Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[Undertoad]

We were talking about Lebanon.

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Instructive to see you're twisting in every possible way to spin even the obvious. Houdini could learn from you.
Yep, the same biggot-minded quote as Junior's "You're either with us or against us".

Damn it. I really hate the way you argue, Hip.
Those two sentences make me want to argue against you even when I agree with you, simply because you steer away from what are good points into name-calling.

[Hippikos]

Sorry to have ruffled your feathers head, but as they say you can't please em all...

We were talking about Lebanon.

I was referring to an earlier message, probably should have quoted that.

Lebanon is Israels Vietnam, that's why they pulled out in 2000.

Afghanistan war was totally justified, the whole world was behind the US. Most unfortunate the US fumbled the ball in Afghanistan and let all the major players escape. If the US had investigated even a quarter of the Iraq recources into Afghanistan than the world probably would be a safer place.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You called Afghanistan Vietnam here, after one day of bombing

UT, you amaze me with how your eyes glaze over when thoughts are longer than a soundbyte. You even confuse 'lessons from Vietnam' with 'what is Vietnam'. Or do you do this only to argue?

You cite a post that accurately warned of consequences in Afghanistan as learned in Vietnam and as Colin Powel was so careful to avoid in Kuwait. One overlooked point is soundbyted:

However now that we went in with all guns blazing, we ... have a very limited time to get those murders. We must now succeed in weeks or suffer long term consequences.

Well we are now suffering those long term consequences. For example, bin Laden lives because - well it was predicted back in Oct 2001. Taliban has retaken half of Afghanistan and is growing in popularity. And somehow we even ignored the strategic objective - and are therefore bogged down in two wars that we cannot win (using current leadership that ran from rabbit hole to rabbit hole).

How sophisticated were we? We entered with guns blazing and then stopped when it was time to commit.

What matters now is how quickly we resolve our objectives - either the capture of Al Qaeda or the replacement of the Taliban government by responsible, third party Afghanistans.

Having used a conspicuous and flagrant response, we have now severely limited time to resolve the crisis. That big show better have solve[d] the problem up front. Unfortunately the response reeks too much of a VietNam type mentality - where every intelligence service said there were no targets worth attacking - but we bombed anyway.

So instead we bombed Tora Bora rather than send in troops. Bin Laden was saved by Washington politicians who used bombing rather than send in ground troops. Just another Vietnam lesson lost. Leaders who would not even send in Americans to get bin Laden until some CIA agents did it on their own initative - without orders. Deja Vue Vietnam.

UT, did you even understand what was posted there? Even in Afghanistan, we violated lessons from Vietnam. Therefore bin Laden lives. Perspective without Pictures

Our leadership cannot see the bigger picture or even provide leadership. A leader would have returned to Washington rather than fly from rabbit hole to rabbit hole, indecisive, until suddenly while safely in Nebraska, he realized he was not being presidential. This is a decisive leader? No. This is also the leadership that drives moderates to support extremist positions.

Posted on 11 September and referenced in your citation. Notice the accuracy of that five year old post.

Emotion, especially right now, will create disasters larger than anything small like a WTC collapse. It is time to start taking stock of who are the extremists, who are the moderates, and who really is the enemy. IOW now more than ever is the time to start thinking dry, boring, and logical. Now is the time for leaders to act more as leaders.

Instead bin Laden lives simply because we did not have the leadership to get in, get the job done, and get out. Somehow the strategic objective got lost and therefore so did an exit strategy. Above quote was posted 12 September 2001. Somehow we instead blamed and attacked Saddam a year later because, even in The Cellar, too many did not take a "dry, boring, and logical" approach. Review responses back then. Posted was not popular. But the warnings were accurate.

"Mission Accomplished". Notice how early on the leadership vacuum in America was identified by simply using facts. Notice warnings traceable to the lessons from Vietnam. Deja Vue Vietnam because the lessons of history were not learned - including an essential need for a strategic objective.

The lessons of Vietnam were violated in Afghanistan. Tora Bora is a classic example of lessons not learned and that "85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management".

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Sorry to have ruffled your feathers head, but as they say you can't please em all...
Afghanistan war was totally justified, the whole world was behind the US. Most unfortunate the US fumbled the ball in Afghanistan and let all the major players escape. If the US had investigated even a quarter of the Iraq recources into Afghanistan than the world probably would be a safer place.

One, if you're actually trying to convince someone, calling them names probably isn't going to work.
Two, agreed. Afghanistan got boned by us redeploying to Iraq. I'm pretty embarrassed about that one, as should most Americans.

