McChrystal prepared to resign

[DiveCon]

i dont think mcchrystal will resign...why would he....not the first time a potus has refused to listen to the military....and his resignation would be a blow to the morale of the troops...i think he cares more about the troops than the bad press...or dissing by obama.

do you not agree that either he should get the resources(troops and equipment) he says he needs to do the job or we should get the hell out?

 

[The Rabbi]

I guess he decided not to listen his generals after all. No surprise here.

This meme has always struck me as interesting for two reasons.

1. There is a reason we have civilian control of the military. If the President was to simply rubberstamp whatever the commanders asked him for, why even require them to ask?

2. Has any President ever just blindly accepted recommendations?

This isn't an argument for or against sending more troops to Afghanistan. Just a thought about that argument.

Civilian control is about oversight, not second-guessing people who have devoted their lives to the problem.
Ideally the CinC makes policy and then gives a directive to his military to go out and achieve this or that.
Then he sits back and waits for results. If the commander isn't getting the job done, then he needs to be replaced.
But the Congress (and executive) has tried to micro-manage wars and it doesn't work. The present situation in Afghanistan is a good example. By setting up rules that are designed by politicians, not military, they make it harder to fight. The Russians had the right idea: turn the cameras off, let the military do what they were tasked to do, and then get on with life.

 

[DiveCon]

I guess he decided not to listen his generals after all. No surprise here.

This meme has always struck me as interesting for two reasons.

1. There is a reason we have civilian control of the military. If the President was to simply rubberstamp whatever the commanders asked him for, why even require them to ask?

2. Has any President ever just blindly accepted recommendations?

This isn't an argument for or against sending more troops to Afghanistan. Just a thought about that argument.

Civilian control is about oversight, not second-guessing people who have devoted their lives to the problem.
Ideally the CinC makes policy and then gives a directive to his military to go out and achieve this or that.
Then he sits back and waits for results. If the commander isn't getting the job done, then he needs to be replaced.
But the Congress (and executive) has tried to micro-manage wars and it doesn't work. The present situation in Afghanistan is a good example. By setting up rules that are designed by politicians, not military, they make it harder to fight. The Russians had the right idea: turn the cameras off, let the military do what they were tasked to do, and then get on with life.

i wouldn't use the Russian example in Afghanistan as the right thing to do
they just threw troops in and only ended up losing more troops

 

[The Rabbi]

This meme has always struck me as interesting for two reasons.

1. There is a reason we have civilian control of the military. If the President was to simply rubberstamp whatever the commanders asked him for, why even require them to ask?

2. Has any President ever just blindly accepted recommendations?

This isn't an argument for or against sending more troops to Afghanistan. Just a thought about that argument.

Civilian control is about oversight, not second-guessing people who have devoted their lives to the problem.
Ideally the CinC makes policy and then gives a directive to his military to go out and achieve this or that.
Then he sits back and waits for results. If the commander isn't getting the job done, then he needs to be replaced.
But the Congress (and executive) has tried to micro-manage wars and it doesn't work. The present situation in Afghanistan is a good example. By setting up rules that are designed by politicians, not military, they make it harder to fight. The Russians had the right idea: turn the cameras off, let the military do what they were tasked to do, and then get on with life.

i wouldn't use the Russian example in Afghanistan as the right thing to do
they just threw troops in and only ended up losing more troops

Sorry. I meant in Chechnya. When they went into Grozny they did just that. Lined up the cannons, turned the cameras off, and demolished them building by building. This was much preferable to the previous attempt which involved house to house fighting, with the typical casualties.
You're right. I don't know how the Russians did in Afghanistan but they faced virtually insurmountable odds. About what we do today. No matter how well organized, equipped and funded they were it wasn't going to happen.

 

[DiveCon]

Civilian control is about oversight, not second-guessing people who have devoted their lives to the problem.
Ideally the CinC makes policy and then gives a directive to his military to go out and achieve this or that.
Then he sits back and waits for results. If the commander isn't getting the job done, then he needs to be replaced.
But the Congress (and executive) has tried to micro-manage wars and it doesn't work. The present situation in Afghanistan is a good example. By setting up rules that are designed by politicians, not military, they make it harder to fight. The Russians had the right idea: turn the cameras off, let the military do what they were tasked to do, and then get on with life.

i wouldn't use the Russian example in Afghanistan as the right thing to do
they just threw troops in and only ended up losing more troops

