
![]() | |
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! September 27, 2009 Moving parts (2): in the Wiggle RoomBy Greyhawk(Part one here.) This quote... Asked why al-Qaeda, which is comparatively safe in its current sanctuaries in Pakistan, would want to return to Afghanistan, where more than 100,000 U.S. and NATO troops are stationed, Jones said, "That's a good question. . . . This is certainly one of the questions that we will be discussing. This is one of the questions, for example, that one could come back at with General McChrystal." ...from Woodward's WaPo story prompts this response from Spencer Ackerman: "It is a great question." I agree, which is why it should be answered once again sooner rather than later. Back to Spencer: ...it's complacent to predicate a strategy on al-Qaeda being cozy in Pakistan. The whole goal of the strategy is to disrupt that Pakistani safe haven in the first place. If the strategy is working, then al-Qaeda will try to move in response to increased harassment. I don't know where they'll move, and it's not necessarily the case that they'll move back to Afghanistan, but we should want them to feel the need for getting out of where they are. Actually, a strategy - no matter how long-debated or carefully considered - must be based on certain assumptions - and if those developing it attempt to account for every possibility they'll achieve a state colloquially called analysis paralysis, in which decisions are never made. As for whether it's better to keep them "in place" or "moving", arguments can be made for either option (with full knowledge that they get a vote, too - but again, analysis paralysis). But in "big picture" strategy - the sort developed at the National Command Authority level, which is much of what we're really discussing here - big picture stuff is important. Here's an example from our now six-month old Af/Pak strategy: 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. That "reliable" message should be heard in Islamabad, Kabul, Baghdad, Mogadishu and Timbuktu. (Did you know that last is an actual city? I did...) But because we're in Af/Pak (because al Qaeda is in Af/Pak) it's phrased for Af/Pak - and includes a pledge to the people - not their governments. It's critical to deny safe havens, among other reasons so that we don't wind up doing the same in-force stuff elsewhere - and that's another component of our current strategy beyond Af/Pak, thus it does not appear in Af/Pak-centric White papers. This process is carried out by diplomacy, aid, and other means - not all of which "make the papers". The 'trust deficit' where many believe that we are not a reliable long-term partner is true wherever we may be now or in the future. Since we're in Afghanistan (and in a different sense and to a much lesser degree Pakistan) now it is critical there. If we fail in that regards it becomes highly unlikely we'll be able to convince future partners that no, we really mean it this time. Unfortunately for any public debate on the topic, few people will have taken the time to read the brief white paper framing the strategy released last Spring, and fewer still will have a background to grasp the limits, depths, and necessary ambiguities therein. Whatever they may know of it they get from media coverage - including this:
Which is also true, and certainly saying it helps "shore up the base" (and perhaps "The Base"). But it's a goes without saying sort of thing (outside of diplomatic channels when used to coax action from a "reluctant partner"), not covered in the White Paper and probably not the best choice for a key global message to be sent by the President of the United States on a publicity tour immediately prior to its release. (But admittedly useful if your goal is to "distance yourself from your predecessor" in the minds of the public.)
Again, because it is "big picture" there are necessary ambiguities in the big picture plan, details which are left to lower-level planners including commanders in the field. (But which can be used for other purposes, too - we're seeing that this week.) And there are clearly many noteworthy elements to that plan. But the New York Times' headline choice resulting from the pre-release publicity blitz - "Obama Says a Way Out of Afghanistan Is Needed" seems an odd way to announce your plan for dealing with "the central front". Postscript: "This is one of the questions, for example, that one could come back at with General McChrystal." Indeed, there's nothing the General can say that can't be delayed and then answered with a question (or "prove it"). Posted by Greyhawk / September 27, 2009 2:54 PM | Permalink 1 TrackBackBob Woodward, the Washington Post, Today (September 27) "No Deadline Set for Decision on Troops":President Obama has not set a deadline for determining a new strategy or for committing more troops to the war in Afghanistan, despite an urgent request fr... Read More 2 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 |
People done get it, the sad thing is the troops on the ground get it, either. If you talk to the troops, you'll hear, "I'll fight this war, so my kids won't need to fight it." I wish I were wrong, but I figure but those solders will find their kids and grandchildren, for many generations in this same damn war. I figure this is true even if Gen. McChrystal gets his "dream sheet", everything he wants. We will still be there, for beyond the foreseeable future. This is what I meant, when I said, "WE ARE THIRE! I MEAN YOR A LONG TIME!"
My grandfather fought in WWI (aka at the time "the war to end all wars"), his sons fought in WWII.
As someone said, "only the dead have seen the end of war."