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.
The President's Speech on Libya
I did not have a quick response to the president's address on Libya because, uh, I went to rugby practice instead of staying in the office to watch. Sorry. But I came home and listened to what the president had to say, and below is a list of some things that worked for me and some things that did not:
Things That Worked For Me:
- The part where he described the way in which we escalated our response. I liked how the president stressed the ways in which we escalated force in response to Gadhafi's actions. Careful escalation of force -- as opposed to some "all out, or nothing" nonsense -- is something I, or any other student of low-intensity conflict, can appreciate.
- The part where the president contrasted our speed of response in Libya (31 days) to the response to Bosnia in the 1990s (one year) was a particularly impressive thing to point out.
- The part where the president pointed out that we are not China. We cannot afford to remain who we are and take some detached, uber-realist view of the world. We do not just let atrocities happen. (Well, we do. But it's true that it offends Americans, in our psyche, to stand aside when atrocities are taking place.) Values matter to the United States -- even when our interests are unclear. We act on our perceived values and do not always take the kind of cold, calculating approach to things that some foreign policy analysts (myself, often, included) wish we would take.
Things That Did Not Work For Me:
- Okay, Mr. President, you said Gadhafi should step down from power. And you clearly believe that. So is regime change our policy now? (If so, I'm with you. Just tell me.)
- The president articulated an incredibly broad conception of U.S. interests that basically reserves the right for the United States to intervene wherever we see appropriate. Granted, this president seems committed to building strong international support for any intervention, but still, I am scared to death by the prospect of a world-class military paired with humanitarian interventionists willing to use it wherever they see injustice in the world. Because no matter what else I end up doing in life, some part of me will always be that Ranger platoon leader in Iraq in the fall of 2003.
- Did anyone else want to know more about the cost of this intervention? Considering this intervention likely wiped out even the most draconian cuts envisioned by the Republicans in the House of Representatives, how the hell are we supposed to both carry out these kinds of military interventions and pay for them? You know what leadership is? Leadership is announcing to every American that their 2011 taxes will go up by $10 per person in order to pay for what we have done. Leadership is making sure people understand that in these times, you cannot have both guns and butter unless you are willing to pay for both.
Overall, though, I think the president did a good job tonight. I think the administration is heading in the direction Zack and I wrote about in our paper today. But the more I think about it, the more #3 makes me angry. There are opportunity costs involved in Libya -- as well as in Afghanistan, and Iraq -- that we still do not have the guts to talk about as a nation.
Reading the article you've
Reading the article you've posted, it seems clear you're wrong about #3. The GOP budget cuts are $10 billion over five weeks, and that article speculates that the mission in Libya could cost $1.5 billion over the course an entire year, if it even goes on that long.
What's more, the reason the president and the Democrats oppose "draconian" GOP budget cuts is because they -- correctly, in my view -- believe that small adjustments to the discretionary budget have a negligible impact on the nation's long-term finances, which are basically threatened by the growth of entitlement spending. Of course, the reason the GOP's cut-cut-cut politics have taken hold is that Americans generally don't understand the dynamics of long-term budgeting. They most certainly don't understand the scale of America's finances; a billion dollars sounds like a lot of money to most people, but it is, of course, an absolutely minuscule fraction of what the national government spends every year. With that in mind, it would be completely irrational and utterly self-sabotaging for the president to say that the intervention in Libya necessitates a $10 tax increase on all Americans (or something similar), because A. that's a dramatic oversimplification of spending issues that unduly emphasizes inaction, and B. there's no chance that anyone else in the political universe would dream of similarly explaining the consequences of the initiatives they support, making it impossible for Americans to choose between, say, a $50 billion tax cut for the wealthy and the lives of tens of thousand of Libyan freedom fighters. Why should the president endorse exactly the sort of penny-wise, pound-foolish thinking that he believes motivates his opposition?