Sorry. I meant in Chechnya. When they went into Grozny they did just that. Lined up the cannons, turned the cameras off, and demolished them building by building. This was much preferable to the previous attempt which involved house to house fighting, with the typical casualties.
You're right. I don't know how the Russians did in Afghanistan but they faced virtually insurmountable odds. About what we do today. No matter how well organized, equipped and funded they were it wasn't going to happen.

the way to succeed in A-Stan is to do basically what was done in the initial invasion
work with the locals using spec ops and air cover
putting thousands of troops on the ground is likely only going to make more targets
but if the commander in the field says he needs more, then either you do it, or replace him
or opt to just get the fuck out and cut the losses

 

[The Rabbi]

The initial invasion had different aims, namely to unseat the Taliban and deny them use of the country as a terrorist camp.
It worked pretty well.
Now the aim is the build Afghanistan as a nation. This is the goal of the very people who denounced Bush for nation-building.
It wont work here. The country was never a nation. It wont be again.
Putting a decent sized base with quick reaction force there to monitor and make raids will achieve the objective of denying terrorists the opportunity to use the country. Circle the wagons and send everyone else back home.

 

[Si modo]

i wouldn't use the Russian example in Afghanistan as the right thing to do
they just threw troops in and only ended up losing more troops

Sorry. I meant in Chechnya. When they went into Grozny they did just that. Lined up the cannons, turned the cameras off, and demolished them building by building. This was much preferable to the previous attempt which involved house to house fighting, with the typical casualties.
You're right. I don't know how the Russians did in Afghanistan but they faced virtually insurmountable odds. About what we do today. No matter how well organized, equipped and funded they were it wasn't going to happen.

the way to succeed in A-Stan is to do basically what was done in the initial invasion
work with the locals using spec ops and air cover
putting thousands of troops on the ground is likely only going to make more targets
but if the commander in the field says he needs more, then either you do it, or replace him
or opt to just get the fuck out and cut the losses

If I understand what McChrystal has reccomended, he say he needs more troops to do exactly that. Right now, most of the troops are engaged in making sure folks are safe and there are not enough to work more with the locals.

 

[The Rabbi]

I havent seen the recs. But I would think that is wrong. The intent is to stabilize the country and strengthen the armed forces to take over peace keeping.
It is modeled on Bush's surge strategy in Iraq. That was a strategy Obama opposed at the time and to this day says it was wrong.
Yet he is using it as a model for Afghanistan. Unfortunately the two places aren't alike at all and this one isn't going to work.

 

[Si modo]

I havent seen the recs. But I would think that is wrong. The intent is to stabilize the country and strengthen the armed forces to take over peace keeping.
It is modeled on Bush's surge strategy in Iraq. That was a strategy Obama opposed at the time and to this day says it was wrong.
Yet he is using it as a model for Afghanistan. Unfortunately the two places aren't alike at all and this one isn't going to work.

As I said, it is just my understanding. Apparently the rise of insurgency is due to the civilians not feeling safe - not enough troops to protect civilians, too. So, he proposes more to help the civilians feel safer with the war effort than the insurgency.

 

[DiveCon]

Sorry. I meant in Chechnya. When they went into Grozny they did just that. Lined up the cannons, turned the cameras off, and demolished them building by building. This was much preferable to the previous attempt which involved house to house fighting, with the typical casualties.
You're right. I don't know how the Russians did in Afghanistan but they faced virtually insurmountable odds. About what we do today. No matter how well organized, equipped and funded they were it wasn't going to happen.

the way to succeed in A-Stan is to do basically what was done in the initial invasion
work with the locals using spec ops and air cover
putting thousands of troops on the ground is likely only going to make more targets
but if the commander in the field says he needs more, then either you do it, or replace him
or opt to just get the fuck out and cut the losses

If I understand what McChrystal has reccomended, he say he needs more troops to do exactly that. Right now, most of the troops are engaged in making sure folks are safe and there are not enough to work more with the locals.

but either way, either you give him what he asks for to do the job you ask him to do, or you replace him
the only other option is to get the hell out totally and cut your losses

 

[Si modo]

the way to succeed in A-Stan is to do basically what was done in the initial invasion
work with the locals using spec ops and air cover
putting thousands of troops on the ground is likely only going to make more targets
but if the commander in the field says he needs more, then either you do it, or replace him
or opt to just get the fuck out and cut the losses

If I understand what McChrystal has reccomended, he say he needs more troops to do exactly that. Right now, most of the troops are engaged in making sure folks are safe and there are not enough to work more with the locals.

but either way, either you give him what he asks for to do the job you ask him to do, or you replace him
the only other option is to get the hell out totally and cut your losses

Agreed. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't part of BHO's campaign based on convincing the doubters of his 'I'm a friend of the military, too' rhetoric that he would concentrate on A-stan?

