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.
Generalship and its Discontents
Having plowed through Tom Ricks' book on generals, I expected to write a review here. Unfortunately, I realized that I lack the background in the history of American military management and leadership to properly evaluate Ricks' arguments. I found some of the critical arguments raised persuasive but also thought Ricks also strongly defended his work. This is just a case where I just needed to do so more reading.
That being said my reading of The Generals raised a couple of general points relevant to readers of a blog founded to discuss ten years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The first is the complexity of assigning blame for strategic misfortune. I have touched on this theme in the past and we do have a reasonably well developed understanding of military failure. But we have much less of a consensus about responsibility for failure. Why?
The problem of the general's role in military failure is a classic agent-structure problem. Does the fault lie in bad people? Or are generals prisoners of bad structures? Jason Dempsey argues that the military favors tactical proficiency rather than the capacity for bargaining and negotiation with civilian leaders that is needed to create good strategy. Do politicians get the generals they choose? Tommy Franks' tactical focus was consistent with the Bush administration's initial political ideas about the extent of desired American involvement. Ricks counters that bad political objectives doesn't necessarily mean that political leaders shouldn't dump generals that demonstrate a clear lack of professional chops.
One of the more fascinating aspects of reading The Generals is that, as Brian Linn said, the book also reflects a practical tension with the commonplace idea of a strict separation of structure and agent levels of analysis:
First, are the U.S. Army’s post–World War II leadership problems essentially individual or systemic? Has the Army in the last half-century simply had a run of bad luck in the pool of senior officers available to lead its forces, or has its personnel system consistently proved incapable of generating superior wartime commanders? The book’s organization—each chapter devoted to an individual general—tends to reinforce the thesis that failure is the result of having the wrong man in the wrong job, but much of the weight of Ricks’s analysis, as well as his recommendations for change, points to systemic problems.
This may be a problem for Ricks, or it also could be that the book's tension between individual and system comes from the entirely human issue of trying to visualize how micromotives generate macrobehavior. The idea that we have to choose between agent-based or structure-based approaches may be at fault here. The Army is a system made up by a variety of interacting individuals and cultures, as Linn himself has pointed out. And the Army is also a subsystem of a larger institutional environment that allows it substantial autonomy to make its own ways but also exerts its own pressures.
Bringing this down from the 30,000 feet level, what the wars have shown is that we don't think deeply enough about the metrics we really want our generals to be judged by. Take, for example, Andrew Bacevich's polemical take on David Petraeus:
Petraeus understood — and was willing to acknowledge — that by invading Iraq, America had created a situation where winning had become implausible. …So rather than persisting in efforts to win outright, Petraeus conjured up an alternative: Redefine the goal as something other than victory; move the goal posts to make it easier to put points on the scoreboard.
Of course, as I argued last week, how a political community defines "winning" is important. It's also flexible. Passion, the verdict of the battlefield, and the policy of the state all interact and a political condition can change over time. Bacevich assumes that an objective and positively Platonic form of "victory" exists but he does not define what it would mean to "win outright" in Iraq after the rise of the Iraqi insurgency. So Petraeus used a combination of violence and statecraft to advance the new policy---a policy that his political masters determined.
Does it make sense for Bacevich to fault Petraeus for not "defeating" the insurgency when completely annihilating them, as implied in his comparisons to Patton and Zhuov's complete destruction of the Wehrmarcht, was not necessary to achieve the mission he was given? Were American generals in Korea's later phase abject failures because they did not "defeat" the North Korean and Chinese armies, despite successfully using force to preserve a democratic South Korea?
I don't have an solution about how to judge generalship in the Army today. But I do know how we should not judge it. I fear the lesson we'll learn from our strategic misfortunes in Iraq and Vietnam is that all we need are hard-charging types that have Patton's aggression and drive. This "blood and guts" view would ignore Patton's own deep reading in the history of his profession and his inconsistent but nonetheles important appreciation for the nature of his military task. That's not a recipe for "winning" wars, no matter how you slice it.
How odd that American
How odd that American generalship, according to Ricks, went downhill just as American wars were getting more limited, more ambiguous, and less conventional. Strange coincidence, that.
"using force to preserve a
"using force to preserve a democratic South Korea?" I think "to preserve a South Korea that would become democratic in the late 1980s would be nearer the mark.
True that, but... continued
True that, but... continued presence of US troops in South Korea limited the degree to which Syngman Rhee and his successors could oppress the population, and eventually democratic institutions might emerge. Same was true in the Philippines, and alas, might have been true in South Vietnam but for an accident of geography.
