NCAAbbs

Obama considering "McChrystal Light" plan for Afghanistan

"I don't want to piss either side off, so I'll pick a solution in the middle."

When you're the Commander in Chief, making decisions like that in matters of war, the consequences can be disastrous. Either commit to doing the job completely, or get the **** out. I'm sure McChrystal would say the same thing if he could speak his mind publicly. These type of "political" decisions are what made Vietnam the clusterfuck that it was. I'm reminded, only slightly, of Bill Clinton lobbing some missiles into the deserts of Afghanistan after the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center (he didn't want to do nothing, but he didn't want to invade and dismantle the camps either).

This was W's most redeeming quality to me (and, not incidentally, the one that was most "Reaganesque" about him): he was not into half measures when it came to wartime decisions. The situations in Iraq and Afghanistan may have been hard pressed to end successfully from the beginning, but the commanders got what they needed when and where they asked for it...up to and including Patreas' troop surge.

If Karzai steals the runoff election and the 36,000 non-US foreign troops pull out, the McChrystal Plan just about leaves things even.

None of the choices are good.

Is anyone really surprised by this? Seriously, what is the most difficult decision Obama had to make in his life prior to being sworn in? Was it what to name his daughters? Maybe it was to roll a fat doobie or use a bong?

He's nothing more than an empty suit who bases his beliefs on what he's read in books, rather than what he's learned from experience.

No Chief Executive enters that office with experience in doing the job. Like a sports team, you never have two seasons exactly alike in that all teams (nations) are different next year from last year. You can't be like Epaminandus and always apply the last remedy to the next problem.

Keep in mind that one of our problems in Afghanistan is that after going into it "full-bore", the last administration decided to put it on the "back burner", drawing out most of the men and equipment to wage the "war of choice" in Iraq. Now we are paying the price for that decision since the enemy has been "schooled" on our tactics and has learned from their mistakes. You can expect the war to more closely resemble the mode of conflict seen in Iraq since we haven't had a lot of success against IEDs, suicide bombs and RPGs in either country. I fear that we will forever regret not finishing the war in Afghanistan before starting another in Iraq (or anywhere else). It has and will continue to cost us dearly on many fronts (including the economy) into the future.

Obviously nobody enters the Oval Office with Presidential experience but 99% enter office with executive experience. That can be through military ranks, senior political positions, or even executive experience in the private sector. Obama had no military experience, held no significant political position, and had no executive experience in the private sector.

(10-30-2009 11:21 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]No Chief Executive enters that office with experience in doing the job. Like a sports team, you never have two seasons exactly alike in that all teams (nations) are different next year from last year. You can't be like Epaminandus and always apply the last remedy to the next problem.

He might not have experience in doing the job of President, but can he make a DECISION.

Now he has plenty of executive experience, running banks, car companies, etc.

I don't care if the President doesn't have military experience coming in to office. Very few of them have. But you don't "split the difference" and look for the middle ground with your military commanders. Either cut and run if you're a peacenik, or nut up and commit everything if you're a hawk. Both would be better than trying to "triangulate" which ends up getting people killed because they're committed but don't have enough manpower. This is not a decision like tax rates where a middle ground is an acceptable compromise.

kinda like voting 'present', it requires no REAL committment.

It can be a problem when a President is considered weak because he doesn't give a "knee-jerk" affirmative response to a general's wishes. Sometimes it might be better to think it over so that you don't wind up with a "General Custer" result. It may well be that more soldiers on the ground would be nothing more than a greater variety of targets for the Taliban insurgents. The time taken to be sure the additional forces have a role other than "cannon fodder" is critical to our success in Afghanistan.

(10-30-2009 07:55 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]It can be a problem when a President is considered weak because he doesn't give a "knee-jerk" affirmative response to a general's wishes. Sometimes it might be better to think it over so that you don't wind up with a "General Custer" result. It may well be that more soldiers on the ground would be nothing more than a greater variety of targets for the Taliban insurgents. The time taken to be sure the additional forces have a role other than "cannon fodder" is critical to our success in Afghanistan.

