The worst and the dimmest
[McChrystal’s] chance came at an Oct. 8 meeting of Obama’s principal advisers, presided over by Jones — the “dress rehearsal” for a full-scale National Security Council gathering the president would hold the next day. Speaking by video link from Kabul, McChrystal began with the policy underlying his approach, established by the White House review, hastily compiled in February, that led to Obama’s March 27 strategy announcement and the deployment of nearly 22,000 new troops through the spring and summer.
In June, McChrystal noted, he had arrived in Afghanistan and set about fulfilling his assignment. His lean face, hovering on the screen at the end of the table, was replaced by a mission statement on a slide: “Defeat the Taliban. Secure the Population.”
“Is that really what you think your mission is?” one of those in the Situation Room asked.
On the face of it, it was impossible — the Taliban were part of the fabric of the Pashtun belt of southern Afghanistan, culturally if not ideologically supported by a significant part of the population. “We don’t need to do that,” Gates said, according to a participant. “That’s an open-ended, forever commitment.”
But that was precisely his mission, McChrystal responded, and it was enshrined in the Strategic Implementation Plan — the execution orders for the March strategy, written by the NSC staff.
“I wouldn’t say there was quite a ‘whoa’ moment,” a senior defense official said of the reaction around the table. “It was just sort of a recognition that, ‘Duh, that’s what, in effect, the commander understands he’s been told to do.’ Everybody said, ‘He’s right.’ ”
“It was clear that Stan took a very literal interpretation of the intent” of the NSC document, said Jones, who had signed the orders himself. “I’m not sure that in his position I wouldn’t have done the same thing, as a military commander.” But what McChrystal created in his assessment “was obviously something much bigger and more longer-lasting . . . than we had intended.”
Whatever the administration might have said in March, officials explained to McChrystal, it now wanted something less absolute: to reverse the Taliban’s momentum, deter it and try to persuade a significant number of its members to switch sides. “We certainly want them not to be able to overthrow the government,” Jones said.
[NOTE: The title of this post is a riff on this.]
Unfortunately, our lives and fortunes are in the hands of idiots. The Obama administration is a very sad joke.
Not laughing.
So why even freakin’ bother? 3,000, 30,000, or 300,000, it doesn’t matter if you’re not going to let them fight to win. Playing to “not lose” doesn’t work.
Andy McCarthy has it right: Obama’s strategy is to leave himself flexibility in 2011. From Alinsky Does Afghanistan:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/no_afghanistan_withdrawal_in_2.html
Isn’t this golden !
http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2009/12/04/secret-service-actually-no-elevated-threat-level-against-potus/
there is no more threats against this president than previous presidents….
Your title pretty much sums it up, Neo. Bret Stephens had an article a couple of weeks ago about Hamid Karzai, in which he pointed out that Karzai was better than most in that region, and has been overly denigrated.
Mark Steyn said i that: “If you happen to live in Kabul or Jalalabad, Ghurian or Kandahar, then a U.S. presidential speech about Afghanistan is, indeed, about Afghanistan. If you live anywhere else on the planet, a U.S. presidential speech about Afghanistan is really about America – about American will, American purpose, American energy.”
I thought that pretty much got to the nitty-gritty. Comments from our allies have been pretty harsh. Somebody else remarked that politicians do politics, a necessary reminder that it’s always about the next election, not the consequences down the road. Worrying.
These are not serious men.
Men, leaders; serious men; don’t say ‘whoa’. They don’t say ‘duh’.
My God, what has our pop culture done to us?
One thing about Karzai though, he’s got great outfits…not quite the panache of the Holy Father, but pretty fly.
p.s. (I think Obama would be taken much more seriously in Ming The Merciless drag)
“Andy McCarthy has it right: Obama’s strategy is to leave himself flexibility in 2011.”
