Depending the conditions on the ground

Who's naive to think the PotUS is going to elaborate discussions of military tactics to the world?

I propose that ‘blame-shifting’ be included as a legitimate sport in the next Olympic Games. It has been endlessly practiced for decades by the Arabs who have sought to excuse their own failed leaderships and blame Israel and the United States for any and all their problems. In addition, it has been routinely used by South American dictatorships to justify their corruption and brutality.

‘Blame-shifting’ did not become popular in U.S. politics until the Clinton-Gore Administration. Before that, it had generally been understood that “the buck stops here” (meaning, ‘at the President’s desk’), along with now such quaint and outdated notions like “politics stops at the water’s edge”.

Clinton was the first to introduce the sport to the political leagues. Every former president and every founding father was smeared in order to show that what Bubba did wasn’t so bad. Then, during the George W. Bush administration every human failing was dropped on the White House. To his credit, Bush seldom responded. In fact, I cannot remember a single time Bush bothered to deflect or counter a single criticism or accusation.

The Obama administration brought ‘blame-shifting’ back into vogue big time. Nothing is this president’s fault. Most domestic and foreign policy failings still remain the previous administration’s fault, while the balance can be blamed on America and its racist Constitution in general.

Maybe the Olympic committee, in its infinite wisdom can take a cue from the Nobel committee and award Barrack Hussein Obama the gold medal in ‘blame-shifting’ before the fact. It’s difficult to imagine anyone who has ever lived or is yet to be born being more adept at negotiating the intricacies of this particular exercise.

http://peterkoelliker.blogspot.com/

My take on the BO speech and more importantly his Afgan approach is a bit more charitable than Peter's and jim's.
First the GOOD-
Frankly, the exit target date is in this case a good tactic. I don't trust karzai and would expect him to suck the US tit as long as he could. I think this could actually give more leverage to the US than it gives advantage to the enemy. At worst, it is a sop to his lefty friends and can always be changed based on "conditions on the ground." It may in fact get the attention of portions of the afgan people suggesting they take their chance at normalcy or re-descend into taliban hell.
I also liked the bit about Marines being on the ground in 2-3 months.
Weakly, he declared AfPak essential to US national interests. Although he asserted this ( in passing) he didn't explain it in a way that compels the citizenry or other countries.

My guess is this "strategery" took so long because they were making behind the scene arrangements. Read the riot act to karzai, test the resolve and motivations of the pak's, plan to accelerate freeing up iraq-based assets.

The BAD--
30K is a piker's bid. He should have gone with the highest possible number or vowed to add as needed to make the surge work. This is the issue I demand from a man when sending our people into battle. Fight like there is no tomorrow.

The UGLY--
His presentation was more like a an old lady preparing for bridge night than WAR. He should have laid down an Obama doctrine--"Afganistan will be under control and those in the way will be destroyed permanently. Stakeholders will play along (NATA, Pakistan, karzai) or feel the full vengeance of the US. We are doing this because we must, it is in our core national interest and nothing will prevent complete victory. Outsiders scheming against us will be exposed and punished."
I'd prefer he spelled out exactly why this war is so important to the US. As it is, it can be written off as a purely political decision. "If AfPak falls to the Taliban, x y and z will occur and those will be to our great detriment. that cannot stand etc."

Looking back as in "blame shifting" is not very helpful (it may be for learning however) I'd agree. But I'm still without a good answer as to why Bush invaded Iraq. It just doesn't add up for me. Is it as simple as being fooled into believing Saddam had nuc's?? Or way it some grand geopolitical stoke that would subdue the mid east asylum? I don't buy the silliness theories: avenging, daddy, enriching halliburton, oil grubbing. I seems obviously a major miscalculation that does in fact deal BO a very tough hand. It distracted our attention from AQ et al, appropriated our military resources, alienated most of the world etc. The one's who benefited most are the Iranian thugs.

