Taliban has 'momentum,' U.S. goal doable

Gates:

a kindler, gentler Bob McNamara.

My Mark, up early today. It boils down to this; after years of Obamaspeak, telling us how Afghan was his priority, that Bush had dropped the ball and he had campaigned that he had the solution (oh yea, invade Pakistan), and then, after an announced major review of strategy in March, his handpicked General submits a plan. Obama has a decision to make as Commander in Chief. Not as a politician. Trouble is, he has never been a commander of anything (oh, a campaign maybe, but I doubt that too), has no military experience period, All he really is, is a glorified "community organizer" turned liberal politician. So now we are witnessing a search for a political consensus, by the only way this man has ever made any important decisions in his life, to a problem that has no political solution. Of course his political rhetoric has placed him in a box of his and the Dems. own making. We heard his grand fantasy that he would convince the world and our allies to follow him (more Bush bashing) and his trumpet. Oops, that did not work, as they and reality slapped him down. So the decider (remember 72% believes the press hyped fantasy that Obama can make the tough decisions) just can't decide. Some things points to the truth! How can a Prez, have us believe that he is engaged, actually taking the war on terror seriously, and knows what the hell to do, when his number one General reveals that Obama had spoken to him only once in 70 days of war? And to top that, he and his AG at war with his own intelligence community, which he must depend upon, undercutting their ability in the dirty, not political correct, business of war. This waffling, along with Obma's lame "soft-power, out reached hand" adolescent foreign policy, only embodies our enemies and places our troops in peril. Dangerous times requires knowledge, focus, determination, and stamina from a leader. Sadly, we got a community organizer.

bubba......I know.........can you think of anything worse than someone wanting to help a community. God...it's enough to make you sick. Like those "religious organizers", there is nothing worse than people helping one another. I wish more people had common sense to realize this is what hurts our country most. I also agree with your assesment of leaders with no military experience. Cheney and Bush both had an enormous amount of experience. Cheney had battlefield and Bush had fratboy. You supported and backed them to the hilt so I can see your concern over "no" experience. Like a surgeon, Bush quickly brought an end to the Afghanistan war.....unfortunately, the Taliban were just unaware of this fact. So after 8 years, I can see your impatience after a couple of months. It is good to see that that ol' saying "walk softly and carry a big stick" has been replaced by the GOP with "rattle my sabre". It does make one feel good...doesn't it. These decissions concerning our men and women should be made quickly, not smartly so we can be there another 8 years. Funny......when we used to blast Bush about the death's over his 3 year "stay the course" strategy, you all used to say...Hey....more people get killed on the hiway and crap like that......then call everybody a traitor, and coward........has something changed?

So Bubba, your posts implies that a Republican would be a more preferable candidate to make this decision. So lets review: how did the Republicans do for 8 years in Afghanistan - 8 years!!!
Your post compares that to 8 months. Where is the sense of logic in this?

The Buck Passes Here . . .

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDg5NjEyOTczOWQ1MjNjMzdmOWVhYzQ1MTVlOTRkYzU=

So true . . .

Nine months after his departure, the former president insidiously still has his hand in almost everything that seems to plague Barack Obama’s utopian plans.
Posted by: The Real Bobbie Mobbie | October 6, 2009 12:00 PM

At last....the republicans finally take ownership of allowing 9/11 to happen on their watch. Also, that "imagined" recession that the republicans claimed was left by Clinton also goes away. Thank you for stepping up and doing what's right. I hope the American people won't remember your admitting you let us down on 9/11.

Bill r

Wow, nice leap. Hope you're wearing a parachute!!!

Bill r

Wow, nice leap. Hope you're wearing a parachute!!!

Posted by: The Real Bobbie Mobbie | October 6, 2009 1:56 PM

I don't see a leap. After 9 months in office, all problems rest with Obama and not Bush. Correct? Then after 9 months of Bush being in office, these were obviously not Clintons fault. Which by the way....was all we heard. So again...it is good to hear that you have stopped blaming Clinton for 9/11 and have taken ownership. Seems rather clear to me.

9/11 wasn't Clinton's fault any more than it was bush's fault but things might have been different if Clinton had just tossed Osama out of a plane when Sudan offered to hand him over to us.

As for community organizing, it might have some redeeming value if it didn't rely on taxpayer money but rather the generosity of those so willing to spend other people's money. But when the idiot in chief and the tool he picked to be a heartbeat away are the two biggest tightwads in the history of those offices there stated desire to help people rings hollow.

I love when feeble minded libs point to Bush's inexperience as a means to justify the current fools indecision and adolescent idealism. It is even better when the fool flip flops twice on his Afghanistan strategy before becoming completly confused about what the polls are telling him. This guy is too stupid to even understand what his generals are forced to recommend via press conference.

