 |  |
 
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, 2011 What he wouldn't sayBy Greyhawk
Back in late 2009, when President Obama decided to halfass his Afghanistan mission and to announce the July 2011 deadline to begin removing the troops he did send there, the DoD was able to manage one concession from the commander-in-chief: he would use language in his announcement indicating that drawdown would be "based on conditions on the ground." It wasn't much to work with, but at least it was something, and the troops gave it their best possible shot.
Unfortunately for them, Obama also immediately dispatched Joe Biden to make sure anyone who was listening would understand without a doubt that conditions on the ground wouldn't mean a damn thing when it came to a drawdown: "Let me tell you what I'm happy with... You're going to see [troop numbers] coming down as rapidly over the next two years." Afghanistan certainly isn't the first time US troops have been sent somewhere in numbers too small to do a president's bidding, but since then, 100,000 Americans in Afghanistan have fought the first war in world history against an enemy who'd been assured of their opponent's quitting time. I'm told the Tollybon aren't the sharpest tools in the shed (though they might use those sharp tools from time to time), but you don't have to be able to read to understand that. If there was ever any doubt about who was accurately explaining the President's plan - Joe Biden on TV or a few thousand young Americans in Shuras across Afghanistan, it's gone now. Marine Lt. Gen. John Allen, nominated to replace Gen. David Petraeus as head of coalition forces in Afghanistan, acknowledged Tuesday that President Obama's decision to draw down 10,000 troops by the end of this year and the rest of the surge forces by September 2012 was not one of the options proposed to the president by Gen. Petraeus. Score that Joe Biden: 1 - GI Joe: 0. The President is in charge, the generals will salute smartly and carry on, and as Obama explained to the troops at Ft Drum, he's betting our future on negotiations with the Tollybon. (I hear Paris is a good place for that sort of thing.) Let's turn back the clock a bit, to April, 2008. General Petraeus testified to Congress on the way forward in Iraq. The graph below (for a full explanation, click here) should help put that moment - along with the before and after - in historical perspective; it's indicated by the dashed red line.
This wasn't the more widely-covered ("Betrayus") testimony of the previous summer, but it was an election year, and Democrats were still heavily invested in a narrative of Iraq as an eternal nightmare of endless war. Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi even warned the General ahead of time not to come with a message that things were going well. While there's no doubt he could have done more with more, General Petraeus got what he needed for Iraq. Of course, in April, 2008 the chart above ended where the dashed line is now - and other ways forward had their advocates, too. Which brings us to this moment in the hearings, as Senator Bayh applied all the skills in his politician's toolbox to get General Petraeus to say that reasonable people could certainly discount his advice.
Back to the present - or at least, last week. To bring us up to date, here's another graph.
The white part of that is something the White House likes to brag about - in fact, they provided it. I had to add the red myself - the steady rise in American war deaths since Obama took office is something they'd prefer to ignore. We can all hope that negotiations with the Tollybon bear fruit - and that the red line plunges with the white as we pursue the way forward in Afghanistan. But as with Iraq in 2008, that way forward was the topic of Congressional testimony from General Petraeus last week.
There's a notable difference in this testimony compared to the 2008 version.
Although the message "you aren't going to put words in my mouth" is still loud and clear - as is this point from the General: I obviously support the ultimate decision of the commander in chief. That is, we take an oath to obey the orders of the President of the United States.The exchange that followed, however, is noteworthy. The Senator asks "And if you couldn't do that consistent with that oath, you would resign?" - and clearly the expected "yes" response would indicate things aren't really all that bad, so the Senator was probably surprised when the General didn't give it.
I think there's much in his comments for every America to think about. I wish congressional testimony from commanders of American troops at war was considered as newsworthy now as it was in 2007. But wish in one hand, shit in the other - slap 'em together and you've got the way forward in Afghanistan. "I feel quite strongly about this," the General continued - after Senator Levin had tried to cut him off. "Our troopers don't get to quit."
Added: scratch Kabul's Inter-Continental Hotel from the list of potential peace talk sites; apparently the Tollybon don't like it. Posted by Greyhawk / June 29, 2011 12:25 PM | Permalink 7 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 |
Most Obama officials can clap with one hand - so the way forward is not as clear as you make it to be.
It's the RULES of ENGAGEMENT! Obama has limited the ability of the troops to affect the mission by reducing their power to defend themselves aggressively. I know we could win if the General had the lead but when REMF are making the rules our guys die unnecessarily. Obama won't let them win and I don't want another one of our precious young men dead or maimed or losing a damn toenail as long as Obama won't let them win.
Sorry, I just really wish the Obama admin had not announced withdrawal, timelines etc. He put the politics of his reelection over the welfare of our troops and their ability to function effectively. Bring 'em all home so they can VOTE and not have that vote thrown out!
Goal-wise, once the president is against the effort, ROE matter about as much as flower arrangements at the Kandahar Burger King.
But ROE-wise, those used in Afghanistan were the same as in Iraq. From my POV it was sad to watch so many folks join Obama's "I hate the Afghanistan war and General McChrystal" bandwagon over that issue.
I NEVER criticized the Afghan war until after the surge when Obama sabotaged the effort by announcing firm timelines for withdrawal... Prior to that I was supportive as I could be, care packages and the like ( still involved with that). I do not see how announcing to the world that we are leaving in any way helps the mission, only Obama's reelection hopes. I have been unhappy with the ROE since it was reported that our troops could not return fire if the perps dropped their weapon after firing at US troops. That is nuts.
Care packages are about the only way I can contribute other than prayers, and I will continue to do so no matter how I personally feel about the current strategy.
I think the right to criticize is part of what the troops fight for (I know I saw it that way when I was in Iraq!) A sort of a paradox, I suppose, but yet another reason why they deserve those care packages, and why those who send them (like you) are obviously those who appreciate that. (And are much appreciated in turn!)
I see where my language above was harsh, and apologize for that.
There's been much debate in professional military circles over tactics - what works and what doesn't. I'm frustrated by the point that among other things we'll have no useful lessons learned in that department from our Afghanistan experience over the past several years. Nothing "works" when the strategy is awful, poorly defined, or (worse yet) opposed by the guy at the top responsible for it.
Don't miss "The Obama Doctrine Defined" at Commentary magazine online, by Douglas Feith and Seth Cropsey. Or download it and read it after we're through celebrating the Fourth of July.
I'm with you, but what can you do with a president who is unfamiliar with history or the military. Puts our guys in a terrible position.
In other words-Obama is a dick!!!!
Can someone explain Why General Petraeus take a job at the CIA, and Panetta, the communist the DOD? Something just doesn't sit right with me.