The real concern about the wikileaks has nothing to do with sources or soldier safety, but eroding public support:
The disclosure of a six-year archive of classified military documents increased pressure on President Obama to defend his military strategy as Congress prepares to deliberate financing of the Afghanistan war.
The disclosures, with their detailed account of a war faring even more poorly than two administrations had portrayed, landed at a crucial moment. Because of difficulties on the ground and mounting casualties in the war, the debate over the American presence in Afghanistan has begun earlier than expected. Inside the administration, more officials are privately questioning the policy.
In Congress, House leaders were rushing to hold a vote on a critical war-financing bill as early as Tuesday, fearing that the disclosures could stoke Democratic opposition to the measure. A Senate panel is also set to hold a hearing on Tuesday on Mr. Obama’s choice to head the military’s Central Command, Gen. James N. Mattis, who would oversee military operations in Afghanistan.
Administration officials acknowledged that the documents, released on the Internet by an organization called WikiLeaks, will make it harder for Mr. Obama as he tries to hang on to public and Congressional support until the end of the year, when he has scheduled a review of the war effort.
“We don’t know how to react,” one frustrated administration official said on Monday. “This obviously puts Congress and the public in a bad mood.”
One person emailed me that what wikileaks really does is demolish COIN, and that is the reason Exum is so exercised.
Dork
Uh, what? Aren’t we supposed to be outtie in 12 months? Didn’t Obama already debate this and decide July 2011 was drawdown? Did I miss something?
brendancalling
I wish i had something snarky to add to this, but i don’t.
But man, what an ugly, if totally predictable, set of facts. “there might not be support for another friedman unit!”
El Cid
Re
How dare you? COIN isn’t about what happens on the ground — it’s about faith. When you feel yourself in doubt, just keep reminding yourself that it is a new strategy, and, like the SURGE, will fix the problems that plague us.
Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac
@Dork: 2011 is a Potential start of the beginning of the drawdown based on the “facts on the ground”. The question is, if the documents released and the analysis of them is correct, then the enemy is stronger than ever. Then, if this is true, why are we leaving in a year, and why have we been there for so long?
schrodinger's cat
If what we are currently doing is not working, how should we deal with Pakistan? If we leave Afghanistan, what stops Pakistan from aiding Taliban openly like it did pre 9-11. Also the political situation in Pakistan is far more unstable now, than it was pre 9-11.
Violet
I bet those Afghanis who are bombed by accident are in a bad mood too. But nevermind them. It’s all about Congress’s and the American public’s fee-fees.
brendancalling
@Dork:
technically yes, but we’re already being set up for another “just wait 6 more months”.
her’es Joe Biden:
Here’s Diane feinstein, who i believe makes money on our wars:
And as 2011 draws closer, prepare to see that drawdown plan officially scrapped in favor of two friedman units 9at least). Anyone who thinks the troops are coming home in 2011 needs to buy more weed to fuel that pipe dream.
wilfred
Pat Lang et al. have been against COIN from the start. The issue is that the Administration and its generals frame COIN as an inevitable success if only it is given enough time, money, resources, committment, etc.
What’s necessary is a debate on the actual merits of COIN and whether it will work. I actually supported this, btw; hearing good faith arguments against it convinced me otherwise.
We need an open debate about this. Wikileaks made it possible.
LarsThorwald
I think what is interesting is the reaction from the Obama Administration. The lead reporter on this from the Guardian was on NPR yesterday or the day before, and he said that he was surprised that when this came out, he wanted a comment from the White House and the White House was very reasonable in its response and actually provided additional information to provide context. The White House is clearly not happy about this because it complicates a really complicated situation even more, but they have not responded with the kind of harshness and anger that obne might expect. Certainly that one might expect from the previous Administration.
A part of me wonders whether the White House wouldn’t mind seeing real public pressure — not polling, polling isn’t pressure — to get out of Afghanistan.
Ted the Slacker
If I may quote Michael Hastings:
Even those closest to McChrystal know that the rising anti-war sentiment at home doesn’t begin to reflect how deeply fucked up things are in Afghanistan. “If Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular,” a senior adviser to McChrystal says.”
“The Runaway General” was about so much more than just McChrystal’s firing.
LarsThorwald
To follow up on my post above, the really strong negative reaction to this story came from — surprise surprise — the mainstream media, which is in an apoplectic fit that Wikileaks even exists.
I would love to have been a fly on the Washington Post’s editorial board wall the day this hit other papers. Because I bet those assholes at the Post are genuinely befuddled as to why they didn’t get this and the Guardian and the Times did.
Punchy
OT:
Cue another John Cole/BJ rant-fest
General Stuck
Concern for eroding war support? I thought Obama announced an end to the ground war there. I wonder what support he is afraid of losing. Congress is not going to cut off funding now, with an end date to focus on. They may well if Obama starts waffling on that plan to de escalate starting next year, but he won’t very much because it is common knowledge the public has turned against this war and wants it to stop. If Obama flip flops more than a month or two on his end date, he will suffer in his re election campaign in a big way from democrats and independents, and even some gop’ers.
Face
Somewhere in Russia, there’s a shitload of mid-50/early-60 aged ex-soliders who are proudly wagging their “I told you so, dumbasses” finger at this leaked report.
El Cid
If anyone missed it, the most recent episode of Leverage (full episodes available on the show’s website) by librul traitor blogger John Rogers takes on the anti-IRS paranoid ‘patriot’ militias.
Jon H
“One person emailed me that what wikileaks really does is demolish COIN”
When did COIN start in Afghanistan?
The Wikileaks material only covers until the end of 09.
El Cid
@Face: This is not a fair comparison because they were them and we are us.
RSR
Kind of frightening to think that the admin might have asked, and who knows what the NYT might have done:
http://twitter.com/GlennThrush/status/19590243895
Gibbs said he might have asked the Times to spike story if they were the only outlet to get war logs — instead of wiki dump.
(via @DavidCornDC)
peach flavored shampoo
I agree. However, also as likely to happen: me winning the lottery, DougJ admitting his Sully addiction, and the Raiders winning the Super Bowl.
RSR
I’m sure there’s more to COIN than this, but really, what Atrios says (paraphrase, as I don’t have linky in front): Once we kill all the people who want us to leave, then we can go home.
What are we doing there again?
RSR
also, too: You leak the documents you have, not the documents you might want or wish to have at a later time.
El Tiburon
Governments keep secrets not to protect the citizens, but to protect themselves.
For those not familiar with US vs. Reynolds, take a few minutes to listen to this podcast. It describes in a nutshell how we got where we are today.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/383/Origin-Story
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Reynolds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Secrets_Privilege
mclaren
The most deadly enemy the U.S. military faces is the American public. Once the public catches wise to what’s going on, the military-industrial complex’s gravy train stops.
Mnemosyne
Good. I still think Obama made the wrong decision in doubling down in Afghanistan (though it wasn’t some kind of out-of-the-blue betrayal that he did so like some people love to howl) so anything that gets us out faster is a good thing, IMO.
wilfred
@peach flavored shampoo:
Maybe. But we’re a lot closer to that debate than we were a few days ago. One result of this has been for a lot of people to say: “Hey, what’s going on over there?”.
That’s always dangerous.
El Cid
@El Tiburon: It used to be a joke about the US classifying weapons transfers in Central America, because curious reporters could just go ask the locals and they’d tell you where the ‘secret’ airbases were with Americans in mirrored sunglasses getting off the planes and unloading weapons, etc.
Scamp Dog
@Jon H: I don’t have links, but I think this is the 3rd or 4th time we’ve started doing COIN.
I do think that actual COIN, done from the start, could have worked. But when you spend 8 years blowing up civilians, and occasionally pretending to do COIN, it’s hard to see how you can make it work after generating all that bad blood between the locals and occupiers.
Mnemosyne
@brendancalling:
You probably should have followed the link to the actual USA Today story because (surprise surprise) the Daily Beast cropped the quote to make it sound worse:
arguingwithsignposts
I’m nominating Jules Winnfield.
Maude
@RSR: #20
The German Nazis didn’t want us in Europe. That is not a good argument. That is a simple world view that all is okay if you just do a, b, and c.
We do need to know the agenda of the leaker. There is one and it may not be pure of heart.
@General Stuck: There’s the plan to get out in 2011. Had a lot of Repub pushback.
The White House didn’t fly off the handle at the release of the docs. The Guardian reporter said that the response form the Administration was level headed. He repeated it again because he expected a firestorm.
I hear someone say on the radio that the Bush Administration would have reacted the same way as Obama has done.
Is He Kidding?
Chad N Freude
@brendancalling: I would so love to vote against Feinstein, but her opponent is always a California Republican (i.e., worse than Feinstein could ever be).
Poopyman
@LarsThorwald:
Well, the administration keeps pushing the old “You’ve convinced me. Now go out and make me do it” FDR meme. This is what it looks like writ large. It will be interesting to see how the WH continues to react. The military, OTOH, is looking for the nearest head to lop off.
I agree that, from what I’ve read on these docs, there’s not going to be much if any blowback on our guys on the ground. But it sure is a PR disaster.
Chad N Freude
@wilfred:
The first time as tragedy, the second time as
farcetragedy also.Poopyman
@El Cid:
Yeah, but that was back in the Golden Age, when reporters were curious.
Chad N Freude
@mclaren: Wars become entrenched businesses, essential to the economy.
A Guest
Once the public catches wise to what’s going on, the military-industrial complex’s gravy train stops.
Hehe. Naive.
