tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post7051050406499841033..comments2024-03-28T14:52:13.218-05:00Comments on Stonekettle Station: A Short Analysis of the Obama Afghanistan SpeechJim Wrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-72915908446273819092009-12-04T17:34:00.889-06:002009-12-04T17:34:00.889-06:00Now, if we could just get him to do that with the ...<i>Now, if we could just get him to do that with the economy.</i><br /><br />Umm, didn't he decide that the core of the problem with the economy was a lack of health care?MWThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09446603415730525882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-44635342430293542002009-12-03T13:25:45.148-06:002009-12-03T13:25:45.148-06:00It is refreshing to know that instead of listening...It is refreshing to know that instead of listening to polls, 'common wisdom' (an oxymoron in politics), and party politicos, the CINC <i>took his time, listened to his subject matter experts,</i> and <i>made a CONSIDERED DECISION.</i><br /><br />Right or wrong... who knows?<br /><br />But it's the first time that this process has happened in the conflicts in Iraq, 'Stan, or the GWOT.<br /><br />Now, if we could just get him to do that with the economy.<br /><br />Wine GuyWine Guynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-80340081381593672452009-12-03T09:05:14.537-06:002009-12-03T09:05:14.537-06:00JTS, you are absolutely correct. Those weapons and...JTS, you are absolutely correct. Those weapons and more importantly, the ammunition, are coming from somewhere. The stuff is heavy, bulky, and difficult to transport in quantity. It's coming from somewhere - across the Pakistan/Afghan border. That frontier has to be closed. Based on the announced deployment dispersal for the surge, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what McCrystal's primary objective is. Cut them off and then bleed them to death.Jim Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-54439169343409786132009-12-03T06:13:09.653-06:002009-12-03T06:13:09.653-06:00Jim, I totally agree on the Soviet proxy in Vietna...Jim, I totally agree on the Soviet proxy in Vietnam being the key to why it's not a good example. The same goes for the Soviet experience in Afghanistan - they were fighting against US equipment and support.<br /><br />You also can't use the Brits as an example here because the level of technology was so different in that war. Airpower changes the battlefield dynamics and Britain never had the ability to get materials in and build infrastructure, nor did it have the advantage of a middle class in the cities sympathetic to modernity.<br /><br />What at lot of the 4GW warfare people forget is that to be more than a minor nuisance, 4GW actors have to have a 2GW nation's support. It's why I followed the Viktor Bout story so closely - the ammo has to come from somewhere, or else the guerilla campaign peters out and retreats in impotency to the mountains and forests as did the Baltic fighters in Latvia and Lithuania in the 50s.<br /><br />In this case, the arms are coming from Pakistan and a lot of the money's coming from drugs and from non-state actors in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East (I've not seen any reports of Iranian involvement, but I would not be surprised if they were involved, too, despite the Sunni / Shia split). Those pipelines are a lot easier to shut down than a superpower.John the Scientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03467337009577733553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-3133581351869234732009-12-02T23:25:55.891-06:002009-12-02T23:25:55.891-06:00Plenty of my left-wing friends have been screaming...Plenty of my left-wing friends have been screaming that Obama's betrayed them.<br /><br />Plenty of my right-wing friends have been doing the same thing. <br /><br />I'm sorry that we've lost the ability to listen to both sides of the story, to make our judgments based on all the facts, not just the ones we want, to actually weigh our decisions before we act.<br /><br />Unfortunately, too many (and also unfortunately, they seem to be on the right-wing side), assume that compromise and consideration is the same thing as dithering and weakness.Billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-38663706332288222352009-12-02T21:38:11.331-06:002009-12-02T21:38:11.331-06:00Jim,
Thanks for this post. I've come to rely...Jim,<br /><br />Thanks for this post. I've come to rely upon your your ability to eloquently express your opinion in matters such as these. <br /><br />I was unsurprised to find out that my far-left mother felt scandalized and betrayed upon hearing the speech. <br />She does that.Heathernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-21470866488043661842009-12-02T21:30:27.534-06:002009-12-02T21:30:27.534-06:00I think it was General Colin Powell who made the p...I think it was General Colin Powell who made the point on both Afghanistan and Iraq, when he described the 'Pottery Barn' doctrine, WE BROKE IT, now it is ours, and we have a responsibility to leave it in some kind of functioning condition. We owe that to the people of those countries, we have killed innocents and disrupted their lives and commerce, if we leave them in economic and political ruin and at the mercy of warlords and extremists, we