Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Why Normal Americans Hate Washington, D.C., Part MMCIII
From the Washington Post:
One senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the meeting, said, "A lot of assumptions -- and I don't want to say myths, but a lot of assumptions -- were exposed to the light of day."
Wow. Yeah, and I don't want to say "jackass", so I will not say "jackass" and will instead say "senior administration official". Or, better, "senior administration official speaking on the condition of anonymity to both advance his or her policy aims in the media and insult the commander in Kabul without having to take personal responsibility for doing either".
Oh, wait. That isn't any more polite, is it? (Sorry, Mom.)
Look, if you're going to re-examine the planning assumptions that went into this document following Gen. McChrystal's gloomy report and the even gloomier Afghan elections, fine. I completely understand and support you whole-heartedly. But at least sack up and take responsibility for the fact that you might have been wrong about your assumptions just six months ago when the administration signed off on this white paper.
I have always liked f***
I have always liked f*** face rather than jackass myself but I am a people person.
Don't worry Joe Biden has
Don't worry Joe Biden has everything under control.
I think the proper Internet
I think the proper Internet term is “asshat.”
What do you think? Biden? Biden’s flunky? Clinton? Clinton’s flunky?
Obviously, an idiot was
Obviously, an idiot was speaking.
Nevertheless, do you not find it problematic that the debate is circumscribed around two untenable options: a facile resort to Special Ops and drone attacks (Biden) versus an escalation of soldiers? On many levels, I admire the McChrystal report, because it takes into account many of the sound critiques leveled by critics (like myself) that ostentatious displays of power (riding in armed vehicles and building large compounds) and dropping bombs on civilians is criminally counterproductive and amounts to war crimes (though I find it inconsistent that the U.S. talks out of both sides of its mouth by condemning these tactics in Afghanistan while carrying them out in Pakistan...). McChrystal is right, of course, that making governance structures accountable and local development possible is infinitely more effective than implementing democracy through the barrel of a gun.
But, when I think of how this would actually unfold "on the ground," I can only imagine a plethora of American soldier-police "on the beat." And, does McChrystal *actually* believe that Afghans will warm up to soldiers if they stick around long enough. I'm thinking of the absurdity of a picture I saw on the cover of a RAND report of a soldier riding a bike alongside a gaggle of smiling children. This is the height of hyperbole. I mean, would you warm up to an occupation of police patrolling the streets in your neighborhood, lots of them? That's just silly, and it belies the fact that armed police/soldiers on the beat are still powerful displays of power that have the effect of making people feel disempowered -- just ask a South Central or a Bronx or a Gazan resident. And we both know that these power dynamics are all the more complicated in a country that has a powerful colonial history, along with an equally powerful anti-colonial narrative...
I know you are a critic of Edward Said, but I think its time we revisited his commentary on Western fears of an imminent "Chaosistan" if American troops pulled out. That is, I think we need to begin to remain open economic-based diplomacy in the country, where the development projects and governance structures are not represented with the face of soldier.
It's pretty hard to
It's pretty hard to implement a strategy if you can't
a) get your subordinates to agree to it.
b) You don't even believe it yourself.
I have a couple of questions
I have a couple of questions about contemporary military propriety that, while low on the list of priorities these days, leave me wondering nonetheless. When did it become permissible for a senior commander to publicly question policy considerations while they were in the process of being formed, ie; McChrystal in London, and at what point in time, when meeting with your commander-in-chief, did BDU's (see photo of McC on Air Force One today in Copenhagen) become acceptable attire?
I admit to a level of bias here. I do not believe we have a mandate to rebuild Afghanistan, nor do I believe that increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan the desirable approach to killing al-Qaeda and it's leaders. We are at a point of economic peril in this country and building a war machine on the other side of the world in order to project our military power reflects nothing so much as talking loudly and waving a mostly flaccid organ. We have a long overdue job to do in that part of the world which ought to utilize the very effective intelligence/special ops tools we have spent so many billions building. The prescription offered by Generals Petraeus and McChrystal, well intended as thay are, amounts to bleeding a patient (the US) suffering from anemia.
