The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

CStanley — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:00:47 -0000

Hopefully, the definition of victory will be something like denying the use of Afghan territory to those who would attack us, and not some ill-defined evolutionary process that has us propping up an unpopular government in Kabul indefinitely.

I don&#39t understand how you do the former without some of the latter though. What Gates is pointing out is that the legitimacy of the Afghan govt is not going to be settled in a matter of weeks, and if we&#39re going to continue this process at all its essential to provide security for the Afghan people during the process.

For more nuance though, there&#39s a possibility that the waiting game is partly to put pressure on other NATO allies to provide more troops before we make our commitment. The trouble with that theory though is that 1) Most of the European countries don&#39t have much reserve capability to send large numbers of troops, even if the political will could be bent that way and 2) their reaction so far seems to be to echo the line about waiting until after the elections too.

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

dgfunk — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:40:26 -0000

"I see this as a process, not something that&#39s going to happen all of the sudden," Gates said.
"I believe that the president will have to make his decisions in the context of that evolutionary process."

Yikes. Pouring more men and money into Afghanistan in the hope that everything will turn out right. I certainly hope that Obama is working to "modify the goal." Hopefully, the definition of victory will be something like denying the use of Afghan territory to those who would attack us, and not some ill-defined evolutionary process that has us propping up an unpopular government in Kabul indefinitely.

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

CStanley — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:54:00 -0000

dgfunk- read the interview with Gates I just linked to. Unless you are willing to concede defeat right now, we really don&#39t have a choice but to fight on while the legitimacy question gets sorted out. We don&#39t have the luxury of waiting.

Now, I realize some people do feel defeat and withdrawal are inevitable, and I don&#39t think that&#39s an irrational view at all. But if that&#39s the case, we should start pulling out right now- not keep the troops that are already there hanging out on a limb. We either commit the necessary force level or get out now.

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

dgfunk — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:44:06 -0000

We&#39re not the only players over there. If we don&#39t have an Afghan partner seen as legit by the majority of the population, then troop levels are irrelevant. And I believe Karzai&#39s legitimacy is under question these days, is it not?. Until that issue is resolved in some way, pouring more men into Afghanistan would be useless. The Soviets, with far shorter supply lines, and far greater ruthlessness, failed there. And so would we.

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

CStanley — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:09:58 -0000

What is your information source for that? McChrystal had a 12 month time frame that he identified as critical, but that is the only credible source I&#39ve seen for urgency.
I was referring to this interview with Gates.

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

CStanley — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:00:47 -0000

I don't understand how you do the former without some of the latter though. What Gates is pointing out is that the legitimacy of the Afghan govt is not going to be settled in a matter of weeks, and if we're going to continue this process at all its essential to provide security for the Afghan people during the process.

For more nuance though, there's a possibility that the waiting game is partly to put pressure on other NATO allies to provide more troops before we make our commitment. The trouble with that theory though is that 1) Most of the European countries don't have much reserve capability to send large numbers of troops, even if the political will could be bent that way and 2) their reaction so far seems to be to echo the line about waiting until after the elections too.

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

dgfunk — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:40:26 -0000

"I see this as a process, not something that's going to happen all of the sudden," Gates said.
"I believe that the president will have to make his decisions in the context of that evolutionary process."

Yikes. Pouring more men and money into Afghanistan in the hope that everything will turn out right. I certainly hope that Obama is working to "modify the goal." Hopefully, the definition of victory will be something like denying the use of Afghan territory to those who would attack us, and not some ill-defined evolutionary process that has us propping up an unpopular government in Kabul indefinitely.

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

CStanley — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:54:00 -0000

dgfunk- read the interview with Gates I just linked to. Unless you are willing to concede defeat right now, we really don't have a choice but to fight on while the legitimacy question gets sorted out. We don't have the luxury of waiting.

Now, I realize some people do feel defeat and withdrawal are inevitable, and I don't think that's an irrational view at all. But if that's the case, we should start pulling out right now- not keep the troops that are already there hanging out on a limb. We either commit the necessary force level or get out now.

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

dgfunk — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:44:06 -0000

We're not the only players over there. If we don't have an Afghan partner seen as legit by the majority of the population, then troop levels are irrelevant. And I believe Karzai's legitimacy is under question these days, is it not?. Until that issue is resolved in some way, pouring more men into Afghanistan would be useless. The Soviets, with far shorter supply lines, and far greater ruthlessness, failed there. And so would we.

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

CStanley — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:09:58 -0000

What is your information source for that? McChrystal had a 12 month time frame that he identified as critical, but that is the only credible source I've seen for urgency.
I was referring to this interview with Gates.

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

Father_Time — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:52:30 -0000

We have should elected Dennis Kucinich. The troops would be home by now and Cheney would be in prison.