"The goal remains, as the president said last spring -- what we are -- I think rightfully -- doing is examining the strategies and tactics to achieve our goal.,'' Clinton said.

It is good to know that their goal is to examine the strategies to achieve their goal. That is just the kind of deep thinking that is such a refreshing change from the Bushisms of the past.

I love when feeble minded libs point to Bush's inexperience as a means to justify the current fools indecision and adolescent idealism.
Posted by: Hans | October 6, 2009 5:03 PM

If one had actually read the post of one of those feeble minded libs...one would have notice it was in reply to a post insisting on Obama's inexperience on military matters. My reply was that that dog don't hunt with the military brilliance of the past administration. Which argument was feeble?

"It's their Vietnam!"
"They made a huge mistake."
"This is the payback they deserved"

These would be the comments of the neo-cons and Reagan intelligence people regarding the defeat of the Russians at the hands of the Mujahadeen.

We have already forgotten this history lesson?

Clue to America;
Viet Minh = Viet Cong
Mujahadeen = Taliban

Sober up, America.
'You can't handle the truth.'
You don't have the round ones or the $$ to send a million man draft army to Afg. so forget about winning anything there.

You can't even pass laws to save yourselves from the insurance industry, or the Wall St. oligarchy, yet you think 'you' (sombody else) can't beat the Taliban?

Show me some proof.

We need to GTHOut of Afg.

* * * * *
Posted by: C.Morris | October 6, 2009 7:05 PM
.
I don’t like war, and I don’t think we should ever be in a war that is not essential to protect our national interests.
.
But, if one assumes, as correct, the Republican and Democrat premise that we have a good reason to fight in Afghanistan, I cannot agree with your analysis as to why we should turn tail and run.
.
In the first place, we are not the Soviet Union. We are not there to conquer Afghanistan as the Soviets were. Our battle is with Al Qaeda and the Taliban only - and not with an entire population resentful of a would-be conquering nation. This fact distinguishes our presence in Afghanistan from that of the Soviet Union’s or our operations in Vietnam. Resistance to the Soviets in Afghanistan, and the U.S. in Vietnam, was fueled by the local perception of being invaded and occupied. Given our friendly relations with the democratically elected government of Afghanistan - a government that happens to share our goals in the region - I don’t see how the Soviet’s experience or our experience in Vietnam has any analogy.
.
In the second place, your claim of inability based on the analogy of impotence of our government in domestic affairs is sorely misplaced. The federal government was designed to conduct military operations. The fact the feds are impotent in areas the federal government wasn’t designed to handle has no bearing on whether it could conduct a foreign war. Passing laws is not the same as conducting a war. The former requires a collegial effort, whereas the latter requires a dictatorship over military forces. They are hardly the same thing. If we take your argument to its logical conclusion, then we should simply surrender everywhere and in everything to the next greatest potentate to come along.
.
In the third place, most people who favor the war believe we had the Taliban and Al Qaeda on the ropes before we let up. The mistake was to get distracted in Iraq, so they say. So, now, contrary to what even people in YOUR PARTY are saying, you want to run like hell. Can you explain this discrepancy?

I beg to differ on the notion that the Federal Government was designed to conduct military operations. The founders designed the Federal Government to limit the power of the military of the United States to the greatest extent possible. They intended the state militias to conduct military operations, under federal guidence and control. Most all of the Founders were deathly afraid of a standing military in any form. Jefferson as president didn't even fee; comfortable with having a permanent Navy. He allowed it as a necessity, but demanded that most all of the ships be kept in ordinary (mothballs), at the Washington Navy Yard (where he could keep his eye on it) so that a permanent naval establishment couldn't make any mischief. While the Constitution give the Federal Government supreme power over the military, that is a far cry from claiming that the Federal Government was designed to conduct military operations.
Making claims that the original intent of the Federal government was primarily, or even secondarily, military is , in my opinion, a gross misreading of the founders intent. I'll let James Madison sum up for himself and his collegues:

"I repair to the post assigned me with no other discouragement than what springs from my own inadequacy to its high duties. If I do not sink under the weight of this deep conviction it is because I find some support in a consciousness of the purposes and a confidence in the principles which I bring with me into this arduous service.
To cherish peace and friendly intercourse with all nations having correspondent dispositions; to maintain sincere neutrality toward belligerent nations; to prefer in all cases amicable discussion and reasonable accommodation of differences to a decision of them by an appeal to arms; to exclude foreign intrigues and foreign partialities, so degrading to all countries and so baneful to free ones; to foster a spirit of independence too just to invade the rights of others, too proud to surrender our own, too liberal to indulge unworthy prejudices ourselves and too elevated not to look down upon them in others; to hold the union of the States as the basis of their peace and happiness; to support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States and to the people as equally incorporated with and essential to the success of the general system; to avoid the slightest interference with the right of conscience or the functions of religion, so wisely exempted from civil jurisdiction; to preserve in their full energy the other salutary provisions in behalf of private and personal rights, and of the freedom of the press; to observe economy in public expenditures; to liberate the public resources by an honorable discharge of the public debts; to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics — that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe; to promote by authorized means improvements friendly to agriculture, to manufactures, and to external as well as internal commerce; to favor in like manner the advancement of science and the diffusion of information as the best aliment to true liberty; to carry on the benevolent plans which have been so meritoriously applied to the conversion of our aboriginal neighbors from the degradation and wretchedness of savage life to a participation of the improvements of which the human mind and manners are susceptible in a civilized state — as far as sentiments and intentions such as these can aid the fulfillment of my duty, they will be a resource which can not fail me."