In all honesty, I'm pretty furious at the amount of attention being paid to the fiscal cost of Libyan intervention. In the scheme of things, the amount of money being spent on Libya is minute. Virtually every political actor involved has farmed tens of billions of dollars into vastly less-deserving causes, be they tax cuts or agricultural subsidies or any number of other interest-group driven payouts. For these same people to decide NOW is the time to start fussing over a billion here and a billion there is pretty laughable. There's a thousand places they could find the money if they were so disposed; as such, it's very telling that none of these fiscal hawks seems to be reckoning with the value of, say, corporate tax breaks vis-à-vis the lives of Libyans. It'd be one thing if they were saying that our current spending priorities trump the value of intervention in Libya, but that's not a determination anyone seems to be making. And that's because none of them actually care about the national finances in this context at all, they just know that the specter of national bankruptcy scares Americans, and as such makes a useful political bludgeon against the president. It's concern trolling, through and through.
So yeah, frankly, I think the president made the right decision to not engage on the topic. Any national conversation that resulted would invariably be distorting and play directly into the hands of the self-serving political interests of his Congressional opposition.
Think I will go with my wife
Think I will go with my wife on this one. "Obama told the Nation what he thought they wanted to hear." I even predicted that he would "Bless the Nation" at the end and he did.
POTUS is misleading the Nation.
*NATO and the UN are the US, we pay a lot of their costs. We are NOT going to pay just a small share. Military and Humanitarian cost is going to be very large. My guess there will be foreign aid given if Gadhafi steps down. If the US brokers the exile deal, we will have to give something up to get the job done, always happens.
*US is not out of the operation, just one mission phase is done.
*The whole Fantasy of Libyans being defenseless sheep is a joke. Have you ever heard the concept of magenta mist? That is what happens when you are hit with a 14.5mm Soviet era anti-aircraft round. Those Sheep are shooting 14.5mm at Gadhafi's air force and ground troops! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtJkC__h8Gs Just about every person I see has an AKM, that has the ballistics of a 30-30 deer rifle (think getting hit with a sledge hammer).
*The Vastness of the Multi-lateral Coalition is more like Half-Vast. Russia is complaining about mission creep and the air support that is being given to the Rebels. The big players are not in the game (Russia, China, Germany). There are only about three or four Arab countries listed. The Coalition behind WBush was way bigger going into Afghanistan ten years ago and Hillary bitched about that coalition being unilateral !
I was not impressed. Did tear up a little, that did not last long.
We have guts to talk about it
We have guts to talk about it as a nation.
But not as long as we keep getting lied to by people such as the prevaricator in chief.
WHS... Of course, the reason
WHS...
Of course, the reason the GOP's cut-cut-cut politics have taken hold is that Americans generally don't understand the dynamics of long-term budgeting. They most certainly don't understand the scale of America's finances; a billion dollars sounds like a lot of money to most people, but it is, of course, an absolutely minuscule fraction of what the national government spends every year.
I hear that so much it hurts. Get a life. 1+1 = 2. All the little bits add up to the whole. I think every American knows that the US is in deep debt and spending is not a sustainable plan.
Seeing no one knows when Libya will end, no one including the President knows what this will cost !
Furthermore, if we're talking
Furthermore, if we're talking about finances CINC's been just as dishonest with 'entitlements' as he has on our latest Libyan adventure. To the extent of adding an entirely new one, using every trick in the book to do so despite of the wishes of the so-called cowardly public.
In this case cowardliness rots from the head down.
"Seeing no one knows when
"Seeing no one knows when Libya will end, no one including the President knows what this will cost !"
But it's unlikely it'll ever cost as much as, for instance, the $20b in direct subsidies we'll pay to farmers this year. The people who are arguing about the cost of the war are treating the other trillion dollars of federal budget as some untouchable monolith and then doing their best to frighten Americans by repeating numbers like "$100 million a week." Without a detailed understanding of where else the billions of dollars of DAILY federal spending are going, how can someone possibly make a rational choice between different priorities? I'm not opposed to helping people make an educated decision, but when it comes to fiscal matters, giving people a tiny fraction of the overall picture is only going to confuse them and frustrate responsible policymaking.
