless," general Petraeus famously stated at the outset of the surge in Iraq. Now, under a new president (who campaigned under a banner of "Hope"), a new surge into Afghanistan has begun. Its motto is as yet unwritten. Rajiv Chandrasekaran is a fine writer, and his report from Afghanistan is a must-read. This town does not merit a dot on most maps of Afghanistan. But U.S. civilian and military officials believe what happens to the chockablock market here will be a key indicator of whether President Obama can salvage a war the United States has been losing. In fact, as things now stand he can not. He could - but there's another war he must win first. He would have my complete support in that conflict too, but thus far he's shown no inclination to fight it at all. That war is not in Iraq, where we've truly done all we could militarily - it's in Washington. It is not with the loyal opposition - there is no significant Republican call to deny him resources to accomplish the task. A more likely source of that as a problem would come from within his own Party. However, occasional sound bites of varying degrees of sincerity aside, it's difficult at this point to imagine current concerns growing to seriously destructive proportions. As for opposition from the media - is there any point in maintaining the charade? This Washington Post, with "Obama's War - the surge begins" above a headline that assures us we're in "a fight for peace" is the same newspaper that sneeringly "fact checked" a point in the vice Presidential debate (Palin: "the surge principles will work in Afghanistan" Biden: "no") in favor of the guy who was quite obviously (and pointlessly and foolishly) wrong. Water under the bridge, as they say; he is the VP, she is not, and the surge is on. But who, then, is this opponent, this final roadblock on the path to victory, this potential public enemy number one? It's none other than Barack Obama. I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.
The United States must overcome the 'trust deficit' it faces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where many believe that we are not a reliable long-term partner. We must engage the Afghan people in ways that demonstrate our commitment to promoting a legitimate and capable Afghan government with economic progress. We must engage the Pakistani people based on our long-term commitment to helping them build a stable economy, a stronger democracy, and a vibrant civil society.
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is having trouble finding the hundreds of civilians it wants to bolster its troop buildup in Afghanistan, so military reservists might be asked to do many of the jobs.
Or else it may turn out to be your war after all. Posted by Greyhawk / July 13, 2009 10:32 AM | Permalink 2 TrackBacksBing West's Wall Street Journal piece is headlined How We'll Win in Afghanistan - but shouldn't be mistaken for a comprehensive explanation of just that. But there are two quotes that immediately caught my attention: 1. Al Qaeda, dominated by Arabs, is... Read More Sixty-three percent of Americans polled at the announcement of President Obama's Afghanistan troops surge last February said "they support Obama's plan to beef up U.S. troops in Afghanistan, with 36 percent opposing the move." A new commander was annou... Read More 7 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
![]() Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com ![]() Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
The Main Stream Media is doing what it does the best. Undercut our effort to fight the war on terror. The new attacks on the CIA and Cheney and threats of legal action for their efforts protecting us are bazaar, but that's what we get with a peace sign Obama family.
The White House is in daily contact with chosen reporters so they can make sure the correct themes (basically its Bushes fault) reach the headlines.
In Afghanistan and Pakistan we are starting to apply our experienced military to crushing the Taliban. Soft stuff is good, but after the Marines have been over them a time or two.
We have our best leaders over there and if they are not undercut from Washington, expect them to win.
"Exit strategy", and "wind down" are code words for cut and run. Cut and run was wrong in Iraq then and is wrong in Afghanistan now. Especially when we are seeing the Taliban and Al Quaeda pounded on both sides of the border.
The usual liberal suspects are trying to sell us out. Don't let it happen.
I have no doubt the Marines will succeed in protecting their part of Helmand.
Here's a happy thought I didn't include in the post:
More:
As I read it, the opposition in Britain is actually arguing for more. ButWant to know someone else on our side? This is from the Washington Post story:
Please school me up where I'm wrong in the following:
There's two primary issues behind the lack of coherent success in Afghanistan.
1. The usual suspects when dealing with any third world hole. Corruption, ignorance, tribalism, etc and so on, which, whether we like it or not, will have to be broken down and remade into something at least resembling functional society before the situation can be honestly settled.
2. ISAF. Fractured command. Each national detachment doing its own thing, its own way, on its own schedule with little or no actual cooperation or coordination. The areas assigned are treated more like fiefdoms than parts of a functional campaign.
Speaking from no personal experience but a lot of discussions with many who have much, that's two among many.
Your item one is no quick fix; we've been working item two for years (as in 50+) though we never had a war to test the theories out.
Something of an irony in the number of "complaints" four or so years ago about our "unilateral" invasion of Iraq.
The point behind my #1 was meant to highlight the fact that there is, nor ever has been, no quick fix. From the very beginning, this war has been addressed as a "generational war" with full understanding that it is, by necessity, going to be a long hard slog with lots of ups and downs, gains and losses, two steps forward and one back sort of effort. Changes are going to have to be incremental and addressed over an extended time period. This ain't a "microwave minnit" type war. It's never been addressed as such.
In regard to #2, yeah. France showed early on the fragility and basic bad structure of NATO in general and European politics regarding alliances in particular. The "Balkans War" proved beyond doubt that many of the nations of western Europe have become largely parasitic in their military alliance with the US.
The constant need by so many of our leaders to crawl on their bellies in attempts to appease those same nations strikes me as simply being weak and rather stupid. But, I'm often told I tend to be a bit harsh on such issues.
re: incremental, long term
Everyone with any insight or knowledge suggests A'stan will be very long term - partly because of limited resources we are committing (by necessity or will).
That's what's particularly troubling about any admin-implied "ticking clock".