Hitchens and HiginioGo are
Hitchens and HiginioGo are both right, although I think that they both miss what my biggest analytical error in that paragraph was: I should have typed that the goal was to preserve a pro-Western South Korea. Whether or not it became democratic was a secondary, at best, consideration.
I appreciated the measured
I appreciated the measured commentary on Ricks' thesis; it's far too easy to either shriek "he's got it!" or to dismiss the argument out of hand.
As always with Ricks' books, I think he's got an excellent handle on the problem (disclaimer - I have yet to read it, though I've read his past works and reviews of The Generals ad nauseum while I decide whether or not to shell out for it) and it seems like he lays some pretty solid (and much-needed) lumber on Army generalship since 1945. That said, as always with Ricks' books - and, to generalize wildly and probably irresponsibly, many books by journalists - it seems the prescription is simply unequal to the enormity of the diagnosis. "Fire people" doesn't cut it, and when you explore the nuances of "firing people" in the service, things aren't so simple. Ricks always lauds the Navy for cashiering skippers left and right when seemingly nobody in the Army gets canned. Well, there's more than a few who loudly bemoan the Navy's zero-defect culture ("Nimitz would have been canned as an JG") and say it's counter-productive. After all, what Navy skipper got relieved because he demonstrated tactical incompetence? None; it's always for being a junior Captain Bligh or offenses under various interpretations of the word "sodomy." Plenty of WWII generals who were fired got second chances, but would Ricks want to see Tommy Franks Round II? Or perhaps, given how he wrote of him in Fiasco, I daresay Ricks would not have wanted the system to regurgitate Ray Odierno into the MNF-C slot in 2007. It's so much more complicated than the trite, journalist-approved simple recommendations Ricks wants to make.
As for your questions of the individuals versus the institution, I'm inclined to give significant weight to Ricks' (supposed) argument that the enlarged, emboldened, and newly protective DoD bureaucracy post-1945 certainly has as much share of the responsibility for providing these GOs as any other factor.
Why is it the political left
Why is it the political left is so bent on destroying American Exceptionalism?
True exceptionalism finds roots in the founding fathers and the US Constitution. The left has to destroy that concept one history book at a time, re-spinnng history along the way. What is happening with America's Generalship is a reflection of US politics, it always has been.
We attack the concept of a spelling error concerning S. Korea's democracy without focus on how lucky the people in the lower peninsula are to have that way of life or the cost paid. That same thinking extends into the fabric of today's political discussion. It is about how to shed blame, taking care of your constituency, changing history to your liking, and projecting forward the concept of your beliefs none of which may correspond to the original beliefs of how the US of A came to be.
The simple explanation is "it is the employee not the system or the person elected to office" no matter how corrupted that system or office holder has become.
People have a problem with Petraeous keeping his pants zipped and the fact that two parties cheated on their marrage vows? Why is it that the political left is celebrating the breaking of the Norquist Tax Pledge? For both business and private, bankruptcy is now a way of life and managing our accounts. Is our word no longer golden?
Ever since the Vietnam era Americans have cultivated the concept of the individual not being responsible for our actions. US of A has a drug problem which is pawned off on the neighbors south of the border while a political party pushes for legalization. Illegal aliens are now undocumented citizens who are concerned about the law of the land so a driver's license is now in order. People whose parents could give a hoot less shoot people and the family is not responsible, the gun is. HIV is a problem for young Americans, so we give them birth control pills for free. America has a spending problem and the solution is more Government to control it. Pretty soon the powers that be will be padding the lamp poles so that Lindsay Lohan will not hurt herself !!
It is no wonder that American Generals are to blame, someone has to be a fall guy. Why not the person that is in the chain of command. Shit rolls down hill.
Adam and Dan, you wrote something interesting and now you get comments.
BTW,,, I had to chuckle the other day. American is no longer "a shining city on a hill", we are just a disembodied "North Star" some place in the blog-o-sphere. Obama is so full of beans, where in the heck does he think the money will come from to save all the people from themselves?
Yup, it will never be him the ego is too big. Potus is commander and chief, he has a staff of six-figure salaries working for him all highly educated people. When the military solution goes sour, it is never the person that has the responsibility to select the correct General for the job.
Have to say that I am laughing my ass off about Rice. For as manly as women have become and the list of experiences and education that Rice has it still comes down to, "why are you picking on little ol' me"............that's a good one.