I guess a shorter way of
I guess a shorter way of putting that is while, yes, "all the bits add up to the whole," no one wants to talk about the other, much larger bits. That gives the relatively cheap Libyan intervention a major political disadvantage compared to them.
One thing to keep in mind
One thing to keep in mind about our interests and Libya:
Libya is small (1/3rd the population of NYC), and oil rich. But Egypt is, even more than Iran, a real geopolitical pivot. It has been since young Caesar came a-courtin about a half century bc, and it seems likely to remain so.
Egypt had a refugee crisis on its borders in 1948. It took somewhere between 25 and 63 years (+) to clean up the mess, at a fairly signficant cost to the United States.
Admittedly it's a low -- but not negligible -- risk that a new Nasser might take power in Egypt to rectify long-standing disputes with Libya. But it seems that there are real benefits to stabilizing Cyrenaica and preventing anything really 'interesting' from happening on Egypt's borders while the ink on Egypt's constitution is drying, and Egypt's leadership has defined itself. What is this worth, exactly? Hard to say....
One thing is clear: we've gone to 'war' with Libya on three occasions already with far less at stake.
Much better president's
Much better president's speech: http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/28/what_obamas_foreign_po...
Negative Point #1: Regime
Negative Point #1: Regime Change
That's right out. The UN didn't mention anything about regime change and now that NATO has begun taking over the mission, they are not going to over step the UN mandate. So whether Qaddafi remains in power or not is not part of the equation. Which demands the question: What is the desired end state?
I do not think this is an inappropriate demand, a clear vision of what the end of this mission will look like. Yes, I understand that while Libya is not a vital interest, the survival of Egypt is (because of the canal, because of regional stability, because of Israel, etc.) I understand that Europe is tied to Libya with respect to oil and fear of additional refugees to their own shores. But neither of these points explains when we can say, "ahh, we're finished."
Regime change in and of itself is not a definitive point either. As we saw in Iraq. We *thought* we could use "regime change" as the end state and then just pack up and go home. Now we know better. And Libya is unlikely to be an improvement on what we saw in Iraq.
But since regime change is off the table, the end state is even murkier. We're just going to keep flying sorties over Libya to prevent Qaddafi and his band of mercs from killing civilians? The assumption is that the rebels will eventually overthrow Qaddafi but what if they don't? What if they a) decide they have enough of the country under their own control to just carve it up into different states and leave Qaddafi in Tripoli or b) (more likely IMHO) the rebel "coalition" falls apart as they get within reach of their goal. Now the different tribes are going to start whacking each other. Do we then enforce the "no civilian casualties" idea against them as well?
I'm not asking for a timeline. I'm not even asking for a black and white decision point. I'd settle for a clear vision. And I think we lost that when we didn't push for regime change as part of the mandate.
The American People are not
The American People are not the problem, they tightened their belt years ago when the crisis hit, that's why consumer spending is down and likely to remain so for the duration of our economic troubles, and outside of DC we are in trouble.
That's why savings are up- despite the fact that Fed created inflation is eroding our money and hence savings and retirement. In that vein let's not forget this started as food riots. Inflation is up despite rigged stats.
The American people caused SPAM to fly off the shelves, to the point where they were one of the few companies that thrived off the recession - which is still well under way outside of DC.
The American people are not the problem. Our ruling class which finds the summits of Mount Control Fraud in DC, Wall Street and our State Capitols is the problem. We've had the conversation, and in case you missed all the protests from the last couple of years and ignored the last 3 election cycles we get it. It's our ruling class that does not get it, refuses to "Get it Right", and true to form the "conversation" is the peasants taxes go up, despite the fact their elected Representatives were deliberately bypassed so we can keep the various Brussels whorehouses and the Euro Gas VAT tax bonanza in Business.