Fine...take time. But either commit to what the commanders say they need or commit nothing and pull out. Half measures designed to not offend either side end up getting people killed because they are caught in the middle...

this is a prime example of politics f'n up a military objective. this is nothing new, but it should always be avoided.
if/when any American President gives our military an objective, imo, he should provide whatever means is necessary
to accomplish the objective, then get the H#LL out of the way and let the military accomplish the goal.
bho chose this general to head his Afghan war policy. why? I would hope bho thought this man to be the most competent
commander for the objective. McCrystal reports [to his boss] that he needs ___________ to accomplish stated goal/objective.
imo, bho should either fulifill the request or replace his manager.
by not complying with his managers' request, it indicates he doesn't have faith in the man he placed in charge.
there can be no middle ground. either commit or retreat. this is why many believe the American political left
is weak on National defense, therefore cannot be entrusted with the defense of our Country.

(10-30-2009 07:55 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]It can be a problem when a President is considered weak because he doesn't give a "knee-jerk" affirmative response to a general's wishes. Sometimes it might be better to think it over so that you don't wind up with a "General Custer" result. It may well be that more soldiers on the ground would be nothing more than a greater variety of targets for the Taliban insurgents. The time taken to be sure the additional forces have a role other than "cannon fodder" is critical to our success in Afghanistan.

Why would you appoint a General that you trust and receive his recommendation and not act on it? Meanwhile, the situation gets worse because the General doesn't get the support he needs. Can the President read? Can he get other opinions for other Generals? Can he actually talk to his General more than 1 time after the recommendation was given to him? If you think this delay is about Obama being confused on what to do in Afghanistan, then you are sadly mistaken. It is about Liberal support for Government Controlled Healthcare.

"Why would you appoint a General that you trust and receive his recommendation and not act on it?"

To wait for the election shoe to drop, which it did this morning. There will be no runoff, Karzai will be claimed illegitimate by many, and now the Germans, British etc. have the excuse to pull out that they've wanted for a while. It's about to get really bad.

If the American forces pull out of Afghanistan, I believe the Karzai government would have the life expectancy of the Viet Namese government we left in charge back in 1975. What our side must decide is what we can do about the present government's situation if Karsai loses even more "legitimacy" than it has already lost. If increasing the number of troops will only be seen as "propping up" Karsai as a puppet ruler of the U.S. "occupation" forces, we have a problem that sending more troops will only exascerbate. We have to decide if Taliban=Osama bin Laden so that if the Taliban returns, does OBL come out of hiding declaring victory? That would really be hard to take, almost as bad as having Saigon become Ho Chi Minh City.

(11-01-2009 08:41 AM)58-56 Wrote: [ -> ]"Why would you appoint a General that you trust and receive his recommendation and not act on it?"

To wait for the election shoe to drop, which it did this morning. There will be no runoff, Karzai will be claimed illegitimate by many, and now the Germans, British etc. have the excuse to pull out that they've wanted for a while. It's about to get really bad.

Did not Obama himself say that Afghanistan is where the US should be fighting the war on terrorism? So if the Germans and British leave Afghanistan like the skirts that they are, is Obama going to follow their lead?

(10-31-2009 11:57 PM)RBB Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-30-2009 07:55 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]It can be a problem when a President is considered weak because he doesn't give a "knee-jerk" affirmative response to a general's wishes. Sometimes it might be better to think it over so that you don't wind up with a "General Custer" result. It may well be that more soldiers on the ground would be nothing more than a greater variety of targets for the Taliban insurgents. The time taken to be sure the additional forces have a role other than "cannon fodder" is critical to our success in Afghanistan.

Why would you appoint a General that you trust and receive his recommendation and not act on it? Meanwhile, the situation gets worse because the General doesn't get the support he needs. Can the President read? Can he get other opinions for other Generals? Can he actually talk to his General more than 1 time after the recommendation was given to him? If you think this delay is about Obama being confused on what to do in Afghanistan, then you are sadly mistaken. It is about Liberal support for Government Controlled Healthcare.