Silly me, I thought his “strategy” was about Afghanistan. But it does make sense in its own perverse way if it’s about U.S. domestic politics. And the lives of the soldiers his neither-fish-nor-fowl policy puts at risk? They’ll have to find room under the bus with Rev. Wright, Greg Craig, and the rest. The C-in-C couldn’t give a rat’s patootie about them. Cowardice, thy name is Obama.
The deja vu for those of us who remember the LBJ years mucking up Viet Nam is overwhelming.
“It was clear that Stan took a very literal interpretation of the intent” of the NSC document, said Jones, who had signed the orders himself. “I’m not sure that in his position I wouldn’t have done the same thing, as a military commander.” But what McChrystal created in his assessment “was obviously something much bigger and more longer-lasting . . . than we had intended.”
Someone in the cabinet actually allowed themselves to be quoted saying this? Yes indeed, the best and the brightest are now at the helm.
Obama doesn’t “want to be going to Walter Reed for the next eight years.” I don’t want him going there beyond the next three. After that they can bar the doors to him.
How can anyone talk about the money for the surge when they are allocating one cent to the safe schools czar? See the series at Gateway Pundit and then we can talk about The Won’s judgement.
“Decent interval” anyone (see fall Of Viet-Nam).
Who was it that said “Statesmen think of the next generation, politicians think of the next election”.
Nyo’s War Strategy:
De-fund the Pakis or otherwise reign them in, the Junta has been a half-committed team player. They need to get complete committed and serious.
Begin renewed super-alliance with India.
30,000 US troops in Afghanistan is a move in the right direction, but much more, non-drafted troops are needed.
Go for the throats of the Mullahs in Iran, the people there and in the greater region want them out, a reformist-minded Islamic Iran is a great Ally even if it simply holds back and re-establishes it’s partnership in world trade.
“Unfortunately, our lives and fortunes are in the hands of idiots.”
Exactly; but to further clarify, our lives and fortunes are in the hands of fools (the voters) led by idiots (the Obama Democrat leadership racket and their collaborators); particularly promoted by a criminally partisan and complicit MSM. Similar to Europe, the American Republic is now in jeopardy of the demographics of a now dumbed down democracy; while the first line of victims are, indeed, the “best and the brightest”…
It appears that Gates got real comfortable real quickly with his new marching orders. We don’t need to win, we just have to make it look good for a short period of time. Not the man I took him to be. A man who will tolerate less than victory under his watch is a loser. Wriet this guy off.
McChrystal must have choked over what he was being told. No, we don’t even want to put a real effort into winning. When we pull out, don’t worry. We’ll blame you for the mess we are creating. Just make it look good, whatever that means. He does not get the “big picture”. He really doen not have any good options here, short of quietly resigning, which In suspect Obama would desire.
Karzai must be very worried. He has an “ally” that invaded his country and now wishes he would die or just go away. The only thing that keeps his troops from rebelling is that they will not be promised more in support than we are tepidly providing to Karzai. The question is whether we will provide enough support for Karzai to grow his army to be self sufficient before we pull out. He most likely concluded that the answer is no, which will send him to looking for other, more reliable allies. China? Russia? Pakistan? IRAN! Meanwhile, the democratization of Afghanistan was not the reason for our invasion. It was to punish the Taliban. We are in Afghanistan because it is in our interests, not those of Karzai. By changing the mission to one of failed emocratization, Obama is hoping that he is creating the excuse that will allow HIM to withdraw. He does not care that we will leave in dishonor.
Pakistan is sitting on top of this bomb. Whatever ties they had to us are quickly coming undone. They will also be looking for new allies without unduly scaring India. It is their interests to defang the Taliban but the country is very unstable and the possibility of a fundamentalist government coming to power means that they may end up allies.
Gordon Brown must feel like the guy who pulled the short straw. I suspect that he had no input into the decision process, nor was he told what we intended until the speech at West Point or shortly before. He will soon enough be out of office but what will the new Prime Minister think of our “special relationship”. (Not worth warm spit!) Is it even worth maintaining more than cordial and polite ties. Certainly, whatever government is next in power in GB, they cannot rely at all on Obama without appearing foolish.
