
![]() | |
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 14, 2009 War Costs MoneyBy Greyhawk...that's why a "senior administration official, who requested anonymity in order to reflect the details and tone of confidential deliberations, said these concerns had added to the president's insistence at a White House meeting on Wednesday that each military option include the quickest possible exit strategy." Exit strategy is a fine talking point, clearly it polled well among Democrats back in 2006 and '07 - and getting Democrats to support the war in the US is reportedly an Obama admin goal. (Republicans are reliably - if increasingly reluctantly - on board. For now.) That's domestic politics, but in war your willingness to quit is something you don't advertise, among other reasons because it sends enemies and allies (and those still choosing sides) alike a message that you aren't really serious. For one of those groups it's also inspiring. Which is why Gates has already signaled his concerns. Once again. Update: And I just got around to reading the latest from Kilcullen:
"Leaks" are part of the game - nothing leaks that isn't approved, and there have been far too many to believe otherwise. (Note the Gates story is purportedly about leaks, too.) But while normally I'd experience some satisfaction in seeing I'm not the only one thinking what I'm thinking it's diminished completely by the fact that I'd prefer to think everything I wrote above was wrong. Send half the needed troops and advertise an "exit strategy". Hella plan. I've learned to never underestimate what the men and women of the American military can do, but that's going to get an awful lot of them killed. Next: War costs money (2). Posted by Greyhawk / November 14, 2009 7:03 PM | Permalink 1 TrackBackThis post was mentioned on Twitter by TheTweetTank11: Mudville Gazette http://bit.ly/4uz0g9 Read More 3 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 |
For a politico...he has to be seen to answering those questions. At least if he is going to keep the leftards on board.
Nothing really changes if he decides today or next month to deploy more troops to Afghanistan. The way the rotations will work out no one will hit the ground until February or March anyway. The first few brigades of an 'Afghan Surge' already have the heads up.
Any president is the national salesmen. I don't like this one but I understand the necessity to sell it to the leftards.
The plan for Afghanistan is going to go like Iraq...dramatically increase the training resources and dramatically increase the size of the Afghan Security Forces until the killing gets to a level they can handle it on their own.
How one sells the Bush 'Iraq Surge' plan to those still convinced it can't work is President Obama's problem.
"The way the rotations will work out no one will hit the ground until February or March anyway."
- Yes. And I agree with what you're saying re: the Afghan surge all around. I'm not certain McChrystal will get what he asked for - I am certain that whatever he gets will be described as all he asked for. One of last weekend's "leaks" already demonstrated that.
And I agree that the president feels he has to "sell" that to reluctant Dems. Certain members of Congress from devout anti-war districts are probably pressuring hard for that.
Television and newspaper reporters are already doing their part for the PR effort, but the problem comes from using a message al Qaeda and the Taliban would appreciate even more than Democrats as the sales pitch. In fact the avowed anti-war wing of that party isn't any more likely to accept it than al Qaeda members are likely to convert to Judaism.
Beyond that, it's a message that won't convince those "on the fence" (in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the US and NATO countries) to come down on our side.
The pieces I'm focused on is General Odierno et al were pretty firm about holding at 12 BCT's in Iraq until after the Iraqi Elections. Then without fanfare it became apparent that he was going to cut to 10 brigades by the Iraqi elections. Effectively freeing up two brigades to go into the Afghan rotation pool.
So that adds 2 brigades + support = 20,000 troops shifted to the Afghan deployment pool.
For anything beyond 20K troops shifted to Afghanistan one has to assume the continued draw down of troops in Iraq will go to plan. Or be willing to go back to 15 months deployments.
As the Iraqi elections draw closer a more informed decision can be made....just a few weeks ago there wasn't even a firm date for the Iraqi elections.
I agree about the mixed messages be communicated. It's not particularly useful.
Of course protesters in the street send their own messages and various congree critters threatening to defund various efforts(and coming close to having the votes) also has sent mixed messages.
Absent trying people for treason and sedition I'm not sure we can do anything about it other then attempt to 'manage' dissent.
Sometimes a way to manage dissent is to publicly acknowledge peoples concerns and anguish over a solution. Even if no solution is found it tends to make people feel better. Bill Clinton was a master of "Feel your pain".