Finally, where were all these good looking military women when I was in the services? :)

At the risk of being a BO apologist (make me wretch), I think McC's reaction so far is what he gets paid to do and perhaps he knows it could work with that number. None of this is as it appears, only what they want you to see. Perhaps McC sandbagged the numbers to begin with (the services are pretty good at that). Perhaps BO asked for a sandbagged number so he could be seen to reduce it. Perhaps (dont' laugh) NATO countries have agreed sub rosa to provide more than they've said publicly.
McC may resign tomorrow or be in negotiations for his golden parachute today. There is no way for us to know. But I subscribe to the model that nothing is exactly as it appears to be in human systems. Discretion, secrecy, face saving, misdirection, and flat out lying are part of the humanity of it all. and this is magnified when power, national politics, big money, complex schemes come into play. And often people are neither as well-intended as they project nor mal-intended as we might project on them. Truth lies where we can't see it, esp in real time.

Today my glasses are rose colored. Maybe I'll feel differently as more comes to light.

Comments?

JimJ- I was going to say virtually the same... in most things we are just not aware.

Speculation abounds in what passes as news. When did this occur? When did news reporting morph into speculative journalism?

Obama Hussein Obama went into the 'enemy camp' last night and laid down the law. He basically said that he will be sending 30,000 of our finest into that hellhole, also known as Afghanistan - to do what? Unknown. And then, almost immediately, he’ll pull them out again. You can just imagine what happens next.

Then, after everything falls apart over there, after he’s been safely elected to the second of his interminable terms, he'll declare victory – not over the Taliban or Al Qaeda, but - over the American military, that last remaining rancid remnant of the previous Bush administrations, that will now find itself utterly disgraced and humiliated, proving the point that any demonstration of military might will never again work in Obama’s vision of the new world order that is happily promoted by leftists, progressives, warmers, vegetarians, eco-anarchists, lap-dancers, etc. the world over.

It’s the same predictable MO that was used to bring down our economy, health care, the automobile industry, etc. Break it, and sweep it out with the refuse. Thank you Mister President for giving us yet another piece of the puzzle to the enigma you have labeled so artfully “change” (you can believe in).

http://peterkoelliker.blogspot.com/

from B Raman at Chennai:

OBAMA'S AF-PAK POLICY --SEEDS OF FAILURE
B.RAMAN

President Barack Obama's Af-Pak policy ----Mark 2 as unveiled by him in his address to US military officer cadets at West Point on December 2,2009, has been marked by critical words for the Afghan Government and soft words for the rulers of Pakistan----- as if evils such as corruption, poor governance, narcotics production and lack of accountability are confined only to Afghanistan and one does not find these evils in Pakistan.

2. It is these evils long tolerated by successive US administrations that have landed Pakistan in the situation in which it finds itself today----- a breeding ground of extremism and sectarianism of every hue. The cancer of extermism and jihadi terrorism did not spread to Pakistan from Afghanistan. It spread from the madrasas of Pakistan to Afghanistan with the encouragement and often at the instance of Pakistan's military and intelligence establishments. The root of this cancer is in Pakistan and not in Afghanistan. The surgery has to start in Pakistan. This harsh reality has been played down in his address.

3. The Taliban, which nourished Al Qaeda and gave it shelter in Afghan territory, was born in Pakistani territory in 1994. Al Qaeda and the leadership of the Afgan Taliban escaped defeat by the US forces post-9/11 by taking shelter in Pakistani territory----- Al Qaeda in the North Waziristan area of the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the Neo Taliban headed by Mulla Mohammad Omar in the Quetta area of Balochistan.

4. From there, the surviving senior cadres of the two organisations moved to sanctuaries in the non-tribal areas. A recent report of the "Washington Times" has quoted retired US intelligence sources as saying that Mulla Omar and other leaders of the Neo Taliban have shifted to the Karachi area from the Quetta area to escape attacks by US drone (pilotless) planes in the tribal areas.