Generals do what generals have always done--they ask for more troops and equipment than they expect to get so that they might get what they really need. The C-in-C's job is to accomplish a national mission while endangering as few as possible. If the general gets all he asks for and casualties skyrocket, it won't be the general who receives the brunt of the public's ire. As I said earlier, the C-in-C must be sure the general has made provision to actually use as safely as possible every soldier he is requesting so that we don't just provide more targets for the enemy to shoot at or having them get in each other's way thereby reducing effectiveness. The story behind "Blackhawk Down" is about soldiers being sent into battle without the needed precautions of what to do if shot down in enemy controlled areas. When you are fighting insurgencies, any area can fit that description.

(11-02-2009 01:06 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-31-2009 11:57 PM)RBB Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-30-2009 07:55 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]It can be a problem when a President is considered weak because he doesn't give a "knee-jerk" affirmative response to a general's wishes. Sometimes it might be better to think it over so that you don't wind up with a "General Custer" result. It may well be that more soldiers on the ground would be nothing more than a greater variety of targets for the Taliban insurgents. The time taken to be sure the additional forces have a role other than "cannon fodder" is critical to our success in Afghanistan.

Why would you appoint a General that you trust and receive his recommendation and not act on it? Meanwhile, the situation gets worse because the General doesn't get the support he needs. Can the President read? Can he get other opinions for other Generals? Can he actually talk to his General more than 1 time after the recommendation was given to him? If you think this delay is about Obama being confused on what to do in Afghanistan, then you are sadly mistaken. It is about Liberal support for Government Controlled Healthcare.

Generals do what generals have always done--they ask for more troops and equipment than they expect to get so that they might get what they really need. The C-in-C's job is to accomplish a national mission while endangering as few as possible. If the general gets all he asks for and casualties skyrocket, it won't be the general who receives the brunt of the public's ire. As I said earlier, the C-in-C must be sure the general has made provision to actually use as safely as possible every soldier he is requesting so that we don't just provide more targets for the enemy to shoot at or having them get in each other's way thereby reducing effectiveness. The story behind "Blackhawk Down" is about soldiers being sent into battle without the needed precautions of what to do if shot down in enemy controlled areas. When you are fighting insurgencies, any area can fit that description.

The mission changed in Somalia from humanitarian to nationbuilding and the exterminaton/pacification/governmental incorporation of warlord factions. The general then, as now, asked for more troops for the new and more dangerous mission and didn't get them.

He didn't have the horses and an American Tragedy resulted.

Your Blackhawk example actually prooves RBB's point.

Seriously, don't whip out an example if you don't know what you are talking about.

Quote:Generals do what generals have always done--they ask for more troops and equipment than they expect to get so that they might get what they really need. The C-in-C's job is to accomplish a national mission while endangering as few as possible. If the general gets all he asks for and casualties skyrocket, it won't be the general who receives the brunt of the public's ire. As I said earlier, the C-in-C must be sure the general has made provision to actually use as safely as possible every soldier he is requesting so that we don't just provide more targets for the enemy to shoot at or having them get in each other's way thereby reducing effectiveness. The story behind "Blackhawk Down" is about soldiers being sent into battle without the needed precautions of what to do if shot down in enemy controlled areas. When you are fighting insurgencies, any area can fit that description.

REALLY? I thought a General's job was to win wars. The Commander in Chief's job is to accomplish a national mission and endanger as few as possible, REALLY? Battle of the Bulge was so dangerous. I bet we could have saved lives landing somewhere else...Noooooo. The Commander in Chief wants soldiers used safely as possible in wartime so we don't provide targets for the enemy to shoot at, REALLY? I must be missing something, but I have to ask, "Have you ever read about war or fought in a war?"

Blackhawk Down was a story about soldiers being sent into battle without the needed precautions of what to do if shot down in enemy controlled areas, REALLY? I read the book before the movie came out and I watched the movie. That really wasn't the story. They were doing a daytime warlord extraction with limited resources because the President didn't want to escalate the war by providing the proper equipment like TANKS. Wait, tanks don't protect soldiers do they? The end result was a limited number of US troops fighting a huge well armed group of thugs. I mean to a credit to our great fighting men wearing the uniform, they KILLED 700 and wounded 1,000 versus our 8 US dead and 73 wounded.