Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration

[cegorach]

Maybe the jingoist Poles and Brits ought to obsess less about the backbone of France, and instead raise their amount of foreign troops to the level of France.

The UK has less troops deployed in the world's hellholes than France. Poland even has less troops (yes, per capita) in Afghanistan itself than France.

Per capita you say. What about defence budget ?

France $61,571,330,000

Poland $11,800,000,000


Involvement in Afghanistan - France 3,095 as of November 22, 2009

Poland - 1910 as of October 22, 2009

That is a bit different I am afraid.

I must conclude you are doing it intentionally knowing well that the deployement is much more difficult to handle for Poland.
Should I expect more of similar arguments coming from you ? This was a bit unexpected.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Get binLaden
dismantle his network
deny his assets of manpower, money, and materiel
come home

These four I agree with. And that is exactly the nature of the mess I spoke about: neither one of those four have been the focus of attention of Bush. Rather, it seems likely that Bush' decisions have undermined the chance of succes for all four.

You want to get OBL? The French special forces were there, ready for the American command to give the get go. It never came. Instead, the Americans left for Iraq.

Eight years later, Afghanistan is a mess. For eight frustrating years French troops have been rotting in the Afghan mountains, while Washington couldn't even be bothered to commit itself. Even when it became clear two years ago that both Iraq and Afghanistan were turning into a mission impossible, the surge was decided upon for Iraq, not for Afghanistan.

Only this year - OBL must be an old, grey man by now, and half a generation of Afghanis have grown up under a half-baked occupation - does Washington have the decency to commit itself to Afghanistan. The troops will arrive in 2010, nearly a decade after 9-11.


Militarily, financially, morally Iraq has greatly undermined the effort in Afghanistan. So yes, it is the world cleaning up after Bush.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Should I expect more of similar arguments coming from you ? This was a bit unexpected.

I haven't even begun.


Spin the numbers as much as you like, but for all its tough talk, Poland's contribution in Afghanistan has not even been as large as that of the modest contribution of France. Poland is a large country, two thirds the size of France. Yet you don't even manage half the cost in money, death toll or troops deployed of even France (or Germany). The only thing Poland exceeds these two in, is in shouting how fantastically large its contribution is.
Of course, most military operations have at any rate been US/UK/Canadian efforts, neither French nor Polish. It is not really the show of either one of us. A few hundred Poles being shifted back and forth between safe zones in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't make the difference. But when you spin their numbers a bit, it can look mighty impressive.

And spin it is - for example, while French and German troops have been rotting in the Afghan mountains for a decade, Poland up to two years ago had only 160 men deployed.

Why were there no Poles to support the effort in Afghanistan? Because Poland wasn't interested in fighting terrorism, in creating the peace in Afghanistan. All efforts were diverted into Iraq. As the Foreign Minister of Poland, Cimoszewicz, stated in July 2003, "We have never hidden our desire for Polish oil companies to finally have access to sources of commodities". That's what Poland was doing, while France was naively thinking that this was all about getting Bin Laden in Afghanistan and creating a stable democracy there.


Ten years on, Poland and America at last return attention to Afghanistan. Too little, too late for anything, except to scold those who have urged from the beginning to keep Afghanistan the focus of effort. There's your 'shameful lack of backbone'. Throughout all the insults, immaturity, disastrous loss of focus by the coalition, the French have been in Afghanistan all this time. It wasn't us who decided to move the fight to Iraq - on the contrary.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Also, I'd like to point out that I said I was "tempted" to accuse you of a lack of backbone, but that I recognised that the situation was more complex. Given that I have friends who have died in battles resulting from a strategic lack of manpower, I think that's generous.

I shall be generous too and call your position 'mistaken'.

Mistaken, because the UK apparantly could spare 40k soldiers and hundreds of billions of pounds for Iraq, but not for Afghanistan. Instead, you seek to blame your death friends on lack of backbone of others. Maybe if a fraction of those 200k soldiers from Iraq had been deployed in Afghanistan this would've made a bigger difference than 10k French and German troops?


And not just Afghanistan has been left to bungle because of Iraq:

the UK contributes a larger proportion of it's population to NATO engagements.

NATO? Sure. But that is spinning it. France is second only to the US in troops abroad for multinational engagements.There is more than NATO.
There are more French troops in this world's hellholes than British. The British have pulled out their troops everywhere to concentrate them in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As with the Poles, I would not mind the insults, were it not that the UK, like Poland, actually contributes less than France.


If one reads the Anglo press, one would think the world consists only of Iraq and Afghanistan. If one reads the French press, you'll pull your hair out at the waste of UN/NATO resources in Iraq, which has left the burden of maintaining the peace throughout the world mainly on France. Since the start of the Iraq war, we've witnessed, amongst others, war in:

Ivory Coast. UN mission under French command. 4000 French troops. Not a Briton or Pole in sight. Too busy in Iraq.

Chad. Bloody civil war. EU mission under French command. 2000 Frenchmen were send. The UK managed to send...four men. Or maybe they were stranded tourists.

The Balkans. UN mission. Half of the foreign casualties are French. No Brits or Poles to be seen anymore. Too busy creating more wars instead of maintaining the peace.