Who even know who this
Who even know who this "official" was or whether he was part of the original interagency group? There are plenty of people -- not just me -- who think that the debate was originally limited to too small a range of views initially. If we had the chance to press him on all of this, I suspect he'd agree that this white paper's assumptions should be revisited as well.
Regardless, we're now at the point where it seems clear the President is dissatisfied with the analytical work that went into at least some of the assessment he's been presented with. No point in shooting the messenger.
Folks like you keep assuring the rest of us that you DID in fact consider all the alternatives. So, you have nothing to worry about opening up the process a little, getting a few critics involved. You've already done due diligence, right? So I am sure, after a good solid discussion, we'll all come to agree that Petraeus/Nagl/Exum/Biddle/Kagan/Kagan/McChrystal got it right.
Who even know who this
Who even know who this "official" was or whether he was part of the original interagency group? There are plenty of people -- not just me -- who think that the debate was originally limited to too small a range of views initially. If we had the chance to press him on all of this, I suspect he'd agree that this white paper's assumptions should be revisited as well.
Regardless, we're now at the point where it seems clear the President is dissatisfied with the analytical work that went into at least some of the assessment he's been presented with. No point in shooting the messenger.
Folks like you keep assuring the rest of us that you DID in fact consider all the alternatives. So, you have nothing to worry about opening up the process a little, getting a few critics involved. You've already done due diligence, right? So I am sure, after a good solid discussion, we'll all come to agree that Petraeus/Nagl/Exum/Biddle/Kagan/Kagan/McChrystal got it right.
Who did it? Who was the
Who did it? Who was the official?
And blame
And blame Bush.....
"Republican leaders in Congress have called on Obama to approve McChrystal's request quickly, but one presidential adviser noted: "In eight months, it is impossible to reverse eight years of neglect."
"A lot of decisions were made out of a sense of urgency in the previous administration, and they turned out to be wrong-headed," said another senior administration official involved in Afghanistan policy. "Examining the options, testing assumptions, reviewing everything -- we're not talking months, just days and weeks, and it is well worth the time spent."
I'm a people person too...plus donkeys have never been that mean to me.... so I make my vote for "Geebha".
That's Irish for Wu-Wu, or as the Brits might say "a right little C*nt".
Told ya he'd lose his nerve. We're gonna get pacifism in our time and PC warfare whether we like it or not. You really thought he was gonna stand his ground?
It's pretty bad when even the Olympics brushes you off .....
Meanwhile across the border in Pakistan...Sareth Fonseka's Lieutenants are helping to train Pakistan's military.
LOL As opposed to crying, although we shall soon no doubt pay in tears.
I think it's Van Jones.
I think it's Van Jones. He's been secretly reinstated as the "Leak/Smear/Undermine Czar".
Domestic Political Concerns.
Domestic
Political
Concerns.
From the start it's been the critical weakness to Gen McCrystal's plan. Welcome to the Beltway. Where if you didn't come up with a policy idea, and you want to get "ahead", then you make your ground attacking the other guy'sidea, no matter how good or correct it is. Few people get points for saying "yeah what that guy said".
And it also appears to be running pell mell into the group of Americans who, no matter what we do, always believe for some reason that what our military is doing is intrinsically wrong, misguided, morally corrupt, and everything is an extension of the Vietnam experience. Not to say the people in the WH fall in that category, but certainly many of the people and Congressional interests they are responding to are (of course to balance that there is another group in this country that believe every action by the US military is justified, no matter how ludicrous, and accompany every policy response with Toby Keith blaring at 140 db, they just happen to be on the outs right now). That's not say there aren't those arguing against Gen McCrystal's proposal who are doing so on well thought out grounds, but they've definitely tapped into a constiuency from the left whose pavlovian instincts are fired up again.