We are not the problem Exum. The problem is in the room with you, and all around you on the Beltway. You take the Metro with the problem. You work for the problem, and sadly you are part of the problem.
Has morphed into Operation
Has morphed into Operation Unknown Knowns -Phase I
Operation Known Unknowns - Phase II
Phase III - ????
Phase IV -???
Phase Exit Strategy - ???? We didn't have an entrance or prosecution strategy.
But I'm sure the Beltway Academic Industry can bill out the @zz developing metrics for Operation 10 Years of Income Dawn. Brussels whorehouses - Here we come!!
We'll know how well it went
We'll know how well it went if it ends up in a Def Leopard song.
I think it is an important,
I think it is an important, but consistently glossed over or ignored point, to discuss what is meant by "costs" in this context. You say you are increasingly angry about the cost of this operation, but are you suggesting that you think the action is currently increasing our deficit or debt? As I see it, so far we are conducting this war (or whatever you choose to call it) within the existing Pentagon budget. The Defense budget is unbelievably massive and is developed with provisions for limited engagements like this in mind. All the Tomahawks we have used have already been paid for. They don't "cost" us anything additional until we requisition more, correct? We have over 3000 Tomahawk missiles sitting on ships or staged in various places. If they are not used they will eventually be rendered obsolete and scrapped or moth-balled. I would much rather they be used to save lives and promote our interests (limited as they may be in this context). I don't think we can immediately assume that the relatively small number of missiles employed will even be replaced - except perhaps as part of routine contracts and requisitions down the road. This gross simplification by some that every Tomahawk launched means Uncle Sam is handing over wads of cash is not helpful and presents a false choice between the money being used for a missile vs. the money being used to pay a teacher (or some such). That decision was already made and can't be unmade. The weaponry exists, the money has been spent, and if not used it will simply become waste at some point.
The ships were already in theater. The military personnel were already deployed. The aircraft were already being flown on routine patrols and training missions. Yes, there is an incremental cost increase for flying combat missions and increasing our utilization but it must be contrasted to the costs of day-to-day operations, not to a theoretical zero state.
Unless I am badly mistaken, until Obama comes to Congress to request supplemental funds as he must do for Iraq and Afghanistan, this operation is not adding to our deficit - it exists within the framework of the existing Defense budget.
If the situation drags on and becomes the stalemate you fear, then yes, costs could escalate dramatically and we could begin seeing additional impact to the deficit. At the current time, however, I really believe that this falls within the military's existing means and provisions.
Then again, I could be talking out my ass.
1. I don't think there are
1. I don't think there are any "legal" (at least UN justifiable) means to say the recognized leader of a country must go.
2. That being said, even if we can't say so, kill the bastard.
3. Failing that, we might want to look at the emerging norms (East Timor, Kosovo, Montenegro) to enact a formal dissolution of the Libyan Arab People's Jamboree, and formally give self-rule and eventually independence to Cyrenaica. There seems to be at least some options there to legitimize a workable stalemate there.
WHS.... Flip the argument.
WHS....
Flip the argument. Republicans are asking for 60 Billion in cuts.
60 Billion is chump change. What is wrong with Reed? He has been bitching and moaning for weeks.
LOL
PS...You have to start somewhere. US has a nation of VISA addicts that use the same justification, one more VISA transaction will not hurt. Little larger home is affordable.
Pretty soon you owe the Chinese a trillion to support your habit and 16% of your houses in America are owned by the bank.
Get a life.
Obama need to get back to reality.
This is what bothers me then
This is what bothers me then most about this President.
From the address to the Nation:
OBAMA: "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."
This is not about Obama, it is about the NATION. That is why a President must work with Congress to start a war. American is hurting while Obama opens another war front.
Obama is about his childhood. His mother died when he was a child, Obama did Healthcare. Obama spent his early life in Indonesia, he is now spending most of time caring for Muslim counties.
