
![]() | |
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! November 13, 2009 Hey Rube!By GreyhawkFrom the president's remarks at Elmendorf: I will not risk your lives unless it is necessary to America's vital interest. And if it is necessary, the United States of America will have your back. We will give you the strategy and the clear mission you deserve. We will give you the equipment and support that you need to get the job done. And that includes public support back home. That is a promise that I make to you. Is the president going to do something to increase public support for the mission in Afghanistan? Some of the folks at CNN keyed in on that quote pretty quickly:
Now the good folks at CNN aren't military strategists - but they do get public affairs releases from the White House, so they might have insight into just what that effort might be. So here's Candy: CROWLEY: It's the sales job, and no one likes to hear that with a military operation. But the president understands that he does have to have this public support, as well as those service people have to have it. And the only way to get that, as far as they can see, and I think that's what we've seen over the past 24 hours, is the president saying, tell me how I get out and tell me how we hand over this country to a stable government. And it's just so complex. But it's clearly what he has to do if he's going to put more troops in there. In short, he'll increase public support by having a clear exit strategy. Coincidentally, yesterday Robert Haddick at Small Wars Journal noticed an Armed Forces Press Service report on Secretary Gates: The question, [Gates] said, comes down to "How do we signal resolve, and at the same time, signal to the Afghans and the American people that this is not open-ended?"If President Obama and his team are waiting until they come up with an answer to that dilemma, it is no longer a mystery why the review is taking so long. Sorry, you can't commit to both the long road and the exit ramp at the same time - you have to pick one or the other. And if amazingly coincidental CNN PR work for the White House and DoD PR work for themselves doesn't convince you that some new PR spin is brewing then you certainly aren't a suspicious sort. But new PR campaigns aside, that's actually been a key component of team Obama's Afghan strategy from the start. "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" - that's a quote from the White Paper. And this is a quote from President Obama at the time of its release last March:
During the presidential campaign there were those who noticed Obama's habit of saying one thing to one group and the opposite to another. Some might call that "nuance", others "politics" - but some reasons why that's questionable military strategy are addressed here. As far as running for office goes it's a proven winning tactic, Obama is just the latest to use it to his advantage. Not that he wasn't helped by folks like those at CNN, who are perfectly willing to declare on behalf of the White House that the best way to increase domestic support for the war is to indicate a willingness to (retreat/abandon/acknowledge futility/accept reality - your choice) at some point in the future, probably (days/weeks/months/years - your choice) from now. And - oh by the way - call it "new". Same poll, different day: Posted by Greyhawk / November 13, 2009 3:34 PM | Permalink 1 TrackBackDanger Room's Spencer Ackerman: "Is Obama's 2011 Afghanistan Deadline a Mistake?" Here's a one-word answer from me that might surprise: "no." But here's a question I'd answer differently: "Is publicly announcing a deadline a mistake?" My answer: "yes."... Read More 8 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 |
I still believe that the reason for the dithering and the rejecting the military options is that he is looking for the 'white flag' option and won't be happy until he gets it.
Step 1: Fix Karzai problem.
Step 2: Figure out step two.
You know what scares me about the delay? This is the *EASY* "we need to fight to win" decision. The Taliban harbored Al Qaeda/bin Laden who attacked our country and KILLED 4000 innocent people. If they win, we are right back where we were on 9/10/2001... though possibly worse than that if Pakistan goes down with Afghanistan and we get Al Qaeda with nukes... If we win, we are at least postured for a better future. I can see mulling strategy and how many troops to commit, but what I can't fathom is how backing away is a rational option. What is it they say about making the same mistake and then expecting a different result??
And can I just say, it's annoying how many people think COIN is *new*. Hello, Iraq??
Lisa,
There's another narrative that says Iraq was saved when the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 and the recalcitrant Sunnis realized the Americans would soon be leaving. At that point, they knew they had to stop fighting and try for the best deal they could get - or something to that effect.
Not many people buy into that, but if enough TV networks and newspapers start selling it could become popular. (And popularity is what political campaigns are all about.)
Greyhawk-
Oh, right. Forgot about that interpretation of the impact of 2006 mid-terms. That actually makes too much sense...hope Obama doesn't buy it, but it sure tracks with all the obsession with Karzai's fitness/legitimacy for office. Yikes.
If they win, we are right back where we were on 9/10/2001... though possibly worse than that if Pakistan goes down with Afghanistan and we get Al Qaeda with nukes...
@Lisa,
1. Pakistan isnt "going down with Afghanistan" - i am not sure you understand the geopolitics here but Afghanistan became Pakistan's client state with the establishment of Taliban rule in the 90's.. 9/11 happened and made Pakistan pretend that it was changing course and fighting alongside the US against the Taliban
With everything that we have seen so far, they have been "fighting" the Taliban the last 7 years by signing "peace" agreements. It is only intense American pressure on the Pak Govt to act against terrorists that has led to the spate of attacks on Pakistan in the last 2 years.. especially last 7 months.
If the US withdrew today, the Pakistan civilian Govt would collapse, the military would take over and officially recognize the Taliban as the legitimate representative of Afghanistan and things will go back to the pre-9/11 days where the Taliban was used for strategic depth by Pakistan against India.
Of course there are factions of the Taliban that are fighting Pakistan today, but the single biggest reason they are doing so is because of US pressure on Pakistan to act against the Taliban.
If we win, we are at least postured for a better future. I can see mulling strategy and how many troops to commit, but what I can't fathom is how backing away is a rational option. What is it they say about making the same mistake and then expecting a different result??
To me this "mulling strategy" is a tell for retreat.. from where i come, those who do NOT have the will to fight start thinking up of all the excuses possible to NOT fight. "The Afghan Govt is corrupt" meme is so lame, that i dont know how people are not laughing at it.
Remember this is the same President who will go to all possible lengths to try and deal with Iran,whose Presidential elections were as legitimate as the ones that Chicago Cook County holds... and he is not willing to deal with the "corrupt" Karzai ?
What "partner" did Bush have during the Iraq surge? Can any one honestly say that Maliki was real ally at that time ? Absolutely not.
I say -if you are not willing to commit to the fight, stop endangering the lives of those who are still willing and ready to fight. Start planning for withdrawal.
It would be a disaster but at the very least, it would be an honest thing to do - the American public has no stomach for any further engagement in Afghanistan and the US President is simply listening to that popular opinion. It is not leadership ofcourse, but atleast it is honest.
I'm with you. According to Woodward's final book on Bush, the "do we stick with Maliki" question was asked in the White House, the answer was any alternative is worse.
We've wasted a year on step one. I'm not even certain exactly what Obama (or Biden's) real problem with Karzai is. I get the corruption charges but can't believe for a minute the Chicago mob has a real problem with that. If the Afghans have a problem with it, it's a distant second to other more urgent concerns. Suicide bombers, for instance.
Stability first, or at least coincident with the effort.
I think your Pakistan forecast is exactly right, too.
I don't claim any expertise on Pakistan (thanks for the insights/education! makes sense to me), but I guess I'm still left with the sense that Pakistan is spiraling to a less stable place than where it was pre-9/11...? Maybe that's just lack of awareness on my part of the ground truth back then. Still it seems that if we pull out, we'd be left with a Pakistan and client state that will have their sights set on more than India...or do you think they'd quell al Qaeda and the let's-recreate-the-Califate-folks and focus on regional dominance or infighting instead? I worry about their embedded transnational terror cohorts....