How much does Rice get paid to put up with the bullshit that comes with a high level job title?
Lots with a retirement paid in full by the US MIDDLE CLASS, just like any other fucking government weenie that is fighting to save the MIDDLE CLASS.
Shit, I can not stop laughing......Coal for Xmas!!!!!! Christ where is that Harvard Education.
"the goal was to preserve a
"the goal was to preserve a pro-Western South Korea. Whether or not it became democratic was a secondary, at best, consideration."
exactly right, i'd say
btw Bruce Cummings' two volume Origins of the Korean War is a fantastic read and a great history book, if you haven't read it already
Preserve a SOUTH Korea? The
Preserve a SOUTH Korea?
The proxy war is not over. US forces never left and the Korean DMZ is the of the more unfriendly places in the world today. The US is still pouring money into the conflict. Knew of US paid GI's and contractors that did nothing but flying back and forth on the 38th collecting N.Korean intelligence in the 80's. Later they flew to S.America out of Florida to support spraying Coca in Columbia.
Pretty much the idea in the 50's was to counter Communism, the alternative of that was to enable Democracy. Never heard of the US placing the requirement of democracy on any conflict that it was involved in so that could be said of any US involvement anywhere in the world, except the US revolutionary war itself. US taxpayer pays a shit load of money for the pleasure of giving opportunity a chance and they don't always get a thank you for it.
Really do not think the US was preserving SOUTH Korea, it was looking for UNIFICATION and still is today. The Chinese are the ones in the preservation business. Starting to think the US liberal left is too.
Wonder if preserving SOUTH Korea was on MacArthur mind as he marched forces to the Yalu?
No matter how it was intended, both Europe and S.Korea are doing pretty well these days and neither speak German unless they want to. Don't believe me? Talk to a Korean about the Japanese and WW2. Comfort women would be a good warm up.
MWC38 on November 30, 2012 -
MWC38 on November 30, 2012 - 2:47pm
Ricks always lauds the Navy for cashiering skippers left and right when seemingly nobody in the Army gets canned. Well, there's more than a few who loudly bemoan the Navy's zero-defect culture ("Nimitz would have been canned as an JG") and say it's counter-productive. After all, what Navy skipper got relieved because he demonstrated tactical incompetence? None; it's always for being a junior Captain Bligh or offenses under various interpretations of the word "sodomy."
It is correct for Ricks to laud the Navy in cashiering skippers. Many skippers get "fired" for making mistakes related to the security of their command. Some get second chances, just not in command positions.
The zero-defect culture has been always present in all military branches in the form of "up or out" or other descriptions. No one made Zero-Defect culture more effective than the Clinton administration in the 90's when the intelligence community and military services were culled. That was post Tail Hook '91 when the Zero-Defect was also a purge of what was unacceptable to the far left agenda.
Zero Defect has many meanings to those that want to have their way with organizations, their leadership, and make social change.
Most interesting thing about
Most interesting thing about this fiscal cliff discussion.
The tax rates which are being discussed are the ones that the Republicans fought the Democrats to make law. The Democrats now are trying to place blame on the Republicans for the sunset of the said tax rates using the fiscal cliff as a threat.
Gee those Republicans must be really bad people, like Dr. Evil bad.
Believe until it is reality.
Visitor..... In your first
Visitor.....
In your first post, you said that it's the fault of the Commander and [sic] Chief when a war goes wrong and that the generals under him aren't to blame, implying that you understand that the civilian leadership sets the policy for a war and the political objectives to be achieved.
In your second post, you wonder if preserving South Korea was on the mind of MacArthur as he marched towards the Yalu, demonstrating an ignorance of the point you made in the first post. MacArthur was not in the position to be deciding which political objectives the US wanted to obtain. He crossed the 38th parallel under the mistaken assumption that the Chinese wouldn't intervene; when they did, UN forces were promptly repelled back to the 38th. For the next 2 and 1/2 years, UN forces fought simply to regain all of the South Korean territory and prevent further territorial losses. America's (not MacArthur's) aim during the war (and now), was to preserve South Korea.
Mike the abu mike on December
Mike the abu mike on December 3, 2012 - 11:01am
The discussion between Commander and Chief and those around that Commander and Chief are mutual just as in any chain of command. Leadership is key to enable a good outcome and decision, it is the responsibilities of all parties involve to validate information. I had the most respect for leaders that ended up in my office asking me what was happening in the organization. Later that information was used to hamstring individuals on staff for trying to spin a different tail, they were left with their pants and skirts down around their ankles trying to explain their misinformation.
