
![]() | |
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 24, 2009 Leakiest administration ever?By GreyhawkHeadlined "Obama plans to send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan" - this news from McClatchy... President Barack Obama met Monday evening with his national security team to finalize a plan to dispatch some 34,000 additional U.S. troops over the next year to what he's called "a war of necessity" in Afghanistan, U.S. officials told McClatchy. ...sounds a lot like this news from McClatchy (headlined "Obama leaning toward 34,000 more troops for Afghanistan") from November 7th. However, at that time they did add that "the officials, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss internal administration planning, cautioned that Obama's decision isn't final." After that earlier story, McClatchy reported that administration leaks had done significant damage to America's efforts in Afghanistan, and "poisoned ties between the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan and the U.S. ambassador in Kabul, and left the administration struggling for leverage to press Afghan President Hamid Karzai to appoint untainted officials to his new government."
So last week, President Obama boldly decreed that he felt that leaks from his administration were "not appropriate." "We have deliberations in the situation room for a reason; we're making life and death decisions that affect how our troops are able to operate in a theater of war. For people to be releasing info in the course of deliberations is not appropriate." It's nice that the president understands and acknowledges the life and death issues at stake - but all that did was set up what might be the greatest leak quote ever in the new McClatchy piece: The U.S. officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the issue publicly and because, one official said, the White House is incensed by leaks on its Afghanistan policy that didn't originate in the White House. So if we really need 34,000 more troops in Afghanistan it seems the White House could send administration leakers there and still have some to spare. Except they're proven security risks, and demonstrably not qualified to hold clearances or deal with classified information. So scratch that idea. (A large roundup of several months worth of national security leaks here.) Elsewhere: Neptunus Lex: "That's an interesting turn of phrase - it implies that leaks originating within the White House are perfectly fine. Gotta control that narrative." Politico: White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement: "After completing a rigorous final meeting, President Obama has the information he wants and needs to make his decision and he will announce that decision within days." Jules Crittenden "It's another great oratory op for Obama, whose great, lauded accomplishments to date are limited to the wonder he's induced at his remarkable ability to string together sentences." Ed Morrissey: "The new plan contains the "off-ramps" Obama demanded from his national security team... The increase in troops is a good decision, but the off-ramps almost completely undermine it." Max Boot: "Obama had better use his televised talk to the nation not only to announce a robust reinforcement package but also to make clear that he expects the troops to defeat the Taliban -- not to prepare the way for a rapid "exit strategy." No one wants to risk his or her life to secure a more expeditious withdrawal. If we're going to commit more troops -- and we should -- the only proper objective is victory. That is a word that has been missing so far from Obama's vocabulary. I hope it is not MIA on Tuesday night." Corrente: "Has the administration ever articulated a reason why we're fighting in Afghanistan?" The Hill: "The proposal, in its current form, would authorize the deployment of slightly fewer troops than the number Gen. Stanley McChrystal first requested back in September." Foreign Policy: "The top U.S. and NATO commander in the country, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and the U.S. ambassador to Kabul, Amb. Karl Eikenberry, have both reportedly been told to prepare to testify before Congress "as early as next week," so they can offer support for the president's decision" Juan Cole: "President Obama is widely thought to be likely to announce his Afghanistan plans next week. Leaks suggest that he will send 34,000 new troops. If that is so, Gen. Stanley McChrystal has won the struggle for policy decisively." Firedoglake: "Looks Like Escalation In Afghanistan... That timeline means that the last installment of new troops wouldn't arrive in Afghanistan until a year from now. We're talking about an escalation in slow motion." CNN: "If President Barack Obama decides to send 34,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, a new national poll indicates Americans would be split over whether to support such a move." Newshoggers: "President Obama will announce on Dec 1 that he will order 34,000 additional troops sent to Afghanistan... Which is just about the number everyone was expecting and exactly enough to keep both the pro-war and anti-occupation camps dissatisfied. Obama must have decided he'd just piss everyone off equally. " Posted by Greyhawk / November 24, 2009 10:33 AM | Permalink TrackBackTrackBack URL: http://www.mudvillegazette.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/16999 |
July 19, 2010Dawn Patrol 07/19/2010 [Greyhawk]
Welcome to the Dawn Patrol, our ongoing roundup of information on war and other topics - from the MilBlogs and other sources around the world.
Always updating - refresh for updates.
AFGHANISTANProspects for stability in Musa Qala: challenges and possible solutions -- [Bill Ardolino /Long War Journal - in Afghanistan] Exploding Culverts -- [Kandahar Diary - in Afghanistan] Arbaki -- [Free Range International - in Afghanistan] Weather -- [A Major's Perspective - in Afghanistan] Fête Nationale -- [Field Notes: One Soldier's Perspective - in Afghanistan] Goodbye "FaST" Food (and good riddance) -- [FaST Surgeon - in Afghanistan] IRAQOn The Iran, Iraq Border -- [J.D. Johannes - in Iraq] WAR ON TERROR /TERRORISMSenators Look For Smoking Gun In BP-Lockerbie Link -- [AP] No Link Between BP And Lockerbie Release: UK Envoy -- [NPR news blog] UK's Cameron: Releasing Lockerbie Bomber Was Wrong -- [AP] U.S. AND OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLDAs Cameron and Obama Meet, BP Will Be Top Issue -- [NY Times] Afghanistan tops agenda for British PM's visit -- [Washington Times] WELCOME HOMEHomecoming -- [Rajiv Srinivasan - home from Afghanistan] STRATEGY & TACTICSISAF, SCR Address Military ROE and Tactical Directives -- [ISAF] SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGYRaytheon's pain gun finally gets deployed in Afghanistan (update: recalled) -- [Engadget] Pain Ray Recalled From Afghanistan -- [Noah Shachtman/Danger Room] The Active Denial System: the weapon that's a hot topic -- [The Telegraph (UK)] World's Fastest Helicopter Boosts Battle Against Insurgents -- [ISAF]
POLITICSIs it time for a real GI Jane? -- [CNN] HUMOR/SATIRE(Need more? Dawn Patrols Archives are here.) Iraq, Afghanistan, War, Terrorism, Military, Politics, Media, MilBlogs, dawn patrol Mudville |
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.
![]() 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 - 2009 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 ![]() |
Leave a comment