America's Top Commander Exposes Obama Administration Incompetence; Walks It Back

[PanzerJaeger]

Did we drink a bad cup of coffee this morning? Where's the cheerful Panzer we all know and love?

Present and accounted for, sir! I'm as chipper as always, just a bit surprised that someone whose modus oporandi is posting clippings from random and certainly biased blogs to support/make his points threw such a fit over that editorial.

Let's address your points in order:

Sure thing!

(1) There's nothing Backroom-specific about the definition; rather, the maxim is used most often in the Backroom, while applying to the entire Org. Not sure where you're going with this line of argument. It's weird even by your standards.

My only argument is that I did, in fact, use the term correctly, despite your definition.

(2) Explain to me how the marital problems of Peter Orszag have any relevance to an essay about Obama, McChrystal and Afghanistan. Harnden's problem is not that he makes too many points; it's that they're all over the place. I addressed one in my initial response; feel free to respond at your leisure.

Editorials often bring together disparate events to paint a broader picture. It's really rather common. You seem to be under the impression that I posted the editorial as some sort of thesis on the subject, not because I thought it was an interesting opinion.

(3) You keep flogging that COIN post from Sully, as though you think you've found a winning ticket with it. Try one more time; lucky number four! You may have begun this thread with a thesis which has failed to gain any traction with anyone, and you may have failed to carry the day with any of your arguments in-thread, and you may be finding yourself to the far-right of National Review, Fox News and just about every military commentator, but by gawd Lemur went too far when he inferred that an anonymous military commenter was an officer! Keep at it, you've almost carried the day!

I considered pursuing that avenue as I thought it was a rather sketchy thing for you to do. However, I decided to respect what I thought was ceasefire of sorts reached in prior discussions and let it go. Of course, the hypocrisy of you then going after the source of what I clearly posted as an editorial – an opinion - caused me to reconsider.

I do find it rather odd that you seem to be criticizing my inability to change people's minds, as if minds are changed frequently in the Backroom, or that I'm even interested in such a goal. I gave that up many years ago. I post here because I enjoy sharing my opinions and reading those of others.

Finally, I’m not sure why you would think that I would put much stock in where I stand on a particular issue vis-à-vis Fox News.

(4) So you can't defend Harnden, won't defend Harnden, and none of it matters anyway. Masterful.

Defend him from what? Your lame parroting of an Andrew Sullivan blog posting? Are you prepared to defend Sullivan from any criticisms of him I can pull off the internet?

As I said, pick a point that Harnden made that you think is surprising, relevant, and/or true. Copy/paste debating is beneath you.

Sure. You took issue with Harnden’s assertion that losing McChrystal’s good relationship with Karzai is a bad thing. However, you seem to be reading from a very old set of talking points. Karzai is our partner in the region, whether we like it or not. Obama and team could have chosen to pursue their campaign to discredit him, but it was decided, surely out of necessity, that he had to be kept around. So, considering how important the local government is to COIN, I think it is certainly better to have a commander on the ground with a good working relationship with the local leadership than have one that will have to build such a relationship amid the most critical of stages of the conflict, or to not have a good relationship at all.

[Lemur]

My only argument is that I did, in fact, use the term correctly, despite your definition.

Yes, I invented that reading of "play the ball not the man," and I did it all on my own. My sole reason was to confound you. Curses! Foiled again! "Play the ball, not the man" has nothing to do with ad hominem attacks or the personalization of debate; it really means that you can never question another poster's sources. How did you find me out?

You seem to be under the impression that I posted the editorial as some sort of thesis on the subject, not because I thought it was an interesting opinion.

If the entire rambling essay is naught more than an "interesting opinion," why are you going on about it, then?

You took issue with Harnden’s assertion that losing McChrystal’s good relationship with Karzai is a bad thing. [...] Karzai is our partner in the region, whether we like it or not. Obama and team could have chosen to pursue their campaign to discredit him, but it was decided, surely out of necessity, that he had to be kept around.

At last! Something resembling substance! Wheeeeee!

First of all, please substantiate Obama's "campaign to discredit [Khazai]." By all accounts, President Khazai has been at turns ineffective, unpopular, corrupt and duplicitous. As I understand it, based on nothing more than reading, the civilian government in Afghanistan is the single biggest weakness in our COIN strategy. Correct me if you've heard differently.

Given this, how crucial is McChrystal's relationship with Karzai? What was he accomplishing with the President that another commander, with the initials D.P., cannot? Your essayist presents this relationship, and its end, as a completely understood disaster that we need not substantiate. I call male bovine fecal matter.

So, considering how important the local government is to COIN, I think it is certainly better to have a commander on the ground with a good working relationship with the local leadership than have one that will have to build such a relationship amid the most critical of stages of the conflict, or to not have a good relationship at all.

Again, every intelligent analyst I have read on the subject agrees that the civilian government is our #1 weakness in Afghanistan. Not the generals, not the money, not the diplomats, not Obama, not the previous administration, not troop morale, not the various strategies, and so on and so forth. The lack of a legitimate, effective civilian partner is the insoluble imponderable.

I'd like to see you address this, frankly, since most of the time your interest in Afghanistan appears to begin and end with how it serves as a talking point contra Obama.

Let's say P.J. is made President tomorrow. What do we do about our civilian partners in Afghanistan? And no, this is not a dodge or a changing of the subject, although you have dismissed every such thought exercise as such previously. It is not enough to robotically criticize every move our President makes; please demonstrate that you have given this some sort of thought beyond the partisan snipe line.