Obama's childhood needs to end.
Obama says that he wants to see the US do big things again. How about he gets past his childhood and start working at home.
* Balance a multi-trillion dollar budget.
* Fix a 20% unemployment/underemployment problem
* Address the US deficit, both trade and spending.
*Get the 1 in 6 Americans off food stamps
*Address the immigration problem
*Do something with tort laws that are killing the Nation
*Fix the tax code to address off-shoring of manufacturing jobs and the hole it leaves in revenue for infrastructure.
.................all of these are BIG things.
Obama needs to start living in the present. Not the past. He does not care about America, he is only using America cause it brings special capabilities to his agenda.
Hey Speechless, Nice try with
Hey Speechless,
Nice try with the pop-psychology, but I think your theory needs a little work.
Obama's mother died in 1995...Obama was 34. Hardly a child.
Does Obama's childhood inform his decisions? Of course, doesn't everyone's? Is is the main basis for what he does - absolutely not. He has firm "adult" rationale for all his actions - far more than the previous "decider" and his gut ever did.
You act as if the President has ignored the domestic situation in favor of international concerns or childhood whimsy. It has not been him that has deadlocked the Congress over ideological, purely political battles. I am curious how you would propose to both "balance a multi-trillion" dollar budget AND "fix a 20% unemployment/underemployment problem". Exactly what policy that the President has the power to enact would accomplish that?
It seems your grasp of economics is about as deep as your grasp of psychology.
Visitor.... Pay me $400,000
Visitor....
Pay me $400,000 for life and I will will do it, I know how to turn the economy.
Think someone else has that salary and title now and he is not doing a very good job of it.
Get a life.
Wow, consider me schooled.
Wow, consider me schooled.
Your arguments are far more sound and reasoned than I imagined. I hope someone gives you $400,000 really soon so we can get out of this mess.
Apparently my asking you to back up your rant with something concrete indicates a distinct lack of life on my part. So I suppose I will go in search of my life reassured by the fact that you have it all figured out and will almost certainly soon be hitting the campaign trail to enlighten the rest of us and claim your rightful place as our leader.
I look forward to hearing about your solution to everything soon and how much you truly care about America (provided someone pays you 400K for life that is), rather than, how did you put it, "bring[ing] special capabilities to [your] agenda"
Now I know I left that life around here somewhere....
Hey, Get a life, You can't
Hey, Get a life,
You can't just flip the argument as you suggest: Saying it's just $60 billion; whack it, what's the problem here misses the point. Reid isn't " bitching and moaning" about the amounts per se, the "chump change" as you call it, but about the impact of cutting those particular bits, i.e., funds for Pell grants, Planned Parenthood, Securities and Exchange Commission, EPA, NPR, funding to implement the health care act, so forth and so on. (Funny how all the bits that add up to the $60 billion also happen to add up to programs and policies that Republicans have long abhorred. And the hypocrisy of suggesting at this point that too much is being spent on Libya is just---is just---I have no words.)
Budgets are about priorities. The typical family household that you analogize the government to doesn't keep its movie budget while hacking out the food and medical budget. Americans may know, as you say, that "the US is in deep debt and spending is not a sustainable plan" but they also know that keeping the bits that include billions in subsidies to corporations and huge tax breaks for the wealthy while tossing out the bits for food inspection, college aid, police and fire departments, clean water projects, job training, housing subsidies --and not to mention the bits for the regulatory agency that has been tasked with overseeing the institutions that caused this mess-- is not just unfair but is also supremely unAmerican. I just wonder how much longer they will stand for it.
1. What else could President
1. What else could President Obama say?
2. Found nothing particularly inaccurate or obfuscatory.
3. Did think he expressed his lack of comfort with the situation.
4. Will be more interested in what is said after wars 4,5 and 6 are initiated.
V/R JWest
I'm glad we're not deploying
I'm glad we're not deploying ground troops. That's why 22d MEU's Med deployment was moved up.