And as MikeDC said, pretty hard to get people to drive that policy idea home against all that flak unless the people who will take the heat didn't believe whole heartedly in it from the start. If you guys really believe in this, and I no doubt believe you do, I'd expect to see you guys back on Maddow and other shows which are watched by many of the people who are attacking Gen McCrystal's proposed plan. Fight the power!
At least the Olympics is
At least the Olympics is ought of the way but does anyone know if anything else in Chicago needs to be worked on? Does Rahm Emanuel have any unpaid parking tickets that the President has to take care of before he can work on Afghanistan? What about the Milton Bradley situation on the Cubs does he need to drop everything and fix that?
It's late hear sorry about
It's late hear sorry about the spelling
It's late here sorry about
It's late here sorry about the spelling
Selling the Biden COA a
Selling the Biden COA a little short, aren't we? NYT yesterday:
"He favors preserving the current force levels, stepping up Predator drone strikes on al-Qaeda leaders and increasing training for Afghan forces."
If keeping the number of troops the same as now, after this summer's very substantial increases in US forces, is the extreme other end of the argument to you're own, surely you're not doing that badly.
You mean the white paper
You mean the white paper that describes the need for an enemy-centric COIN strategy?
"Conclusion
There are no quick fixes to achieve U.S. national security interests in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The danger of failure is real and the implications are grave. In 2009-2010 the Taliban's momentum must be reversed in Afghanistan and the international community must work with Pakistan to disrupt the threats to security along Pakistan's western border.
This new strategy of focusing on our core goal - to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually destroy extremists and their safe havens within both nations, although with different tactics - will require immediate action, sustained commitment, and substantial resources. The United States is committed to working with our partners in the region and the international community to address this challenging but essential security goal."
Be careful, Andrew. Those "jackasses" to whom you refer are your sponsors. I'm sure they might not appreciate the fact that you see things so black and white, largely because they're not, especially in the Pentagon, let alone the White House. And if you haven't realized it, Washington DC isn't for "normal Americans," you know, the ones who look forward to watching "American Idol" every night, who confuse Faux News Channel with honest journalism, who don't know where Afghanistan is on a map.
From the beginning of combat
From the beginning of combat operations in Afghanistan these people, and by these people I include most of the politicians, brass and military leadership, and D.C. policy wonks - i.e., just about everyone in positions of authority - have been completely over their heads. Intellectual and political farce laid upon farce laid upon farce. Certainly nothing's changed in the past year.
Hate to go binary, but put
Hate to go binary, but put be down for "enough" or "none", troops-wise. But I'm not as smart as some people is.
For your viewing pleasure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyEqyYUGk4I
@ Visitor on October 2, 2009
@ Visitor on October 2, 2009 - 1:34pm
When did it become permissible for a senior commander to publicly question policy considerations while they were in the process of being formed, ie; McChrystal in London, and at what point in time, when meeting with your commander-in-chief, did BDU's (see photo of McC on Air Force One today in Copenhagen) become acceptable attire?
To question one: when McChrystal refuses or undermines the orders of his CinC or NCA (rather than indirectly challenges the political views of other Americans) he will have crossed the line. Until then, the political and military intersect (in fact there is nothing about the military that isn't within the sphere of the broader political), and few embody that intersection more than those of flag rank. This isn't new (though rapid, worldwide communication is - relatively speaking). Arguments against his public pronouncements have as much validity as those against Hillary Clinton's on Afghanistan, perhaps less (though both approach zero).
As to question 2, get some rest.
After the administration has
After the administration has had to deal with the leak, you freak out over some routine quote? You and Ricks ("if the president were serious about Afghanistan...") are losing your cool over robust policy debate. It's the two of you who need to sack up. MacArth, I mean, McChrystal would say the same.
Wasn't the time for "robust
Wasn't the time for "robust policy debate" back in the months leading up to March. You know, when a set of policies and strategic goals were actually agreed upon.
