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.
Vietnam Ended in 1975, Gang
Laura Rozen's blog post on the Eikenberry memos is worth reading if only because it features some quotes from those dinosaurs in the Democratic Party who think that when it comes to the military and its officer corps, it's still "us versus them".
Obama has additional leverage to assert his Afghanistan deliberations against a Pentagon pushing for him right now, another Democratic foreign policy hand suggested yesterday: Fort Hood, and the military apparently sitting on very serious concerns some had about Maj. Hasan.
"The Army [screwed] up here," he said. "The army [screwed] up in such a monumental way. The Army generals are running for cover now."
First off, and pardon my language, we can all agree that whoever said this is a horse's ass. Thinking the Fort Hood Massacre offers an opportunity for leverage over those dastardly uniformed officers vis a vis Afghanistan is incredibly ugly. We can also agree this person knows little about how the military operates. I doubt Ranger Stan McChrystal has even been to Fort Hood, and it sure never entered his mind that his strategic recommendations would have been affected by what took place there. The institutional failings of the U.S. Army have nothing to do with the operational and strategic concerns of Afghanistan. (Seriously, what the hell is wrong with the person who said this to Laura? Does he really think "the Army generals" think as one or operate as a cabal? Where do they find these people?)
Second, the entire premise that the uniformed officer corps is out to get a Democratic president -- especially after the fun and games of the Iraq War and the Rumsfeld Pentagon -- is nonsense. Heck, many general officers would have been tickled pink if Hillary Clinton -- who has close relationships with several senior officers and an especially warm relationship with Gen. Petraeus -- had been elected. If President Obama does not have similarly close relationships with his generals, it's only because he is still an unknown quantity. Clinton, by contrast, used from 2000 to 2008 to really invest in her relationships with the Department of Defense, and it took time before she was trusted.
Nothing frustrates me more as a somewhat center-left defense policy analyst than when the Democratic Party displays such a stunning ignorance of the uniformed officer corps and falls back on tired old suspicions. The equivalent disease in the GOP, I guess, is the arrogance that they know better than the uniformed officer corps (again, see Rumsfeld, Donald) because they hail from the National Security Party™. Grow up, kids. Vietnam and the Cold War both ended a long time ago.
This is kinda funny, since I
This is kinda funny, since I wouldn't be surprised if that Democratic foreign policy hand would have also been the one to indict the Army if it had moved to take cautionary action against a Muslim in the Army that they were concerned about. You can't be the ones to instill the whole concept of political correctness and then hold it against the Army when it all goes wrong.
I get the impression there
I get the impression there is a paranoia out there in the Democrat Party against the military leadership. I think many of them think we tend to back the Republicans and, therefore, will do what they can to discredit the generals because the civilians have a better idea.
I would like for someone like David Axelrod, Rahm Emmanuel, or some other relatively expendable inner circle person to visit Helmand or Kandahar and get a good look at what's going on. See how insecure they feel and make them realize that's how the local populace feel everyday. Maybe it will wake them up.
Hmmmn. Hillary Clinton's
Hmmmn. Hillary Clinton's starting to look good ten months into the Obama Administration? One thing that was notable in O's CV was the absence of "investment" in anything substantial in terms of developing policy or obtaining knowledge of the military or any other US institution. Obama is truly the first post-modern president - nothing that has gone before is relevant to the "now and the "me".
The most important thing
The most important thing going right now in the COIN world is certainly what an anonymous Democratic foreign policy "hand" said to a Washington reporter of middling influence working for a sensationalizing Washington political rag. That's what I come to cnas.org, that's for sure.
Every Psychiatrist I know is
Every Psychiatrist I know is nuts. The fact that the Fort Hood criminal is first of all a psych is not getting enough commnet.
Aussie, further every
Aussie, further every psychiatrist's child I know is also nuts.
After 9/11 it took about 65
After 9/11 it took about 65 days to kick the Taliban out of Kabul. President Obama has had General McChrystal's plan for 74 days with no action, only a refusal of what has been presented. So far no advisors have been able to deliver what the President wants:
I want an Afghanistan plan that is easy, cheap, safe, and politically correct. Now come back when you have one. You boys over at CNAS better have a talk with this CinC and hand over that magic Pixie dust or you may need to start looking for funding elsewhere.
As you discuss the Fort Hood massacre remember our politician have taken the first step in submitting to Shari Law. Do not speak ill of Islam or you will be killed.
Tickled pink you say about Hilary:
Mrs. Clinton told General Petraeus that his progress report on Iraq required "a willing suspension of disbelief."and came closer than any of her colleagues to calling the commander of the multinational forces in Iraq a liar.
"Clinton, by contrast, used from 2000 to 2008 to really invest in her relationships with the Department of Defense, and it took time before she was trusted." She sure did. And oh what trust and superior military knowledge she has shown.
If President Obama does not
If President Obama does not have similarly close relationships with his generals, it's only because he is still an unknown quantity. Clinton, by contrast, used from 2000 to 2008 to really invest in her relationships with the Department of Defense, and it took time before she was trusted.
Only? Perhaps it also reflects matters of priority, taste, and choice. SecState spent quite a lot of time talking to relatively reputable, non-nutcase people going pretty far back in her life. The President spent quite a lot of time talking to Gerald Kellman, Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers.
My guess is the latter group is probably pretty uniform in its views of the cabal of Generals who secretly runs the country.
Less time fighting amongst
Less time fighting amongst yourselves and more time working out the problems in AFPAK. I'm no genius but I can see a better use of everyone, in and out of uniforms time.
This is a good observation
This is a good observation by Exum. It has long baffled me that Bush 43 is still being blamed for every real and imagined problem with the world. Given that so many think Vietnam is still ongoing (heck, when I lived in the south, many thought the Civil War was still raging), perhaps I am being too impatient when I urge them to get over it.
