War Versus Healthcare

[ArtK78]

The President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. If he doesn't trust his General's opinion of what is needed to succeed, perhaps he should turn over his other duties to his VP, and go take command in the field. Oh, wait, Obama has zero experience or expertise in that area. :)

I think you have it backward. If the President does not trust his General's opinion, then he needs a new General.

 

By the way, exactly what experience did our last President have in this area?

[vuroth]

The President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. If he doesn't trust his General's opinion of what is needed to succeed, perhaps he should turn over his other duties to his VP, and go take command in the field. Oh, wait, Obama has zero experience or expertise in that area.  :)

I think you have it backward. If the President does not trust his General's opinion, then he needs a new General.

 

By the way, exactly what experience did our last President have in this area?

One was an officer in the military, one wasn't?

 

Then again, one was a lawyer, and one wasn't, so you can't have everything.

 

In general, neither of these are a big deal, nor is the issue of experience, really.

[hrothgar]

The President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. If he doesn't trust his General's opinion of what is needed to succeed, perhaps he should turn over his other duties to his VP, and go take command in the field. Oh, wait, Obama has zero experience or expertise in that area. :)

There have been any number of military leaders who have assumed the office of President

 

Washington

Eisenhower

Jackson

Grant

Taylor

Tyler

Harrison

...

 

I'm having trouble remembering many examples of president's with any real military background taking any kind of active role in military matters.

 

Let's ignore your asinine hypothetical about leading troops in the field. I'm having enormous difficulty coming up with examples of Presidents who had significant miltary experience who launched major wars:

 

Kennedy's service in WWII is (obviously) well known; however, I do think anyone who claim that he had any significant leadership experience.

 

Bush I is an obvious war hero, however, here once again I don't really think of him as a military leader in the same way that one thinks of Eisenhower or Grant.

 

Can anyone come up with anything better than Jackson and the Indian Wars?

[jdonn]

The President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. If he doesn't trust his General's opinion of what is needed to succeed, perhaps he should turn over his other duties to his VP, and go take command in the field.

Call me crazy, but I don't follow the logic.

[kenberg]

In 1952 I think that Eisenhower's experience in WWII led voters to hope he could help bring the Korean Wat to an end. "I will go to korea" was part of his campaign. He did. From a slate article on an analogy suggested by Bush, suggesting his successor would continue his policies as Eisenhower continued truma's:

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2174605/

 

 

"First, Eisenhower did not continue the most unpopular aspect of Truman's foreign policy—the war in Korea, then in its third year, grinding in stalemate, with 50,000 American troops dead. During the 1952 campaign, Eisenhower pledged, "I will go to Korea," and he did just that, on a secret trip in late November, soon after the election. By the end of July 1953, an armistice was signed; the fighting stopped.

 

"How much Ike had to do with the end of the war is still a matter of historical dispute. There were several factors: Josef Stalin's death in March 1953 (the Soviets were always reluctant in their backing of China's support for North Korea's adventure, and the transition in the Kremlin may have turned this to opposition); the undisguised stationing of U.S. nuclear-armed bombers in Okinawa (which may have been taken as a warning); and the settlement of a POW exchange as part of armistice talks that had been going on for over a year.

 

 

 

Obviously a president will not be leading the charge up Porkchop Hill and of course a non-military president could have made a secret trip to Korea. So I would not at all claim that military experience is essential or even all that desirable for a president.

 

Back to Obama. As I mentioned a few posts back, Obama must decide if the war is all worth it. That decision is beyond McChrystal's job description. But I hope he will be very cautious about telling McChrystal "You just think you need 40,000 more, I have figured out how you can do it with 20,000." He wouldn't put it that way of course, but he needs to think whether he wants to put it at all.

 

We shall all see what he decides. There is a lot at stake, the success of his presidency being only one of many things.

[mike777]

The Pentagon's main job is to make plans, thousands upon thousands of plans for all sorts of things.

 

It does concern me that roughly 7-8 years in the Pentagon offered the President a reported 4 options and the President sent them back to the drawing board, rejecting them all.

