As Pace Struggles, CTA Claims "No Major Delays" After Doomsday Day One
CTA Doomsday Schedule: Day 2
Calumet Fisheries Wins James Beard Award
How To: Roast a Chicken (If You're an Idiot)
30 Percent Chance Of Hailey
With his handling of the War in Afghanistan coming under scrutiny, President Obama made a surprise trip this morning to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to meet the caskets of the 18 soldiers killed in action over the last week; October 2009 has been the deadliest month for U.S. troops thus far in the eight-year war; as of Tuesday, the death toll was 55. Upon arrival, around 3 a.m., Obama met with the families of the soldiers in the base's chapel and then observed the transfer of caskets. Reporters and photographers were given permission to view the transfer of the casket of Sgt. Dale Griffin (of Terre Haute, Indiana) by Griffin's family. Obama returned to the White House shortly before 5 a.m.
The Obama administration has come under increasing criticism from those such as former Vice-President Dick Cheney for "dithering" on a decision of a potential troop increase in Afghanistan. The administration has been considering a variety of strategies, including a scaled-down version of a plan suggested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the Afghanistan lead commander. Obama has responded to the criticism by defending the timetable and urging patience, saying earlier this week in an address to troops in Jacksonville, Florida, “And while I will never hesitate to use force to protect the American people or our vital interests, I also promise you this — and this is very important as we consider our next steps in Afghanistan. I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm’s way.”
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I am amazed that people still take national security advice from Dick Cheney, one of the dumbest strategic thinkers this country has produced since, perhaps, George Meade or, at least, Douglas MacArthur (one of the worst US generals ever, despite his positive PR and occasional luck) or maybe Bobby Lee. And I say this as someone who is probably more hawkish than most on this site and certainly in the Dem Party.
We're going to hold the top 10 population centers, or something like that, and continue our drone attacks, especially in western Pakistan. For all the people who think Obama is hopelessly soft, you should look up how many drone attacks he has authorized in Pakistan and how his pace compares to that of Bush. The New Yorker recently did a good article about this (and the issue of war-by-robots in general, a reality that is much, much closer than most Americans probably realize). So have other media.
I might not agree with Obama on everything he does in foreign policy, but isn't it nice to have a leader who thinks before he shoots?
As despicable as the Confederate cause was during the Civil War, I don't see how you can say Robert E. Lee was one of the worst strategic generals. The South almost won that war despite having no navy and consistently having almost half as many troops as the Union.
Antietam and Gettysburg were big blunders on his part, but lets not forget CSA routs like Chancelorsville and Fredericksburg where they were severely out-manned and out-gunned.
Ulysses S. Grant on the other hand was way overrated as a general.
I apologize, as this will get off track, but my reasons are: 1) two invasions of the North that failed (these were main parts of his strategy, so I cannot discount them); and 2) failure to use his interior defense lines to his full advantage early in the war.
I think his success is at least as much due to the idiocy of early Northern generals than Bobby Lee's great military skills.
His troops sure loved him, though, so he had that, and it was not a small thing, not at all.
Grant was dumber than Sherman, and not the (military) genius that Nathan Bedford Forrrest was, but at least Grant understood the nature of the war--that is, attrition would overwhelm the South. But yeah, Grant was no genius; he just knew how to stand and fight and then move forward, which was a pretty deal in Virginia in spring 1864.
We're definitely getting off track but there's always a time and place for Civil War debates!
I agree w/ your Lee rationale though calling him one of the worst strategist's ever is kind of harsh in my opinion. Hindsight makes the rebel invasions of the North look foolish but at the time I think they were getting anxious to end the war since they knew the blockade was going to soon starve them out of existence. They wanted to strike the north while they still had the momentum and strength. That being said, I think if the South would've committed to defensive warfare they probably would have won.
Your statements regarding Grant are spot on. I've always thought Phil Sheridan was underrated. Love his statue at Belmont/Sheridan/LSD.
I missed the mention of Lee the first time I read matilda's comment, and I have to agree with you, sqo. Everything I've ever read about Lee has put him among the best generals in American history. My understanding is that he accomplished a tremendous amount with very limited manpower and resources, and commanded the respect of his troops. (Not to mention the fact that Southerners still worship the man ... but that's another issue entirely.)
I've come to expect, matilda, that when you drop some historical reference like that you're speaking from actual knowledge, so you have me wondering now if my understanding of Lee is wrong.
Never mind ... you answered while I was typing.
You both make great points, and up until, say, 5 years ago, I would have agreed 100%. Then I studied the war in a deeper fashion. I do realize I am in the minority, and most combat experts likely would disagree.
Yeah, Sheridan was great, too.
While the drones are cool indeed and can help keep our boys out of harm's way, the NYer article lays out some frightening issues. The fact that someone in the Pentagon, at a desktop, can blow up a suspected terrorist leader along with anyone in proximity (always seem to be women and children) is more than a little troubling. There doesn't seem to be a reliable process in place for confirmation of identity prior to pushing the button. Its too easy and the risk of sad collateral damage is now far greater. This is "smart" technology only in the development sense, not in implementation. Hearts and minds splattered all over the countryside.
Hey Cheney.. your feeble efforts will not help wash the blood from your hands, you p.o.s. "Dithering"? He offers up that the Bush team evaluated the Afghanistan situation in fall 2008! Another good job there. Further evidence that Obama and co. need to go it alone. No input and advice needed from the right. Whether the economy, the wars, health care... go it alone. If Cheney at all represents the right on war and peace, they are nothing more than a collective waste of time.
Fuck Cheney.
"Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government then what are you going to put in its place? [...] It's a quagmire, if you go that far and try to take over Iraq."
Dick Cheney, April 1994
Here's the thing. We could "win" in Afghanistan or Iraq quite easily.
Just take the leash off.
Stop worrying about civilian casualties so much or "winning hearts and minds" or doing it "cost effectively". We have the most awe-inspiring and terrifying military in the history of the human race. We could flatten the mountains of Afghanistan into sand and prayers. We defeated Hussein's army in Iraq in three weeks.
But as in Vietnam, we hold back. With good reason of course, because fire-bombing Dresden and starving the people of Stalingrad is how you lose your soul as a nation.
But Cheney, who is perhaps the only politician I fee comfortable calling soulless, does not have these worries. He fears that his "legacy" is being tainted.
A legacy of water-boarding , forced interrogations, secret rendition, Gitmo, Bagram, Lyndsey England, 5000+ dead service men and women, 3000 dead civilians on 9/11 and a President who took 900 vacation days.
Dithering. Right.
Add to his legacy... in addition to the tens--if not hundreds--of thousands of dead Iraqis and other brown people, the permanently wounded soldiers and civilians.
Not to mention the millions of world citizens sickened by his very existence.
No, we couldn't, even if we took the leash off. In Afghanistan, for instance, geography works against us--too many ridges and valleys, for instance, and that's just for starters. The lack of an industrial base, ironically, also works against us.
That's not to say we can't achieve certain goals there. But "victory" is impossible, at least in a traditional way.
Iraq maybe another story, but who knows?