The U.S., for the first time, uses the MOAB bomb....So what?

[usmbguest5318]

Some on the alt-left are trying to make a case, that foreign policy with our exorbitantly expensive superpower, is not very Commercial.

???? Hugh?

We have a Commerce Clause not a common offense clause nor general defense clause.

OT:
Okay....TY for the clarification.

I guess I senese, sort of, what you are getting toward. I don't fully understand where you're going with that reference, however, because the Commerce clause pertains to the regulation of exchange between the U.S. and its states and foreign nations. Is the Alt-Right truly trying to advance a case whereby that something about our foreign policy -- now or in the past -- violates that clause?

I realize those people can convolute pretty much whatever they want however they see fit, but surely even they are not so deluded as to take up the line such as the one you've suggested they are? They may be, for all I know. I don't any longer consume much that they have to say because each time I have, after looking more deeply into the matter, I consistently found they were were just spinning and weighing facts to fit their narrative rather than delivering a narrative based on the entirety of available facts and a rational, contextually germane weighting of them.

The Commerce Clause doesn't have a damn thing to do with the MOAB, our use of it or any other weaponry, or foreign policy.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Air campaigns don't work. Vietnam proved it.

To a certain extent thats true.
One thing to remember is Vietnam was covered in jungle making it difficult to pinpoint the enemy.
And our weapons are far more advanced as well.

In other words, the "wrong" strategy was used in Vietnam, by regulars.

I would say the wrong strategy was used by politicians.

Do we need a Field Marshall to, "take the blame" for wrong policies by politicians?

No need for the military to take the blame for Vietnam since we all know the military was hamstrung by politicians.

Need or no need, it'd be inappropriate and disingenuous of them were they to do so. There's nothing productive to come of their doing such a thing.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Some on the alt-left are trying to make a case, that foreign policy with our exorbitantly expensive superpower, is not very Commercial.

???? Hugh?

We have a Commerce Clause not a common offense clause nor general defense clause.

Already been in the courts

Nothing to stop you from suing over it again

Perhaps prudence isn't as sufficient an inhibitor as one might hope it be?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

To a certain extent thats true.
One thing to remember is Vietnam was covered in jungle making it difficult to pinpoint the enemy.
And our weapons are far more advanced as well.

In other words, the "wrong" strategy was used in Vietnam, by regulars.

I would say the wrong strategy was used by politicians.

Do we need a Field Marshall to, "take the blame" for wrong policies by politicians?

No need for the military to take the blame for Vietnam since we all know the military was hamstrung by politicians.

Need or no need, it'd be inappropriate and disingenuous of them were they to do so. There's nothing productive to come of their doing such a thing.

The only thing that you could glean from Vietnam that would be productive is dont let politicians dictate how a war should be fought.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In other words, the "wrong" strategy was used in Vietnam, by regulars.

I would say the wrong strategy was used by politicians.

Do we need a Field Marshall to, "take the blame" for wrong policies by politicians?

No need for the military to take the blame for Vietnam since we all know the military was hamstrung by politicians.

Need or no need, it'd be inappropriate and disingenuous of them were they to do so. There's nothing productive to come of their doing such a thing.

The only thing that you could glean from Vietnam that would be productive is dont let politicians dictate how a war should be fought.

Especially Liberal ones.

 

[Camp]

In other words, the "wrong" strategy was used in Vietnam, by regulars.

I would say the wrong strategy was used by politicians.

Do we need a Field Marshall to, "take the blame" for wrong policies by politicians?

No need for the military to take the blame for Vietnam since we all know the military was hamstrung by politicians.

Need or no need, it'd be inappropriate and disingenuous of them were they to do so. There's nothing productive to come of their doing such a thing.

The only thing that you could glean from Vietnam that would be productive is dont let politicians dictate how a war should be fought.

Plenty of major blunders were made by military leaders during the Vietnam War.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I would say the wrong strategy was used by politicians.