You are correct that no US General sets foreign policy (they can influence it temporarily and that is really what we are speaking about), our US Constitution gives that honor to POTUS. It was not my intent to imply that MacArthur was setting policy, but he did move forces to the Yula in an attempt to unify a divided Korea. Tuman did not object to the military plan that would do that unification. The sticky part of the discussion is the intervention of the Chinese and USSR, this is where the political craft of laying blame begins.
Looking at documents from the Truman Library.
This is discussion from Wake Island 15OCT50
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/korea/large/d...
On Page 10 Truman asks MacArthur about the chance of Chinese or Soviet interference and the historical reply continues on page 11 with a confident, "Very Little". Then MacArthur continues with his reasoning.
Later in a press conference in 1951 after Chinese cross the Yula.
http://trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/viewpapers.php?pid=307
Q. There was a report -
THE PRESIDENT. I don't need to be checked up on it, but go ahead.
Q. There was a report made to you by CIA in advance of the November 24, 25, 26 intervention by the Chinese, pointing out the danger of Chinese intervention, is that not correct, sir ?
THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. I will have to look it up. I say I get those reports every day and they are that thick [Indicating]. I read them every day, too, but I can't tell you the exact date or what was in any special report, without going back and looking it up.
Finally discussion from the CIA.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-pub...
On 8 September, the CIA issued Intelligence Memorandum 324, Probability of Direct Chinese Communist Intervention in Korea, which assumed that the Chinese were already providing covert assistance to the DPRK, including some replacements for combat troops.[20] It stated, however, that overt assistance by the Chinese would require Soviet approval and a Communist willingness to risk general war. The memorandum concluded that there was no direct evidence of indications as to whether China would intervene, but it noted that reports of Chinese troop buildups in the Manchurian border area made intervention well within Chinese capabilities. It added that recent Chinese accusations of aggression against the Manchurian border area could be a setup for an imminent overt move.
.
This warning, one of the strongest issued by the CIA before Chinese intervention, reflected the analytic approach the Agency would stress from September to November: that the Chinese capability to intervene was present, but the political decision to do so hinged on acceptance of a worldwide conflict, which only Soviet leadership could decide. Meanwhile, General MacArthur was putting the final elements in place for another signature amphibious landing that would split the DRPK forces and force their retreat.
Conclusion:
Not making any implications here or trying to re-write history. Just looking at three points in time. MacArthur gave Truman a way out of any ownership of having to ask more questions at Wake Island. Much of the discussion at Wake was about post invasion planning. MacArthur got dismissed post Chinese involvement for trying to make foreign policy and took the "bullet" for a grand failure (http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/korea/large/d..., Humphrey speaks to who makes foreign policy). We do know that Truman was "bought into" the military plans of unifying N&S Korea by the N.Korea invasion by the Wake Island discussion, the risk was Chinese intervention. The intelligence was clear that the Chinese could cross the Yula because they had troops massed, it was not clear about motives. No ones the future 100%, it was a darn good bet that the Chinese would be pissed and newly minted Chinese Nationalism would be an issue. The Chinese today are about "China First", they are tired of getting used by outsiders and that has been their politics since their '49 revolution (http://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/ChineseRev).
After the Chinese got involved, the UN had no choice but to preserve SOUTH Korea because that was the only option left on the table. Since hostilities have ended, the discussion and actions has been about bringing N and S back together. There are still a lot of Korean families that are divided not to mention the Kudos a sitting US President would get for taming N.Korea.
BTW...
The most laughable thing about the transcripts of the 1951 press conference given above, it has the echos of Rice and Benghazi. Rice was asked a lot of straight questions about the Consulate attack recently by US Senators. There was conflicting information about the speaking points she used for the Sunday talks shows and the fact that she also had almost 24/7 coverage of CIA and State Department intelligence reports. She knew better, yet that is not what Washington is about.
Mike the abu mike on December
Mike the abu mike on December 3, 2012 - 11:01am
Yah know that I made spelling and grammar in the above post. Miss-spelled Yalu several times plus other things.
Give me a six-figure salary and a computer app then it will improve. Chelsea Clinton got over $300,000 plus out of school just to make ends meet (Ya think other American children that voted for Obama would like the same to pay off those government school loans?).
Besides the left tells me that people don't need English to be a citizen, but the left will gladly hang a person for not being academically minded. It is important to communicate which never stopped a person from hiring a secretary and being very successful.
It happens in Government and Universities every day.