That doesn't sound like he's describing an institution design to conduct military operations to me.

* * * * *
Posted by: Publius | October 7, 2009 12:11 PM
.
1. You took my comment about the federal government being “designed” to conduct war entirely wrong. The federal government is designed to conduct war, the way it is also designed to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, coin and regulate money, provide for post offices and post roads, regulate immigration and naturalization, and all the other stuff mentioned in Article I, Section 8. I never said the federal government was designed EXCLUSIVELY to conduct war, or that war was even its major job. You will also notice that I mentioned the federal government’s war powers because it has some expertise and structure for this task, in contradistinction to the subject matter at which it failed, for which C. Morris made complaint.
.
2. You are also wrong in suggesting that the Constitution was designed or intended to have militias conduct military operations in preference, or to the exclusion of, the army, or that it was intended to “limit the power of the military of the United States to the greatest extent possible.” There is not, and never has been, a preference in the Constitution for the use of the militia over a standing army. The Constitution authorizes both without preference. That is why it explicitly grants Congress the power “[t]o raise and support Armies” AND “[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia . . .” (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 8, Cls. 12, 14 & 15) Notice also the Constitution only provides for calling forth the militia “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” (id., Cl. 14) - all of which call for the domestic use of the militia. It makes no mention of the use of a militia in any foreign excursion or war. In which case, the intended use of the militia is arguably much more limited than that of a standing army. Go back and read the Federalist Papers, Nos. 41 & 46. In them, Madison explains the whole thing adequately. As far as the 18th and 19th Century prejudice against standing armies goes, Madison observed that the maintenance of militias provides an adequate security against any possible threat from maintaining a standing army. (See Federalist No. 46.) In which case neither the prejudice against a standing army nor the preference for militias ever made their way into the Constitution as you suggest.

John W, James Madison disagrees with you. The quote I gave was from the time of his Presidency, so the Constitution in no way eliminated his fears of a standing military, which he conntinues to state years after the ratification.

Let me highlight the section, since you seem to have missed it:

"to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics — that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe;"

Years after the ratification of the Constitution Madison is still saying that liberties can NEVER be safe with a large standing army, even with the existance of a militia. The prefudice against a large standing army is clear in the founders writings, before, during and after the time of ratification, including the United States Constitution itself.

* * * * *
Posted by: Publius | October 7, 2009 3:54 PM
.
An idea that finds no expression in the words of the Constitution is not part of the Constitution. Please re-read Article I, Section 8, and particularly the portions I cited. You will find that the prejudice against standing armies that you ascribe to Madison is nowhere expressed in the words of the Constitution. There are no words of limitation which prohibit the size or deployment of an army that Congress may raise under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12. No single politician, not even the President, can change the structure of the government, or add to or subtract from the powers the federal government may legitimately exercise under constitutional authority.
.
And in the second place, I have ignored nothing. You, however, have yet to read The Federalist Nos. 41 or 46. In No. 41, Madison makes the case for the unlimited power to raise and support armies - pointing out that the federal government must have the unlimited power to defend the country because we can’t limit the resolve or exertions of a would-be invading nation. In No. 46, Madison makes the case that the existence of the militia - which will always be larger than any standing army - offers the best counterbalance against the dangers of a standing army. Madison stated specifically, and I quote:

“Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.”
.
Thus, he concluded, we can safely have both a militia and the largest standing army likely to be mustered.
.
You can find No. 41 here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed41.asp and
No. 46 here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp
.
In the third place, even the passage you quote from Madison doesn’t express universal hostility toward standing armies. He is only talking about “large” standing armies based our soil. I doubt seriously, in any event, that his prejudice, as expressed in the passing phrase you quote, supplies either the reason or authority to overthrow either the words of the Constitution or his deliberate expressions on the subject as indicated above.
.
Lastly, I would like you to look at Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution, which specifies that, “[n]o State shall, without the Consent of Congress, … engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” This clause severely restricts the states and their militias from engaging in war. That is further proof that the scheme of the Constitution gives primary war powers to Congress and the federal government.