What about the case for
What about the case for rebuilding?
Unfortunately I missed Obama's speech last night. Before his address had been announced I had won tickets to the New Yorker's Big Story series that was looking at "Uprisings" in the Middle East and North Africa. The event featured New Yorker editor David Remnick as the moderator, Steve Coll and Wendell Steavenson from the New Yorker, Princeton professor Amaney Jamal, and Egyptian activist Marwa Sharafeldin.
The conversation focused heavily on Egypt and its current transitional period. Asked what she wants from the US in Egypt, if anything, Sharafeldin replied: "For the sake of the US and for the sake of the Middle East, the best route now is for the US to stay away." When given a follow up by Remnick, wondering if that meant not giving aid as well, she replied, "I would say aid too, absolutely!"
Briefly touching on Libya, the group was fairly mixed about intervention with Coll backing up the intervention due to the lives it likely saved, given what he viewed as evidence of a means and intent to attack Benghazi, and Steavenson concurring while also bringing up the specter of Kosovo and her view that, "it's not often when strategic, humanitarian and moral interests coincide." Jamal took a different approach, acknowledging the immediate humanitarian value of intervention, but questioning the approach and game plan for a post-Gaddafi Libya. Sherafeldin wanted to see a prevention of violence, but one attached to a plan for what comes next and that did not see the US in a major role.
Wanting intervention, but also wanting to choose who will intervene is, at least in Libya’s case, asking to have things both ways or as Remnick put it, “circling a square.” If intervention was going to occur, the US was going to be involved—if for no other reason than the “unique” capabilities we have as a military power with a defense budget 10x that of either France or Great Britain. But, if we can assume that Sherafeldin is voicing a popular Arab sentiment (didn’t the Arab League question the mandate of 1973 as anything other than a strict NFZ?) and not merely just her own, her concerns also speak to the very dilemma of this operation for the United States and our allies. Having now gotten a chance to read Obama’s statements on Libya, I wonder if he truly grasps the situation he’s in.
The difficult transition that Egypt is having is going to pale in comparison to what will occur in Libya. That Obama can claim, “the United States of America has done what we said we would do” while also insisting that although “the United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community, and – more importantly – a task for the Libyan people themselves” falls into the same category of wanting intervention but also wanting to choose how that intervention will occur and who will intervene. How then do you intervene because you’re the only one who can and then declare that someone else will rebuild? International coalitions are ideal, and Obama clearly places great value in them, but if the US was needed as a military force what’s to say that they won’t also be needed as a rebuilding one? Especially since there is no guarantee or commitment, at least not that I’ve seen, from other countries to step in to that void. While it might be realistic in Egypt, for the US to back away as Sharafeldin wishes, it seems impossible in Libya.
What little talk in Obama’s speech there was about post-war Libya, let alone post-Gaddafi, glossed over the essential questions of who will be rebuilding and how they will do it? Obama, stating that the US “will safeguard the more than $33 billion that was frozen from the Gaddafi regime so that it is available to rebuild Libya…[since] it belongs to the Libyan people, and we will make sure they receive it” skips a pretty crucial step—the one where a decision is made as to who gets the assets. That the US controls this significant reserve is merely a reflection of just how tied into Libya’s future we will continue to be.
This speech should not have been about justifying military action; it should have been about explaining what happens after that action occurs. While he made a case, not necessarily one I agree with, for the necessity for American involvement, based around our ideals and even exceptionalism, he failed to make the case for our support of Libya’s future. What then, I ask again, about the day after tomorrow?
O Father of
O Father of Proselytizers.
Here is what you REALLY did not like about O's speech.
Obama just made the first application of the Obama Doctrine.
I will paraphrase.. ....America will intervene IFF the intervention is cost-viable, aligns with our interests, timely, multilateral, and likely to succeed.