Sorry to hi-jack your post
Sorry to hi-jack your post Adam but heck I am on a roll. You need the comments anyway might as well stir the pot.
Saw Ricks selling his Generals book on the News Hour last night. From Ricks' comments the focus of the book is about how unprepared Military Leadership has been over the years, pressure of the job, and the lack of academic achievement (his words not mine). Ricks has the right to his own opinion yet there is something missing for a complete analysis.
The military is just one part of decision making involved in going to war. You can not have the discussion without diving into the interactions of war and Foreign Policy. It is Foreign Policy that sets expectation and the metrics of performance to meet which determines the grade that the military gets for the task. There has to be synergy between Foreign Policy and Military capabilities (not to mention the ability to pay the bills for that Foreign Policy) for there to be any level of satisfaction.
Not trying to give the Military a way out, just saying that pointing the finger at the Military is not the only answer. It is hard to believe that from 1945 onward just the military are the fuck-ups. Have not met a General yet that would tell a sitting President, "Sorry Sir, I can not perform the duty we do not have that capability" or " that will have to wait until the next planning cycle so that we can develop that capability". Generals really do not have any flexibility when called to war because war does not wait. Generals can not explain away their performance like a President or Senator can.
Obama and the Democrats pointed their fingers at Bush and the Republicans on Iraq. There is truth in the accusations. The Foreign Policy evolved from catching 9/11 actors to what we have today. Now Obama is making the same mistakes and worse. It is one thing to lay blame in Iraq, but to go and do the same thing in Afghanistan knowing you pointed your finger at Iraq is completely off the charts stupid. After Vietnam, both the Military and Civilian leadership determined the type of war that the US would prepare for and that was a Soviet conflict. That decision was really more about the US economy than war fighting as proven by the Reagan years. Then the US got into the war-of-the-month club and Foreign Policy changed along with that was a change in expectation of the military. Part of that Foreign Policy became "nation building" at a cost that the US Treasury could not afford. POTUS has not led the US from that course of "nation building" there is no General that can meet that expectation because "nation building" is a sovereign responsibility of the participant, you have to have a partner. Nation Building is a diplomatic function of the US State Department, not the Pentagon. Benghazi was Hilliary's Tet Offensive and her General Susan Rice took the blame.
Counter Insurgency is the worst war to fight, no General or Nation can predetermine the outcome. It is a fight of determination and cost. The US still has a hang over from Vietnam. It makes it worse when leadership takes capabilities off the table for political agendas and micro-manages the war, politicians have to get re-elected (Obama thinks he pulled the trigger on UBL). The only way to win with COIN is to get into the enemy's mind, the General's do not have mind reading capability. The next best thing is to read the enemy's communication but the problem with that is how large a net to cast to get the HUMINT. That net starts to infringe on human rights and you start corrupting your cause by your own campaign.
I have never seen the level of government infringement on privacy as we see today.
Obama is a product of 50 years of his party's politics, the same politics that created the Generals and CIA war capabilities.
And the left just keeps supporting it. During Vietnam they would be spitting on servicemen in disapproval, but then that is what Ricks is doing by damning Generals.
Someone has to be fall guy. It takes a long time to create war capabilities, it takes even longer to prepare for COIN. Think US politicians need to match their desires with national capabilities for the future of the country.
If Ricks thinks that a General can muddle through his job by keeping his wick dry, then you can say that same thing about the current Commander and Chief. The American political base is split 50/50 the only way that Obama got re-elected was by convincing those that were undecided and that is hardly a mandate for anything, it was just keeping power. Those undecided votes were expensive to purchase and it was not the DNC's money that was spent as we will discover in the next few weeks.
Current discussion is not
Current discussion is not about revenues, the US takes in lots of revenue from taxes.
What the US has is problem of controlling PROMISES and $1.1 Trillion more in taxes will never be enough meet the promises made in the 2012 election to regain Presidential power.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/05/detroit-councilwoman-wants-bailout-in-...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/us/young-immigrants-want-dream-warrior...
http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2012/11/obamas-re-election-moves-...
http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2012/12/06/afghanistan-a-long-war-and-...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-us-mali-20121206,0,1...
http://allafrica.com/stories/201212060036.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=eygypt&oq=eygypt&gs_l...
all that and more in this agenda.
Hardly any of it addresses the domestic economy and deficit.
Young Americans represent 26% of the new HIV cases in the US. It costs $400,000 to treat aids over a lifetime. Hillary Clinton just promised to have a Zero HIV generation.