The nonsense about Obama’s changing the way the world thinks about us resulted in our throwing away our credibility, leaving those countries with interests that were identical to ours confused at best as to the nature of our current ties (because Obama left the world wondering just what interests we have that are worth fighting for), and encouraging our enemies with the re3alization that we no longer have the will to prevail. In a relatively short time Obama has made the world much less safe as he is inviting all kinds of nasty adventures, and not just by Iran.
Is the democrat party really that much in line with Obama’s policies, domestic and foreign? I guess we will find out soon enough.
Steve G: Karzai ought to be very worried indeed—especially if he studies the history of the Diem coup and assassination.
Meanwhile, while the “worst and dimmist” fiddle–i.e. fool around overseas with no clue, and no determination to win, Rome burns.
The Jihad is here folks and accelerating. Recently we had Ft. Hood, now yesterday, we have a Jihadist murder of a professor at Binghamton University in New York, a comparative anthropologist who was a specialist in comparative religion, and who had written a book on Christian and Muslim fundamentalism; I guess he said something about Muhammad or Islam that ol’ Abdul didn’t like.
I had a feeling about this when the murder was reported yesterday, since the suspect was in custody but he was not named, nor was there even any speculation about a motive. Today, reported in the New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/student_kills_prof_nGgR2x0Omat9UDx473dDdO), comes the news that the perp who stabbed the prof. four times with a butcher knife–why is that they always go for the butcher knives?–was of his graduate students, 46 year old Saudi Abdul al-Zahrani and, again no information at all, or even speculation about motive, but to those commenting on the article at the Post, Abdul’s motives were crystal clear.
Look for this not to be a story widely reported in the MSM, or, if so, to be white washed.
This is the beginning–it may well have started long ago but just not reported–of Jihad against our academics. American “academic experts” in Middle Eastern Studies have already been bought off or subverted by the Saudi’s money and influence in Academia, or cowed, and, now, the other disciplines are to be silenced.
I should also point out that the execution-style slaying of four white policemen by Maurice Clemmons is also increasingly looking like a domestic Muslim terrorist attack, since there is some evidence that Clemmons had joined the Nation of Islam, (NOI) in prison, and a NOI offshoot, the Black Foot Soldiers, has put up a website calling “Crowned” (BOW) i.e. Black on White murderer “Brother Clemmons” a “martyr,” and praising him for “taking a stand against white police terrorism” (http://www.examiner.com/x-25466-DC-Independent-Examiner~y2009m12d2-Cop-killer-celebrated-as-Muslim-Martyr)
Obama exceeds Sen. John Kerry in political technique.
Kerry famously said about Iraq war funding “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”
Now we have Obama’s NSC, presumably along with Obama, saying in effect: We gave McChrystal written orders before we told him that we really didn’t mean it.
What I can’t understand is why our military leaders and our President–well, not this particular one, ‘cause I think he is playing for the other side–can’t and won’t see and articulate an all levels, all battlefields, long term, comprehensive, full spectrum plan to combat what is obviously a threat from Islam all along the entire threat spectrum–military, cultural, economic, philosophical, religious, legal–‘cause pretending that we are just dealing with a few misguided Muslim fanatics and not the essential imperative doctrines of Islam itself is just going to get a lot more Americans–soldiers and civilians–killed, and not going to buy is anything in the end. In fact, I think that going in so soft and unfocused at the start means that–if we are to win– we will have to be particularly harsh and “medieval” at the end.
