 |  |
 
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! June 29, 2010 Petraeus TestimonyBy Greyhawk
(Live video feed ended - video here) (Quick aside - well, this is very different from some of the General's previous experiences before this august body... serious people talking serious business here. Unfortunately, the cynical Greyhawk thinks that should ensure it won't appear on page one of any newspapers...) Josh Rogin - Petraeus: Withdrawal timeline does not mean "switching off the lights". Aye - there's the rub. Click here. Or for a quick reminder, here's the conclusion: ..until that over-arching problem is resolved (and three years is too long to wait), those who debate or argue over who's in charge, rules of engagement, the appropriate use of FM 3-24, or a host of other issues critical to effectively conducting war in the Central Front of What We Used to Call the War on Terror might as well be arguing over proper flower arrangements in the Kandahar Airfield Burger King. Prepared opening statement here. Excerpt: From the answers to the advance questions
And the President did indeed say it - just so. The question is - as always - will that message be vigorously countered by the White House once again. The New York Times offers a glimmer of hope:
In the recent past, whenever the military has attempted to emphasize the "conditions-based" strategy unvelied by President Obama in his West Point speech announcing his surge ("Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground") the White House has been quick to respond. In December - within days of the West Point speech, Joe Biden: "You're going to see [troop numbers] coming down as rapidly [as we build them up] over the next two years. The President made it absolutely clear..." Apparently, Vice President Biden has emphasized that point in a recent book (In July of 2011 you're going to see a whole lot of people moving out. Bet on it," Biden said as he wheeled to leave the room, late for lunch with the president. He turned at the door and said once more, "Bet. On. It." - more on that later), but more recently Rahm Emanuel (responding to what General Petraeus "explained to this Committee two weeks ago") weighed in:
That news was quickly overwhelmed by the release of the Runaway General story. Obviously, that was one of many challenges confronting General McChrystal - less obviously it was the one from which all others flowed. Any "clarification" of the withdrawal timeline from the White House post-McChrystal will obviously be critical to our future there. For those who need it, back to the New York Times for a great illustration of why it matters:
It's obviously dangerous for generals to refute the Vice President of the United States - for young corporals it's impossible. So - how the hell did we get here? More on that later, too. Postscript: the most interesting tidbit from this session might be the General's announcement that he's going to have the Vice President over for dinner. A good idea, I hope it goes better than this one. Here's to good table manners. Elsewhere: A Twitter thread via Danger Room... ...and new Danger Room author Spencer Ackerman. (Who, in supporting President Obama, apparently hasn't noticed he does so in opposition to President Obama.) And make of this what you will: [Sen. Dianne] Feinstein said that if Petraeus asks for more time, "I would say give it to him." I say in conditions-based timelines, "more time" isn't an issue. Posted by Greyhawk / June 29, 2010 10:03 AM | Permalink 1 TrackBack"A Marine with Weapons Platoon, Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, sprints down the line of heavy machine guns to deliver a map," read the supplied caption, "after a firefight with Taliban insurgents, Feb. 9, at the "Fire Points" int... Read More 6 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 |
IMHO, the White House is saying whatever it has to maintain support of the President on the left side of the aisle both in Congress and amongst the citizens. Well, I should say what remains of the support, but that isn't here nor there for this discussion.
There is a bit of double talk as shown in the article. We have the military saying the removal of forces will be much like Iraq while the administration gives the impression that it'll be like roaches scattering in the light.
What do I think is going to happen? Exactly what the Pentagon is saying. We will begin to remove combat elements as allowed by conditions. There will be elements left in place in charge of turn over. Lastly, there will be folks responsible for getting the rest of the big gear home. I see it taking at least a year after the July 2011 "deadline" if not longer.
Right on all counts, G. Added some fodder to consider... such as the fact that the options debated is whether 2011 summons in withdrawal beginning or whether a withdrawal will be "conditions-based."
A few blurbs posted here: http://twitter.com/SteveSchippert
Essentially this:
Nowhere, not even in Petraeus' "conditions-based" testimony is the overt consideration that those conditions might, just might, warrant more troops not fewer, logistics nightmare notwithstanding.
This is a vital point, especially when considering McChrystal's initial private numbers requested are murmered to have been in the 130k rage, which got scorn and return to sender before the official 80k submission, which was ultimately pared down to 30k.
What never was changed was the 2011 date, whether for Obama to sell as beginning of withdrawal to placate his base, or whether a point of reassessment.
COIN is labor-intensive. Either way, 2011 may arrive and the hole may be greater, not smaller, and more troops (perhaps 80-130k?) may be needed to fully execute COIN in that God-foresaken place.
I don't think 2011 will be a happy time at all. You can't toss into Afghanistan a far smaller forces supplement to execute COIN against an insurgency that is deeper and more entrenched than it was in Iraq, throughout a country vastly larger, with terrain exponentially more taxing.
Math doesn't compute.
With the President and his staff the delivery of the message villagers, Karzai, and the Taliban got was we surrender July 2011. We can play all the spin here in the states we want. Makes no difference to people that live in Afghanistan. With COIN being very dependent on Karzai and the tribal villagers standing up, this type of date just cuts their legs out from under them so they must cut deals so they survive. Human nature. Bad date, Bad message, and Stupid strategy.
We have the best men and women serving in our Military this country has to offer doing a exceptional job. We need to back them up with the best civilian policy our country has to offer. This is not it, and everyone that is honest and aware knows it. Just ask the villagers.
With "tweaks," the larger strategy could work.
More importantly, undeniably there's no better group of people (the men and women of the US military) to give it a shot. I wish at least one person in the White House understood that. Until that one person really grasps the concept those men and women will do well to merely survive.
I hope I did not come across saying the general concept of COIN would not work. To be clear the Date of July 2011 strategy is what I think/know will not work, no matter what military strategy you put in place. It is the civilians that have failed in this war, not the Military.
I think COIN can work in some situations, but I have my doubts about Afghanistan. Even Iraq was a more cohesive state than Afghanistan is. The Taliban, despite its readily apparent atrocities, has religious affinity with the vast majority of Afghanis. The Baaths in Iraq had no such advantage since they were primarily a secular organization. Sure, most Afghanis are not as extreme as the Taliban, but one has to wonder what alternative the allies have to offer.
On a somewhat related matter, whatever happened to "General Betray-us"? Apparently his reputation changed greatly among hyperliberals when he got a new boss!