Obama's Lose-Lose Decision

The Bare Knuckled Pundit said:
I have to ask what the basis is for your statement, Prophet.
Click to expand...
McChrystal came to Obama last year and said "if you want to win this war I need 80,000 troops by August"......Obama said "I'll think about it", then gave him 30,000 troops and said "do it anyway".....was this based on Obama's superior knowledge of how to win wars?......McChrystal's reaction must have been "what part of 'if you want to win this war' did you not understand?".....on top of that there was the imposition of PC rules of engagement which increased the loss of combatant life.....and cost cutting measures that reduced morale (closing Burger Kings and Pizza Huts on Afghan bases)......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
McChrystal came to Obama last year and said "if you want to win this war I need 80,000 troops by August"......Obama said "I'll think about it", then gave him 30,000 troops and said "do it anyway".....was this based on Obama's superior knowledge of how to win wars?......McChrystal's reaction must have been "what part of 'if you want to win this war' did you not understand?".....on top of that there was the imposition of PC rules of engagement which increased the loss of combatant life.....and cost cutting measures that reduced morale (closing Burger Kings and Pizza Huts on Afghan bases)......
Click to expand...

Actually, I believe Obama's decision to go with 30,000 was rooted in both political as well as fiscal considerations.

First, he has a base that loathes war except under the most extreme of circumstances. Even then, the objective isn't necessarily victory so much as a cessation of hostilities.

It's a nasty truth that many find deplorable, but yes, politics impacts presidential decisions. Even in matters of national security.

Furthermore, the administration had to consider where it would get the supplemental funds for the surge. You have a House whose leadership is more focused on domestic affairs and sees little need for extending, much less deepening our involvement in Afghanistan. Accordingly, Nancy's not going to dig deep in her proverbial budgetary purse for something that's antithetical to her worldview and that of her caucus.

Accordingly, the administration trimmed McChrystal's request to what they thought they could get by with politically and fiscally.

I might add that the fiscal dynamic is going to play an increasingly significant role from here on out. One of the few areas of the federal budget that is non-mandated and offers the opportunity for significant cost reductions is the military. That being the case, if the country is to get its' fiscal house in order, serious re-prioritization of its' national security and defense needs will have to be considered. By both Republicans and Democrats, certainly.

While many don't like to seriously consider this, the Chinese certainly have. Moreover, their long term bet is we're drawing close to the point where we can no longer afford to maintain the Pacific as our personal naval playground. The Japanese, South Koreans, Vietnamese and Australians are similarly taking a long, hard look at the potential for our staying power in the region. Eventually guns and butter will come into conflict and you can't feed school kids with bullets. It all boils down to the fact that if you can't pay for it, you can't deploy it.
 
Last edited:
Topspin said:
most reasoned people deplore war, though education doesn't always bring reason. Obviously
Click to expand...

True, education doesn't necessarily bring reason or wisdom. But poets, priests and politicians are free to practice their professions thanks to the munificent service of those trained to prosecute what the reasoned deplore.
 
The Bare Knuckled Pundit said:
Had computer issues in addition to being swamped on the professional front. I've developed a new course on the geopolitics of energy that I'll be teaching this Fall. The research and lecture prep has taken a significant amount of my limited spare time.

Rest assured, though, I sincerely missed the lively debate and witty repartee here at JPP. Needless to say, it's a pleasure to be back in such fine company again.
Click to expand...
Which university do you work for? If you don't want everybody to know just PM me it. Do you offer online courses?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yea, that's kind of the problem with an open ended war like "The War on Terrorism". How the hell do you know when you've won it?
Click to expand...
When you can trade with the nation without fear of constant attack. We haven't "won" squat yet. Instead of COIN, we should be pursuing containment. We should be upgrading our HUMINT and psy intel rather than attempting to change the "heart and minds" of an entire culture with killing machines. Drones (planes when necessary) should be used to get rid of training camps, etc.

Kind of insane that I, at least somewhat, agree with Biden on this front.
 
Damocles said:
When you can trade with the nation without fear of constant attack. We haven't "won" squat yet. Instead of COIN, we should be pursuing containment. We should be upgrading our HUMINT and psy intel rather than attempting to change the "heart and minds" of an entire culture with killing machines. Drones (planes when necessary) should be used to get rid of training camps, etc.

Kind of insane that I, at least somewhat, agree with Biden on this front.
Click to expand...

I've long lamented our apparent inability to develop significant HUMINT assets in critical post-Cold War locales.

I completely agree that we'd be far better served by a combination of an extensive HUMINT network, drone-coverage, special forces teams and over-the-horizon strike capabilities. Critical to its' success, though, would be an emphasis on rapid and devastating responses when necessary. Additionally, it would be augmented by an aggressive program that targets the Taliban leadership in order to keep them off balance and unable to gain significant traction or a permanent foothold.