Chad N Freude
@Scamp Dog:
Why? Alien soldiers enter your locality and start acting like the warlord’s minions that you’re familiar with, fighting one segment of the local power structure, Capone-era gang warfare style. Oh, yeah, they do bribe you to come to their side, I guess that’s a good strategy.
Chad N Freude
@Mnemosyne: Not to defend the indefensible Daily Beast, but “could be more” isn’t exactly an encouraging number.
peach flavored shampoo
Until NFL training camps open, when everything else is suddenly forgotten.
Pangloss
@peach flavored shampoo: When does the new season of “American Idol” start?
Pangloss
I was moderately in favor of a troop escalation in Afghanistan in 2008 and 2009, just to go in and try to right some of the errors made from the last several years before getting out. But apparently, the situation is nearly intractable thanks to safe havens in Pakistan, corruption, and our messy military footprint. So I’ve come over to the side that wants out, the sooner the better. And yes, I know that if anything goes badly afterwards the GOP will use an exit as a political bludgeon against Democrats for decades. So be it.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@LarsThorwald:
I’ve been wondering that too. So much of what is going on now re: AfPak is going to play out not this year or next year, but over the next decade in terms of some very high stakes domestic politics. Obama has to deal with not only the war today, but the dolchstosslegende that will haunt his 2nd term and/or the fortunes of his successors, if he mishandles our withdrawl.
Folks forget that the drawdown on US troops and eventual withdrawl from Vietnam was very popular when it was happening in the mid 1970s, but within another 5 years (i.e. by the 1980 election) it became a toxic issue for the Dems – one which arguably helped to produce the last 30 years of Reaganism and the associated destruction of the US middle class. The manner in which we get out of Afghanistan may loom large over the next 30 years of domestic politics in a similar fashion.
NobodySpecial
Here’s an idea. Pull out post haste. Remove all soldiers who served there during the pullout from the military. You’ve saved a bunch of money and downsized government by thousands of bodies. What could Republicans say that people don’t already dismiss?
(For the slow: This is SNARKA!)
Dr. Obvious
@LarsThorwald:
Maybe if the US mainstream media did their f-ing JOBS we wouldn’t need an outfit like Wikileaks to do it FOR THEM.
Just sayin’
Chad N Freude
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ: You’re right, but there is no manner of getting out that won’t result in the bludgeoning of the Democrats in the future.
mclaren
Sadly, I fear you folks are being hopelessly naive when you parrot the White House line about U.S. forces leaving Afghanistan in 2011.
I’ve been through this before with Vietnam. America was always leaving, always drawing down our forces, always about to withdraw troops…except we never actually did. Not until 1973, when so many millions of people took to the streets that the entire goddamn country would’ve burned to the ground Kissinger and Nixon had tried to stay in.
“Robert Gates Contradicts Biden on July 2011.”
“U.S. Officials Back Away From July 2011 Withdrawal Date.”
It’s the old teaser. Yes-we’re-leaving-oh-wait-no-we’re-not. They’ll keep this up for year after year, and most of you will fall for it. “This time they’re serious about leaving,” you’ll exclaim. “This time they’ve finally learned it’s futile.”
No, Obama and company have learned nothing. They’re not serious about leaving. If Obama and his ignorant advisors had a ghost of a clue about the real situation in Afghanistan, they’d never have been blockheaded enough to campaign on expanding that war. The only question at this point, in fact, with Petraeus in charge of Afghanistan, is how big the next surge will be. Obama will escalate, not draw down forces. Petraeus will force him to escalate by leaking more damning reports about how badly Afghanistan is going and then leaking a grand new plan to save the situation — with just a few thousand more troops, just a few hundred billion more dollars, just another six months. And then another six months, and another, and another…
I am willing to make a bet. America will not be out of Afghanistan by July 2011, we will not be out of Aghanistan by July 2012, we will not be out of Afghanistan by July 2014.
We will not have withdrawn any significant military presence from Iraq either — not by 2012, and not by 2014. Obama may play accounting games and draw down some regular troops in Iraq, only to add many more military contractors who do exactly the same jobs. But our total military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq will not decline by 2014.
In fact, by the end of Obama’s second term in 2016 (if indeed he gets one), I predict America will still be mounting surges and still be passing supplemental bills to fund both the wars in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq.
The only real question is whether we’ll also be fighting in Iran. We’re hearing renewed calls for attacks on Iran now, and the drumbeat for war grows ever louder as we approach the November elections.
El Tiburon
@Chad N Freude:
I disagree. Sure, the right-wing and many components of the MSM will excoriate Obama, et al. But I think the Democrats and Obama would benefit politically.
Another group who would benefit would be the soldiers who would not die needlessly. And their families. And friends.
Also. The Afghan people.
But hey, let’s not take a chance on the Democrats losing power for doing the right thing.
Chad N Freude
@El Tiburon: I think you mistook my meaning. I would like to see us out yesterday. I do believe that no matter how it’s done, there will be backlash at some time in the future.
daveNYC
Great, so on foreign policy it’ll be:
1) Republicans start war.
2) Totally fuck it up, but manage to feed piles of cash to supporters.
3) Democrats get elected, see how bad war is going, cut losses and get out.
4) Republicans run on platform of Democrats stabbing brave soldiers in the back.
and on domestic policy we’ll have:
1) Republicans tell public they can have cake and eat it too.
2) Cut taxes, raise spending, feed cash to supporters.
3) Democrats get elected as everything goes to hell. Attempt to rebuild economy and cut deficit.
4) Republicans run on platform of Democrats forcing people to eat vegetables, promise to let public have cake and eat it too.
We’re boned.
El Tiburon
@mclaren:
We never leave. We still have bases all over the world. We are never leaving Iraq. Afghanistan. Japan. And so on.
http://www.alternet.org/story/47998
Zifnab
@El Tiburon: Don’t forget the budget. What are we on right now? $1.4 trillion between Iraq and Afghanistan?
“We don’t have the money” has become the functional mantra of the conservative movement. They use that bullshit even when legislation saves money. And people believe it because – let’s face it – the deficit is sky high right now.
But if we pull out of our two front Asian land war, we can free up a great deal of money for domestic recovery. And lest anyone forget the noble wisdom of the late, great Bill Clinton – it’s the economy, stupid.
Chad N Freude
From today’s NYTimes online:
60th Street
You know weed’s gone mainstream when the DFHs are telling people to put down the bong.
What is that called, anyway? Reverse hippie-punching? It reminds me of Reverse11-D Chess™…the game where the Obama administration is always multi-tasking behind the scenes to find new ways to break promises and screw Progressives…much more plausible than 11-D Chess.
I’m old enough to remember when Biden was the lone sane skeptic who should have resigned in protest of the Afghan surge…I guess he should have listened to Arianna, because now he’s just another bloodthirsty pod person…umm..okay
Yes we need to get out and we need to stick to that timeline.
AFIAK, Maddow’s reporting from Afghanistan pounded home that very message and her interview with General Hodges reinforced it. If anything, the Wikileaks dump will help.
Chad N Freude
@daveNYC: An excellent short course in American Political Science.
PurpleGirl
I’m in a bad mood today. I just want our troops out of there and Iraq, I want them to stop wasting my tax money on these wars and high tech weapons systems and wars to show the weapons off. I want the government and industry to instead decide that they owe the people a working economic system and jobs. Either that or get ready to pay us income support for the rest of our lives if we can’t have jobs. I’m sick of both parties and their games. All their games. And I’m not thinking of 2nd Amendment remedies, I’m thinking guillotines./end of rant.
Cain
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
I got the feeling that we mistreated our soldiers who came back. Like they were losers. Plus there was a lot of PTSD left untreated. God what a mess. We are still suffering from Vietnam IMHO. Curse the fools that got us into that meat grinder.
cain
El Tiburon
@Chad N Freude:
Well, there is backlash when the sun comes up, when the wind blows, then when the sun sets.
It is time to stop worrying about the backlash, because its threat will never go away.
There is NO doubt that there is no reason for US troops to be in Afghanistan. They need to be removed immediately. On this there is no debate left to be had.
Allison W.
loss of congression support? yes
loss of public support? I think – no. they are not paying attention. last poll showed 43% support for the war and that’s too high in my book. We’ll see what happens though.
El Tiburon
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
Is this right? In all of the history of that election I’ve read (admittedly not that much) I just don’t remember this component. Do you have a link?
Zifnab
@El Tiburon: Having a base or two is one thing. Having a full blown military operation is entirely another.
Having a military base in Germany or Japan really isn’t the worst thing in the world for the United States, so long as it isn’t staffed by 10,000 marines undergoing daily mortar attacks. But military bases in Germany and Japan aren’t costing us $10 billion / month.
And even then, the real cost of war isn’t the military itself. It’s the massive network of contractors and outsourcers that regularly overcharge and underperform in our service. The privatization of the military does far more damage to budget, to mission, and to public image than simple existence of bases.
Bob L
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ: Well, the Dems already the cut and run reputation from Vietnam so that won’t hurt them. But the equivalencies with Vietnam are false; Vietnam was a Democrat war lost by Democrat waffling. Afghan is a Republican war they lost by neglecting it for some idiotic social experimenting in Iraq. Also Obama has made it clear the war ends on his watch.
Sure Wingnut raidio will have it’s hissy but the 800lb guerrilla in the room is Afghanistan simply isn’t conquerable; the British, Persians, Indians, Russians have all tried it.
Pretty much the viable solutions is, we hate the Taliban for 911. Give anyone who wants to make the Taliban’s life hell a pile of money and leave.
Chad N Freude
@El Tiburon: Dude, I’m agreeing with you. Who’s “worrying” about backlash? It’s going to happen and should not be The Determinator.
