Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration

[Lemur]

DoD and CBO have wrangled over the exact figure, but the accepted cost of maintaining a U.S. soldier in a distant country such as Afghanistan is somewhere between $500,000 and $1M per year (the latter being more likely than the former). That's a big part of why the DoD doesn't blink when a company such as Blackwater demands $250,000/year for a private military contractor. It's a bargain.

Xiahou, if you ever think that anything Obama says or does isn't a disaster/idiocy/betrayal of 'Merica, let us know. That would be newsworthy. In the meantime, you found an editorial that declares that Obama's latest speech is a disaster. Good for you! If you collect twenty, I will send you a box of cookies. (Hint: They'll be thick on the ground at NRO and WND.) And no, re-prints of Krauthammer columns do not count toward your total.

[KukriKhan]

If I didn't know better, I'd think someone at the White House has an account here at the org. My "speech", delivered Monday (LINK), hits all the same points Obama's did on Tuesday, except I sent more troops (80,000), didn't announce an end-date, and gave them a specific mission (get ObL).

Naturally, I think mine was better.

[Major Robert Dump]

Yes, Kukri, someone leaked your speech, and when Obama gets re-elected it will be partially your fault!!! Only Mike Huckabee can stop him now. Oh wait....


Personally, I think Obama should have started off the speech with "Sorry to take up your time cadets, but there weren't any aircraft carriers available tonight."

West Pointers...blah....I could tell you some stories

[KukriKhan]

Yes, Kukri, someone leaked your speech, and when Obama gets re-elected it will be partially your fault!!! Only Mike Huckabee can stop him now. Oh wait....


Personally, I think Obama should have started off the speech with "Sorry to take up your time cadets, but there weren't any aircraft carriers available tonight."

West Pointers...blah....I could tell you some stories

Heh. I guess things have changed since my days. I did OK with pointers and Ohsee-essers. It was the rahtsees I had more work to train. Pointers in my day had the vision thing, and just begged for "real-life" advice. OCSers had already been there. ROTC fellas (the vast majority of officers I served with), with few exceptions, thought they knew all there was to be known about warfare.

My task (as I understood it) was to either educate them, or, failing that, keep them as far away from my troops as possible. I mostly succeeded in that.

------------------------------

Didja see the nodding heads there? Those kids start the day at 0400, and they assembled them there 4 hours before POTUS spoke. Sit in your chair, in wool, for 4 hours, after a 12 hour day of classes, PT, and extracurriculars... I'd sleep too - even if it was christ coming to announce the end of the world.

Those kids; the age of our StrikeForTheSouth, will be our new leaders. We owe it to them, IMO, to fully educate them. The horror of war. The necessity of war. The limits of war. The consequences of war. The absolute ridiculousness of war. The absurdity.

Doing less under-serves our people.

I put the entire burden, as it always has been, on our NCO corps.

[Major Robert Dump]

I don't much care for the timeline either....but didn't GWB do something similar in Iraq that kinda helped whip the governing bodies into shape a little quicker? Different war, I know,

[KukriKhan]

I don't much care for the timeline either....but didn't GWB do something similar in Iraq that kinda helped whip the governing bodies into shape a little quicker? Different war, I know,

Yeah: WaPo 11-2008.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Xiahou, if you ever think that anything Obama says or does isn't a disaster/idiocy/betrayal of 'Merica, let us know. That would be newsworthy. In the meantime, you found an editorial that declares that Obama's latest speech is a disaster. Good for you! If you collect twenty, I will send you a box of cookies. (Hint: They'll be thick on the ground at NRO and WND.) And no, re-prints of Krauthammer columns do not count toward your total.

The dastardly deeds of Xiahou exposed once more

[Lemur]

The dastardly deeds of Xiahou exposed once more

It warms my heart to see people recycling.

As for the rather cockeyed notion that the Taliban will somehow wait us out, now that they have a date when we will begin winding down (with no end-date articulated or speculated):

And as for the argument, made passionately by some in the military, that a specific date for starting the withdrawal is an invitation for the Taliban to lie low until we leave: "They simply won't do that," says Leslie H. Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations. "If you stand down, you allow the enemy — even this inept Afghan government — to create a bow-wave effect, to create the impression of authority and security. The Taliban aren't stupid."

[Crazed Rabbit]

It warms my heart to see people recycling.