Sure, we have all sorts of threats from Islam that emanate from Muslim countries, and from Muslim groups abroad, but, as illustrated by my posts above, we also have a growing threat within the U.S., from both Jihad of the violent type and the more subtle, insidious and subversive, and possibly more dangerous, “peaceful” Jihad, by which Muslim “scouts” and “colonists” stridently push to gain ever more “accommodations” to Islam and Muslim practice and belief here in the U.S., and, in the process, are starting to roll back our traditional culture, customs, practices, ways of doing things and laws. Eventually–as was their intent and plan all along–Muslims will be in control of a sufficient central part of the public square to be a major player, at which point their approach–if history is any guide–switches over to the more violent phase–think commandos grow to become a guerrilla force, then the guerrilla force grows enough to become a field army–and in the process we will be pushed back and pushed back and, finally, we will be relegated to an ever shrinking corner of the perimeter, and no longer in control of our own country–see England, France and Sweden for current more advanced examples of this process.
Wolla Dalbo,
I can only guess why they don’t see the big picture that you have described so well. I believe they don’t really think very much. They learn how they are to “think” to be in the right class. They shut out anything that threatens their cushy existence or their assumed moral high ground. Their opinions are soundbites picked up from an approved source.
In other words, their ability to recognize and analyze complex new information is totally undeveloped. I bet that most of us here responded to 9/11 by reading everything we could get a hold of, from all perspectives, because we knew that a response to 9/11 demanded it. We tried to weave our way through bits and pieces of information to understand. I don’t think they did that. They just pulled out the old cliches that had gotten them through a life’s worth of cocktail parties. They are stuck worrying about being on the A list. Such is our “elite.”
Sorry to test your patience, but might I mention one more battle in the great Jihad against the U.S. you might have missed, and that was the 11 Muslims in full regalia who recently disrupted Air Trans Airways flight 297 last month, by performing what looked like a terrorist dry run, apparently meant to purposely draw the TSA’s attention, to provoke/sensitize/desensitize them, and to see how they would react to an actual hijacking attempt, see http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17508 and http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2009/12/more-on-air-trans-dry-run.html ); very similar to a similar performance by a group of Muslims three years ago on USAir flight 300.
Bet you didn’t hear about this very much–if at all–from the MSM.
Neo,
If you think about it the situation in Afghanistan is 180 degrees away from that that obtained in Viet Nam.
Kennedy wanted to win and supported a change in presidents of South Viet Nam in order to increase the chances of winning. He apparently even sanctioned the assassination of Diem. Forget whether or not this worked in the long run as the focus is on Kennedy’s motive. Winning!
Winning in Afghanistan may not really be what Obama wants, as it could require that we spend more in order to keep the war going longer than he intends, and this will curtail what he wants to spend on his domestic programs. And, Obama is more likely to get the spending bills he wants only so long as the Republicans do not gain a few more seats in the Senate, which can happen in the 2010 elections. So, Obama needs Karzai, at least until November, 2010, and the worse karzai is as a leader the better excuse Obama has to end the war. Of course, if Karzai ever reads the tea leaves to foretell a desired victory by the USA, he knows he is in trouble.
Steve G: You are correct that Kennedy wanted to win. But the preponderence of evidence is that he did not sanction the Diem assassination. He did not even foresee it, although perhaps he should have. See also this:
I think the clue to the whole Obama administration is here: “a very literal interpretation of the intent”. Nothing is to be taken literally; it’s all posturing and pretense.
“I can only guess why they don’t see the big picture that you have described so well. I believe they don’t really think very much…”
Actually, our military leaders think quite a bit. But it’s about military topics, not about a civilian outreach program on the dangers of Islam. The thought to do this wouldn’t even occur to most of them. Besides, our military is under civilian control, so even the most senior generals and admirals have to follow orders from the civilians appointed and elected over them. Rocking the boat can get them in trouble.
Politicians, on the other hand, probably don’t think that much. Consider: what does a politician have to be good at to “succeed”? Answer: cut deals and raise money. At the most basic level, that’s it. Do they really have to know anything about the legislation that they vote on (which is actually written by staffers) and the hearings that they conduct? No, to judge by the unintended consequences of many laws, and from the recorded evidence at C-SPAN, where many members on both sides of the aisle cluelessly bloviate through the hearings. The Executive Branch is no better.
waltj,
I was talking more about the pols and pundits as non-thinkers than the military. Actually I have been pretty impressed by the military’s grasp of the situation, especially those who have been on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.