will have no right to ever lecture another nation about how they conduct international relations.Stuartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-81251341474466796072009-12-02T20:35:17.109-06:002009-12-02T20:35:17.109-06:0025 years ago, Nick, the GOP was a different party....25 years ago, Nick, the GOP was a different party.Jim Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-77209070035364003592009-12-02T20:32:44.253-06:002009-12-02T20:32:44.253-06:00The difference between our involvement in the Grav...The difference between our involvement in the Graveyard of Empires and the previous countries' attempts is we aren't attempting to keep it as our own, subvert the economy, or create a puppet/vassal state. As long as we prove to the general population that we're in it for them, not for the government we have a good chance at success.Steve Buchheithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12999709767641212586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-12692659458899216042009-12-02T20:21:50.008-06:002009-12-02T20:21:50.008-06:00I like that he acknowledges and addresses all conc...I <i>like</i> that he acknowledges and addresses all concerns from all sides as if they're legit, whether they actually are or not. It says to the people he's leading "yes I heard you, yes I'm listening, yes I understand, your opinions and feelings matter to me too." Because he <i>is</i> leading the entire nation, including the parts in the lowest common denominator, and not just some subsets of it that he likes.MWThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09446603415730525882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-84145301037623101172009-12-02T17:49:10.817-06:002009-12-02T17:49:10.817-06:00Jim,
Liked your post very much. I don't alwa...Jim,<br /><br />Liked your post very much. I don't always agree with our President but, in this case, I think he's doing an outstanding job -- for all the reasons you noted.<br /><br />25 years ago, I would never have believed I would one day say those words about a Democratic President. Times have certainly changed ... or maybe I have.Nick from the O.C.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-61993739817652604732009-12-02T15:17:23.796-06:002009-12-02T15:17:23.796-06:00Tim, Information Warfare, a subset of Military Inf...Tim, Information Warfare, a subset of Military Information Operations. The abbreviations IO and IW are often used interchangably, this is incorrect, they mean different things.<br /><br />IO is the acquistion, assurance, dissemination, storage, analysis, utilization and manipulation of information. IW (and its many, many subcategories) is the use of Information as a <i>weapon</i> - and in many cases a weapon exactly the same in nature (stategically and tactically) as a conventional kinetic weapon. In proper context, IW is classified as a non-kinetic weapon. If properly employed, IW can kill or nullify the adversary in situations where no conventional weapon would work, or IW can be used to enhance the effectiveness of conventional tactics and weapons (I.e. a force multiplier). Its scope and limits can target a single human or system - or the entire world, and anything in between if you know how to use it. However, it requires that you know many, many things, from psychology to electronics to convential uses of force to history of conflict to the demographics of the target and so on. IW is built on a foundation of information, the more you have, and the more you have the ability to <i>understand</i> it, the more effective you are. <br /><br />It's what I used to do for a living.Jim Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-40571432144621065902009-12-02T14:22:45.256-06:002009-12-02T14:22:45.256-06:00Jim. IW?Jim. IW?TimBohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16128235274340905534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-6580922929430465332009-12-02T14:07:39.038-06:002009-12-02T14:07:39.038-06:00Timb111. Absolutely agreed. The plan Obama outline...Timb111. Absolutely agreed. The plan Obama outlined does give an end <i>condition</i>, not a date - and it's not in 18 months, that is only the place in the tunnel where we begin to see the light of day. And I have heard a number of Republicans say exactly that this morning and agree with the President. Agree. Actually agree in most part. The mere fact that prominent Republicans are agreeing with the President (even if they offer criticism of portions of his plan such as the timeline) is amazing. Consider the vehement opposition to anything Obama proposes in other areas such as healthcare - he has crossed the aisle successfully on this, where it matters. Anybody who thinks he is not a real leader is just being deliberately obtuse or is blinded by partisan and/or racial hatred. <br /><br />Frum's advice to always read Obama's words carefully, instead of just listening to them, before commenting is a damn good suggestion. As I said in the previous comment, the man is a master of communications, I see many layers within his words and many specific messages targeted to specific audiences. It's brilliant, in my not so humble IW opinion. And it's damned nice to finally have somebody in the White House with a brain.Jim Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-33250863443779648932009-12-02T13:54:40.185-06:002009-12-02T13:54:40.185-06:00Well, he actually didn't plan an end. He plann...Well, he actually didn't plan an end. He planned the beginning of the end. This from Republican <a href="http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/02/david-frum-republicans-owe-support-for-obama-surge.aspx" rel="nofollow">David Frum's column in the Globe and Mail</a>:<br /><i><br />In a blogpost last night, I criticized the president for setting a time limit. In the morning, I realized that I made the mistake against which I always warn others: Never listen to an Obama speech until after you have read it first. The man never quite says what you think you just heard. He did not say that the troops would come home after 18 months. He said:<br /><br /> After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.