Cain
Mesopotania? What the fuck? Is it like an Elks club chapter? What is wrong with just Iraq instead of some old name from ancient times? Hell maybe instead of Turkey we should say Asia Minor, what?
cain
El Tiburon
@Zifnab:
Or at least to make those Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent.
Zifnab
@Allison W.: 43% isn’t exactly stellar. And that’s for what? The Afghanistan War? The “Good” War? If a politician has a 43% approval rating, people line up to challenge him for office.
People are paying attention. The wikileaks is putting Afghanistan back in the headlines again, right before mid term elections. And they’re making support for the war increasingly toxic.
Bhall35
As good as Saletan at Slate was about Breitbart the other day, he squanders all that good will with this:
http://www.slate.com/id/2261861/
Shorter Saletan: 9/11, 9/11, 9/11!!!1!
Poopyman
Well, at least the Pentagon finds national security is not endangered by WikiLeaks docs, so that will hopefully tamp down some of the blowback, but that Manning dude is in some deep shit.
Zifnab
@El Tiburon: I’d be curious to see pushing permanent tax cuts. That might be enough to force Obama to whip out his veto pen.
Obama has been very budget conscious, and the conservatives have done a lot to highlight the issue. Punching a trillion dollar hole in the next ten-year budget is not going to win a lot of hearts and minds. And it gives Democrats a great platform to run against.
Chad N Freude
@Cain: I think that’s what this group calls itself. There seem to be several Al-Qaedas.
El Tiburon
@Chad N Freude:
I’m not fussing with you, did not mean for it to sound that way.
I think Obama is staying for political reasons: he fears the inevitable backlash. He needs to have a “coming to LBJ” moment.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@El Tiburon:
That what I worry about, but reasonable minds may differ.
If we could GTFO now and I knew the US public would make it stick, and wouldn’t instead choose to escalate it into something much worse from the POV of the Afghan population, then I’d be for GTFO right the hell now. Sadly, our experience in Vietnam suggests that things won’t work out that way. Remember that Nixon’s strategy (which they called Vietnamization) of substituting bombing for ground troops was initially very popular with the US public.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that our withdrawl will be a carbon copy of the Soviet withdrawl – i.e. the tanks roll out, some paratrooper takes a last bow on the Friendship Bridge, and then the Afghans get to have their low-tech civil war away from the spotlight. The Soviets didn’t have the USAF to loan out to their former clients, for the purpose of bombing flat any part of the country which wasn’t playing nice. We need to make sure that the sort of people who would do that don’t get their way.
When it comes to the US public, war is always popular as long as our grunts aren’t the ones getting killed.
John Bird
Great. Erode away.
El Tiburon
@Zifnab:
Making the tax cuts permanent is dead in the water. What I’m afraid of, though, is what Obama will negotiate away to get those three Republican votes, such as slashing social security.
Brachiator
Partly true. It is also about trying to shape public debate by those who think that the only solution is for the US and its allies to pull all forces from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately, who believe that releasing these documents will lead to a single, “obvious” conclusion.
I think that they are wrong. Still, I am glad that this information has been released (though much of it has been available or at least reported on before), because in the end, there should be a public debate. It shouldn’t just be kicked to Congress and to the president with a “we don’t want to know the details” shrug, or the simple minded “I’m the Deciderer” crap that we got from Bush.
@mclaren:
How long have people been saying this? Since Smedley Butler? Since Ike warned about the military industrial complex?
@Chad N Freude:
Wars become entrenched businesses, essential to the economy.
Funny. Although I didn’t see any coverage in the US, a recent BBC radio story reported on the international arms fair. Lots of happy customers. And there is this Reuter’s news story:
The arms market is good business, and many want a piece of the pie.
BR
I had hoped a long time ago when Obama went all-in on Afghanistan that it was part of an effort to get OBL. Because I figured if they caught him then Obama would have a great excuse to leave and the GOP couldn’t really attack him about it.
Now it’s been a year or so and still no such capture.
geg6
This. There is really no other explanation needed for why everyone in the Village is so exercised over this. None at all.
NobodySpecial
@BR: If they couldn’t capture a 6’5″ dialysis patient in the mountains of AfPak, it’s because he ain’t there. He’ll be moving comfortably between hidey-holes in various Pakistani cities until he dies of old age.
Chad N Freude
@Brachiator: It’s not just the arms market. Wars cause a ramping up of arms production for US use, resulting in increased employment, new support businesses, increased demand for some services, etc. The resultant economic dependencies make it difficult to wind anything down (think lobbyists + anticipation of more unemployment). If there were a name for this, it might be Military-Industrial Complex. Oh, wait …
Keith G
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ: @El Tiburon:
and others
Part of the lessons learned is about branding.
People believe that pills will melt fat away and people will believe the Dems are soft on….well, everything, if it is repeated with conviction often enough.
In the past, Republicans tended to hang together and chant the same message until it became as implanted in the American psyche as a fast food jingle.
Besides being a bit more discordant, Democrats tend to believe in the correctness of their ideals so much that they tend not to feel the need to sell them to the hinterland.
Soft on communism/security was just a hugely brilliant anti-branding campaign that the Democrats enabled.
El Tiburon
@Brachiator:
Great points. Bonus points for a Smedley Butler reference.
Ike tried to warn us about the “military-industrial complex.” If I remember correctly, the original phrase was going to be the “congressional-military-industrial complex”.
Let’s say we get out of Afghanistan, then it will be a short detour to Pakistan or Iran.
This military-industrial complex is now a part of our national DNA. We will not be slashing our military budget; we will not be shutting down any of our almost 800 bases world-wide; we will not stop invading and bombing other countries. Too many powerful people depend on that money.
Allison W.
@Zifnab:
Don’t be naive. Sure, it’s putting Afghanistan back in the headline, but the only people paying attention are political junkies, war activists, etc. The average American, the people who you want to see this info, are. not. paying. attention. And how exactly is this going to affect mid-term elections? GOP wants to double down even more in Afghanistan – do you think they are going to run on getting out? Economy and jobs, jobs and the economy – that is all the people care about.
the article mentioned public support for the war and in my post I mention the last poll showing public support for the war. And people line up to challenge a politician with 43% approval rating? – depends on the politician, hon.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@El Tiburon:
I’d have to do some digging to come up with links. IIRC the history of the post-Vietnam dolchstosslegende was hashed over a time or two on ObiWings in the last couple of years and I think Gary Farber in particular may have posted some links to documentation and analysis of that era.
Right now I’m going on oral history – I lived thru that era. I was politically aware at an early age starting with the 1972 election and 1980 was the first one I was old enough to vote in. I remember George Will and others using that argument in the lead up to the 1980 election. In the era before cable TV the printed press punditry had a strong following because the newsweeklies were still widely read and in fact were coasting on their reputation coming off of the Watergate scandal. The right wing pundits were to my recollection using a combination of the Democratic Congress having cut off funding to South Vietnam before the final collapse and the more recent Iranian hostage crisis to pound home the idea that the Dems were weak, irresolute, and could not be trusted to defend the country – a concern that was heightened by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan – and that if once was a coincidence, then twice was a trend.
They continued with that theme in the subsequent elections, but it really started in 1980. The elections in 1976 and 1978 were too soon – people still remembered being sick of the war and just wanting it to stop. But by 1980 that feeling had cooled off.
For the US public, a bad war is like a toothache. They just want the pain to go away. But once it is over, it is quickly forgotten.
El Tiburon
@BR:
Do you honestly think Obama wants to capture OBL? Or that Bush did?
What a PR nightmare. Do you hold him in Gitmo or Bagram and take a chance on making a major martyr out of him? Do you bring him stateside and have a major freak-out of epic proportions?
Do you run a kangaroo-court (a la Hussein) and have him hung in a barn?
Nobody wants to actually capture OBL. They want him to die trying to sex up a young goat or something.
Chad N Freude
@El Tiburon:
Like I said, and it’s not just the powerful people. Jane Harman really works hard to keep her district’s defense support jobs.
BR
@El Tiburon:
Nah, that’s easy. They can just say he was killed during a firefight resisting his capture. (He’s the one guy I’d be okay with them doing that to.)
Chad N Freude
@Allison W.: The average American will pay attention if some of the material is about a missing blonde girl.
Cassidy
COIN works. Unfortunately, the main parameters for success don’t exist in Afghanistan.
El Tiburon
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
Fair enough. I was barely 14 at that time so have no real recollection one way or another of the election.
But, to be fair, my understanding was that Carter was leading almost the entire time and that the Iranian hostage situation was the accepted reason for putting Reagan over the top.
WereBear
Very true, helped along tremendously by screaming Republicans.
Really, the Democrats should take a leaf from their book. Maybe it’s undignified to lie on the floor and scream until your face turns blue, but it does work.
Alan Grayson would be just another Rep without it.
malraux
Whenever we finally “declare victory and come home” in Afghanistan and Iraq, regardless of who issues the order, it will be blamed on the DFH and the other unserious people. If Nixon was the one who ended Vietnam but that blew back onto Democrats, then of course Democrats will be blamed for these wars, though admittedly it was a Democratic war far more than a republican one.
Punchy
Is this muthafuckin’ GROUNDHOG DAY or something? Didn’t this exact same amount go missing about 5 years ago as well? WTF?
BR
@Punchy:
Seems that the article is about money from 2004 onwards.
Svensker
@schrodinger’s cat:
And so what? Give me a good reason why that should matter to someone living in Kansas. I’m not being snarky.