Somali Piracy. The French fleet is chasing them all over the Indian ocean. The Royal Navy managed to spare one single frigate, Poland nil.


In every instance, European troops were too busy in Iraq. France had to solve it mostly on her own. The enormous diversion of troops and resources for the adventure in Iraq has been very detrimental for the more mature countries and their quest to a) maintain peace and stability and b) support the interests of the free world.

Darfur - sorry, the west had no more troops to spare to stop this genocide.


As for The War on Terror:
Hezbollah has been having a ball in Lebanon, after all those European countries left UNFIL for Iraq and Afghanistan. Earlier this year, all the Brits and Poles packed their bags to head for Afghanistan. (They've got to come from someplace, eh?) Then the Poles and Brits scoff the French for not having a backbone, for not staying the course. It's the -what? fourth? fifth? - mission the Brits and Poles simply abandoned to concentrate on the 'War on Terror'. Meanwhile, France has been in the Lebanon for thirty years.

So, UNIFIL is all that you have. And, ineffective as it was, it is disintegrating. Pressed by the Obama administration to send troops to Afghanistan--I support the presidents efforts in this regard--Poland and other trusted European countries have reacted by some announcing, some whispering that their military will not be long in Lebanon. Some European states have so few personnel stationed in the country that it hardly matters: Slovakia, 6; Slovenia. 14; Ukraine, 1.Yes, one. Many others are toy soldiers: Brunei and Nepal, as instances.Two countries represented are stalwarts of the Muslim International: Malaysia, Indonesia. Others are countries with rabid anti-Israel politics: Norway, Greece and Ireland, for example. You decide where Erdogan's Turkey belongs.

Encouraged by these neutral defections from UNIFIL, Hezbollah has now expanded its revolutionary turf to Egypt.

[KukriKhan]

Say what you will about Louis and his views. Anybody who can knock out over two thousand words - thoughtful, coherent, on-point words - in less than 6 minutes... gets my admiration.

So... Louis: Afghanistan is a mess. More troops are on the way (many will arrive next month). The way forward?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Say what you will about Louis and his views. Anybody who can knock out over two thousand words - thoughtful, coherent, on-point words - in less than 6 minutes... gets my admiration.

So... Louis: Afghanistan is a mess. More troops are on the way (many will arrive next month). The way forward?

My opinion depends on my view of the chance of succes in Afghanistan. If there is a decent shot at succes, I'd personally press for more troops. But I am not so sure. Then there is the whole timetable to pull them out in two years and all that. I do wonder - what is the point?


At the moment, though this changes at a daily basis, I'd say we should go for it. Let Obama have his shot at it. All that shite from my three previous posts above shouldn't be important. Afghanistan is what matters. We should send 5000 more troops, give it one more shot.

[KukriKhan]

My opinion depends on my view of the chance of succes in Afghanistan. If there is a decent shot at succes, I'd personally press for more troops. But I am not so sure. Then there is the whole timetable to pull them out in two years and all that. I do wonder - what is the point?


At the moment, though this changes at a daily basis, I'd say we should go for it. Let Obama have his shot at it. All that shite from my three previous posts above shouldn't be important. Afghanistan is what matters. We should send 5000 more troops, give it one more shot.

We agree then.

As much as I want to pull up stakes, declare victory (ignoring the worldwide laughter) and come home by Christmas... and I'm not 100% certain it can be done successfully, we should give it one more shot. Lemur disagrees about the pull-out date thing. I think that was dangerous to the mission, unnecessarily. Have a date in mind, sure. Tell that date to the principal players, but don't announce it to the world.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My opinion depends on my view of the chance of succes in Afghanistan. If there is a decent shot at succes, I'd personally press for more troops. But I am not so sure. Then there is the whole timetable to pull them out in two years and all that. I do wonder - what is the point?


At the moment, though this changes at a daily basis, I'd say we should go for it. Let Obama have his shot at it. All that shite from my three previous posts above shouldn't be important. Afghanistan is what matters. We should send 5000 more troops, give it one more shot.

Eh? How can you move to rebut my every point, and then agree with my conclusion, right down to the numbers?

Also, where do you get the figure "40,000" from for Iraq? Is that the total number of men we sent overall, because some of those were the same men going back three or four times. Or is it the number for the actual invasion? I'm fairly sure it isn't.

[cegorach]

I haven't even begun.

Very well.

Spin the numbers as much as you like, but for all its tough talk, Poland's contribution in Afghanistan has not even been as large as that of the modest contribution of France.

Do you mean overall or currently or in the next year ? Overall (since 2003) I agree. Right now - I must disagree and in the future - it is up to your government, isn't it ?
I would like to see it enlarged otherwise it would be comparatively smaller than of Poland.

Poland is a large country, two thirds the size of France.

That is silly and you know that.
Are you saying that Sweden should send more soldiers (it is pretty large) same with Finland, not to mention Canada or Australia, and what about Denmark ? How large this cowardly Greenland is!

Yet you don't even manage half the cost in money, death toll or troops deployed of even France (or Germany).