OK, here's the policy! Let's put it in play!
Oh, wait, you were serious? It really is going to be costly, and you really are going to want another 40,000 troops??
OK, here's the new policy. Let's re-evaluate the policy from the ground up.
"But at least sack up and
"But at least sack up and take responsibility for the fact that you might have been wrong about your assumptions just six months ago when the administration signed off on this white paper."
Take responsibility? Now why would anyone ever want to do that? I mean, what's in it for the responsibility-taker?
To the point of the post - it's standard DC CYA, it seems to me, and completely incoherent, frankly. If things changed so dramatically in the summer that the AfPak strategy paper is now full of flawed assumptions, then a lot of people must have got things wrong, no? And, not just the authors. If senior admin officials can now see the potential for problems, why did they not do so earlier? Actually, is that not the nature of complex decision making? That there will be flawed assumptions and changes will be made?
Also, it's hilarious that now, according to rationales for re-thinking strategy, the situation in Pakistan is SO MUCH better that we are now 'decoupling' Pakistan from the AfPak strategy, in a sense. Or, are we? What does it mean that someone else on the Pakistan Supreme Court is a game changer? WTF?
The subcontinent is just a huge Rorschach blot for some, isn't it? People see what they want to see, and, interestingly enough, the impressions seem to just about support whatever anyone wants to do. How convenient.
'The head of the British
'The head of the British Army, General Sir David Richards, has issued a wake-up call to the public by warning of the "terrifying prospect" of a defeat in Afghanistan'.
"If you put in more troops we can achieve the objectives laid upon us more quickly and with less casualties"
Correct me if I'm wrong but dont more troops= more targets, more fighting and more casualties, at least in the short term?
'The general criticised plans put forward by some members of President Obama's administration – notably those of Vice-president Joe Biden, who is believed to support the view that Nato should reduce troop number in Afghanistan and concentrate on counter-terrorist operations using special forces. Sir David said this was a strategy which would not work'.
Not much detail as to why he thinks it wouldn't work.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/6258028/Army-c...
@Visitor 633 et al... "Sir
@Visitor 633 et al...
"Sir David said this was a strategy which would not work'. Not much detail as to why he thinks it wouldn't work. "
Because we won't control the ground, nor the human terrain, nor have any intel...and drones and cruise missiles, and SOF/CT have to have intel to have targets. Not to mention how are SOF/CT to navigate around on the ground? Foreign types might tend to stand out in the hood. Even if they're of dusky hue they still ain't from the hood/ville are they?
Mike Yon on his blog shows a pic of an lone Afghan house in the middle of nowhere. It has a wall. Per him they build the walls before they build the house. We don't control the human and physical terrain it's suicide to help us.
Finally McPope (I couldn't help it) and Sir David and crews - the Brits and the Americans, etc etc - have been at this for a few years. Maybe they already know the Biden plan (90s Redux) won't work.
Members of your vast reading
Members of your vast reading audience might be interested in learning exactly what it is that makes a child of privilege who spent five years in the Army—thus making him a military expert in his own eyes—and who now works for a D.C. lobbying organization in any way a "normal American." Only inside the Beltway can someone like you consider himself a "normal American"; outside the Beltway, you are an alien life form.
If you knew any "normal Americans," you would know that they view people like you as a major part of the problem. You are Washington, whether you like it or not.
A number of advisors
A number of advisors surrounding President Obama have a severe case of best and brightest syndrome. I don't give a shit who you think you are, you don't call a general "Stan" unless you're the president or near in the chain of command. I've seen several dismissing comments in the press, all from anonymous officials. The president is ill-served by some of his advisors.
He should take the time. If he doesn't believe in this strategy, I don't know what the alternative is. If he does believe in it, he needs to send enough, as Greyhawk said it.
interested in learning
interested in learning exactly what it is that makes a child of privilege who spent five years in the Army—thus making him a military expert in his own eyes—and who now works for a D.C. lobbying organization in any way a "normal American.