Do we need a Field Marshall to, "take the blame" for wrong policies by politicians?

No need for the military to take the blame for Vietnam since we all know the military was hamstrung by politicians.

Need or no need, it'd be inappropriate and disingenuous of them were they to do so. There's nothing productive to come of their doing such a thing.

The only thing that you could glean from Vietnam that would be productive is dont let politicians dictate how a war should be fought.

Plenty of major blunders were made by military leaders during the Vietnam War.

Yeah there were......listening to politicians.

 

[Markle]

I want demonstrable evidence that my government and its leaders are making sound decisions, rationally prioritizing the problems they aim to solve, that they are doing so in a way that minimizes total risk to the American people, etc.

Were you posting that all during the failed administration of petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama?

 

[Auld Phart]

I would say the wrong strategy was used by politicians.

Do we need a Field Marshall to, "take the blame" for wrong policies by politicians?

No need for the military to take the blame for Vietnam since we all know the military was hamstrung by politicians.

Need or no need, it'd be inappropriate and disingenuous of them were they to do so. There's nothing productive to come of their doing such a thing.

The only thing that you could glean from Vietnam that would be productive is dont let politicians dictate how a war should be fought.

Plenty of major blunders were made by military leaders during the Vietnam War.

Mai Lai comes to mind

 

[PoliticalChic]

I would say the wrong strategy was used by politicians.

Do we need a Field Marshall to, "take the blame" for wrong policies by politicians?

No need for the military to take the blame for Vietnam since we all know the military was hamstrung by politicians.

Need or no need, it'd be inappropriate and disingenuous of them were they to do so. There's nothing productive to come of their doing such a thing.

The only thing that you could glean from Vietnam that would be productive is dont let politicians dictate how a war should be fought.

Plenty of major blunders were made by military leaders during the Vietnam War.

The greatest military blunder in the history of the nation was Franklin Roosevelt allowing Joseph Stalin to dictate our WWII strategy.

You know that, don't you?

 

[usmbguest5318]

In other words, the "wrong" strategy was used in Vietnam, by regulars.

I would say the wrong strategy was used by politicians.

Do we need a Field Marshall to, "take the blame" for wrong policies by politicians?

No need for the military to take the blame for Vietnam since we all know the military was hamstrung by politicians.

Need or no need, it'd be inappropriate and disingenuous of them were they to do so. There's nothing productive to come of their doing such a thing.

The only thing that you could glean from Vietnam that would be productive is dont let politicians dictate how a war should be fought.

Well, that's not an option at all for the U.S. (unless you have in mind a military coup) because our nation is run by civilians, not the military, and those civilians are politicians. In terms of "day to day" operational decisions, sure, I agree with you. At the strategic and policy level, I don't. Even as Trump appears to be delegating more decision making authority to his generals, the fact remains that whatever they do tactically, he, like every POTUS before him, is still responsible for their actions.

I think generals are quite good at prosecuting militarized conflicts. I think that while they are cognizant of the higher level strategies Administration executives set, the generals are not empowered to set that policy, and I'm not convinced of their acumen as goes assessing the alignment of top level policy with one or several military actions. I don't see how they could be adept at that -- particularly with Trump who is a terrible communicator, he's far too imprecise, in terms of making clear what he does and does not, would or would not deem appropriate courses of action for achieving a given goal or set thereof -- as they are not mind readers, and that policy lies within the POTUS' mind and nowhere else.

 

[Markle]

Supposedly only 36 militants were killed,

Now approaching 100 plus those caves were used to store munitions and other supplies.

President Trump, doing what he promised. Little wonder my Progressive good friends are in such a twist!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

In other words, the "wrong" strategy was used in Vietnam, by regulars.

I would say the wrong strategy was used by politicians.

Do we need a Field Marshall to, "take the blame" for wrong policies by politicians?

No need for the military to take the blame for Vietnam since we all know the military was hamstrung by politicians.