I'm not sure why you're
I'm not sure why you're taking the commentary of an anonymous "foreign policy hand" as representative of the Democratic party. Are there idiots on the left? Of course. I've read plenty of criticism from those on the right about the Army dropping the ball with regard to Maj. Hasan.
I think the most prudent
I think the most prudent thing for Obama to do at this time is assemble a group of experts to produce a study on the best strategy for AFPAK.
I am kidding. This is why Obama was a poor choice as our leader. He voted present in the Illinois legislature like 170 times. He has only runt he Harvard Law Review and nothing else. He is afraid of responsibility and making decisions that may be controversial. Problem is that leadership requires that.
They're all a bunch of
They're all a bunch of no-nothing amateurs playing at Bismarck. With a military leadership that thinks the country's Sparta to boot.
*know-nothing yeck.
*know-nothing
yeck.
Lone Watie and Josey Wales
Lone Watie and Josey Wales
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1c3DW-ZF30
BG Stand Watie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_Watie
Schmedlap, We all know the
Schmedlap,
We all know the Civil War isn't raging. We're just an occupied territory. Think about it. The Federal Government saw fit to station the most powerful military units in it's arsenal in the South. We're occupied, I tell you!
Not that I would lend to a conspiracy theory or anything.....
;-)
I have to say, the idea that
I have to say, the idea that the country suffers from insufficient genuflecting before the all-powerful military establishment strikes me as a bit absurd. Suppose military endeavors were to be held to the same budgetary standard we apply to civilian measures? Then maybe it'd be time to start up the whining.
May I point out that Vietnam
May I point out that Vietnam was a CONVENTIONAL WAR, not a guerrilla war. That's why US went in full force. The issue then was North Vietnam's exquisite army marching WEST, across SE Asia. We pulled out because Nixon wanted to prove to Zhou Enlai that US did not want the permanent bases, like a dagger at China's soft underbelly, in Vietnam. To save Thailand: THE ORIGINAL REASON WHY EISENHOWER PUT VIETNAM UNDER SEATO PROTECTION, thus starting Indochina War, was achieved by Nixon as he got Chinese boys to do what Congress would no longer allow American boys to do: block the westward march across SE Asia to link it to India, thus surrounding China, by Hanoi a Soviet proxy. Ho had been thinking about this since 1928! Fearful that Nixon might save the Republic of Vietnam, which Democrats so screwed up, the Kennedy Rider was passed that cut ARVN off of oil and supplies, leaving them defenseless against Hanoi violation of the Paris Accords. Still, China asked Duong Van Minh, Thieu's replacement, through French Ambassador to hold off surrender for 48 hrs so China can stop PAVN from going south of Danang. He refused, claiming that he can get a deal "entre nous vietnamiens"-- exactly what he killed Diem and Nhu for trying to do in 1963!!! As a result we lost South Vietnam, but Thailand was saved as China kept its word and stopped Hanoi's march west. IN IRAQ AND AFGHNAISTAN WE ARE FACING LOCAL BOYS FIGHTING BECAUSE OF THE CROOKED AMERICAN CORPORATIONS THAT STOLE THE MONEY FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND THE INTEL BLIND, LANGUAGE DEAF AND CULTURE DUMB FORCES WE SENT IN LED BY GENERALS WHO COULDN'T DISTIBGUISH TACTICS FROM STRATEGY-- "tactics" is what you do in Iraq/Afghanistan and "strategy" is how you use it to get more stars and a JCS slot. So, comparing 1975 and 2009, which one seems like the loooossssseeeer's war"?
May I point out that Vietnam
May I point out that Vietnam was a CONVENTIONAL WAR, not a guerrilla war. That's why US went in full force. The issue then was North Vietnam's exquisite army marching WEST, across SE Asia. We pulled out because Nixon wanted to prove to Zhou Enlai that US did not want the permanent bases, like a dagger at China's soft underbelly, in Vietnam. To save Thailand: THE ORIGINAL REASON WHY EISENHOWER PUT VIETNAM UNDER SEATO PROTECTION, thus starting Indochina War, was achieved by Nixon as he got Chinese boys to do what Congress would no longer allow American boys to do: block the westward march across SE Asia to link it to India, thus surrounding China, by Hanoi a Soviet proxy. Ho had been thinking about this since 1928! Fearful that Nixon might save the Republic of Vietnam, which Democrats so screwed up, the Kennedy Rider was passed that cut ARVN off of oil and supplies, leaving them defenseless against Hanoi violation of the Paris Accords. Still, China asked Duong Van Minh, Thieu's replacement, through French Ambassador to hold off surrender for 48 hrs so China can stop PAVN from going south of Danang. He refused, claiming that he can get a deal "entre nous vietnamiens"-- exactly what he killed Diem and Nhu for trying to do in 1963!!! As a result we lost South Vietnam, but Thailand was saved as China kept its word and stopped Hanoi's march west. IN IRAQ AND AFGHNAISTAN WE ARE FACING LOCAL BOYS FIGHTING BECAUSE OF THE CROOKED AMERICAN CORPORATIONS THAT STOLE THE MONEY FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND THE INTEL BLIND, LANGUAGE DEAF AND CULTURE DUMB FORCES WE SENT IN LED BY GENERALS WHO COULDN'T DISTIBGUISH TACTICS FROM STRATEGY-- "tactics" is what you do in Iraq/Afghanistan and "strategy" is how you use it to get more stars and a JCS slot. So, comparing 1975 and 2009, which one seems like the loooossssseeeer's war"?
I agree with your point,
I agree with your point, please share with us more good articles.1986 Buick Century AC Compressor
Add your comment