 

This cannot install confidence in our soldiers and marines in the field of battle with their leadership.

 

There have been numerous reports, I think 60 minutes was the latest, that in talking with those grunts in the field their number one objective was to stay alive and go home, not win or stabilize the govt or get rid of the Taliban.

 

I rather they send my relatives and friends home until they decide just what they want to accomplish over there.

[Winstonm]

The President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. If he doesn't trust his General's opinion of what is needed to succeed, perhaps he should turn over his other duties to his VP, and go take command in the field.

I think it's even more basic that that. The first question is exactly what it means "to succeed" in Afghanistan. And how, exactly, can one tell when that success has been achieved.

Bingo! We have a winner.

 

The so-called goal of this occupation is a non-starter, a non-accomplish-able dream that only serves to perpetuate endless low-grade conflict.

[Winstonm]

Btw, this is what McChrystal said during his confirmation hearing:

 

..Central to counterinsurgency is protecting the people. Efforts to convince Afghans to confer legitimacy on their government are only relevant if Afghans are free to choose. They must be shielded from coercion while their elected government secures their trust through effective government and economic development at all levels.

 

Thus, we have a non-starter from the get-go. Afghanistan has never had and never will have a legitimate government or a legitimate democracy. To believe that goal accomplish-able is a Neocon wet dream to justify endless aggression.

 

 

Although I expect stiff fighting ahead, the measure of effectiveness will not be enemy killed. It will be the number of Afghans shielded from violence.

 

Substitute "South Vietnamese" for "Afghans" and you have the basis for this idiotic counterinsurgency campaign idea.

 

Now, give me a million men to seal the borders from China and North Vietnam....

[jdonn]

Winston you make it seem so easy. If only it was all as obvious to Obama as it is to you, he could have made this decision a whole lot more quickly.

[mike777]

If the President thinks the war is a necessary war and a war we need to win and die for he needs to tell our young 18-19 year old Soldiers, Marines and their families. If he has a plan, great, but lets not wait 16 weeks and counting and let our young family members twist in the wind. If he thinks after 7-8 years the Pentagon does not know what it is doing, great, send the troops home.

 

 

If he needs more time, great, send them all home and wait.

[Winstonm]

Winston you make it seem so easy. If only it was all as obvious to Obama as it is to you, he could have made this decision a whole lot more quickly.

“It really boils down to one of two decisions, getting out or getting in.”

 

--President Lyndon Johnson, speaking about Vietnam.

[jdonn]

Winston you make it seem so easy. If only it was all as obvious to Obama as it is to you, he could have made this decision a whole lot more quickly.

“It really boils down to one of two decisions, getting out or getting in.”

 

--President Lyndon Johnson, speaking about Vietnam.

Great, please show our president that shortcut you seem to have mastered for choosing between those two decisions.

[Lobowolf]

Winston you make it seem so easy. If only it was all as obvious to Obama as it is to you, he could have made this decision a whole lot more quickly.

“It really boils down to one of two decisions, getting out or getting in.”

 

--President Lyndon Johnson, speaking about Vietnam.

Great, please show our president that shortcut you seem to have mastered for choosing between those two decisions.

Josh, you're being very lazy. Various easily accessible blogs explain the whole thing.

 

There are also blogs on the other side of the issue, but they're ignorant or biased.

[Winstonm]

“It really boils down to one of two decisions, getting out or getting in.”

 

There are also blogs on the other side of the issue, but they're ignorant or biased.

 

What exactly IS the other side of in or out?

 

(You are correct, though, that proven failures at military strategy like Douglas Feith, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Bill Kristol are ignored.)

[kenberg]

Just to clarify: Winston, you advocate shutting down our military operation in Afghanistan completely, is that right? You have been very clear in your opposition to further commitment, but I am not certain whether you advocate complete withdrawal of all of our troops from Afghanistan. If you do advocate this withdrawal, what do you see as our future military role, if any, in the region? You basically see us as withdrawing as a military force in the region?