As for the rather cockeyed notion that the Taliban will somehow wait us out, now that they have a date when we will begin winding down (with no end-date articulated or speculated):

And as for the argument, made passionately by some in the military, that a specific date for starting the withdrawal is an invitation for the Taliban to lie low until we leave: "They simply won't do that," says Leslie H. Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations. "If you stand down, you allow the enemy — even this inept Afghan government — to create a bow-wave effect, to create the impression of authority and security. The Taliban aren't stupid."

I've seen that "cockeyed notion" repeated by a variety of people, including those in the Afghan government. That Taliban won't have to stand down completely, just remind people that in less than two years the US will be gone.

CR

[Xiahou]

It warms my heart to see people recycling.

As for the rather cockeyed notion that the Taliban will somehow wait us out, now that they have a date when we will begin winding down (with no end-date articulated or speculated):

And as for the argument, made passionately by some in the military, that a specific date for starting the withdrawal is an invitation for the Taliban to lie low until we leave: "They simply won't do that," says Leslie H. Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations. "If you stand down, you allow the enemy — even this inept Afghan government — to create a bow-wave effect, to create the impression of authority and security. The Taliban aren't stupid."

20 of those editorials will get you a box of cookies.

[Lemur]

20 of those editorials will get you a box of cookies.

Now now, when recycling it's best to make sure you get your plastics with your plastics, and your reflexive condemnations with your reflexive condemnations. No cookies for you, sir.

Meanwhile, although I fear this is close to becoming The Afghanistan Thread, looks like our allies are in a sanguine mood (in both senses of the word): Nato allies to send 7k more troops to 'Stan. This is a good thing, and would have been unlikely under the previous admin, which had done so much to make itself unpopular in Yurup.

[cegorach]

Now now, when recycling it's best to make sure you get your plastics with your plastics, and your reflexive condemnations with your reflexive condemnations. No cookies for you, sir.

Meanwhile, although I fear this is close to becoming The Afghanistan Thread, looks like our allies are in a sanguine mood (in both senses of the word): Nato allies to send 7k more troops to 'Stan. This is a good thing, and would have been unlikely under the previous admin, which had done so much to make itself unpopular in Yurup.

It is not like I am defending Bush, but notice from what countries those soldiers are coming:

c. 1000 Italians,

900 Georgians (who are not even in the NATO),

600 Poles,

500 Koreans,

500 British

- that is 3500 already i.e. 50 %.

Add to those other EE countries ( c. 1000), Turkey etc and you are left with less than 2000. I doubt that any of those countries belongs to the group which despised W.Bush so much.

Let's face it some Europeans aren't too much interested in anything what involves fighting - or perhaps as I sometimes wonder - in anything involving activity.

Sweden sent more soldiers than Nato member Greece (or worse - less than their disliked neighbour Macedonia), Poland will have only 500 soldiers less than France and 200 % more than Spain and the list goes on...

Shameful.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Lemur, I am afraid the new NATO troops are mostly coming from the same countries who joined Bush. France and Germany have yet to decide their position. Alas, the time to decide will come soon.

Obama has put France and Germany in a difficult position. We can't let him down. We also don't want to jump on a lost mission.

Please let there be another disaster area requiring urgent military NATO intervention, before the decision has to be made between wasting soldiers and resources on an impossible and unpopular campaign, or painfully letting Obama down.

Let's face it some Europeans aren't too much interested in anything what involves fighting - or perhaps as I sometimes wonder - in anything involving activity.

Shameful.

The Germans are still struglling with militarism and their national identity and are hence very reluctant at sending troops abroad period.

There are 4.500 Polish troops engaged in multinational missions abroad. And 35.000 French troops. Of a total armed forces of 100k and 250k. Which puts the odds of being engaged in anything possibly involving fighting at 4,5% and 14% respectively.

[Xiahou]

If I didn't know better, I'd think someone at the White House has an account here at the org. My "speech", delivered Monday (LINK), hits all the same points Obama's did on Tuesday, except I sent more troops (80,000), didn't announce an end-date, and gave them a specific mission (get ObL).

Naturally, I think mine was better.

I like yours better. I think 80k troops is a little unrealistic, but at least you aren't announcing an arbitrary end date. What better way to sabotage their mission before it even starts? It gives our allies reason to question our commitment and waver their support, while encouraging our enemies to tough it out until we leave.

30,000 more troops is about 10,000 less than was asked for, but I imagine that McChyrstal asked for extra, knowing the number would be cut down. Where I take issue with Obama is his pronouncement of a time line. Some administration mouth pieces have since tried to parse Obama's statements, saying the conditions on the ground will dictate the withdrawal. But, if that's really the case, why announce an artificial deadline on national TV?