Yeah, Ex, tell us exactly where you arrugula-eating elites in East Tennessee get off having an opinion, or a blog, or referring to your military experience when commenting about the military. Normal Americans (or at least one of them) will just keep showing up to your site, insist on not reading anything because, you know, your opinion is so much shite, and continue to hurl abuse at you. Because that is what Normal Americans do.
all of the panelists agreed,
all of the panelists agreed, is no substitute for a strategy ,though it should certainly be an integral part of one.payday loan |payday cash advance
Ed Hardy Clothing Cheap
Ed Hardy Clothing
Cheap Ralph Lauren
Affliction Shirts
Hobos Handbags Women Shoulder
Hobos Handbags
Women Shoulder Bags
Louis Vuitton Shoulder Bags
Cheap Men Shoes
Heritage Bags
Louis Vuitton Monogram Macassar Canvas
Louis Vuitton Utah Leather
Totes Magotes
Louis Vuitton Antheia
Louis Vuitton Jewelry
Louis Vuitton Leather
Louis Vuitton leather
Louis Vuitton Leather
Louis Vuitton Leather
Louis Vuitton Leather
Louis Vuitton Leather
Louis Vuitton Luggage
Louis Vuitton Luggage
Louis Vuitton Scarves
Louis Vuitton Wallets
Louis Vuitton Wallets
Top Handles
Louis Vuitton Top Handles
Louis Vuitton Canvas
Louis Vuitton Canvas
Louis Vuitton Canvas
Louis Vuitton Canvas
Louis Vuitton Canvas
Louis Vuitton Canvas
Louis Vuitton Damier
Louis Vuitton Damier
Louis Vuitton Damier
Louis Vuitton Damier
Louis Vuitton Ldylle
Louis Vuitton Mahina
Louis Vuitton Outlet
Louis Vuitton Purese
Louis Vuitton Suhali
Louis Vuitton Travel
Louis Vuitton Travel
Hobos Handbags Women Shoulder
Hobos Handbags
Women Shoulder Bags
Louis Vuitton Shoulder Bags
Cheap Men Shoes
Heritage Bags
Louis Vuitton Monogram Macassar Canvas
Louis Vuitton Utah Leather
Totes Magotes
Louis Vuitton Antheia
Louis Vuitton Jewelry
Louis Vuitton Leather
Louis Vuitton leather
Louis Vuitton Leather
Louis Vuitton Leather
Louis Vuitton Leather
Louis Vuitton Leather
Louis Vuitton Luggage
Louis Vuitton Luggage
Louis Vuitton Scarves
Louis Vuitton Wallets
Louis Vuitton Wallets
Top Handles
Louis Vuitton Top Handles
Louis Vuitton Canvas
Louis Vuitton Canvas
Louis Vuitton Canvas
Louis Vuitton Canvas
Louis Vuitton Canvas
Louis Vuitton Canvas
Louis Vuitton Damier
Louis Vuitton Damier
Louis Vuitton Damier
Louis Vuitton Damier
Louis Vuitton Ldylle
Louis Vuitton Mahina
Louis Vuitton Outlet
Louis Vuitton Purese
Louis Vuitton Suhali
Louis Vuitton Travel
Louis Vuitton Travel
If you are trying to find
If you are trying to find something eye catching and different try Ed Hardy brand. Ed Hardy clothes have that unique look which would set you apart from the rest. If you are fond of wild, funky style you should go in for oneRalph Lauren Polo Shirts of the Ed Hardy t-shirts or jeans or hoodies. Use of tattoo for its innovative collection makes Ed Hardy clothes popular all over the world. Ed Hardy is often recognized by the celebrities all over the world as one of the hottest brands. Many a times you will see Madonna or Britney Spears donning Ed Hardy clothes. Celebrity recognition of Ed Hardy as a hot fashion brand has encouraged present young crowd to adopt Ed Hardy apparels
Add your comment