<br /><br />BEGIN to come home. They will COMPLETE their return home, presumably, either when the job is done – or the war is deemed futile. <br /></i><br />He goes on to explain why republicans should support Obama in this.TimBohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16128235274340905534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-6936354615000076082009-12-02T13:49:51.238-06:002009-12-02T13:49:51.238-06:00Eric, that's exactly what I meant by "res...Eric, that's exactly what I meant by "rest of the world" in my previous comment. <br /><br />Interestingly enough, the largest plus up and strongest reponse come from Poland who has been one of our strongest and most steadfast allies in this fight. I was with the Polish GROM at Kwor abd Alamaya and they are the most outstanding forces. And NATO has pledged an additional 5000 troops too in response to this speech AND in response to Obama's diplomacy during his recent overseas tour of Europe and Asia. All those dipshits who condemned him for bowing to foreign powers are utterly blind. You want an ally to send their sons and daughters into battle under our flag in order to help save the lives of OUR sons and daughters? You best ask with hat in hand. <br /><br />We need those people and it's about time Americans understood that. <br /><br />_________<br /><br />O, you're certainly entitled to your assessment and I suspect we will never agree on this. And that's OK since what we're discussing is the presentation and not the message, which as you noted we essentially agree on. <br /><br />Same with my FDR comparission. My background is in Information Warfare and I see parallels at the impact level. I said it reminded ME of of FDR's. It's OK with me if you don't agree. The analysis is subjective. <br /><br />As to the Vietnam issue, O, I think it was predictable that certain members of the President's own party would disagree vehemently with the surge and see it as pandering to the Right, if not selling out the liberals who elected him, and that they would bring up Vietnam as their case study. I've spent my entire life in the military and around the halls of power in DC and I can say with confidence that any time you bring up military action or the expanssion of same, the left counters with Vietnam. And indeed that is exactly the response from a number of democrats this morning. Obama certainly knew this would happen and moved to end the argument before it began. <br /><br />As an IW expert, I think this speech was a masterwork on many levels and that it is full of many shades and subtleties. After eight years of a leader whose speech was about as subtle as a brick to the face, I admire Obama's facility with communication.Jim Wrighthttp://www.stonekettle.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-76450074454976971402009-12-02T13:23:22.795-06:002009-12-02T13:23:22.795-06:00Eric,
POTUS did not have to respond, as you claime...Eric,<br />POTUS did not have to respond, as you claimed . He chose to respond. You think that was a good choice, I think that was a poor choice. We disagree, just as we do with how he pronounces certain words. I am fine with that.<br /><br />I agree with your assessment on the situation in Afghanistan, however I do not see the need for POTUS to justify his decision in the manor that he did. He had laid out his plan and his reasoning very well. In my opinion, he does not need to try to address every issue. By doing so I feel that he is taking the lowest common denominator approach.<br />As I stated, I like him and I like his basic plan. There were parts of his speech that, I felt were not needed, not productive and not what I would have expected from the person I voted for.<br /><br />Bill,<br />We were discussing the current POTUS' opportunities not the formers.<br />But since you brought it up I agree that 43 wasted an incredible opportunity after 9/11 to challenge and inspire the American people. It is the biggest disappointment I have of him and there are many. However I refuse to find fault in 43 to justify faults in 44. He has that opportunity now. I am afraid he is going to squander it just as his predecessor did.<br /><br />I agree that the solution is not simple and that POTUS, overall made good choices in his plan. My criticism is of the approach he took in his speech and his hesitance to be the leader he said he was.<br /><br />Jim,<br />I took your advice and read and listened to them both again, no change in my thoughts. I could just be more dense than those who see the comparison. I am OK with that.