Zifnab
@Allison W.:
If you don’t think they’re paying attention, why do you think they’ll bother voting? I mean, you’re right. There’s some segment of the population completely insulated from discussions of politics. But I’m not really worried about these people.
For those who keep up with the news, the wikileaks bomb is a big one. And for those independent voters that remain on the fence, this could offer a lot of swing.
For those independent voters that don’t follow the news and don’t care about Afghanistan… well, I’d like to know whether they bothered to show up to the polls in ’06 and ’08.
eemom
I don’t purport to know much about the pros and cons of “classified” stuff and/or its leakage. But I did hear one point that sounded pretty reasonable, which is that the Wikileaks dump includes the names of everybody involved, soldiers and people in Afghanistan, and that is dangerous to those people.
Can anyone explain to me why that’s not a valid concern for anyone who is still in Afghanistan?
Allison W.
@Chad N Freude:
Don’t forget she has to be pretty.
eemom
Also seeming reasonable: Jane Harman’s statement on Diane Rehm this morning (except it wasn’t Diane, it was the brainless Mr. Cokie, ugh) to the effect that YES things are going badly in Afghanistan, YES we need to have a real discussion about it, but NO, dumping classified documents on the Internet is not a good way to go about having that discussion.
OTOH, the occurrence of an actual intelligent discussion about anything in this country would be such a fucking miracle that if it were ever to actually happen, I probably wouldn’t be too picky about what got it started.
Svensker
@Zifnab:
It depends. The spin on Fox this morning was that the leaks show that Iran is supporting the Taliban and Al Queda against us in Afghanistan. Since most folks are not going to bother wading through the leaks to see what they actually say, there’s no way to know whether this is a) true and b) in context.
So, just more fodder for Nuke Iran Now! Yay!
malraux
@eemom: Why would knowing the names of soldiers be harmful?
Allison W.
@Zifnab:
Exactly. The average american does not keep up with the news. And certainly not this type of news. They will know the details of Lindsay Lohan’s case more than the Wikileaks story.
THESE are the people we should ALL worry about. THESE are the people that vote. Come on already. Politicians know this. THESE are the people you want paying attention if you want Obama to speed up the departure out of Afghanistan.
And “independent” voters also mostly care about economy and jobs, jobs and the economy. I mean, where exactly are they going to swing to on the issue of Afghanistan? Republicans?
I think you guys really overestimate how much people are paying attention to any war news. Or on the issues that you or the left/right care about. Even if the polls show a decline in support for the war, it is not a deal breaker for them.
scav
@eemom: depends. in certain cases, possibly yes. in others, well, it’s not as though their presence in Af. is a secret and bullets still work on bodies whether their name is known or not. We’re not exactly fighting the Carrionites here.
malraux
@eemom: Without this mass of information in the public eye, the “serious” people can make arguments from authority/special knowledge based on their better intel. With the classified information out there, those arguments are shown to be the fallacies that they are.
soonergrunt
@schrodinger’s cat:
And therein lies the rub. The odds are excellent that the Taliban/AQ axis takes over Afghanistan again with the assistance/guidance of ISI within 5 years of us leaving.
And this isn’t about COIN, and anyone who thinks so is, well, uninformed at best and a total duchenozzle at worst.
COIN is a doctrine for fighting a war. Nothing more. It is utterly agnostic as to whether or not the war should be fought in the first place, which is a political, not operational question. And anyone who seems to think that COIN advocates are all for war hasn’t read or heard anything by an actual COIN advocate. These are the guys who say it’s the hardest kind of war because it involves a lot less kinetic (killing people and blowing shit up)activity than the kinds of war at which the US is actually good at. COIN is more about the actual Nation-Building thing. It takes a very long time, it’s tremendously expensive, it doesn’t have a lot of easily definable success metrics that can be explained in a soundbite, and it’s extremely easy to screw up.
A COIN campaign involves building local governance capacity, and engendering a belief in the populace, through work, that the government cares about their problems and is capable of addressing those problems. It cannot succeed as long as the face of the government side is foreign troops. It can only start to succeed when the local government is perceived by the populace to be the leading power.
COIN, properly done, involves more USAID and more Peace Corps-type stuff than it does movement to contact operations by the 1st BN-16th Armor Regiment.
A counter-terror campaign, as advocated by some, involves almost nothing but kinetic action, because it will be incapable of doing anything else. A small footprint operation that does nothing but react to intelligence and attack and destroy perceived terror cells will kill a whole lot more civilians on the ground than will a campaign involving trying to get to know people and deal with their issues. It will not make the lives of anyone on the ground better. It will kill a boatload of them very efficiently and cheaply though.
If you don’t want to fight a war there, then fine, don’t fight a war there, but at least try to know what you’re talking about.
eemom
what about the names of Afghanis who have cooperated with us becoming known to the Taliban?
eemom
@malraux:
all due respect, I’ll believe that when someone who actually knows WTF they’re doing sifts through all those documents and actually proves something.
Zifnab
@Allison W.:
No they don’t.
Those who vote are more likely to read the newspaper, more likely to be engaged in politics, tend to be older and have more free time, and they tend to be connected to social networks – churches, charities, political organizations, etc.
People completely ignorant of the news and don’t follow politics don’t vote at nearly the same rate as those who do.
Brachiator
@Chad N Freude:
It’s 2010. We have the InterTubes. It’s time to move beyond the simplistic parable that the US military industrial complex is the only one that exists, or to miss the point that the weapons trade is also a foreign policy tool used by a number of countries to wield political influence whether or not their military hardware is used in any actual war.
And then there is the most pernicious bullshit, where countries are pushed into war so that they will expend their resources or crumble due to internal political instability (the Iraq Iran war or many of the proxy wars in Africa).
The AK-47, often illegally manufactured, is one of the most reliable and popular weapons ever made. It’s tailor made for the least industrialized countries. Its widespread use doesn’t fit neatly into the Evil US military industrial complex model.
@El Tiburon:
I don’t think so. I can’t imagine any scenario where US troops would ever be in Pakistan. I can’t imagine any Democratic president invading Iran, or a sane Republican president doing so. The only two idiots I could ever imagine sending US troops into Iran would be Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney.
Actually, I could see all of this happening. But then again, I don’t believe in anything like national DNA.
soonergrunt
@malraux: Servicemembers use their Social Security Numbers as service numbers. This means that the SSN frequently ends up on official documents.
What do you supposed someone could do with your name and SSN? Or maybe your name, and the name of your military unit employer?
roshan
Why can’t Friedman aka the great moustache of understanding, write another one of his “the next 6 months are of great importance in this war” or “suck on this” columns and get everybody to settle down about the Afghan news dump? Stop panicking folks, look to Friedman for guidance. He has dropped many of his pearls of wisdom on Iraq, and I am sure he has some left for the poor Afghans.
Elizabelle
OT, but more of our MSM at work (only taking NYTimes headline writers to task here).
Headline: [Obama’s] New Health Official Faces Hostility in Senate
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/us/politics/27berwick.html?hp
Hostility from whom, you might ask?
Why from Senators Orrin Hatch, John Kyl and John Barrasso, with negative comment by Rep. John Carter (TX), for good measure.
All Republicans.
Why can’t the headline make that clear?
The story lays it out, four paragraphs in.
“And [Dr. Donald Berwick] is finding his ability to do his job [chief of Medicare and Medicaid] clouded by the circumstances of his appointment, with many Republicans in open revolt over President Obama’s decision to place him in the post without a Senate confirmation vote.”
But you see too many headlines that don’t make it plain as day — and it needs to be — that it’s Republican hostility, and not the Senate at large.
Obama had to make a key appointment through a recess appointment without Senate confirmation. Why go through useless and vindictive hearings when you need your decision-maker in place, yesterday?
Meanwhile, this phenomenally qualified doctor/administrator has 18 months to work (unless confirmed in the future) and GOP critics are already calling him the “rationing czar.”
soonergrunt
@eemom: Those people? They aren’t of any value compared to some otherwise disengaged American’s NEED TO KNOW!
Their life expectancy can be measured in minutes now.
How long does it take to find a name and send an email, which information will be texted to the relevant local Talib?
scav
@soonergrunt: SSNs? whew, that was a dumb decision on their part in a war-zone or not — even the IL DMV had to give up that idea.
malraux
@eemom: I doubt there’s anything to prove. “The war isn’t going well” isn’t a provable statement. I certainly haven’t heard anything revelatory from these documents.
soonergrunt
@malraux: How do you know which statements are fallacious and which one’s aren’t?
eemom
@malraux:
uh, then what did you mean by this?
malraux
@soonergrunt: Umm, what? The fallacious statements are those using fallacies like the argument from authority or from secret knowledge.
Punchy
/stares at Risk board, rubs chin
I have no idea either.
General Stuck
@eemom:
Add some more to the body count
but liberals are happy learning stuff we already knew about that war. That’s what’s important.
My service number was my SSN, Now for all time, the world knows our GI’s by name rank and serial number/SSN. Captives for life by Afghanistan.
This is all making me quite ill. must stop.
soonergrunt
@malraux: Well, now that you have this vast trove of information, which statements are fallacies? And while you’re at it, how did you figure out which of these documents supports what position? I mean to say, how do you know from looking at a contact report from FOB Jackson from 2007 that something said in 2009 was ‘fallacious’?
malraux
@eemom: So with a massive amount of secrecy about how the war is progressing, its easy for the war supporters to make claims like “We are winning the hearts and minds based on our current strategy.” If asked how they know this, they can claim better knowledge than everyone else that allows them to make such claims.
If the information is public, then it turns into a case of “who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?”
malraux
@soonergrunt: That the war is going well.