Need or no need, it'd be inappropriate and disingenuous of them were they to do so. There's nothing productive to come of their doing such a thing.

The only thing that you could glean from Vietnam that would be productive is dont let politicians dictate how a war should be fought.

Well, that's not an option at all for the U.S. (unless you have in mind a military coup) because our nation is run by civilians, not the military, and those civilians are politicians. In terms of "day to day" operational decisions, sure, I agree with you. At the strategic and policy level, I don't. Even as Trump appears to be delegating more decision making authority to his generals, the fact remains that whatever they do tactically, he, like every POTUS before him, is still responsible for their actions.

I think generals are quite good at prosecuting militarized conflicts. I think that while they are cognizant of the higher level strategies Administration executives set, the generals are not empowered to set that policy, and I'm not convinced of their acumen as goes assessing the alignment of top level policy with one or several military actions. I don't see how they could be -- particularly with Trump who is a terrible communicator, he's far too imprecise, in terms of making clear what he does and does not, would or would not deem appropriate courses of action for achieving a given goal or set thereof -- as they are not mind readers, and that policy lies within the POTUS' mind and nowhere else.

You can type a long post but that doesnt mitigate the fact that politicians repeatedly step and dictate military strategy.

A lot of times causing needless deaths among our troops.

If you aren't willing to go whole hog stay at home.

 

[Camp]

Do we need a Field Marshall to, "take the blame" for wrong policies by politicians?

No need for the military to take the blame for Vietnam since we all know the military was hamstrung by politicians.

Need or no need, it'd be inappropriate and disingenuous of them were they to do so. There's nothing productive to come of their doing such a thing.

The only thing that you could glean from Vietnam that would be productive is dont let politicians dictate how a war should be fought.

Plenty of major blunders were made by military leaders during the Vietnam War.

Yeah there were......listening to politicians.

Lots of military leaders were giving bad advice to politicians.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

No need for the military to take the blame for Vietnam since we all know the military was hamstrung by politicians.

Need or no need, it'd be inappropriate and disingenuous of them were they to do so. There's nothing productive to come of their doing such a thing.

The only thing that you could glean from Vietnam that would be productive is dont let politicians dictate how a war should be fought.

Plenty of major blunders were made by military leaders during the Vietnam War.

Yeah there were......listening to politicians.

Lots of military leaders were giving bad advice to politicians.

Ya got a link?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Do we need a Field Marshall to, "take the blame" for wrong policies by politicians?

No need for the military to take the blame for Vietnam since we all know the military was hamstrung by politicians.

Need or no need, it'd be inappropriate and disingenuous of them were they to do so. There's nothing productive to come of their doing such a thing.

The only thing that you could glean from Vietnam that would be productive is dont let politicians dictate how a war should be fought.

Plenty of major blunders were made by military leaders during the Vietnam War.

Yeah there were......listening to politicians.

That was not a mistake; the generals and admirals had to listen to the politicians. What would you have had the generals/admirals do? Be insubordinate?

 

[OldLady]

You realize I wasn't responding to you, right?

No, I didn't. Thanks for clarifying that.

The news, since the event, has been babbling about "shows of strength" as a message to the DPRK and others.

That might be some people's "read" on the situation, but I don't believe that is why it was used. Pundits will spin and try to find interesting stuff to say about any piece of news, but I don't find it important.

It's not implausible that that be among the primary motives for the MOAB bombing, and the government hasn't, as far as I've heard or seen, refuted the notion that it was. The Pentagon has been surprisingly mum about the whole matter. Even the announcement that the MOAB was used came from the WH, which alone suggests that "messaging," domestic politics and publicity are major drivers to the event.

no credible and believable messages being issued that show why doing so was prioritized and highlighted over completing the defeat of ISIS in Syria and Iraq where it is far stronger than it is in Afghanistan

My understanding (and I could be wrong) was that the war in Afghanistan has been going longer and that we have more troops there than in Iraq and Syria. I keep hearing reports now and then that the terrorist activity is growing. It seems we have had more troops in Afghanistan killed recently than in Iraq or Syria. So I'm not sure why Afghanistan as a theater of operations should have any less emphasis than Iraq and Syria. Perhaps we should learn our lesson from ignoring ISIS when it first got a foothold in Iraq. If it is now growing in Afghanistan, it might be a good idea to stop it now rather than later.