EDIT: Damnit, I'm irritated and I'm going to completely go grammar/spelling police:
It's deja vu, not Deja Vue. It's French and not a proper noun.
2nd EDIT: Calling something Vietnam and saying that we violated lessons that should have been learned in Vietnam are two totally seperate things, tw. Switching arguments mid-stride is a nincompoop move.

[Undertoad]

I agree with most of that tw, and you were right and I was wrong about a lot of things, but the Vietnam analogy is tired and thin now, having been stretched by you to apply to all of the M.E. and most of middle Asia.

There were lessons to be learned from all of history. This piece points out the question: what year is it in the war on terror? Let's see if I can summarize it:

-- There are five major schools of thought on this question, beginning with the "1942ists," who believe that we stand in Iraq today where the U.S. stood shortly after Pearl Harbor: bogged down against a fascist enemy and duty-bound to carry on the fight to victory.

-- Over the last year, though, many conservatives have been peeling away from '42ism, joining the "1938ists" instead, for whom Iran's march toward nuclear power is the equivalent of Hitler's 1930s brinkmanship.

-- Most of the liberal ex-'42ists have joined up with the "1948ists," who share the '42ist and '38ist view of the war on terror as a major generational challenge, but insist that we should think about it in terms of Cold War-style containment and multilateralism, not Iraq-style pre-emption.

-- What unites the '48ists, too, is a desire to avoid being tarred as antiwar leftists. This is precisely the position that the "1972ists" embrace. '72ism has few mainstream politicians behind it, but a great many Americans, and it holds that George Bush is Nixon, Iraq is Vietnam, and that any attack on Iran or Syria would be equivalent to bombing Cambodia.

-- As 1972ists are to mainstream liberalism, the "1919ists" are to the political right: The old-guard faction that damns its own party's leaders as sellouts to the other side.


Article has more detail. And ends with a sixth possibility:

-- But as our crisis deepens, it's worth considering 1914ism, and with it the possibility that all of us, whatever year we think it is, are poised on the edge of an abyss that nobody saw coming.

[headsplice]

Of course, the problem with historical analogies are that they are just that: analogies. The situations aren't identical and need to be dealt with in completely different fashions.
Most blatantly: we aren't fighting a nation-state.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

... the Vietnam analogy is tired and thin now, having been stretched by you to apply to all of the M.E. and most of middle Asia.

The Vietnam analogy is really lesson after lesson about how not to conduct a war. I can think of no war where every major principle was violated starting with no strategic objective, no smoking gun, no exit strategy, Domino theory, propaganda, whistleblowing that exposed that propaganda (Pentagon papers), etc. I cannot think of another war where the attacking nation was so much its own worse enemy ("We have met the enemy and he is us")

Latest issue of The Economist demonstrates a same problem in Israel's leadership:

Victory is not a matter of seizing territory, Dan Halutz once explained. It is a matter of “consciousness”. And air power, continued Israel's chief of staff, affects the adversary's consciousness significantly. Indeed, the very concept of the land battle is "anachronistic". Lieut-General Halutz, an air-force man, is said to have persuaded Israel's militarily inexperienced prime minister, Ehud Olmert, that the task of destroying Hizbullah in Lebanon was the perfect job for aircraft.

It did not quite work out that way. Yet the seductive idea that air power can provide swift victory with light casualties has been around almost as long as the aeroplane itself. ...

But when it comes to rooting out guerrillas and insurgents, wishful thinking still tends to outweigh technological capabilities. A study of the use of air power in small wars over the past century by James Corum and Wray Johnson, two former professors at the American air force's School of Advanced Airpower Studies, concluded that insurgents and terrorists "rarely present lucrative targets for aerial attack". Air power has been used to greatest effect in such campaigns only indirectly: to gather intelligence, move troops or maintain communication.

And as others besides the Israelis have found, trying to wage an air campaign against irregular forces is especially vulnerable to the backlash that invariably arises as civilian casualties mount.

Vietnam most demonstrated the fallacy of Air Power as a primary weapon. But The Economist goes back even to 1920 and Somaliland to demonstrated the myth. Vietnam, a war where fallacy after fallacy was promoted, is also the perfect example of why Air Power is only a support function. IOW those lessons (along with so many others from that war) are so important that Pentagon Papers is required history reading. Lessons so important as to even define Colin Powell's strategy for a Kuwait Liberation.

And so we have above but one in a long list of lessons from Vietnam.

What Year Is It? Is it 1918? Or 1972? Or 1948? is a most interesting article. Maybe only entertaining. Or like The Economist’s Big Mac Index, it contains a strong thread of reality. However one sentence struck me curiously.

