There is no Steak
...only sizzle (or is that fizzle?).
Being a response to Steak Vs Sizzle
Chris Gerrib opines:
So, Barack Obama goes to Afghanistan, hangs out with the troops, and sez "we need more troops here." Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has been saying this for weeks. He's also said "ain't got any to send, 'cause they're in Iraq."
Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics, and Afghanistan is at the logistic ass end of nowhere: no ports, no rail. All ingress and egress via air or over roads. More combat troops would indeed be much appreciated in Afghanistan. Finding a way to keep them supplied is the limiting factor.
Nor would we gain much by removing forces from Iraq until the issue there is well and truly settled. Playing whack-a-mole at the operational level is contraindicated.
Then Obama goes to Iraq, hangs out with the troops, and talks to Maliki, the duly-elected leader of a sovereign Iraq. Maliki sez "yeah, 2010, sounds about right for a pull-out of US troops." Prior to Obama's visit, Bush agrees to a "time horizon" for a pullout. In short, the Iraqis want us to leave, the American people want us to leave, The Surge (tm) worked* and things are not going per plan in Afghanistan.
Reports of firm timelines were rather exaggerated. Or is someone here under the impression that war is subject to the strictures of the calendar?
Since we managed to defeat the insurgency in about 80% of the time it took to do so in the Philippines, I'd suggest that 80% of the post insurgency presence would be a reasonable target.
So what are the morning talkers on the TV talking about? Whether Obama disrespected the troops by not visiting our hospital in Germany. This is entirely because the McCain campaign dare not have a discussion on the substance of the trip. McCain dare not have this discussion because his position, of using Iraq as a base for further operations in the Middle East, is both unpopular and unnecessary.
Ah, no. It's because the Obama Campaign can't discuss those issues without having to deal with Obama's prediction that the surge would fail, his opposition to it, and his attempt to legislate against the surge. McCain has stated publicly and frequently that we will likely have a presence in Iraq (granted no longer one engaged in active combat) decades hence. Attempts to turn that to the Democrat's advantage have so far flopped.
As regards the wounded troops in Germany, that was a simple choice. Obama could have visited the troops with his Senatorial Staff and military photographers, or he could take his campaign staff and his MSM entourage to other locales for publicity purposes. That he chose the latter says a lot about his priorities, doesn't it?
The unpopular part is obvious. Unnecessary because we have other bases in the region, to include Kuwait and the Emirates, and if Iran gets sufficiently frisky to actually need dealing with, well, suddenly we'll have more bases.
Kuwait and the Emirates lack land borders with Iran and Syria.
How much more frisky must Iran get before 30 years of unceasing war by proxy are rewarded by war in the first person?
Suddenly? How long did the build up for Operation Iraqi Freedom take?
But that's substance, and would require asking McCain's talkers questions they don't want to answer, so we can't have that discussion. So, the Straight Talk Express, home of Real Men of Substance, talks about bullshit and vapors.
Funny, the empty platitudes and "hope as a plan" aren't emanating from the McCain camp.
Thanks for letting me get that off my chest. ETA: I'm not interested in a discussion of the correctness of Obama's policies. My point is that we're not even discussing his policies.
How does one discuss empty platitudes?
* As I recall, the whole point of The Surge (tm) was to get Iraq stabilized so we could get the hell out.
You recall incorrectly. The purpose of the Surge was to suppress the insurgents such that the Iraqi Government had the breathing room to start making political progress. The surge thus greatly exceeded expectations.
Obama, not so much.
Being a response to Steak Vs Sizzle
Chris Gerrib opines:
So, Barack Obama goes to Afghanistan, hangs out with the troops, and sez "we need more troops here." Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has been saying this for weeks. He's also said "ain't got any to send, 'cause they're in Iraq."
Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics, and Afghanistan is at the logistic ass end of nowhere: no ports, no rail. All ingress and egress via air or over roads. More combat troops would indeed be much appreciated in Afghanistan. Finding a way to keep them supplied is the limiting factor.
Nor would we gain much by removing forces from Iraq until the issue there is well and truly settled. Playing whack-a-mole at the operational level is contraindicated.
Then Obama goes to Iraq, hangs out with the troops, and talks to Maliki, the duly-elected leader of a sovereign Iraq. Maliki sez "yeah, 2010, sounds about right for a pull-out of US troops." Prior to Obama's visit, Bush agrees to a "time horizon" for a pullout. In short, the Iraqis want us to leave, the American people want us to leave, The Surge (tm) worked* and things are not going per plan in Afghanistan.
Reports of firm timelines were rather exaggerated. Or is someone here under the impression that war is subject to the strictures of the calendar?
Since we managed to defeat the insurgency in about 80% of the time it took to do so in the Philippines, I'd suggest that 80% of the post insurgency presence would be a reasonable target.
So what are the morning talkers on the TV talking about? Whether Obama disrespected the troops by not visiting our hospital in Germany. This is entirely because the McCain campaign dare not have a discussion on the substance of the trip. McCain dare not have this discussion because his position, of using Iraq as a base for further operations in the Middle East, is both unpopular and unnecessary.
Ah, no. It's because the Obama Campaign can't discuss those issues without having to deal with Obama's prediction that the surge would fail, his opposition to it, and his attempt to legislate against the surge. McCain has stated publicly and frequently that we will likely have a presence in Iraq (granted no longer one engaged in active combat) decades hence. Attempts to turn that to the Democrat's advantage have so far flopped.
As regards the wounded troops in Germany, that was a simple choice. Obama could have visited the troops with his Senatorial Staff and military photographers, or he could take his campaign staff and his MSM entourage to other locales for publicity purposes. That he chose the latter says a lot about his priorities, doesn't it?
The unpopular part is obvious. Unnecessary because we have other bases in the region, to include Kuwait and the Emirates, and if Iran gets sufficiently frisky to actually need dealing with, well, suddenly we'll have more bases.
Kuwait and the Emirates lack land borders with Iran and Syria.
How much more frisky must Iran get before 30 years of unceasing war by proxy are rewarded by war in the first person?
Suddenly? How long did the build up for Operation Iraqi Freedom take?
But that's substance, and would require asking McCain's talkers questions they don't want to answer, so we can't have that discussion. So, the Straight Talk Express, home of Real Men of Substance, talks about bullshit and vapors.
Funny, the empty platitudes and "hope as a plan" aren't emanating from the McCain camp.
Thanks for letting me get that off my chest. ETA: I'm not interested in a discussion of the correctness of Obama's policies. My point is that we're not even discussing his policies.
How does one discuss empty platitudes?
* As I recall, the whole point of The Surge (tm) was to get Iraq stabilized so we could get the hell out.
You recall incorrectly. The purpose of the Surge was to suppress the insurgents such that the Iraqi Government had the breathing room to start making political progress. The surge thus greatly exceeded expectations.
Obama, not so much.