First, I want to be clear that, unlike many Americans, I don't consider any violent act by a Muslim or local in A-stan, Iraq, Syria, and other primarily Muslim countries to be terrorism. I say that because what's going on in A-stan is largely a conflict between the government there and the Taliban, which mostly is a band of loosely aligned pastorally provincial "warlords" of sorts battling over relatively small discrete "turfs" and against the central government's authority over them, which is the source of their alignment. The Taliban are not terrorist threats to the U.S. and they and ISIS do not see eye-to-eye.

What may well be happening in A-stan is that ISIS is trying to establish a foothold amidst the chaos resulting from the conflict there, much as they did in Syria and Iraq. A-stan, though it does have a central government, culturally is essentially a feudal society, and that inherently creates an opportunity for ISIS to insinuate itself there as it seeks refuge from Syria and Iraq. In light of that, the preemptive aspect makes tactical and strategic sense.

If you ask me, it's quite plausible that there is legitimate purpose to bombing ISIS in A-stan. That there is and that Trump concurs it's "worth it," however, represents a dramatic reversal in Trump's position, a reversal that essentially aligns with the position of the prior Administration. As goes Trump himself, I don't mind that he's changed his mind; I mind that he's not openly owning the fact that he has. I also mind the spin he's putting on it.

As for why we are fighting in A-stan, well, the reasons have evolved over time, but the primary reason for the past few years is to help the central government get control of the place. Initially we sought that end roughly as an aspect of nation building -- it's not that the nation being "built" wasn't already present and favorable to the U.S.; it was that its government was (and still is) too weak to hold its own against all comers -- and because Al Qaeda was hunkered down there and the Afghan government was powerless to do anything about it. In more recent years, however, it's more about quelling the chaos that the Afghan government cannot and which provides openings for ISIS.

Note:

The U.S. doesn't innately have a political issue with the Taliban. We did, after all, aid and abet them in their fight against the USSR. The problem with the Taliban is that they are too loosely confederated to constitute a strong enough government that can deny "comfort" to organizations like ISIS. Even being of a mind to deny groups like ISIS a place in the country, they lack the means to stop them.

That left the U.S. having to choose between two weak groups that want control over A-stan: the Taliban and the central government. In my mind, that's an easy "top level" choice; go with the central government because the alternative is to try collaborating with 50 to 100 feudal warlords who don't particularly get along all that well among themselves and who don't see any value in caring about what goes on outside their little corner of the world.

At the end of the day and as goes other nations, the U.S. wants and needs one thing above all others: stable governments that have control of their respective countries and that aren't lead by "nut jobs." The U.S. government does not and never has really been all that bothered by what foreign governments do so long as they aren't physically attacking the U.S. and have control over their own lands.

China is a fine example of that. For all our outcry about human rights, the fact of the matter is that China is very stable. Take the Xinjiang province in China. The people there are culturally more like the "Stans" (any of them not just Afghans) than they are like Han Chinese, yet one doesn't find Taliban or ISIS groups taking refuge in Xinjiang. That's because the central government in China isn't having it. That works for the U.S. and is more important than is whatever other issues our government may have with the PRC government. (Make no mistake, U.S.-China "issues" are governmental. Chinese citizens, the "rank and file," are wholly enamoured with Americans and pretty much anyone else. They are actually very pleasant people.)​

First, thanks for the additional information on Afghanistan.