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

DaGoat — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:11:39 -0000

Now we are supposed to NOT listen to the Generals when they tell us what they need? Man, I must be in Alice&#39s Looking Glass, because I could have sworn when Bush was in office it was Listen , to , the , Generals !

Yep, only Republican presidents are supposed to listen to the generals, even if the closest contact a Democrat president had with the military was playing GI Joe and Major Matt Mason.

But seriously, people are misunderstanding the role of the military. The civilian government sets policy and goals, the generals tell the government what it will take to accomplish the goal and the likelihood of it&#39s success. If McChrystal (as an example) tells Obama it will take 100,000 soldiers to accomplish a goal it is foolish for Obama to respond "No, it should only take 50,000". In that case Obama is placing himself in the role of general, one in which he has no expertise. If Obama doesn&#39t want to commit the 100,000 troops he needs to abandon or modify the goal.

Obama is trying to fight a war but limit the military&#39s resources, the same strategy used by Rumsfeld and LBJ. That is a strategy likely to fail at a cost of American lives.

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

shannonlee — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:54:41 -0000

You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today. - Abraham Lincoln

You can escape the responsibility of tomorrow by invading it today. - Most Neocons

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

Silhouette — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:39:01 -0000

"Cheney needs to shut his pie hole"~ Verathegun
*********
Well you know I was going to come up with some lengthy, wordy response but yours just works so much better.

The best military strategy and indeed the best overall strategy for our nation to recover and become strong again is for Cheney to shut his pie hole and keep it shut.

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

AustinRoth — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:08:12 -0000

As Tyler Durden said, &#39WHOA!&#39

Now we are supposed to NOT listen to the Generals when they tell us what they need? Man, I must be in Alice&#39s Looking Glass, because I could have sworn when Bush was in office it was Listen , to , the , Generals !

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

TheMagicalSkyFather — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:00:01 -0000

First things have happened like a rather shady looking election which complicates matters. Second Afgh. is not the problem, Pakistan is and maybe the Admin is finally becoming aware of this though the last one did not. Fix Afgh. all you want but a brand new Cambodia is starting just across the border and that country has nukes. This is not as easy as it was 8 years ago and it was not easy then, we just left it undone and now we are in hail mary pass time.

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

AshenShard — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:27:36 -0000

Just because the generals say they need something, doesn&#39t mean they are correct. I don&#39t know why so many people believe that because a general says it makes it true. If that were so, we would have a military dictatorship because, hey, generals are right, so let them occupy the highest rank in our government and make our decisions for us.

Also, don&#39t forget the MacArthur debacle, with wanting to use nukes, cause nuking the border between korea and china would have been such a great idea.

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

DLS — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:27:22 -0000

"You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today. - Abraham Lincoln"

"Yes, we can!" -- Barack Obama and his inner circle

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

Zzzzz — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:24:34 -0000

What is your information source for that? McChrystal had a 12 month time frame that he identified as critical, but that is the only credible source I&#39ve seen for urgency.

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

garyknowz1 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:17:52 -0000

Yes, but obviously not enough—and that’s the problem. If he tries to finesse this too much, it will likely evolve into that pattern we know all too well. Send in overwhelming force, and that problem is resolved. It’s the one thing Bush did militarily that I completely agreed with, i.e., the “surge”.

I’m just getting sick and tired of the bloodletting by attrition. It ultimately ends up costing us more in American lives and tax dollars. And that’s the direction I feel we are heading. I pray I’m wrong.

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

AustinRoth — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:14:03 -0000

They are EVEN more tilted than I think, I am sure.

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

TheMagicalSkyFather — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:10:56 -0000

Funny I do not remember much in the way of protest or death tallies in Afgh. only Iraq for Bush and Obama. So are you saying he is being treated like Bush or are you speaking of protests so obscure that 90% of America missed them since 90% was the figure I remember supporting the Afgh. adventure when it began. Also how effective is it to protest a war where we have a signed agreement of when to draw down and remove our troops? IF they want to march fine but once that agreement was signed it no longer mattered. Maybe things are not as tilted as you thought?

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

casualobserver — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:10:55 -0000

The supporters of the current CiC are correct.........he has lost only 20 points in the last 6 months on handling Afghanistan. Therefore, he should likely have another 6 months to "carefully consider" before he is down to his core TMV support base.

And, if the lefties are sick and tired of hearing Cheney&#39s views on things, then why don&#39t the lefties post up an article from a comparable knowledge lefty to explain why the strategy....as of October 2009... is the best handling of the situation.

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

Zzzzz — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:56:08 -0000

He did send additional troops months ago. This would be an additional troop increase.

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

AustinRoth — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:50:17 -0000

You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today. - Abraham Lincoln