No, it is the people sitting in lighted TV studios who seem unable to get the big picture.
MissJean’s comment cannot be said enough. At the heart of all, the events of the world matter to these loan sharks only as counters in their own Washington careers.
“No, it is the people sitting in lighted TV studios who seem unable to get the big picture.”
You’ve got that right. I really started noticing this over 20 years ago during an election cycle. There had just been a presidential debate, and the entire post-debate focus was on which candidate “won”, not a word of analysis on what they actually said. It was all about the “horse race”, nothing else. I concluded that that was all the high-priced commentary crew was competent to discuss. That’s when it was confirmed for me, beyond all doubt and all redemption, that TV studios are filled with empty suits. There are always a few exceptions, but fewer and fewer as the years roll on.
As far as the military thinkers go, there’s a word for a soldier in combat who fails to adapt: dead. Mistakes lead to lots of dead soldiers, and the enemy always has a vote. Thus, soldiers (and members of the other services) tend to see through B.S. very quickly because their lives are at stake. Pity our civilian “leaders” aren’t as astute.
I can verify from long personal experience that many of our civilian decision makers are not very bright or well informed.
I also believe that for most members of Congress, from the first day they are sworn into office, they have a laser-like focus on getting contributions to amass a war chest and making the deals and decisions necessary to get them reelected.
If you are looking for educated, wise, thoughtful statesmen, who take the long view and are deeply concerned about preserving and protecting our country’s heritage and about the future of our country, look elsewhere.
P.S. I could be wrong in my reading of past history, but I believe that the kind of “statesman” that we desperately need is in very short supply today as compared to what had been the case in our past.
Wolla Dalbo, I think those statesmen you mentioned were always in short supply. But now they seem to have vanished entirely. Instead, we have nothing but “politicians”, and incompetent ones at that.
Re: Our lack of statesmen. I think that you could make the case that this is just another of the myriad pernicious side effects of the overwhelming success of Postmodernism.
The general social and moral structure, family life, and fundamental values and viewpoint, the schooling to inculcate the necessary lessons, a deep knowledge of American history and belief in American exceptionalism, a love of America and a fervently patriotic viewpoint, the emphasis on religion to instill the necessary ethics and character, the particular structure and message of basic social, political and cultural institutions, and a relatively honest political culture, have all been the targets of relentless attack and subversion by the ideas of Postmodernism.
Thus, the conditions and mechanisms that used to result in more patriotic, America-loving, educated “statesmen,”–many of them “focused on the next generation,” and keenly interested in what they thought was best for America, as opposed to our very many ill-educated or uneducated “politicians,” cynically “focused on their next election,” and interested not at all in what is good for America (except as how a superficial appeal to patriotic sentiments can advance their longevity in Congress), but only interested in their own advancement–have largely been destroyed, with the results that we see nightly on TV.
Times have, indeed, changed, but it was mostly a deliberate, directed and “forced” change (see, for instance, information on Antonio Gramsci and on the Frankfurt School).
The more things change the more they stay the same…
The Real History of the Crusades by Thomas F. Madden
http://bit.ly/7oqYwZ
Madden’s conclusion:
Western (Judeo-Christian) culture fights on two fronts: 1)Islamic & 2)Communist(Atheism)… Obama unites the two. He’s a knave – pray he’s too foolish to succeed.
Victory was assured in 2002 Yet some how it was mucked up.I wonder to what end ,the sacrifices since
are all the more tragic.
The Taliban was ready to turn over Bin Laden ,Tora Bora was an open grave waiting to be filled and lo and behold the troops were denied the necessary fire support to finish them off,I wonder why?Could it be that there were other objectives for The Bush administration and the ravenous chicken hawks that pimp for our Mil-indus
complex .
I’m just sayin as a former Marine I wonder what cost will these criminals pay in their dereliction and malfeasance .