Unlike say, the profoundly stupid Bush Doctrine, and its cutdown stepchild COIN, said dreadful policies having resulted in the epic horrorshows of Iraq and A-stan, not to mention the Garani massacre, the Kill Squad, Camp No, Baghram Theater Detention Center, the Iraqi Rape Squad, Abu Ghraib, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands muslim civilians.
If you are so keen on saving money, lets leave Afghanistan.
Right now America is spending one billion dollars per month to make more Taliban. America has been fighting a ground war in A-stan for 10 years, trying to wipe out/deligitimize the Taliban. And now there is 100% probability that the Taliban will be part of whatever government America leaves behind.
We could sure use that money right now.
;)
Its going to end up with a
Its going to end up with a split Libya. We aint going to root Gaddafi out of Tripoli if he has laid proper defenses and has his troops indefinetly. A fckin air/infantry fight against entranched minefileds and mortars, with such a light aircover and untrained infantry? Not freaking likely to end well.
Dude, I totally agree with
Dude, I totally agree with you that "careful escalation of force" is the way to go!!!!! First you bomb a few minor targets. If the enemy doesn't react the way you wanted, you expand the bombing target list ever so slightly. Importantly, you maintain cognizance over the targeting list at the white house. If the enemy still does not behave the way you want him too, and If the enemy threatens your airfields, by god you have to put a Bn of marines in to protect them. This of course invites the enemy to attack your troops so you have to bring in the rest of the regiment, and while your at it you bring in an army division for good measure, all the while slowly expanding your area of operations from the immediate vicinity of the airbase. Before you know it you've got a Corps in country and its probably not enough. Meanwhile, the targeting list has expanded significantly (becasue the enemy has been oh-so stubborn in refusing to react the way you want him too) over the next couple of years but hell no you can't bomb SAM sites before they are active, and don't even think about bombing or mining the harbor through which the majority of the enemy's supplies pass. You've been "carefully escalating" the troop levels as well, because now you've got 4 Corps and 500,000+ operating in-country. Unfortunately, the enemy chooses this point to launch a country wide counter-attack from which he is repelled with substantial casualties. Your own press, however see this as a defeat. You throw up your arms decide not to run again and you stop bombing. The war still has 5-7 years to go.
So, hell muthaf*ck yeah, "careful escalation of force" rocks out baby!
Lyndon: Give Obama and the
Lyndon: Give Obama and the lads this, the whole campaign has been designed to avoid exactly that missioncreep..
unlock iphone 4 iphone 4
unlock iphone 4
iphone 4 unlock
how to unlock iphone 4
http://cricketfains.com/cricketfains/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=36... http://www.digg-cell-phone.info/story.php?id=9508#comments http://mobiledjonline.org/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=4660 http://www.nederland4045.nl/burger/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=5157
just curious if this is a true..can a virus crash your computer to the point it won't even turn on?