The secret is modern people are not bound by their word anymore. DNC just wanted the power.
Obama just created his own failure as legacy.
Funny that we are talking
Funny that we are talking about Generals and the current Syrian discussion is all about POTUS and SOS just as it always is until the Generals have to deal with what is not resolved by propaganda and what some can believe-in is “constant pressure”.
Lot of the current discussion is sounding like this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp6WuTSTyS8
How can Bush have been so Dr. Evil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJcDcau6DPg ) when the current administration is repeating the same?……$1.1 TRILLLLLLION Dollars! Guess the new number is all about QE(forever) inflation.
First the US was not going to arm the Syrian Rebels; we had a better idea in letting Qatar do it while the administration used its great knowledge to gate the flow of arms. When the arms leak out of Syria the US administration could claim the great mantra, “It wasn’t little ole me”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-re...
Fast and Furious redux?
Now the focus is back on Weapons of Mass Destruction in Syria.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/world/middleeast/syrias-chemical-weapo...
All this Chemical discussion is not new; the military has been laying out a plan for about a year now. Assets are off the coast of Syria; the USS Eisenhower is in evidence. Advisers have been prepping locals in Jordan since “Operation Eager Lion” (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/155840#.UMHnm1LozMo) . All of the war propaganda is just a false pretense to justify resources for who controls and pays (Who is printing the most money these days??? Europe is broke.).
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/12/ap-white-house-weighs-military-opt...
Syria has some 75 sites where weapons are stored, but U.S. officials aren’t sure they have tracked down all the locations, and fear some stockpiles may have already been moved. Syria is believed to have several hundred ballistic surface-to-surface missiles capable of carrying chemical warheads, plus several tons of material stored in either large drums, or in artillery shells, which become deadly once fired.
.
“In Syria, they have everything from mustard agent, Sarin nerve gas, and some variant of the nerve agent VX,” according to James Quinlivan, a Rand Corp. analyst who specializes in the elimination of weapons of mass destruction.
.
A primary argument against sending in U.S. ground troops is that whoever takes possession of the chemical weapons will be responsible for destroying them, as part of the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention. Destroying Syria’s stockpiles could cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and take more than a decade, Quinlivan said.
.
Syria’s arsenal is a particular threat to the American allies, Turkey and Israel, and Obama singled out the threat posed by the unconventional weapons earlier this year as a potential cause for deeper U.S. involvement in Syria’s civil war. Up to now, the United States has opposed military intervention or providing arms support to Syria’s rebels for fear of further militarizing a conflict that activists say has killed more than 40,000 people since March 2011.
Really is sort of odd that the US intelligence agencies do not have the ground resources to gate the flow of arms from Qatar in Syria, but SOS Hillary Clinton knows beyond a doubt that component A and B for the Dr. Evil brew ha ha has been mixed and loaded. Gee, what happened to the intelligence excuses in Libya for not knowing about the Benghazi raid? Susan Rice is going to wear out her lips on this story.
Obama is going to need more than $1.1 Trillllllion dollars!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/could-the-platinum-coin-o...
You know when Libya was done the US ended up with a dead diplomat and enough of Gaddafi’s private stock in Mali to change a country forever. Seems to me that the US Government is doing a lot to put arms into AQ hands. All AQ has to do is move to a new country and the US Foreign Policy follows with a new supply chain.
The clean-up in Syria is going to be enormous if the claims of stock-piles are true and the American Tax payer is going to get the bill the only thing missing is justification to the American people. In the end the Middle East will be just as unchanged, but by then Obama will be looking at a retirement that no middle class American could afford.
Be honest, I am starting to feel pregnant again and Obamacare was the mother-of-all-babies to pay for.
BTW....How IS Mali, Sudan, Egypt, Yemen, and Somalia doing these days? The taxpayer can not get a word out of the CIA.
I wonder why. Just when I thought the Generals were the problem.
A primary argument against
A primary argument against sending in U.S. ground troops is that whoever takes possession of the chemical weapons will be responsible for destroying them, as part of the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention. Destroying Syria’s stockpiles could cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and take more than a decade, Quinlivan said.
My ass hurts, over the barrel again.
Ten Years to clean up Syria!!!!!!! Another Foreign Aid contract and a open ended commitment started with a simple charter that will creep out of scope once on the ground. Syria Nation Building is next, just need a push in the right direction !!!
Think the foreign aid list would be shorter if we just listed who wasn't being paid.
See the future????
Add your comment