5. Many senior Al Qaeda leaders operated from the non-tribal areas of Pakistan----some even before 9/11. Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM) was reported to have orchestrated the 9/11 strikes in the US from Karachi from where he shifted to Quetta and then to Rawalpindi, where he was ultimately arrested. Abu Zubaidah was caught in Faislabad in Punjab and Ramzi Binalshib in Karachi. One should not be surprised if it ultimately turns out that Osama bin Laden and his No.2 Ayman al-Zawahiri have also been sheltered in the non-tribal areas and that is why the US has not been able to get at them so far despite offers of huge rewards and the Drone strikes.

6. The command and control of both the Neo Taliban and Al Qaeda are now located in Pakistani territory. Obama said in his address at West Point: "Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future. ...... We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear."

7. Strong words regarding the safehavens for terrorists in Pakistan. As in the past, strong words do not presage strong action to force Pakistan to destroy those safehavens.The Pakistani military operations in the Swat Valley and South Waziristan are meant to counter a threat to Pakistan's internal security from indigenous elements. They are not directed against the external activities of Al Qaeda. Nor are they directed towards facilitating the military operations of the NATO forces and the Afghan National Army in Afghan territory. The safehavens of organisations, which are seen as an asset and not as a threat to Pakistan, are being shifted from place to place to escape detection and action by the US.

8. If Obama is serious about wanting to start withdrawing from Afghanistan in dignity and honour by the middle of 2011, he has only two options. Either force the Pakistani rulers to act against the safehavens whether they are located in tribal or non-tribal areas or act against them with available US capabilities. The Obama Administration like its predecessor lacks the political will to do so.

9. Seeking partnership with a state perpetrator of terrorism is not the way of ending it. That is what Obama has done in his address. That is why his revised Af-Pak policy is unlikely to meet the objectives which he has set for the US and other NATO countries. Obama's West Point address contains the seeds of its pre-destined failure. (2-12-09)

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )

I'll cast my lot with the PotUS, Gates, Petraeus, McChrystal, and our brave men and women in country.

What's the alternative? No one offers anything realistic... just criticism. Why is there so much push back to moving forward?

I heard some expert say that the President was too lawyer like in his West Point address.

Well, thanks for the info! I'm so enlightened.

Peter goes beyond criticizing... just read the words. It is what it is. You can call it whatever you want and you can believe that he somehow "knows" these things. To me... it's BS

Tom wrote "I get it"

No, you don't.

Isn't Pakistan the present iteration of Viet Nams neighbor Laos? And to push this a little farther isn't Iran the present iteration of China?

More of the same---> not a treatise... just repeating something someone else has said that just so happens to find a home in the psyche which reinforces and justifies a particular bent.

Peter- we can easily find this stuff anywhere and everywhere. Still doesn't indicate that it has relevance.

Spot

Afghanistan, Has anyone successfully held it?

Armies since Alexander the Great have moved through the legendary Khyber pass, most kep going to India or north.

Black ops and snipers may be more effective than holding mountaintops for the sake of holding ground.

My 24-year-old son came over to the house begging for me to loan him a couple of hundred today. I said no and meant it. Finally turned off my phone. He has to learn to stand on his own, or fall on his own. Toughest thing in the world for me to feel like he might hate me for it, but it's more important that he grow up and be a man than it is that he like me or not.

In case there breathes a soul with brain so dead that they don't see the relevancy to this rather humdrum didactic devise I've manufactured here, it's that Obama wants so badly to be liked that he's going to make us all pay for it. And in the end even Karzai realizes it won't do any good.

Spencer, do you really think we can ever get rid of the Taliban?

I liked what that Colonel Uplander said because at least he realizes that the key is to get the locals to do their own dirty work. Teach a man to fish.....

Sure, and I might get voted the Sexiest Man of 2009!

We are positioned in the region... that's all.

An attack on one is an attack on the Alliance.