You seem to believe that there is some sort of clear path to victory. You demonstrate this belief by consistently claiming that President 44 is deviating from it. So it is not in any way out of order to ask, "Tell us, P.J., what is this path to victory, and what does your notion of victory look like?" Bonus points if you can construct your answer in terms that require less than five decades.

[Louis VI the Fat]

[PanzerJaeger]

Yes, I invented that reading of "play the ball not the man," and I did it all on my own. My sole reason was to confound you. Curses! Foiled again! "Play the ball, not the man" has nothing to do with ad hominem attacks or the personalization of debate; it really means that you can never question another poster's sources. How did you find me out?

I don't understand how you cannot see that the term can be applied to your attacking the author of the editorial instead of his points.

And now I'm questioning your understanding of what a "source" is. I wasn't sourcing anything with that editorial. If I had cited it as proof of X, Y, or Z, then yes, noting that it is opinion-oriented would have been appropriate. However, attacking an editorial, clearly posted as such, for bias is a little bit like attacking the NRA for being pro-gun rights. That is, it is excruciatingly obvious.

If the entire rambling essay is naught more than an "interesting opinion," why are you going on about it, then?

I'm not. I have barely mentioned anything about it in this whole exchange.

As I have said, what I am surprised about is that a member who constantly posts opinionated, and occassionally sketchy, blog entries to back up his opinions launched such a scathing attack on an editorial that I posted - which wasn't even in support of any particular point. I would say it was the pot calling the kettle black, but my "kettle" didn't even rise to the level of your "pot".

At last! Something resembling substance! Wheeeeee!

And your parroting of Andrew Sullivan that started this exchange was literally full of substance!

First of all, please substantiate Obama's "campaign to discredit [Khazai]." By all accounts, President Khazai has been at turns ineffective, unpopular, corrupt and duplicitous. As I understand it, based on nothing more than reading, the civilian government in Afghanistan is the single biggest weakness in our COIN strategy. Correct me if you've heard differently.

I am referring to the very public row the two leaders had a few months back. Please don't confuse my words as a defense of Karzai. I agree that he is all of those things and probably more, but he is also the president's chosen partner in the country. The one thing that could be worse to our war effort than a good relationship with Karzai is a bad one.

Given this, how crucial is McChrystal's relationship with Karzai? What was he accomplishing with the President that another commander, with the initials D.P., cannot?

Considering the high context, tribal nature of Afghani politics, I would say it was pretty important. D.P. may be a hero in America, but that may or may not translate to Karzai's administration. Regardless, building a relationship will take time and effort, which is time and effort that could and should be focused elsewhere during this critical stage in the war.

Again, every intelligent analyst I have read on the subject agrees that the civilian government is our #1 weakness in Afghanistan. Not the generals, not the money, not the diplomats, not Obama, not the previous administration, not troop morale, not the various strategies, and so on and so forth. The lack of a legitimate, effective civilian partner is the insoluble imponderable.

Again, I agree. Apparently, though, the White House has decided that he is our only option, so I cannot see how destroying a good relationship between him and our top commander in the field can be seen as anything other than a negative. secretary Gates seems to agree.

You seem to believe that there is some sort of clear path to victory. You demonstrate this belief by consistently claiming that President 44 is deviating from it. So it is not in any way out of order to ask, "Tell us, P.J., what is this path to victory, and what does your notion of victory look like?" Bonus points if you can construct your answer in terms that require less than five decades.

Ahh, Lemur's classic "solve Afghanistan in a discussion board post or you're not allowed to criticize my prez!!"

Well, I can tell you that my solution would involve giving my top commander the troops he requests and not imposing an arbitrary timeline on him based on my own reelection campaign.

[Lemur]

I don't understand how you cannot see that the term can be applied to your attacking the author of the editorial instead of his points.

Epic reading comprehension fail, which you clearly have no intention of correcting. Let's move on from your cul-de-sac.

However, attacking an editorial, clearly posted as such, for bias is a little bit like attacking the NRA for being pro-gun rights. That is, it is excruciatingly obvious.

Bias? I said the essay was sloppily written, that the author was a known hack, and that the source did you no credit. "Bias" is the least part of that argument, but whatever, carry on.

And your parroting of Andrew Sullivan that started this exchange was literally full of substance!

You keep invoking Andrew Sullivan as though he were a mystical figure who could imbue your rhetoric with weight, your arguments with substance. It's quite fascinating, actually. Invoke him again! Keep mentioning Sullivan! You're on a wining streak, there! (How did you get so obsessed with the man, anyway?)

Ahh, Lemur's classic "solve Afghanistan in a discussion board post or you're not allowed to criticize my prez!!"

Ah, Panzer's classic, "If I can dismiss the poster without answering a legit question, I'll dance away in my pink ballet slippers, laughing my silvery bell of a laugh." I spelled out, in terms you cannot or will not address, why asking for your take on victory in Afghanistan is legitimate. If you'd like to be taken as something more than a spoiler and a partisan snipe, you can address that issue someday.

As I said, your interest in Afghanistan seems to begin and end with Obama. This thread has done nothing to dispel that impression.

[Gregoshi]

This is like watching a classic western showdown - except the one gunslinger is in Dodge and the other in Tombstone.

[Lemur]

True dat. Honestly, I'm getting bored, but I'm keen to see how far Panzer will take his last-word-itis. So for the sake of science I will soldier on.

[Gregoshi]

Ah, will he leave Dodge before you leave Tombstone? How about you two call it a "draw"?