Chad N Freude
@Brachiator:
A. I know it’s not the only “industrial complex” that exists. B. I don’t think it’s simplistic, it’s a complex intertwining of military interests and industrial interests that becomes an entrenched “industry” like the railroad industry (once upon a time), the automobile industry, the oil industry, etc.; a collection of profit-making enterprises that employ a lot of people and support a lot of subsidiary industries that employ a lot of people and have a relationship with the government (in this case the military). C. The other issues that you raise are all valid, but they are extensions of or peripheral to the really big Defense Department contractors. The MIC really exists, and it’s here to stay.
soonergrunt
@malraux:
@malraux: That’s novel, because I am completely unaware of anybody in uniform or out, who has said that the war in Afghanistan was going well since President Obama took office.
Everybody who comments on this one blog is well aware of multiple statements, sometimes public, sometimes not, to the contrary by people in and out of uniform. John and the other bloggers comment on this all the time.
Jay B.
Weak even from a bootlicking toady like you “General”. I’ll play your game — You’re right, we should know nothing about the war we’ve paid for over the past 9 years that isn’t served up to us by our government and ridiculous media and trust that the same people who have been losing it are on the up and up when it comes to waging it. And I think you’re spot on to blame liberals for people who write spies names’ down on documents. Then again, to use your logic, you’d rather have people die in continuance of this war — however high a body count — rather than have anyone question how the leadership conducts this war. It literally doesn’t matter to you how many innocent people die, so long as Americans remain completely ignorant. Again, to use your argument.
malraux
@soonergrunt: Right, and what is the WH’s response to these documents? They claim that the information is old and doesn’t apply to the current situation. We’ve changed strategy after all. So things are better now.
That’s the sort of fallacy that gets punctured by these document dumps. The WH is trying to claim that it knows the current situation, and that things are improving now.
It also would be nice to see some confirmation of some of these claims about specifically leaking SSNs or compromising afghans who are helping us.
eemom
soonergrunt — I have gone back and read all your comments on this and the earlier thread, and allow me to say I really appreciate the perspective you’ve brought to this discussion.
That is what intelligent, informed commentary looks like. And the ability to see reality in all its infinite shades of gray. Most impressive.
eemom
@malraux:
How does the document dump “puncture” that fallacy when the documents end before the change in strategy was implemented?
Jay B.
And of course:
But again, liberals want a higher body count because some self-proclaimed General on a Website is miffed when they criticize the government he loves sooooooo much. LEAVE MY WAR ALOOOONNE.
General Stuck
@Jay B.: Goddamn you to hell Jay B, if you support this raw info being released that puts our soldiers and Afghans who helped us lives in danger, Goddamn you to hell, and any others here who support it. That is all.
And this is a fucking lie. I have been for stopping this war for long time now. You smug little prick.
General Stuck
@malraux: Every one knows the war is going poorly, that is likely why Obama set an end date to it. This info does nothing to enlighten that which is already known.
malraux
Is there any evidence that SSNs have been compromised? That any cooperating afghans have been compromised? Seriously, it would be nice if I weren’t accused of being a traitor by people just making shit up.
Hugin & Munin
All Federal employees are identified by their SSNs, because the US Govt puts the safety and security of its employees first.
Wait, what?
Brachiator
@Chad N Freude:
Chinese military spending, just to use the example of the current Number 2 arms supplier, is an extension of or peripheral to Defense Department contractors? South Africa’s supply of arms to neighboring countries to give it breathing room by destabilizing them during the apartheid era was an extension of Defense Department contractors? You can’t be serious. Well, you can be, but you are missing the bigger picture involving the international arms market.
malraux
@General Stuck: Before you make such claims, who has been put in danger? Seriously, you’re just gonna condemn someone to eternal damnation because someone in this thread said she heard on the radio that someone said this put SSNs in the public eye? Really?
General Stuck
@malraux:
A current soldier claimed it, and I am a former one, that unless this info was redacted somehow, and I have heard no one say it was, then yes, I will condemn them, if for no other reason than I am in a very bad mood. My understanding the full text of these docs have been released, if that is not true, then so be it. I will lift my spell.
soonergrunt
@malraux:
I’ve read circular, self-justifying arguments before, but here you’ve gone and made an art form out of it.
The documents in question cover a time period that has already passed, and show a situation that is less than ideal. The government reports that they’ve already adjusted to that situation, and you don’t believe them because of the documents that describe the situation to which they’ve adjusted.
Then in the next paragraph, you say that you need more documentation (of sensitive stuff) to verify that your access to certain documentation (of sensitive stuff) should be curtailed.
Well, I can tell you that my real name is among those in the document dump, as well as the last four digits of my social security number. My interpreters’ names–the one who was killed when he was discovered to be working for us, and the one who replaced him and is still working for us, are also in those documents.
YOUR NEED TO KNOW DOES NOT TRUMP MY RIGHT TO PRIVACY OR MY INTERPRETER’S RIGHT TO LIVE.
Why don’t you post your real name and SSN right here, if you don’t believe that is or should be an issue?
eemom
My understanding is that the Times, Guardian and Der Speigel redacted names and other sensitive info, but Wikileaks redacted nothing.
themann1086
Hang on, I’m getting contradictory information here, so everyone stop with the caps lock and back up.
Were SSNs part of the leak? Is there a source on this? And not “some guy somewhere”, a source or a citation of the leaks themselves.
General Stuck
@eemom: That is my understanding as well. jeebus fucking christ.
Corner Stone
@eemom: From wikileaks website:
malraux
@themann1086: Looking through the documents, I’m not seeing SSNs. I also see wikileaks saying they withheld a very large number of documents because of security concerns. I cannot find a news source that says anything like these claims either, just boilerplate “we are concerned that this might affect ongoing operations”.
eemom
@soonergrunt:
oh God, that story is heartbreaking.
I don’t support this war either, but those Taliban are the worst of the worst. Sick, twisted murderers.
eemom
@malraux:
How about the names of Afghanis? I am not getting any indication that anyone anywhere is taking any precautions to protect them.
matoko_chan
@soonergrunt:
Pardon, for Exum it IS about COIN. That is why he can’t say the unspeakable/unbearable. COIN is a counterinsurgency doctrine based on social network theory. What the Wikileaks document dump means to Exum is no more research dollars.
Given the limited understanding of the electorate what they will take away from this is that we are fucked in Af-Pak (which is true) and that COIN==FAIL. Petraeus is one of the authors, so he is FAIL by association…even tho he SAID in 2008 that COIN wouldn’t work in Afghanistan because the Talis are local, unlike al-Q in Iraq.
The bottom line is that cudlips like McCain and Palin won’t be raving about the “surge” and the anbar “awakening” anymore…COIN is about to become something that politicians will hurry to scrape off their shoe….an evil-smelling pile of expensive, bloody shit.
matoko_chan
@eemom:
that we are currently opening treaty negotiations with. Not like we have a choice here.
;)
Sharl
According to Sean Paul Kelley at Agonist – more specifically, according to some of the folks he links to – there were some careless/incomplete redactions in the Wikileaks release that are likely to put some lives at risk, especially Afghan contractors.
malraux
@eemom: Other than wikileaks says it is holding back the documents that would endanger Afghanis.
matoko_chan
@soonergrunt: that info is in the 15k docs still being withheld by the three newspapers. all docs were reviewed for field operative compromise and 15k docs were retained for that reason.
eemom
@malraux:
where does it say that? Not in anything quoted above.
matoko_chan
@Sharl: doubt it.
more flailing is what Sean is.
the truth is, conservatives have lost all their war talking points, and they know it.
no more “surge”, “victory”, “success”, “anbar awakening”….
the thing everyone on the right is desperately trying to cover up is that we elected a president so incredibly stupid he didnt understand that muslims will vote for islam when they can vote. And his smarter advisors like Cheney and Rummie and Rove just played him, capping briefing slides with bible quotes and shit like that.
What does that say about America? That we elected a moron for president that nearly wrecked the country?
Scary shit, huh?
malraux
@Sharl: I’m not real impressed with those claims. Pointing out that a guy who works for the government and is acting in public as an agent of the government might be discovered as a government agent is kinda overplaying your hand. With respect to the contractors, I could certainly believe that some dangerous information might get out.
malraux
@eemom: In literally every report about the wikileaks it mentions that they are holding information back because they believe it would endanger people. Have you not read a single article on this?
MNPundit
@El Tiburon: The Afghan people? Now instead of being killed by Americans for not knowing English they’re killed by the Taliban for forgetting to beat their daughters.
I’m not saying it’s any worse but it’s a neutral move.
matoko_chan
@MNPundit: well, at least our soljahs won’t be being killed for Bush being a retard. I think that is cost benefit myself.
eemom
@malraux:
man, you really are a masterpiece of self-contradiction:
How is Wikileaks supposedly “holding information back because they believe it would endanger people” not equally “boilerplate”? WHAT people? WHO said that?
Also see Sharl’s link at #146.
Why not just come right out and say you don’t give a shit about endangered Afghanis, you just want to win this stupid argument?
Chad N Freude
@Brachiator: I was only addressing US arms. I thought that was reasonably clear. If not, I apologize. My point is that there really is a huge US MIC of which the international arms trade is at most a peripheral component.
Keith G
@General Stuck:
Out of curiosity, why would a security conscious and rule loving organization like the military continue to use SSN for IDs when other parts of the government tell all of us not to do this and after it has been recognized for decades that doing this is not a bright idea?
I understand your situation, looooonng ago as it was.