unlock iphone 4 unlock iphone 4
how to unlock iphone 4 [url=http://www.minellionline.ch/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=29888 ]unlock iphone 4[/url] iphone 4 unlock unlock iphone 4
смотреть порно онлайн толстые
смотреть порно онлайн толстые женщины
[url=http://xxx-porn.ru/]конкурс интим фото
[/url]
ptdG5D mnvhpcnnruzd,
ptdG5D mnvhpcnnruzd, [url=http://jnvxqhvvcamo.com/]jnvxqhvvcamo[/url], [link=http://rawrbxzngtqh.com/]rawrbxzngtqh[/link], http://fuzxsvacpzkq.com/
xd4aqF jlsnabolidun,
xd4aqF jlsnabolidun, [url=http://veppyyizrcuq.com/]veppyyizrcuq[/url], [link=http://akmpumrflecd.com/]akmpumrflecd[/link], http://umshmfnsrabt.com/
how to unlock iphone 4 unlock
how to unlock iphone 4
unlock iphone 4
unlock iphone 4
http://www.prettythin.com/apps/profile/75293757/ http://tourdion.com/story.php?title=unlock-iphone-4-4#discuss
I was on the internet (Mozilla Firefox) and I was just browsing then a message came up and said something like 'Windows defender needs you to restart your computer to solve a problem' so I clicked it and then it obviously restarted. I tried to log onto my user area and it took longer than usual to load up and when it finally loaded up it had a blank background and my documents, no task-bar or shortcut. The only way I got onto the internet was by going on my downloads going on Spotify and then clicking on an advert, for the past couple of days I've been getting warnings saying that I have a harmful virus so I clicked 'Remove' and it said it had gone but every hour or so it kept coming back up. Also I have Windows Vista. Sorry it's so long :( Happy New Year :) thanks :)
iphone 4 unlock unlock iphone 4
unlock iphone 4 [url=http://unlockiphone421.com]how to unlock iphone 4[/url] iphone 4 unlock unlock iphone 4
Terrific. Honestly, this
Terrific. Honestly, this particular blog post revealed a great deal of of challenges which in turn are now swirling. This excellent website is extremely full of facts in a major way that keeps us alerted. Helpful blog post. free movie downloads | free movie downloads
Excellent post thanks to the
Excellent post thanks to the fact I learned an awful lot. Global leaders need to grasp the circumstances. There are too many tensions worldwide. Awesome article. credit repair | surveys for money
Here are some more links on
Here are some more links on the topic, где линия детей на руке
http://wifejiw.t35.com
http://sajuniv.t35.com
http://vowujuv.t35.com
http://yumururu.t35.com
http://zehisuca.t35.com
http://vicawima.t35.com
http://rusazexu.t35.com
http://wafareqa.t35.com
http://sagobap.t35.com
http://wizenisa.t35.com
http://tazepove.t35.com
http://vowivuv.t35.com
http://yebigowe.t35.com
http://vulihivu.t35.com
http://wugerose.t35.com
http://wotosolo.t35.com
http://wuruqidi.t35.com
http://vupugexu.t35.com
http://winehiy.t35.com
http://yifoxodo.t35.com
http://zekiwuvi.t35.com
http://yedimuk.t35.com
http://tayebuqu.t35.com
http://watoliqa.t35.com
http://xorovaz.t35.com
http://wuyaxoma.t35.com
http://xemuyoge.t35.com
http://yorerod.t35.com
http://wimetapa.t35.com
http://vixocama.t35.com
http://vevicos.t35.com
http://vomipezu.t35.com
http://yuyokuso.t35.com
http://vowaruwa.t35.com
http://tanejowu.t35.com
http://zikiboyu.t35.com
http://werosiji.t35.com
http://yacivezo.t35.com
http://tarenip.t35.com
http://xogevusu.t35.com
http://sabahuxu.t35.com
http://wexiyujo.t35.com
http://vitatuxi.t35.com
http://xuhemuzu.t35.com
http://vuhegofi.t35.com
http://weqecij.t35.com
http://velepeha.t35.com
http://xekohafe.t35.com
http://sasamabu.t35.com
http://sunuhiqa.t35.com
Hello! dddcgee interesting
Hello! dddcgee interesting dddcgee site!
QWERADFGASDGADFHAD
QWERADFGASDGADFHAD ADFHGSDGSADGXZCBZX
GJTRSDGSADADSFHGADFS SDGSDSDGSADASDGHASD
YUYSDGSADSDGASD ERYERADFHGDAFDSFGHADS
ZVXZASDGASDDFHAD YUYADFHGDAFSDGASD
ERYERSDGSADGADSFHGADFS
ERYERSDGSADGADSFHGADFS YUKYSDGSADGADFHGAD
ZVXZASDGASDXZCBZX GJTRZSDGASDADSFHGADFS
YUYSDGSADSDAFHSAD YUKYSDGSADDFHAD
DSGAZSDGASDASDGHASD SDGSDZSDGASDADFHGAD
Add your comment