<br />My comment about the lowest common denominator was not referring to the people he was speaking to, but rather the manner in which he chose to speak to them.<br /><br />You stated: " He felt it important to proactively bring up Vietnam specifically to defang the extreme members of his own party." How do you know this?<br />I don't believe I ever said anything about "abandoning" the people of Afghanistan. I took Umbrage in the statement " we either build a secure and functioning Afghanistan". And I think I attributed it to the wrong person so I apologize.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00736870393915673051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-58201511526236705152009-12-02T13:06:07.873-06:002009-12-02T13:06:07.873-06:00Hm--something I hadn't considered until I read...Hm--something I hadn't considered until I read a <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/2009/12/02/eu_nato_afghanistan/index.html" rel="nofollow">(mildly critical) piece in <i>Salon</i></a>: there's another audience for the President's speech I hadn't properly considered--by stressing the global nature of the effort and focusing on global security combined with discernible goals, the President provided good rhetorical cover for our allies, including countries like Britain and France where the war in Afghanistan is even less popular than it is here. The speech not only speaks to the soldiers and the country, but it sends a good signal to supporters abroad.<br /><br />Nice. Seriously, that's pretty damn significant. It may or may not ultimately make a difference, but it sure as hell doesn't hurt.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18275812152895151542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-32251451021798998152009-12-02T11:51:56.750-06:002009-12-02T11:51:56.750-06:00O, listen to the speeches again - it is the messag...O, listen to the speeches again - it is the message, the tone, the strength and conviction of his belief in our ability to suceed and the rightness of our cause that I'm talking about. GWB's speeches addressed his party and base, Obama and FDR addressed the <i>the nation</i>.<br /><br /> That is what I mean by saying this speech reminded me of the other. <br /><br />Bush only ever addressed a venue where he knew support was assured, Ombama chose to address the entire world, including as you say the lowest common denominator - proving yet again that he considers himself the President of the United States and not just the leader of his party and supporters. <br />However, He felt it important to proactively bring up Vietnam specifically to defang the extreme members of his own party. <br /><br />As to a secure and functioning afghanistan, yes the Afghans must eventually build their own nation but they cannot do it if abandonned in the rubble of nearly 100 years of war and inavsion. How do you expect these people to build a stable functioningnation without education, without support, without funds, without infrastructure, without allies, without security? <br /><br /><br />Also, what Eric said. <br /><br /><br />Warner, the difference being, obviously, that Vietnam didn't attack us or serve as a base for our enemies. Additionally, as I'm sure you know, we weren't fighting the Vietcong in Vietnam, we were fighting the Soviets via proxy. Afghanistan is completely different. <br /><br />History never repeats itself - especially in war. <br /><br /><br />_______<br />I'm forced to post from my mobile device without spellchecking or fullscreen view. Garble may result.Jim Wrighthttp://www.stonekettle.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-54067706335962596082009-12-02T11:48:50.967-06:002009-12-02T11:48:50.967-06:00While you correct about his reminding us about our...<i>While you correct about his reminding us about our resolve after 9/11, he did not ask us, or challenge us to do something with that resolve. That was an opportunity lost and showed a lack of leadership.</i><br /><br />O, I think your criticism here is off by several years. It was Bush's responsibility, when he stood on the smoking rubble of the Twin Towers eight years ago, to challenge Americans to sacrifice for the coming road ahead. He did not and did not show the leadership we needed then. Instead, basically, we were told to go shopping or the terrorists would win. I, too, wish this speech had been given several years ago.<br /><br />I also agree with Warner that the problem of Afghanistan has defeated both the British Empire and the Soviet Union. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see us succeeding there either.<br /><br />Unfortunately, I think Obama was put in a hard place no matter what his decision. The right would have reviled him no matter what he said (and has done so today).Billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-13584155823270972272009-12-02T11:33:48.751-06:002009-12-02T11:33:48.751-06:00O, the reason he had to respond to the Vietnam com...O, the reason he had to respond to the Vietnam comparison is that it remains one of the strongest criticisms of our Afghanistan policy. And I say that as somebody who is sympathetic towards the argument the President was <i>rebutting</i>. I actually appreciate the President anticipating a response <i>I</i> might make, and setting forth a thoughtful, credible, accurate accounting of why I'd probably be wrong to make it.