Chad N Freude
@Brachiator: I have to leave and won’t be able to continue this backing and forthing. How about we agree that 1) There is a lucrative and highly destructive, not to say hideously immoral, international arms trade and 2) the US military-industrial complex is neither a myth nor a triviality.
Brachiator
@Chad N Freude:
Works for me.
malraux
@eemom: Yay, words in my mouth! That’s always fun.
Anyway, Wikileaks, the New York Times, Der Spegial, and The Guardian all agree that wikileaks has held back on publication of the most compromising intelligence. Sure, its a boilerplate description, I’ll grant that. That doesn’t necessarily change the underlying action, that Wikileaks is taking actions to minimize the negative impact.
Would you care to document your claim that wikileaks published SSNs?
Why not come out and admit you made up that bit about SSNs being published because you think bin Laden is sexy?
matoko_chan
@eemom: The three papers are holding 15k docs back from the original 90k + docs because of possible intelligence compromises. All three papers have said the same thing.
El Tiburon
@MNPundit:
Please. Do you want to intervene in every single country who beat their daughters? Do you want to invade certain regions of Africa for genital mutilation?
Let’s compare: being bombed by drones and high-powered weapons from an invading, foreign force – or having to defend against local extremists.
Not exactly a neutral move.
eemom
@malraux:
words in mouth back atcha, because I never said anything about SSNs. I raised a general concern about soldiers and Afghanis, and someone else brought up the SSN point. Read the record.
El Tiburon
What is all of this talk about SSNs being released?
Is the fear the Taliban is going to order a fraudulent credit card?
Foucsness people.
eemom
At the bottom of the earlier thread, someone mentions having seen Assange on CSpan and that he said only about 10,000 docs have been closely examined so far by his group.
But so far he’s released 77,000, so I’d say that pretty much puts an end to the argument that he’s taking serious precautions to protect anybody.
Though you’ll no doubt tell me there’s some magical way to know that there’s no potentially dangerous information in the other 67,000 without closely examining them.
Keith G
@eemom:
eemom
@Keith G:
yes, so let’s just go ahead and multiply the death and misery we’ve already caused by enabling brutal murders like the one described in soonergrunt’s link above. What the hell.
matoko_chan
@eemom: Assange has left the publishing up to the three newspapers; Der Speigel, the NYT, and the Guardian.
He released the docs to them…..they are deciding which docs to publish.
All three papers have retained some 11k to 15k docs that they feel on review would compromise intelligence or field operatives or afghan contractors.
you are W.R.O.N.G.
General Stuck
@matoko_chan:
assuming 77,000 docs not reviewed nor redacted contain no names of Afghans and GI’s is really absurd, seems to me. Since soldiers who file these reports usually sign their names to it, and last 4. But I will wait some time before casting judgment on this. But you can shove your WRONG.
Keith G
@eemom:
yes, so let’s just go ahead and multiply the death and misery we’ve already caused by enabling brutal
murdersaccidental killings like the one described insoonergrunt’sthe Boston Globe linkhttp://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2010/07/27/52_killed_in_nato_attack_afghan_officials_say/
Funny how that works.
Keith G
@eemom: Look eemom, there is a very slight chance that we could find the pixie dust necessary for the Afghans to be able to create a stable national government, but it would take a lot more time, a lot more of our people (and money) and a lot more dead wedding parties.
The Taliban kill them purposelessly. We kill them accidentally. They are still quite dead.
Corner Stone
@Keith G:
“a man carrying a weapon”
matoko_chan
@eemom: people are dying BECAUSE WE ARE THERE.
malraux
@eemom: Fair enough, I misremembered who specific brought up SSNs. Nonetheless, I just don’t see any SSNs in these documents. Now I’m not a military person, so maybe I’m just ignorant, but could anyone actually show me an SSN in one of these documents.
Corner Stone
@Corner Stone: Official US Military has not authenticated or confirmed reports of this attack.
Corner Stone
@malraux: It was one of the angry offerings from angry soonergrunt, IIRC. He’s angry, in case you couldn’t tell.
matoko_chan
@General Stuck: again, Assange only RELEASED the docs TO THE NEWSPAPERS.
the newspapers are publishing the ones they feel do not compromise classified data.
WRONG
so an american grunt that signs on a stratfor is going to be compromised?
dude, the Talis ALREADY know the american soljahs.
They are wearing UNIFORMS and big fucking virtual bullseyes on their foreheads.
Dude, General, we don’t belong there. What Wikileaks is doing is hitting the electorate with a clue stick. We have no reason to be there and we can’t “win”.
Freeing muslimahs from the tyrrany of hijab AINT WORTH OUR SOLJAHS DYING OR MUSLIMS DYING.
Right now, people are dying because Bush was a WEC retard with evil manipulative advisors.
Wikileaks is just a ginormous ideological asswhupping for conservatives.
General Stuck
@matoko_chan: What are you talking about. Wikileaks released them to newspapers, but also on their own site. I was just browsing them there. So you are wrong. I am going to ignore the rest of your comment.
edit – and like I said, I will wait to see before a final judgment what is true and not about personal info maybe being released.
soonergrunt
@El Tiburon: I don’t know about the Talibs doing this, but maybe somebody else in the world of 5 billion+ people might try to do something like that.
Why don’t you put up your full legal name and the name of your employer and the last four digits of your SSN and let’s test that hypothesis, shall we?
Or maybe you don’t want that information just floating out there, easy to find?
matoko_chan
@General Stuck: you don’t get to ignore my comment.
Again, Wikileaks released the 90k plus docs to the three newspapers like 3 months ago. they have been reviewing the docs, and the ones Wikileaks has published are ones that have been screened by the newspapers.
LIKE I SAID soldiers names don’t present compromised intel.
I believe afghani and field operative names are in the reserved docs.
dude, the Talis ALREADY know the american soljahs.
They are the ones wearing USA UNIFORMS and big fucking virtual bullseyes on their foreheads.
General Stuck
@matoko_chan:
Fuck the intel being what’s important, you amoral twit, and the sanctimonious gibberish about it being all for a greater cause, when the presnit has announced an exit date for ground combat.
And this little tidbit of truth Wikileaks is just a ginormous ideological asswhupping for conservatives.
Fuck the wingnuts too, and there are already reports of Afghans names turning up in these docs. And yes, we have been killing civilians there and getting our own GI’s killed, but that does not justify more unnecessary killing so libtards can get their rocks off embarrassing the wingnuts. And bringing the great revelation that war is the shits and civilians get killed like all wars. We already knew that and Obama is pulling the plug on it.
And if you think it has been a bloodbath up till we do pull out, you haven’t seen anything yet when we do. Afghans have been killing each other for centuries in large numbers, now they will have another list.
This blog sucks right now, except for a few commenters. It is group think lazy ass blogging, and that largely includes the front pagers stenographing left wing desires.
matoko_chan
Do you people understand how Assange did this?
The US govt started OFFICIALLY hunting him in early June–for “state department cables”.
This has been in the works for months, negotiations with the three papers, transmission of the files, data harvest and data screening have been going for months courtesy of the interwebs. Assange didn’t surface until the whole denouement was prepped and good to go.
Manning has been in custody since the Wikileaks video of the american pilots joking about slaughtering civilians and brit photogs.
Do you suppose they waterboarded Manning to find out what he gave Assange?
matoko_chan
@General Stuck: So?
we only have two choices General.
stay or go.
im for going. either way there will be blood.
you don’t get the message ….sure war is hell…but this is a war without meaning that we didn’t have to fight.
Wikileaks is a ginormous wake-up call…business as usual is over.
The oligarchs won’t be able to get away with lying to the electorate anymore about foreign adventurism and “preemptive war”.
Its the end of an era.
Its change.
matoko_chan
One more thing Stuck.
I’m not amoral.
I just have third culture morals.
;)
Keith G
@matoko_chan:
And it’s ponies. Do not forget the ponies.
General Stuck
@matoko_chan: Why am I arguing with a child on the internet?
El Cid
@General Stuck: For what it’s worth, I don’t feel comfortable assuming that an announced date for withdrawal of troops actually means that such an action is inevitable. Nor that the definitions of ground troops might mean shifting of functions onto private contractors.
If some significant withdrawal happens, good, but until that time it is a statement of intent, not an empirical reality. I’m not saying it won’t happen, but you can’t always make huge assumptions simply because a President said something.
matoko_chan
sooo…..my personal hypoth is that the US gov’t has been hunting Assange since April 6 when the wikileaks video was released. And that Manning gave Assange the Af-Pak document dump at the same time that gave up the video. Assange and the three newspapers have been working with the files ever since…as soon as Assange worked out a deal with Der Spiegel, the Guardian, and the NYT…..
what do the lazy ass juicers think?
matoko_chan
@General Stuck:
dunno…..you tell me.
:)
don’t feel too bad General Sir.
Quell had trouble with the same decision you are having problems with.
matoko_chan
@Keith G: i am a huge fan of ponies. i had graduated sized welsh ponies (a section A and a section B) growing up and now my RID is from connemara stock crossed with shire mares.
Ponies rule.
Everyone should have one.
matoko_chan
See what you did Cole?
naow i kilt dis thread 2.
apolos.
:)
Jay B.
@General Stuck:
Hey, you fraud, take your bullshit “if you support this you support ‘our boys’ being killed” and cram it up your ass, you credulous moron.
You just can’t take it — you make up some bullshit “oh, our Afghani clients and our social security numbers were compromised!!!” that even the fucking White House and Pentagon deny in a lame attempt to try to get all sanctimonious and moral about it, but, because you are a completely ignorant jagoff — you don’t have any fucking clue what you are talking about and don’t have the fucking sense to shut up about it. But since it served your idiotic POV that since someone said we’re “withdrawing in a year” we shouldn’t know what’s going on (you know, within reason), you ran with it and cried fake crocodile tears. It’s terminal bad faith and complete dishonesty.