Maybe we are framing the central strategic question in the wrong way. The public debate over Afghanistan policy seems to boil down sooner or later to a Hobson's choice between abandoning Afghanistan to the Taliban, either now or eighteen months from now, because it is a hopelessly failed state or, alternatively, to take on some commitment -- years-long or months-long -- to build Afghanistan into a viable nation, thus to defeat the Taliban and other assorted Islamist terrorists. But is that really the only strategic choice possible? Suppose we frame the central question in another way -- how can we best secure America's national interests in a world permanently littered with failed or about-to-fail states? Clearly, in such a world we cannot afford either to disengage from our terrorist enemies or transform so many failed or failing states into viable ones. Therefore, our aim should be to develop a strategy that allows the USA to both define its national security interests and secure them against a permanent global background of multiple failed and failing states that can be neither ignored nor reformed.

Well said, Mr. TfNJ. Is there a search going on somewhere asking what the big, long term picture is likely to be in this "war on terror"? Is there an explicit choice somewhere in the system that we will fight these messy wars moving from one failed nation to the next. and could that ever end?
Batchelor's analysis is that the house of saud is directly and indirectly creating the taliban mess. apparently Pak had a lot to do with them getting started. The iranians create their own stream of mischief. this cold go on a long time.

I remind myself however that iraq remains for me a war of unproven necessity. apparently just a case of mistaken identity. if so, that's huge in history. a diverting, weakening, draining, impoverishing while the real enemies regrouped elsewhere. whack-a-mole strategery.

I believe most people are encumbered with some preconceived ideas that stifles and subordinates creative thought.

For instance, I have been criticized for supposedly not using my real name when I place comments. To my knowledge, I am the only one who has ever been taken to task on this. Virtually no one questions whether or not Peter K is a real person or whether the name might be just a front for a disinformation group working to create and foster anti- Obama and (yes, in turn) anti- American sentiment. Anyone following this space knows what I'm saying is true.

It's easily seen that some will immediately rush to the defense of the PeterK group when it is confronted by me while letting the fantastic accusations of PeterK Grup stand unabashed. If I say ours is a great nation and/ or that this President could very well become a great President I am lambasted. If PeterK Grup says America is doomed to a downfall and/ or that this President is a traitor, it warrants silence from all of you.

I don't possess the understanding to assimilate this... other than what is obvious to me.

That being said, we are not condemned by history. We make history our own, but, we have to be real. So stand up against the falsehoods and don't let them just sit there without being confronted for what they are.

And the reality is that this enemy brought the fight to US, and in doing so, have condemned themselves to be (to use Peter's words which he has used to describe America) "swept under the rug."

Stop what? The truth?

Nope, sorry.

I agree with Kenneth. Quite apart from the subject matter of the debate (and almost none of the primary contributors of this blog are in substantial agreement on important matters), the level of the debate tends to get dragged down with your sniping and dissimilation. None of us is perfect in this regard, I get into swiping and namecalling as do we all. Only one person walks this blog who has never sniped, and His initials are JB. Woops, I meant his initials, sorry. But you, Spencer, seem to absolutely thrive on being pissy and trying to make other people pissy. If it were up to me I'd 86 you from the blog, not because of your unusual take on things (I welcome the diversity), but because you just seem to have some need to pick fights with people.

Look what up? Do you think he's a traitor?

I have never said that I thought he was. So what's the beef with me? Peter called the PotUS a traitor... ask him.

You don't have to kill all of them, just enough for it to be a bad idea to be one as to reduce membership by consequence.

I never aid resign...If you aren't capable of making that possible or willing to do what needs to be done to make that happen, then go home. Obvious Bush and Obama couldn't or wouldn't. For all his megalomania, FDR had the balls. Truman did too, but no one since has. Ronnie never had to face this.

I think that's what he means... resign or be annihilated

Thanks. And you're a good Democrat.

I base that on how it feels to try and debate things with you. I believe it was Bob Seeger who said, "Lately I just judge the distance, not the words I hear."

Fantastic blog, You make good points in a concise and pertinent fashion, I will read more of your blogs, thank you for your time.