If we as a nation aren't willing to commit to a policy along these lines, then we must ask why we should continue to expend massive amounts of national treasure, including the blood of our fellow countrymen, for an ambiguous and undefined objective.

While I am sure this will draw fire from my friends on the Right, if we cannot define victory or we determine that the costs are too high, then one must seriously consider pursuing a comprehensive political solution that makes the Taliban a stakeholder rather than an insurgent. The alternative to these two policies is the continued erosion of the fiscal and military pillars which support our national power and another headstone in the graveyard of empires.
 
Topspin said:
I dissagree BareKnuck, it's a win. Obama's fraiming it as the war being bigger than any one man and I give him extra points for the boot up the ass of the fired general.
Click to expand...
That's a great point Topper but it comes at a big price. Disruption to the chain of command, it's impact on our mission objectives in Afghanistan, as well as moral.
 
The Bare Knuckled Pundit said:
I've long lamented our apparent inability to develop significant HUMINT assets in critical post-Cold War locales.

I completely agree that we'd be far better served by a combination of an extensive HUMINT network, drone-coverage, special forces teams and over-the-horizon strike capabilities. Critical to its' success, though, would be an emphasis on rapid and devastating responses when necessary. Additionally, it would be augmented by an aggressive program that targets the Taliban leadership in order to keep them off balance and unable to gain significant traction or a permanent foothold.

If we as a nation aren't willing to commit to a policy along these lines, then we must ask why we should continue to expend massive amounts of national treasure, including the blood of our fellow countrymen, for an ambiguous and undefined objective.

While I am sure this will draw fire from my friends on the Right, if we cannot define victory or we determine that the costs are too high, then one must seriously consider pursuing a comprehensive political solution that makes the Taliban a stakeholder rather than an insurgent. The alternative to these two policies is the continued erosion of the fiscal and military pillars which support our national power and another headstone in the graveyard of empires.
Click to expand...
I think that's the crux of the problem in a nutshell. We do not have a clear set of goals and objectives for victory and with out those, considering the cost, it would probably be in our best interest to declare victory and come home.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I think that's the crux of the problem in a nutshell. We do not have a clear set of goals and objectives for victory and with out those, considering the cost, it would probably be in our best interest to declare victory and come home.
Click to expand...
But Obama promised he'd find Bin Laden and that this was the "right war"...

What do you mean we should come home?
 
Damocles said:
But Obama promised he'd find Bin Laden and that this was the "right war"...

What do you mean we should come home?
Click to expand...
Don't you think it's rahter dishonest to lay that criticism at Obama's door? Had this been labeled, correctly, as a war against Afghanistan, the Taliban and their support of Al Qaueda and kept limited to that objective instead of this open ended, no definable end in sight, "War on Terrorism" Bush got us into when he diverted focus and resources into Iraq then we probably wouldn't be in this predicament, would we?

If this was "The Right War" it is because Afghanistan's involvement with the 911 attacks represented a clear and present danger. Iraq did not.

If you want to be critical of Obama at least make it an honest one. He needs to clearly define what constitutes victory or he needs to with draw from Afghanistan. Either way, if he cleans up Bush's mess, he deserves big credit.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Don't you think it's rahter dishonest to lay that criticism at Obama's door? Had this been labeled, correctly, as a war against Afghanistan, the Taliban and their support of Al Qaueda and kept limited to that objective instead of this open ended, no definable end in sight, "War on Terrorism" Bush got us into when he diverted focus and resources into Iraq then we probably wouldn't be in this predicament, would we?

If this was "The Right War" it is because Afghanistan's involvement with the 911 attacks represented a clear and present danger. Iraq did not.

If you want to be critical of Obama at least make it an honest one. He needs to clearly define what constitutes victory or he needs to with draw from Afghanistan. Either way, if he cleans up Bush's mess, he deserves big credit.
Click to expand...
I am being honest. He said that he would focus on Afghanistan because it was the "right war" and that he would find Bin Laden. Are you saying he's now saying that Bin Laden is unimportant? (Smart people would soon draw some parallels here, let's see if you can find them).
 
Damocles said:
I am being honest. He said that he would focus on Afghanistan because it was the "right war" and that he would find Bin Laden. Are you saying he's now saying that Bin Laden is unimportant? (Smart people would soon draw some parallels here, let's see if you can find them).
Click to expand...
No, quite the contrary, I think finding and capturing/killing Bin Ladin will haunt US Presidents until Bin Ladin is captured or dead.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
In fact, if he doesn't capture or kill Bin Ladin I'll probably vote for his opponent, assuming he's not some reactionary wing nut like Bush.
Click to expand...

Be honest, aside from retribution and payback, how much strategic necessity is there in finding/killing Bin Laden, or confirming that he died from his injuries. I know it will make everyone happy, but that's really about it. He's just another al-Quaeda leader at the end of the day...

That said, I think it was totally incompetent of Bush not to locate him in nearly 8 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top