 

To my mind, full commitment to Afghanistan is a very big deal. I wish it had been thought through much more deeply before now. It's a mess, no doubt about it. I also think full withdrawal from the region will be a very big deal, and probably not completely good. Maybe on balance it will be best, that is not clear to me. It's very difficult for me to imagine a middle course. I really don't know what it would be.

 

So in or out probably really is what it comes to. And you are for out, totally out, is that right?

[blackshoe]

People are no more "failures of military strategy" than they are "successes of military strategy". Now, if you changed "of" to "at" you might have something.

 

As for those particular individuals being failures at military strategy, that wouldn't surprise me. OTOH, the claim that any of them had anything to do with military strategy seems a bit over the top, to say the least. Political strategy, maybe, but that's (to me anyway) a different animal.

[Winstonm]

We have wasted enough of our national wealth and blood of our youth chasing pipe dreams - it is time to try another strategy: non-intervention.

[Winstonm]

People are no more "failures of military strategy" than they are "successes of military strategy". Now, if you changed "of" to "at" you might have something.

 

As for those particular individuals being failures at military strategy, that wouldn't surprise me. OTOH, the claim that any of them had anything to do with military strategy seems a bit over the top, to say the least. Political strategy, maybe, but that's (to me anyway) a different animal.

Good point about of and at - and changed.

 

As for military versus political - how can they be truly separated when it comes to strategy.

[blackshoe]

Political strategy: we need to get Saddam out of power in Iraq.

Military strategy: so we'll go in with overwhelming force, destroy the Iraqi Army, drive to Bagdad, and capture or kill Saddam.

 

It's true that the former drives the latter, but they are not the same thing.

[blackshoe]

That we should not involve ourselves in wars all over the planet unless it's absolutely necessary is probably one of the few things on which you and I can agree, Winston. Still, I do wonder if it'll work. There is still "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

[PassedOut]

That we should not involve ourselves in wars all over the planet unless it's absolutely necessary is probably one of the few things on which you and I can agree, Winston. Still, I do wonder if it'll work. There is still "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

I agree with you both too.

 

As it happens, though, the US has already intervened militarily in both Iraq and Afghanistan, so non-intervention is no longer an option. Pulling out now is not the same thing at all. Perhaps US politicians will finally learn a lesson out of this, but then I thought they would have learned from Vietnam.

[Winstonm]

That we should not involve ourselves in wars all over the planet unless it's absolutely necessary is probably one of the few things on which you and I can agree, Winston. Still, I do wonder if it'll work. There is still "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

I never advocated "doing nothing" - just to be clear. I only advocate a policy of non-intervention.

[Winstonm]

Political strategy: we need to get Saddam out of power in Iraq.

Military strategy: so we'll go in with overwhelming force, destroy the Iraqi Army, drive to Bagdad, and capture or kill Saddam.

 

I don't mean to argue the case with you as you have the stronger background. My understanding of the terms comes from Andrew Bacevich.

 

But I understood that: "we need to have a regime change in Iraq" would be considered a part of the strategy, whereas "going in with overwhelming force, destroying the Iraq Army, driving to Bagdad, and capturing or killing Saddam" would be considered the tactical plan to implement the strategy.

 

This was actually the argument that Bacevich made in his book, The Limits of Power, that the Pentagon has erred by confusing tactical achievements with strategic goals.

 

Also, what to do after the win (occupation, nation building) has to be part of the strategy does it not. as well as the political considerations involving the surrounding countries afterwards?

[kenberg]

That we should not involve ourselves in wars all over the planet unless it's absolutely necessary is probably one of the few things on which you and I can agree, Winston. Still, I do wonder if it'll work. There is still "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

I never advocated "doing nothing" - just to be clear. I only advocate a policy of non-intervention.

But do you advocate withdrawing all US troops from Afghanistan?

[Winstonm]

That we should not involve ourselves in wars all over the planet unless it's absolutely necessary is probably one of the few things on which you and I can agree, Winston. Still, I do wonder if it'll work. There is still "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

I never advocated "doing nothing" - just to be clear. I only advocate a policy of non-intervention.

But do you advocate withdrawing all US troops from Afghanistan?

yes.