<br /><br />Although I supported the initial invasion of Afghanistan, I remain concerned that we're entangled with a region that has already kicked the asses of two preeminent world-powers-of-their-epochs, the British Empire in the 19th Century and the Soviet Union in the 20th. The President addressed those concerns, acknowledging difficulties but offering arguments that not only distinguish the present Vietnam, but the British and Soviet Afghan experiences. Even if he's wrong, and some form of history repeats itself, he at least went in with eyes and ears open and much evident thought, which is really all you could ask for.<br /><br />Indeed, I'd disagree with the assessment that the President appealed to the lowest common denominator. Yes, he offered the basic LCD justifications for our presence and sacrifice, and then gave a thoughtful response to intelligent criticisms from both the left and right, and displayed a familiarity with <i>reality</i> that's been missing for a long time.<br /><br />It was a pleasant reminder of why I voted for him, actually.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18275812152895151542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-59232577475797369052009-12-02T11:20:39.690-06:002009-12-02T11:20:39.690-06:00Hi there. I'm a regular reader of your blog, ...Hi there. I'm a regular reader of your blog, but seldom comment. I thought your piece here was very interesting and thought-provoking. <br /><br />Eric Michael Johnson posted a very thoughtful alternative point of view, and I thought you might find it interesting to read. <br /><br />http://scienceblogs.com/primatediaries/2009/12/hope_smashes_through_the_looki.phpAnida Adlerhttp://anidaadler.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-64962599916538470482009-12-02T10:57:06.112-06:002009-12-02T10:57:06.112-06:00...we either build a secure and functioning Afghan...<i>...we either build a secure and functioning Afghanistan - and Iraq - or my kid goes back over in ten years to fight the next generation of assholes. I'd prefer to avoid that if at all possible.</i><br /><br />Amen. I tried explaining this to someone the other day - they were fuming about why we don't just leave...<br /><br />copain - The amount of pain you're expected to have based on the fees you're about to pay for the pain you're already in.Karlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11854671368992589012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-3216394648269022382009-12-02T10:39:29.821-06:002009-12-02T10:39:29.821-06:00Jim
I hear what you are saying, but I was in dur...Jim <br /><br />I hear what you are saying, but I was in during Vietnam. I've 50,000 dead brothers and sisters from the logic of Alsop in 1966 of 'We Can Win in Vietnam'. <br /><br />Perhaps it can be done in Iraq but I think it would take an effort similar to the occupation of Germany or Japan in 1945.<br /><br />Afganistan nobody has ever managed to pacify, I think it could have been done in 2001, but I am really doubtful at this point in time.<br /><br />Don't misunderstand me, we should have gone in to Afganistan and I've no problems with expending the blood and treasure now to acomplish what should have been done then. I'm just not certain the blood bill of rebuilding that country is worth it.Warner (aka ntsc)https://www.blogger.com/profile/12924176333302007261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-5292600693554332252009-12-02T10:33:56.745-06:002009-12-02T10:33:56.745-06:00For the record let me state that I like POTUS and ...For the record let me state that I like POTUS and I voted for him. However that does not mean that I agree with all of his decisions. I do like the approach he is taking in this case, however I think he has an opportunity to be a stronger leader. I do not understand some of your analysis?<br />How his speech could have reminded you of FDR's " Infamy Speech" is beyond me. I read and listened to both, again after reading your assumption, I do not did not get it. POTUS went places in his speech that he did not need to go. It was highly political, the manner in which he brought in Iraq, I felt, was taking the low road and I would like a President that takes the high road, as he promised in his campaign. Why he felt the need to address pundits views on Viet Nam, was ridiculous. He was speaking to the lowest common denominator. He should have, once again, taken the high road. It did not seem Presidential.<br />While you correct about his reminding us about our resolve after 9/11, he did not ask us, or challenge us to do something with that resolve. That was an opportunity lost and showed a lack of leadership.<br />I also disagree with you about how he says Tallyban and Pokkastan. I like it.<br />Additionally you made a comment "we either build a secure and functioning Afghanistan.....". We cannot do that, the afghan people need to do that and it needs to be their vision not ours or it is bound to fail. We can assist in the process, but the burden is theirs. <br />For the most part I liked his speech, and agree with his direction. I do think it is important to be able to look at situations, such as this, objectively and not subjectively. I submit that your analysis was subjective.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00736870393915673051noreply@blogger.com