Saddam and Zarqawi are the Hitlers and Tojos of our era

Problem is that Hitler and Tojo were real enemies. Saddam and Zarqawi were enemies hyped and promoted only by propaganda. Neither (of the latter) were the centralized leaders of a coordinated enemy - except where propaganda said otherwise. Both were promoted because propagandists could not even identify a real enemy. (Another problem created when a strategic objective does not exist). IOW the current war is chock full of mythical enemies as both China and USSR were the enemies in Vietnam, or as Gandhi was considered an enemy by the colonialist Churchill.

IOW where in that article are the 'year' when the enemy does not really exist? Where an enemy is really a mythical creation of the aggressor?

Returning to the Economist's 26 Aug 2006: "Air power An enduring illusion" :

General Halutz was said to have been strongly influenced by NATO's war of psychological pressure against Slobodan Milosevic, which aimed to force the Serb dictator to take a specific action - pull out of Kosovo and halt his ethnic cleansing - through an air campaign that kept ratcheting up the costs by destroying power plants, bridges, factories and other bits of infrastructure.

If he really believed this, then the Israeli general never learned why that use of air power by Richard Holbrook was so successful. Air power was not a principle tool. Military victory was only secondary. Air power only operated in a support function to something far more important than war or victory: the negotiations. Air power was a tool used by Holbrook to have Milosevic negotiate himself out of a job.

OK. This takes but one lesson from Vietnam one step farther. It demonstrates another useful support function of air power: how air power can be used in a tool in negotiation; 'carrot and stick' or 'Bugs Bunny' diplomacy. This because the negotiations - not victory - are more important (something that those with a 'big dic' mentality so often never learn).

Return to THE most critical aspect of all war - negotiations. In Hezbollah / Israel conflict are no negotiations. Even America does not talk to Hezbollah. In Iraq, America created enemies that America does not even talk to as that war is slowly being lost to an enemy that most Americans don't even understand (and not easily defined). In Iran, President Ahmadinejad, as even defined by a Wall Street analyst on this subject, is desperately asking (almost begging) for direct talks with the US on everything from pistachios to nuclear energy. We have that much to negotiate and still avoid negotiation; which makes war inevitable. In North Korea, we completely destroyed what negotiations were slowly achieving (defusing). And even in Vietnam, Nixon literally undermined Johnson's secret offer to N Vietnam for a truce. Nixon sent a message to Ho Chi Minh to not accept a truce since Nixon would offer him a better deal. Again, war inevitable because conflicting parties did not talk; did not even understand what the other side really wanted.

So where in that article does it define the 'year' where war is created by ignorance of the other, propaganda promoting the other as evil, and stupid insistence that negotiations cannot occur?

The stupid use of air power was one lesson from Vietnam. Reasons why wars are created - especially a refusal to talk - is but another reason. Propaganda where 'they must be evil' is but another lesson. Vietnam is chock full of example of why wars happen; when wars are futile; how wars become perverted and corrupted by propaganda, hate, and emotions; how wars using the world's strongest militaries and best weapons are lost (the strategic objective, a smoking gun, and an exit strategy); and especially the importance of negotiation.

I don't fool myself for one minute. I suspect this post went right over the heads of most readers. However it should, at minimum, introduce the lurker to how sophisticated an analysis should be long before war is advocated or even considered. By not having viewed war with such complexity, we had Vietnam, we have Iraq, we have a now losing effort in Afghanistan (a war where the smoking gun did exist), and we have the totally useless and wasteful seventh invasion of Lebanon by Israel.

In each case, these wars were avoidable, and the outcomes statistically predictable once an analysis gets this complex - using nothing more than basic geo-political-military lessons from history - especially Vietnam.

Again, it is why having not read the Pentagon Papers is akin to not yet learning why war is created and how war is so easily avoided (when a smoking gun does not exist). 1919ers, 1938ers, 1942ers, 1948ers, and 1972ers do not exist with this more complex perspective. I find that article amusing. But, as best I can tell, it does not define what does and does not justify war AND it does not even define simple principles from Vietnam (et al) including fallac uses of air power.

Vietnam is simply the best example of so many failed geo-political-military strategies and myths. Vietnam is chock full of why wars are promoted by the naive for rediculous, foolish, and wrong reasons.

[Hippikos]

One, if you're actually trying to convince someone, calling them names probably isn't going to work.

Agree. OK last thing abt this. If you look back, I was merely mirroring the message in kind, i.e. name calling is usually not my game.

Vietnam most demonstrated the fallacy of Air Power as a primary weapon.