 

[Diuretic]

the way to succeed in A-Stan is to do basically what was done in the initial invasion
work with the locals using spec ops and air cover
putting thousands of troops on the ground is likely only going to make more targets
but if the commander in the field says he needs more, then either you do it, or replace him
or opt to just get the fuck out and cut the losses

If I understand what McChrystal has reccomended, he say he needs more troops to do exactly that. Right now, most of the troops are engaged in making sure folks are safe and there are not enough to work more with the locals.

but either way, either you give him what he asks for to do the job you ask him to do, or you replace him
the only other option is to get the hell out totally and cut your losses

Isn't it complicated by the fragility of government in Pakistan, its nuclear arsenal and significant elements in Pakistan which are sympathetic to the Taliban?

 

[DiveCon]

If I understand what McChrystal has reccomended, he say he needs more troops to do exactly that. Right now, most of the troops are engaged in making sure folks are safe and there are not enough to work more with the locals.

but either way, either you give him what he asks for to do the job you ask him to do, or you replace him
the only other option is to get the hell out totally and cut your losses

Agreed. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't part of BHO's campaign based on convincing the doubters of his 'I'm a friend of the military, too' rhetoric that he would concentrate on A-stan?

yup, his thing was "get out of Iraq and put those troops in A-Stan"

of course he forgets that the two countries are NOTHING alike and that the troops in Iraq dont have the training for A-Stan
would need to retrain for the conditions there first

 

[DiveCon]

If I understand what McChrystal has reccomended, he say he needs more troops to do exactly that. Right now, most of the troops are engaged in making sure folks are safe and there are not enough to work more with the locals.

but either way, either you give him what he asks for to do the job you ask him to do, or you replace him
the only other option is to get the hell out totally and cut your losses

Isn't it complicated by the fragility of government in Pakistan, its nuclear arsenal and significant elements in Pakistan which are sympathetic to the Taliban?

yes, that's another piece of that massive puzzle that is Afghanistan

 

[The Rabbi]

but either way, either you give him what he asks for to do the job you ask him to do, or you replace him
the only other option is to get the hell out totally and cut your losses

Agreed. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't part of BHO's campaign based on convincing the doubters of his 'I'm a friend of the military, too' rhetoric that he would concentrate on A-stan?

yup, his thing was "get out of Iraq and put those troops in A-Stan"

of course he forgets that the two countries are NOTHING alike and that the troops in Iraq dont have the training for A-Stan
would need to retrain for the conditions there first

retraining is the least of their problems.
But yes, Obama owns this war. He campaigned on Afghanistan being the "good war" the one we should have been fighting all along. Iraq was the bad war, the one he would pull out of immediately.
Now events have revealed his stupidity. First, Iraq was won, thanks to an unpopular surge undertaken by a man with great courage (namely Pres Bush).
Second, the war in Afghanistan will not go like Iraq because, as pointed out, the two places are completely different.
Obama is a double loser here.

 

[DiveCon]

Agreed. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't part of BHO's campaign based on convincing the doubters of his 'I'm a friend of the military, too' rhetoric that he would concentrate on A-stan?

yup, his thing was "get out of Iraq and put those troops in A-Stan"

of course he forgets that the two countries are NOTHING alike and that the troops in Iraq dont have the training for A-Stan
would need to retrain for the conditions there first

retraining is the least of their problems.
But yes, Obama owns this war. He campaigned on Afghanistan being the "good war" the one we should have been fighting all along. Iraq was the bad war, the one he would pull out of immediately.
Now events have revealed his stupidity. First, Iraq was won, thanks to an unpopular surge undertaken by a man with great courage (namely Pres Bush).
Second, the war in Afghanistan will not go like Iraq because, as pointed out, the two places are completely different.
Obama is a double loser here.

its a case of them trying to do the same thing in A-Stan that worked in Iraq
not gonna happen
A-Stan has such a wide variety of people that pretty much either don't trust each-other or outright hate each-other that you could likely form at least 4 countries
if not more

 

[The Rabbi]

If you're looking for an argument, go elsewhere. I agree 100%

 

[Si modo]

If you're looking for an argument, go elsewhere. I agree 100%

I think you, Dive, and I are on the same page on this. So, I guess we're just tossing out our impressions.

 

[DiveCon]

If you're looking for an argument, go elsewhere. I agree 100%

nope, was just agreein with ya

 

[The Rabbi]

OK
I don't know what Obama will do. Currently he seems to be voting "present." I dont see a solution that doesn't involve him getting hosed either from the right or the left.
Hee hee.