So, I used your ‘logic’ to throw it back to you. I DON’T really assume you want people to die, and yet, because you support withdrawal a year from now, hundreds, probably thousands more people will die. It’s axiomatic. You think Obama’s doing right by someone over there, great. That’s awesome. It looks totally different on the surface, and, now with the documents that are being funneled out there, it looks even shittier up close. So WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE DOING THERE?
It’s high fucking time Americans get a few answers, or is that somehow compromising your lack of intelligence?
General Stuck
@Jay B.: Suck my dick you lying piece of shit..
eemom
@matoko_chan:
hey Wonder Child, get this straight: all 91,000 docs, unredacted, are available to the entire world on Wikileaks’ website:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Afghan_War_Diary,_2004-2010
Apparently another 15,000 being “withheld” are the ones they MIGHT redact.
Now run along and play with your IQ numbers.
Jay B.
@General Stuck:
You’re not even man enough to admit you’re wrong, I doubt very much I’d be able to find your dick.
General Stuck
@El Cid:
It is official US policy now, with the presnit seal of approval. Of course, it should be watched and followed through on. But it is not just a remark of intent. It is a fixed date, that given the lack of support for the war, will be kept with some flexibility for troop safety and such. To not keep it would now be untenable politically for Obama. After taking the leap of setting such a date.
It was an act of courage to set such a date going against every conventional wisdom militarily for not doing it. As for mercs, the Afghans are free to contract anyone they want. But I seriously doubt it will be for actual war fighting, but instead for guarding people, places and things.
But contrary to what many here believe, it will not bring an end to the bloodshed in Afghan, but will severely increase it for the foreseeable future, until the Afghans settle things their own way, like they have for millenia. It is the only way to bring some semblance of future stability, and likely what we should have let happen without so much interference nation building in a primitive land, full of conservative proud peoples. Very rarely does that work in the east, especially.
General Stuck
@Jay B.: Suck my dick 11 percenter.
Tom Betz
FWIW, Ambassador Peter Galbraith told Tweety today that if he were in the House, he’d vote against further funding of the current COIN strategy. He’s calling for an anti-terrorism strategy, isolating the Taliban (and the Pashtun, making the Taliban their problem) in the south of Afghanistan and defending the North and Kabul with between 10,000 and 15,000 American troops. He also made it clear that we can’t trust the current corrupt Mayor of Kabul.
See it here.
matoko_chan
@eemom: but your premise that this was an insta dump is WRONG ….the docs have already been culled for compromising intel.
Wikileaks has obviously had the docs (unclear on totall #) from when Manning gave the collateral murder video to Assange….whenever that was. Assange has been working with all three newspapers to screen the docs. please link where he said he had only done 10k docs. you gave hearsay, correct? Possibly the Newspapers’ staff did the others.
Collateral murder came out April 5.
So Assange and the three newspapers have had a minimum of four months to screen the docs. I think if they say they removing compromising docs, they did. Your conservative buddies are just throwing radar chaff like usual.
Squealing like pigs, aren’t they?
so, eemom, do you think Assange ALSO has these docs?
260,000 diplomatic cables?
and…….could he have MOAR???
why do the released docs stop at 2009??
lawl, this ironing is delicious.
Nick
@matoko_chan:
Actually, no, I disagree…this may be a war we no should no longer fight, but unlike Iraq, it is definitely one we had to fight.
Nick
@El Cid:
it gives a specific end date to hold him to. Something we wished we had with Bush.
matoko_chan
@Nick: wrong dude.
if we had to fight, we should have declared war on afghanistan, and when they didnt handover OBL, gone right in and executed a Japan post WWII occupation and reconstruction.
The Bush Doctrine is FUCKING BULLSHYTT you retard.
that is why we are there 9 years later with broken teeth and empty wallets wondering how to GTFO.
There are only two ways to terraform a culture….i mentioned occupation and reconstuction…..the other way is genocide.
let me fix that….
eemom
you’re amazingly obtuse for a Little Genius.
There is nothing anywhere which states that all 91,000 of the docs were so “culled,” by ANYBODY. Assange himself said his people had only reviewed 10,000 and my link for that is what another commenter reported hearing him say on CSpan yesterday, if you would be so kind as to consult the bottom of the last thread on this subject. Or go look on CSpan and hear it for yourself.
(And yes, that IS hearsay! Gold star! NB, however, there’s an exception to the hearsay rule for admissions against interest.)
The newspapers presumably culled the docs they published or quoted. That is only a small subset of the 91,000. Newspapers don’t have the luxury of being irresponsible enough to dump 81,000 unreviewed classified documents into the public domain.
Nick
An attack on the US the size of, or bigger, or even a little smaller, than 9/11 would have repricussions nationwide economically.
Nick
@matoko_chan:
I agree with you 100%, that’s what we should’ve done and I said it at the time. Congress should have passed a declaration of war on the Taliban government.
But we didn’t. When we reached the point where we were to execute a Japan post WW II occupation and reconstruction (which btw, I’m pretty sure more liberals around here wouldn’t have supported either), Bush decided to attack Iraq and the die was cast.
Bush fucked up the war and we’re screwed now because of it, unfortunately, Obama is going to be blamed for the reprecussions of it, and would have been even if he called home every soldier in the world on Jan 20, 2009.
matoko_chan
eemom exhibts a particular syndrome i find very strange….soljah concern trolls i call them.
for some reason they feel feel that leakers that expose idiotic national security policies to keep our troops from being used as cannon fodder in irrational, meaningless and unwinnable wars are a greater threat to the soljahs than the evil retards that are sacrificing them for nothing in the Graveyard of Empires.
it is a puzzlement.
THE
@matoko_chan:
The Japan analogy doesn’t apply.
Japan was a developed industrial economy even before WW2. It was a comparatively simple thing to repair it and reconstruct it.
To remake Afghanistan into a modern economy and society would take a century. It would require massive economic investment and social investment, in a region where the West has little long-term interest.
So sorry, I agree with Nick.
matoko_chan
@Nick:
yup. the Bush Doctrine strikes again. Bush Doctrine was in Afghanistan too. Karzais election, right?
Let me repeat….the Bush Doctrine was utter fail anytime anyplace.
we had no bidness trying to push Bush’s do-gooder WEC fuckery in either Afghanistan or Iraq.
that is why we are embroiled in the graveyard of empires with no exit and iraq is falling apart.
Nick
@matoko_chan:
not at first. The Bush Doctrine didn’t even come to into existence until after we had already invaded Afghanistan. Not until Sept 2002, but it was a failure because after he invaded Iraq, the administration governed Afghanistan under the Bush Doctrine. Instead of using the time after the fall of the Taliban to build roads, schools, and infrastructure in the country, we went over to Iraq, leaving Afghanistan to falter and did nothing for the people.
I wholeheartidly supported the war in Afghanistan, not sorry about it. I wanted Congress to officially declare war and they didn’t and that made me angry. The prosecution of the war was such that it did not plan for anything after the fighting is over, probably because Republicans know nothing but fighting.
matoko_chan
@eemom: angry old person, who cares?
Wikileaks is a good thing. You should be happy.
and…..how much more stuff does Assange have?
and it doesn’t say he hasnt culled the docs either.
tell yah what….you go read and find an intelligence compromise for us before you have a hissy fit, kk?
matoko_chan
@Nick: no dummie, they didn’t plan for anything because they thought muslims would embrace Our Wunnerful Judeoxian Democracy.
They were also too stupid to unnerstan (like Boosh) that when muslims vote, they vote for Islam. they like it….that is why they are muslims.
matoko_chan
@THE: then you are a retard too, because the Bush Doctrine was just a recipe for failsauce.
What have you missed here? WE HAVE NOTHING TO SHOW FOR THIS EXCEPT dead soljahs, dead civilians, dead insurgents, and billions of expensed taxpayer dollars…..at least we would have got OBL out of my scenario.
eemom
Fixed.
Corner Stone
@Nick:
We never had to fight in Afghanistan. We had many tools in the toolbox and we chose poorly.
Only a belligerent fool would have decided that committing blood and treasure in Afghanistan was the only remedy possible.
Nick
@Corner Stone:
No, of course not, if we only asked nicely, the Taliban would be happy to give up Al-Qaeda’s leadership. I must be a belligerent fool not to think that.
THE
N@matoko_chan:
I think you are just being unrealistic. US has more than Afghanistan to worry about. There is no way that an attack like 9/11 could have gone by without some kind of response, or the USA would have been discredited as a world power.
But IMHO the usefulness of the Afghan war in the wider strategic context died, after the last election, with all of the political Shenanigans. There is no longer any meaningful difference between K and the Taliban. So what are we fighting for now?
Time to go. Sorry but war is always a throw of a dice. They don’t always work out. Even when your cause is just. Sometimes you just lose. Or you decide it’s no longer working in your interests, and you cut your losses.
Reality is not tidy. Politics must reinvent itself constantly to adjust to changing circumstances.
Corner Stone
@Nick:
After 9 years, at $500B + per year spent on Defense, plus only FSM Herself knows spent on other unknown intelligence services, if we can’t stop a scattered and leaderless enemy from striking into the heart of our technology then I don’t know what it will take.
Corner Stone
@Nick:
Well, you are a fool but that’s neither here nor there.
We’re the most powerful force on earth. In all important categories. Military power, soft power, economic power, technological power. Why would we commit a significant ground presence into an area we have no interest in possessing?