Kosovo was the latest example. Serbia pulled out only when Russia took their hands of them, not the NATO air strikes made them. NATO military top brass were completely embarrassed when they saw Serbia's almost complete army pulling back.

Both Iran and NKorea want bilateral negotiations. It would make the world a much safer place. Iran actually would benefit from a stable ME. Khamenei has founded a special foreign committee in June 2006 besides Ahmadinjihad...oops Ahmadinejad in order to negotiate with the US. In fact with their nuclear program Iran is performing the carrot-and-stick policy now and not the US, because they are tied up in a strategical disastrous war in Iraq.

[tw]

Lessons from every war is that the victor must plan for the peace long before war is over AND that the first year so determines how that peace will befall all parties. Well, because American leadership is based in mental midgets who did not even know basic concepts from 500 B.C. , Afghanistan is now obviously what was reported even here in the Cellar on November 2005 in Morality and February 2006 in Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

From the BBC of 8 September 2006:

Afghan force 'needs more troops'
Brigadier Ed Butler said his troops were being attacked up to a dozen times a day but their morale remained high.

"The intensity and ferocity of the fighting is far greater than in Iraq on a daily basis," Brig Butler told the UK's ITV News programme.

He said British forces had been involved in "fighting that is up close and personal" that at times included hand-to-hand combat.

Earlier, Nato's top commander, Gen James Jones, said the alliance had been taken aback by the scale of violence in the region.

But he predicted that the coming weeks would be decisive in the fight against the insurgents.

Commanders on the ground had asked for several hundred additional troops and more helicopters and airlift, he said.

"We are talking about modest reinforcements," he told reporters at Nato European headquarters in Belgium.

20,000 NATO troops and it is no longer sufficient. BBC reporters traveled only 10 miles outside Kabul to interview large Taliban forces. "Mission Accomplished" is going that badly.

Are they Al Qaeda? Well if I opened a hardware store and wanted others to join my business, then I would call myself Sears Hardware, Home Depot, or Lowes. Everybody loves a winner - especially when George Jr fears to go after its leader five years later. Anyone who wants to hate America would call themselves Al Qaeda for obvious reasons. (Then a mental midget president lies; call them an international terrorist network.)

Afghanistan is now moving towards anything that is anti-American. Years after Afghanistan was conquered, the US did not even begin promised upgrades to Kabul's water system. Situation normal for a George Jr that sees all solutions only in military conquests. Welcome to another quagmire. And this time we dragged Europe and Canada into our mess.

[tw]

"Misson Accomplished" or just another reason why 500,000 troops were needed. From the Washington Post of 11 Sept 2006:

Situation Called Dire in West Iraq
Anbar Is Lost Politically, Marine Analyst Says
The chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq recently filed an unusual secret report concluding that the prospects for securing that country's western Anbar province are dim and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there, said several military officers and intelligence officials familiar with its contents.

The officials described Col. Pete Devlin's classified assessment of the dire state of Anbar as the first time that a senior U.S. military officer has filed so negative a report from Iraq.

One Army officer summarized it as arguing that in Anbar province, "We haven't been defeated militarily but we have been defeated politically - and that's where wars are won and lost."

The "very pessimistic" statement, as one Marine officer called it, was dated Aug. 16 and sent to Washington shortly after that, and has been discussed across the Pentagon and elsewhere in national security circles. "I don't know if it is a shock wave, but it's made people uncomfortable," said a Defense Department official who has read the report. ...

Another person familiar with the report said it describes Anbar as beyond repair; a third said it concludes that the United States has lost in Anbar.

Devlin offers a series of reasons for the situation, including a lack of U.S. and Iraqi troops, a problem that has dogged commanders since the fall of Baghdad more than three years ago, said people who have read it. These people said he reported that not only are military operations facing a stalemate, unable to extend and sustain security beyond the perimeters of their bases, but also local governments in the province have collapsed and the weak central government has almost no presence.

Those conclusions are striking because, even after four years of fighting an unexpectedly difficult war in Iraq, the U.S. military has tended to maintain an optimistic view: that its mission is difficult, but that progress is being made. Although CIA station chiefs in Baghdad have filed negative classified reports over the past several years, military intelligence officials have consistently been more positive, both in public statements and in internal reports.

Remember what Rumsfeld said repeatedly. US commanders had not asked him for more troops. So who do we beleive. A principle in the George Jr administrations - or commanders in the field.

Remember every General that had serviced in Iraq and then had retired had spoken out against this administration last year. Those who deal in reality took special note of that fact. Those who blindly worship extremists rhetoric from Rush Limbaugh, et al denied reality.