With at least 6 times less money.
Let's not talk about death toll - it proves nothing, besides I won't engage in this kind of conversation.

The only thing Poland exceeds these two in, is in shouting how fantastically large its contribution is.

And PR, life is not fair I guess...

Of course, most military operations have at any rate been US/UK/Canadian efforts, neither French nor Polish. It is not really the show of either one of us. A few hundred Poles being shifted back and forth between safe zones in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't make the difference. But when you spin their numbers a bit, it can look mighty impressive.

I'm not sure if Ghazni is a safe province. While in Iraq - 2006 Sadr's uprising wasn't a picnic, though it certainly was safer than the British zone or one of American areas.

And spin it is - for example, while French and German troops have been rotting in the Afghan mountains for a decade, Poland up to two years ago had only 160 men deployed.

That is true - who is denying that ?

Why were there no Poles to support the effort in Afghanistan? Because Poland wasn't interested in fighting terrorism, in creating the peace in Afghanistan. All efforts were diverted into Iraq. As the Foreign Minister of Poland, Cimoszewicz, stated in July 2003, "We have never hidden our desire for Polish oil companies to finally have access to sources of commodities". That's what Poland was doing, while France was naively thinking that this was all about getting Bin Laden in Afghanistan and creating a stable democracy there.

Now you are making a fool of yourself. So Poles sent those soldiers to fight for OIL ? That is so demagogic...

I guess that is why the most of our leading intellectuals supported the invasion and removing Saddam ? I am certain too that Polish oil companies are now in possession of numerous oil fields in Iraq.

If anything I'd like the irony that while French idealists are fighting for democracy in the worst world's hellhole cynical Poles are basking in adoration having a picnic in Iraq and protecting oil fields owned by polish capitalists.
That would be something to enjoy for every francophobe here (I admit I am one).
Unfortunatelly (?) that is not true.

Poland joined the coalition to remove Saddam first, to prove ourselves as a loyal ally second, to enter the scene of more ambitious international politics and possibly gain something in the process.

Let's not forget that Iraq owed us sizable amounts of money, that Poland had pretty good trade relations with that country before - if anything we couldn't gain much more than we could lose.

Preserving stronger ties with America was always important to Poland, especially with Mr. Chirac lecturing us about numerous virtues of staying silent and learning from his infinite wisdom while he and Mr. Schoder were having a good time in Sochi with Mr. Putin.


When it comes to helping in Afghanistan our NGOs were doing great work with humanitarian aid sent to that country - militarily at that time it was seen as a secondary front, almost a finished conflict.

Finally what was sent to Iraq stretched our resources to the maximum. At the beginning of the occupation of Iraq US troops laughed observing what equipment our troops were forced to use - old helmets, poor uniforms, open topped vehicles.

That is the sad truth - Poland was not capable to send more troops than we've sent to Iraq and it would be much less if sent to Afghanistan.

Ten years on, Poland and America at last return attention to Afghanistan. Too little, too late for anything, except to scold those who have urged from the beginning to keep Afghanistan the focus of effort. There's your 'shameful lack of backbone'. Throughout all the insults, immaturity, disastrous loss of focus by the coalition, the French have been in Afghanistan all this time. It wasn't us who decided to move the fight to Iraq - on the contrary.

And you are free to congratulate yourself if that proves decisive, but I cannot and won't agree with several of your arguments when it comes to my country involvement.
Because I expect that you've conscious choice selecting arguments you've used in this post I cannot dismiss it as emotional.

I am sorry Louis there are too many demagogic arguments here - the oil, the death toll, the money, the size of a country.

You must realise (and let's be honest - you do) that our resources are and were considerably smaller, our power projection capabilities are meaningful only in Europe and that Poland's plans to become a world power are a fact only in computer games.

I dare even say that without the Iraq affair there wouldn't be any sizable Polish forces in Afghanistan - the modernisation of the army which is a fact from 2003 (i.e. from the moment we've found ourselves in charge in one of Iraq's occupation zones) wouldn't happen, at least not so quickly.

I dare say that Iraq was essential experience for our military and as safe (or 'safe') as it was it brought numerous improvements which helps transforming our army from ex-Warsaw pact outdated structures and helps sending troops to places like Chad or Afghanistan.
For that reason for Poland it was not a mistake to fight in Iraq - it couldn't divert resources, because there were none.

If you are going to question commitment of Poland and our reliability as an ally I suggest to think it over once more.

If anything I don't recall anybody ever questioning Poland's commitment or reliability, Soviet generals and Central Commitee excluded.*








* only Ukrainians are entitled to that.

[Vuk]

Nice to know that we have a **** thug for a President. Obama: more of the same, but to the 10000th degree!

“Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother,” Obama told DeFazio during a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus, according to members afterward.

How brain dead are Americans for voting this guy in?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Nice to know that we have a **** thug for a President. Obama: more of the same, but to the 10000th degree!



How brain dead are Americans for voting this guy in?

Here you go, have a sticker and tell the world about it:

http://www.antiobamasticker.com/

[woad&fangs]

I don't see anything even remotely "thuggish" about Obama in that story.