We had so many options it is boggling that anyone could sit there and say 150K boots on the ground was the only option available.
The list of options is near endless.
Nick
@Corner Stone:
Two of the four lead to war, and WTF is “soft power?”
Tom Betz
@Nick: In fact, the Taliban did offer to give up bin Laden to “a third country”, whence we could more easily have obtained him. The Peepants Cowboy refused.
Corner Stone
@Nick:
You “covered” politics for 10 years and you don’t know what soft power is?
And none of those four “lead” to war.
You are a dumbass.
matoko_chan
@eemom: look….go find some examples of intel compromise before you stroke out. you can link examples from other people; do you know how to do that?
do you know what compromise is? where, what, and who.
now gwaan, shoo. ill believe your hystrionics when you can come up with an example.
and eemom….i think Manning and Assange have done great work.
our soldiers are dying for nothing and you are bitching about the people that exposed that truth instead of the people that want to cover shit up and keep the soldiers dying.
you’re kind of creepy.
Nick
@Tom Betz:
so would I. First they were “ready to discuss” and wanted “more evidence” because apparently his own confession isn’t enough? Sorry, he comitted a crime here, he should stand trial for it here. What “third country” did they want to give him to? they never intended to hand him over. We shouldn’t have to beg and plea to have a man who confessed to murdering our citizens turned over to us.
Nick
@Corner Stone:
If by “soft power,” you mean stuff like attracting them to our point of view with music and entertainment, then you clearly don’t know that we tried that with the Taliban through most of the 1990s to no avail
military power doesnt lead to war? Technological power doesn’t lead to war? What were you thinking? We’re were going to get the Taliban to give up Osama by giving them IPads?
THE
Again, I side with Nick here.
Which part of “Ultimatum” do you fail to understand?
General Stuck
@matoko_chan:
Weren’t you a wingnut like about 20 minutes ago. And now your calling eemom “creepy”. Maybe you should wait awhile until the right wing stench wears off your stupid self. jeebus, kids these days.
matoko_chan
@General Stuck: but she is creepy. she would rather bash Assange and Manning for exposing the lying old bloodsuckers that are causing american soldiers and afghani civilians to die for nothing than acknowledge our right to know the truth.
and why do i have to take chong for being a hereditary republican?
I got wise and turned liberal.
i reverted too, and turned muslim. bet that bothers you even more.
;)
Corner Stone
@THE: Why did there have to be an ultimatum?
Some really limited thinking here, with the default set at “KICK SOME BROWN PEOPLE’S FUCKING ASS. FUCK YEAH! NOW WE’RE TOUGH AND CAN MAINTAIN OUR ERECTIONS!”
Corner Stone
@Nick:
No dumbass, they do not “lead” to anything. They have to be implemented.
Possessing a power does not “force” anyone to use it.
And let me ask you something tough guy. We have blown the fuck out of that entire region for 9 years. Has anyone given up Osama to us? So somehow our optimal strategy didn’t achieve our optimal goal. But amazingly enough, it’s still depicted here as what we “had” to do.
Doesn’t it dawn on you, even a moron like you, that maybe that decision wasn’t what “had” to be made?
THE
Corner Stone:
Corner Stone
You are missing the point Corner Stone.
The President decided to issue an Ultimatum.
The United States had been attacked.
He was fully within his legal rights to do that under article 51 of the UN Charter.
His decision may be criticized, after the fact. That is a separate question.
But an ultimatum was issued as a decision of state.
An ultimatum is not an invitation to a parlay.
So the response of the Afghan government was delusional.
eemom
oh nooooes……..now I am frightening the children cuz I’m “creepy.”
Don’t worry, little IQ_chan. Assange the Super Aussie will protect you.
General Stuck
@matoko_chan: You don’t care about the soldiers, you care about the theater and some grudge against your former pals the wingers. There are many reports coming from respected liberals like Kevin Drum that this doc dump is a bunch of nothing.
You already said you didn’t consider publishing troops names a bad thing. So fuck you very much. Eemom is like me, not ideological and with a low tolerance for bullshit, that seems to flow like the Amazon at BJ these days. I think you’re kind of creepy if you want to know the truth.
General Stuck
@THE:
Now there’s a passage for the ages.
Corner Stone
@THE: I am not missing the point, that is in fact the entire point.
Why? Are we so fragile?
eemom
@THE:
I gotta say, “THE”, your handle kinda scares even creepy old me. It’s so…….definite. It’s like, “That you, God?”
eemom
@General Stuck:
See what I mean???
THE
@eemom:
It could be my initials.
But then again, maybe not.
matoko_chan
@General Stuck: why is publishing troops names an intel compromise?
where is an actual incidence of intel compromise?
i don’t want ANY more dead soljahs……i guess you and eemom think they should die so …..umm….so….little muslimahs can go to school?
kinda hard to focus on school when half your extended family just got smeared across the landscape by an MQ-9 reaper..
this is a big deal. COIN is done…its unfunded as of now.
no more seminars and think tanks on counterinsurgency.
i hear a lotta peeps saying this is no big whup….it is a big whup.
General Stuck
@matoko_chan:
It’s not an intel compromise. It’s publishing the names of soldiers to the fucking world. If you can’t comprehend the wrongness of that, then I can’t explain it to you why it’s a bad idea.
General Stuck
@eemom: It’s is kind of profound like handle. Commands respect, unlike Stuck which of course does no such thing, and is shortened from It’s origin handle of Stuck in the Funhouse. awwe those were the days.
THE
@General Stuck:
I don’t see it as profound.
I read it as Tee, aitch, eee.
General Stuck
@THE: okay tz it is.
matoko_chan
@General Stuck: but its their job and you can google their status….like you could look me up in my graduate department if i tole you where i went to school….i dont unnerstand that at all.
do you think they are ashamed of what they done or of being soldiers? i dont get your reasoning.
chaseyourtail
@mclaren:
I guess I have a big problem with people constantly comparing this situation to Vietnam. We are in a different era with a different generation in charge. For the same reason that I found it illogical when people called for Obama to behave more like LBJ during the lead up to health care reform, I also find it illogical to suggest that this conflict will turn out just like Vietnam. The reason being that I don’t like the practice of seeing everything through the haze of history, as opposed to seeing the future through the clarity of what is achievable. If we learn from history we are not “doomed to repeat it”. The question is has Obama learned from history…I think he has. It’s ironic though that some of the folks who demanded Obama behave more like LBJ are the same folks who are now complaining that Obama might behave the way LBJ did with Vietnam. Yes, the President has escalated our presence in Afghanistan, but he has also set a deadline…LBJ did not. The 2011 deadline itself will allow Obama the political latitude to start to draw down troops. He changed the objective from achieving the all elusive “victory” to transitioning power back to the Afghans. Imo, this basic difference with allow us to leave without it appearing to be a defeat. As we know, Americans hate to lose.
Obama is not a war monger. He will not continue this war in a protracted manner. I believe he has every motive to bring the war in Afghanistan to a conclusion. That’s why he set a deadline to begin with. As he stated, and I believe him, we will begin leaving Afghanistan in 2011. Some of you may not believe the President and that’s your prerogative but don’t think you can predict the future any more than I can, because you can’t.
soonergrunt
When the stupid gets overwhelming, I just leave for a while. It’s not worth fighting it, because it cannot be defeated. It’s the willful, pretend stupidity that people engage in that gets me. The pretending to be shouting at the wall because if they so much as acknowledge the fact that you said something they think they lose, so they just keep shouting past you or asking the same question over and over again. Or they keep pushing the same point over and over again even when the mountain of facts and logic threaten to overwhelm them.
Conservatives aren’t the only ones who are prone to this habit of doubling down on the stupid in the face of overwhelming facts and logic.
So I leave for a while and hope for something better.
Then I come back and find that the stupid is going full force. Thank God I stopped getting my hopes up that people were capable of changing positions in light of evidence.
matoko_chan
@soonergrunt: i think you should admit I’m right and you are wrong about COIN.
And I also think Exum should change the title of his dissertion while he still can.
COIN is going down……the whole ediface of mil-academy white papers, dissertations, think tanks, symposiums, is going to be occluded by the stench of Fail now.
it doesn’t matter if its fair or not…..it is what it is…i actually was a fan of COIN…it could have worked with some tweaks. but that will never happen now.
COIN is about to become politically radioactive.
THE
@matoko_chan:
I was never a fan of COIN.
I favor a far smaller footprint in Afghanistan.
I don’t think we should be engaged in micromanaging Afghan affairs.
I believe we have no long-term interests there.
And certainly not after the last farcical election.
I believe Karzai is Taliban-Lite.
I believe the real Taliban will wupp his ass.
I believe US should rely on technical means* to ensure there are no terrorist training camps, and otherwise go home.
*Technical means: Surveillance by satellites and drones.
soonergrunt
@matoko_chan: I’ll admit that you’re a goddamned idiot who doesn’t know what it is he or she is talking about. Or you’re pretending to be a goddamned idiot for reasons known to yourself.
Doctrines that have been shown to work don’t die just because commanders change or because you read an article on stratfor you stupid fuck.
eemom
@soonergrunt:
teh stoopid is raging again in today’s thread. I think I’ll follow your example and stay out of it. It is really a waste of time arguing with these idiots.
And thank you for your service.
soonergrunt
@eemom: You’d think I’d not have to keep relearning the same lesson–that some things just aren’t worth the effort…
http://xkcd.com/386/
And thank you.
matoko_chan
@soonergrunt: doctrines die for lack of fundage.
that is what im sayin’.
watch and learn.