It's not implausible that that be among the primary motives for the MOAB bombing, and the government hasn't, as far as I've heard or seen, refuted the notion that it was. The Pentagon has been surprisingly mum about the whole matter. Even the announcement that the MOAB was used came from the WH, which alone suggests that "messaging," domestic politics and publicity are major drivers to the event.
I don't see what leads you to believe the MOAB bombing was primarily done for publicity motives. Another poster here has already provided information that this move was requested months ago by ground forces and Obama said no. I see no reason to believe the primary purpose was anything but tactical. Your question of who broke the news to the public? The Pentagon had a lengthy statement this a.m., given by Johnson, that explained the what, why, who, etc. They had to "scrub" some of the information before releasing it, which makes sense. I think I would expect the Commander in Chief to advise us of the strike, which was certainly noteworthy in its target and was using ordinance far larger than any we have used before.
Now, as for Trump capitalizing on opportunities to look good, whether they are his responsibility or not....he has been doing that since before he was even inaugurated, so I'm not saying he wouldn't step in and take credit for looking like a Big Man, but that's just Trump spin, not the actual reason for the strikes.

If our mission in Afghanistan is to help the central government get the country under control, I think the strike on that terrorist hideout is perfectly appropriate. If ISIS wasn't using it, you can bet some other terror group would be. Now no one will, and that's a Good Thing in my book.

What is different between this "strategy" and the strategy we used in Vietnam?

Dunno.

 

[OldLady]

I wasn't too impressed by the bomb. I saw a video of it being tested and it was a big explosion, but nothing crazy.

I also read it was only 1/1000th of the Hiroshima bomb, which makes it the FOAB (fetus of all bombs).

But the radius is pretty similar in size, there is no radiation though.

The scope of the detonation was not strategic or of military importance. Supposedly only 36 militants were killed, according to the U.S. military, plus a teacher and his young son, according to locals. The amount of casualties seems very small, and the same results could have been achieved using much cheaper and less sophisticated weapons.

The scope was to scare other people/nations. If he is crazy enough to detonate such a device, Drumpf wants to show the whole world he is not scared to used such weapons in more populated areas, or even use nuclear weapons, which would be the next step.

Using the MOAB didn't "show" the world he would use such weapons in more populated areas or that he would escalate to nukes. There is nothing indicating that but the whispers in your own mind.
How many critics of the President have focused on the "mountain top" and the 36 fighters killed and completely ignored the actual strategic target, which was the CAVE SYSTEM which has been used as an ISIS/terrorist base of operations. They have tried before getting in there in more conventional ways and failed. I'm glad they got rid of what is the equivalent of a military base for ISIS. No one can hide there anymore.

Are there no drugs involved?

Are YOU using them? I have no idea what you're getting at.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

No need for the military to take the blame for Vietnam since we all know the military was hamstrung by politicians.

Need or no need, it'd be inappropriate and disingenuous of them were they to do so. There's nothing productive to come of their doing such a thing.

The only thing that you could glean from Vietnam that would be productive is dont let politicians dictate how a war should be fought.

Plenty of major blunders were made by military leaders during the Vietnam War.

Yeah there were......listening to politicians.

That was not a mistake; the generals and admirals had to listen to the politicians. What would you have had the generals/admirals do? Be insubordinate?

Politicians need to know their limitations.
You shouldnt ask our youth to die for some bs political gain for a politician.
You either go in to win it or not at all.
I do understand that air strikes can be an acceptable deterrent for fringe countries that dont have the ability to strike back with overwhelming military force.....but.
If we go to war with say someone like Lil Kim I say you go in and lay waste to all infrastructure and the ability to strike back militarily.

 

[Markle]

I don't really understand all this hype over it.

Not at all surprising that it is something not comprehensible to you.

The tragedy is that petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama had the ability, opportunity but not the stones to have dropped it years ago and saved the lives of many of our military hero's. But then, as a loser, President Obama only played not to lose.