Let's see. Was it late 1967 that Vietnam's nothern provinces had been lost "and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation". Making of a Quagmire.

[tw]

From the NY Times of 14 Sept 2006:

An Unexpected Collision Over Detainees
At issue are definitions of what is permissible in trials and interrogations that both sides view as central to the character of the nation, the way the United States is perceived abroad and the rules of the game for what Mr. Bush has said will be a multigenerational battle against Islamic terrorists.

... stern opposition to the president being expressed by three Republicans with impeccable credentials on military matters: Senators John McCain of Arizona, John W. Warner of Virginia and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. The three were joined on Thursday by Colin L. Powell, formerly the secretary of state and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in challenging the administration’s approach. [Also joining to lead opposition is Susan Collins of Maine.]

It is one of those rare Congressional moments when the policy is as monumental as the politics.

On one side are the Republican veterans of the uniformed services, arguing that the president’s proposal would effectively gut the nearly 60-year-old Geneva Conventions, sending a dark signal to the rest of the world and leaving United States military without adequate protection against torture and mistreatment. ...

Brushing aside the objections of Mr. Bush and most of his Republican colleagues in Congress, Mr. Warner led the Senate Armed Services Committee to produce legislation on Thursday that would provide detainees with protections beyond those sought by Mr. Bush, setting up a collision with the House, where a measure approved by the administration is advancing.

House Republicans say the Senate plan is misguided and will hobble the American military. Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said it would lead to “the lawyer brigade” being attached to combat troops to counsel detainees.

Powell Breaks With Bush on Torture Issues
In a brief letter to Senator McCain objecting to the president’s call for tougher interrogations of suspected terrorists, General Powell not only stated his opposition but also took a swipe at the administration’s standing around the globe. “The world is beginning to doubt our moral basis for the war against terrorism,” he warned, recalling his support for the McCain amendment on detainee treatment last year.

Beginning? Colin Powell's letter to John McCain.

Well understood, retired generals tend to voice the opinion of active duty generals (who obviously cannot say anything). Every General who had servied in Iraq and since retired has spoken out against this Administration's war. 26 Generals in a public letter said

We believe that the language that would redefine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions as equivalent to the standards contained in the Detainee Treatment Act violates the core principles of the Geneva Conventions and poses a grave threat to American service-members, now and in future wars.

Of course. George Jr suddenly advocates this change (to define more aggressive torture) when the US Supreme Court on 29 Jun 2006 in a case involving bin Laden's chauffer, Hamdan, threw a slap into George Jr's face. This case and George Jr's response was summarized in Has the Bush Doctrine failed? .

To continue torture, George Jr must define what torture is now legal and to provide CIA agents with even greater leeway to both torture and to restock those still not closed secret overseas prisons.

Senators Defy Bush On Terror Measure
McCain told reporters that Hayden wants Congress to give the CIA a virtually free hand to treat detainees as it wishes so that he and his agents will be immunized against accusations of unlawful conduct. "He's trying to protect his reputation at the risk of America's reputation," McCain said. The senator noted that other nations would be more likely to abuse U.S. captives if Americans appeared to sanction such conduct.

CIA agents can buy insurance from the government to cover prosecution from on-the-job activities. At about $2000 per year, the number of requests for such insurance has significantly increased as a result of this Supreme Court decision. Notice how torture prevented attacks on the Golden Gate Bridge and Prudential Insurance building. Typical of the many orange alerts when information was obtained by torture.

Bottom line: George Jr wants what any anti-American president wants. He wants torture made legal now that the Supreme Court said torture is not legal. He also wants laws passed so that the Supreme Court cannot rul on torture again. This is god's chosen and moral president - or "Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition"?

[Griff]

Senators John McCain of Arizona, John W. Warner of Virginia and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. damn hippies!

[glatt]

Originally Posted by tw

CIA agents can buy insurance from the government to cover prosecution from on-the-job activities. At about $2000 per year, the number of requests for such insurance has significantly increased as a result of this Supreme Court decision.

I read somewhere (Wash. Post?) recently that the $2000 per year for that insurance is reimbursed by the government. I was surprised by that fact. If it's true, then there's no wonder that the number of requests has increased. I'd get that insurace too if it was "free," and I don't torture anyone.

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

I read somewhere (Wash. Post?) recently that the $2000 per year for that insurance is reimbursed by the government.

I kept rereading the reports. It was not entirely clear who paid for the insurance. The articles said it was paid for by employees. There was no specific reference to reinbursement or other details.

But then why would the government reinburse a CIA agent for an insurance policy sold CIA employees only by the government?