McCain & Lackeys say McCain was Wrong

by: Richard Allen Smith

Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 12:59:23 PM EDT


Matt Duss at Wonk Room has a great catch in yesterdays Op-Ed in the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal from the Grand Tribunal of Ill-Advised Foreign Policy:

We recognize that a decision to increase the number of American troops in Afghanistan will be politically difficult here at home. Some will say we can't afford it. Others will warn the president of "quagmire" and urge him to send either no new forces, or fewer than Gen. McChrystal recommends-perhaps with the promise of "re-evaluating" further deployments later on.

It is precisely this middle path-which the previous administration pursued for too long in Iraq-that is a recipe for quagmire and collapse of political support for the war at home. Mr. Obama was right when he said last year that "You don't muddle through the central front on terror . . . You don't muddle through stamping out the Taliban."

We have reached a seminal moment in our struggle against violent Islamist extremism, and we must commit the "decisive force" that Gen. McChrystal tells us carries the least risk of failure.

Of course, you'll remember, then-Senator Obama's soundbite on not being able to "muddle through" in Afghanistan was in response to this soundbite from still-Senator McCain:

MCCAIN: I am concerned about it, but I'm not as concerned as I am about Iraq today - obviously, or I'd be talking about Afghanistan - but I believe that if Karzai can make the progress that he is making, that in the long term we may muddle through in Afghanistan.

Duss points out that this contention by the Three Amigos, made without a hint of irony, is really just "laying the groundwork for future concern trolling", but I'd like to point out another tactic they are using here. Notice the repeated mention of General McChrystal's recommendation? This is the same thing we saw in the Bush Administration with advocates hiding behind the commander in uniform, rather than taking on the dissenters themselves. Its conveying the concept that if you disagree, it's not the Senators policy course you don't support, its the troops. This is cowardice of the highest degree, and I wish I could say I'm surprised that they are continuing to use this tactic, even when they are no longer the party responsible for making the decisions.  
Richard Allen Smith :: McCain & Lackeys say McCain was Wrong
Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

McCain & Lackeys say McCain was Wrong | 4 comments
Using "Tactics" (0.00 / 0)
I personally hate this political partisanship shit, but I suppose it's game-on again.  Here goes...

The above article is itself a "tactic."   By searching for, finding, specifying, manufacturing, twisting, then "reporting" on another newly-created boogeyman, the attention is taken away from the real problem.  The REAL problem with Afghanistan is not McCain, or Wilson, or Cheney, or Donald Duck.  It's the bum-fumbling administration that has no plan, goals, strategies, or ideas about what to do.  The Afghan problem is getting more serious (news sources abound), but little seems to be getting done about dealing with it.  But hey, if a scapegoat can be found to deflect WTF is really going on, let's use it.

I'm an Obama supporter and I believe he can do much.  But Afgh seems to be low on the list of priorities -- understandable with so many issues out there.  Then there's GITMO!  In the end, I think OB will accomplish many of his goals, but in the meantime, for partisan shills to disavow responsibility for problems where they actually lie by shifting the viewing pane is cheap and again, highly disingenuous.

I really don't know what to think on Afghanistan anymore (0.00 / 0)
On the one side, I say send in more troops to give the commanders the reinforcements they've been asking for.  But they have to be the right troops.  Don't send infantry if they need MI and don't send ops guys if they are begging for ground pounders.  We have to know what the excess troops are actually being used for ot it is just the "surge" strategy all over again.

On the other hand, once we are "successful" in Afghanistan, what then?  Assuming that AQ has been driven out, the people of Afghanistan have a working corruption-free government, along with new roads, bridges and health care. And once a week all the former Jihadis get together to praise Israel and sing kumbaya.  Assuming that all of this happens.

AQ will simply have moved on to Somalia, Etritria, Ethiopia, Niger, FATA, Waziristan, or any number of Eastern European former Soviet bloc countries.  Do we invade them next?

I agree Redding.  We need a strategy before we can have a plan.  

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

[ Parent ]
The "other" issue (0.00 / 0)
AQ will simply have moved on to Somalia, Etritria, Ethiopia, Niger, FATA, Waziristan, or any number of Eastern European former Soviet bloc countries.  Do we invade them next?

Excellent point.  It's one we, as a country and Administration, must address, instead of experiencing more horrific body bags flying in from the ME.  And as I wrote, hesitantly, shifting the focus of the discussion to side-liners like McCain, Bush, and other "Lackeys" instead of the first-string team is nothing more than junk prose.

And thanks for a fine report on Operation FREE.

[ Parent ]
Special Forces attack in Somalia, report possible success against AQ target (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
McCain & Lackeys say McCain was Wrong | 4 comments
VetVoice on Social Media
Follow rockrichard on Twitter

VoteVets.org on Facebook
    		•
    VetVoice Recommends

    "The War I Always Wanted,"
    By Brandon Friedman

    "The welcome mat for memoirs by veterans of operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom might never wear out so long as they write with the savvy of Brandon Friedman . . . Friedman's take is vivid, frank, precise and dramatic." --Military Times

    "Add Brandon Friedman's The War I Always Wanted to the ranks of outstanding non-fiction produced by officers from elite combat units in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Always truthful, often excruciatingly so, The War I Always Wanted rises at numerous points to the level of literature." --Steven Pressfield, author of Gates of Fire

    Buy The War I Always Wanted here.

    "A Time To Lead,"
    By General (Ret.) Wesley K. Clark

    "A Time To Lead confirms the rewarding benefits of military service at a time when such service is experiencing considerable strain. It also includes a comprehensive description of America's current national imperatives, which deserve serious consideration." --General Alexander M. Haig, Jr., former Secretary of State

    "This is a primer on leadership forged in battle and by decades of experience. . .This isn't just a book; it's a manual for leading people and living a good life." --Barry McCaffrey, General, USA (ret.)

    Buy A Time to Lead here.

    "Love My Rifle More Than You,"
    By Kayla Williams

    "Whip smart, sassy, with a mouth as foul as a sailor's, 28-year-old Sergeant Kayla Williams. . .tells what it's like to be a female soldier in Iraq." --Booklist

    ". . .echoes military memoirists from Julius Caesar to Ernie Pyle." --Publishers Weekly

    ". . .a shocking, on-the-ground view of one military woman's experience in Iraq." --Bookmarks Magazine

    Buy Love My Rifle More Than You here.

    "How to Break a Terrorist,"
    By Matthew Alexander

    "...a riveting, fast-paced account that reads like a first-rate thriller." --Publisher's Weekly

    " ...an absorbing behind-the-scenes look at the secret intelligence war within a war." --Military.com

    Buy How to Break a Terrorist here.
    Search

    Advanced Search
    RSS Feed Links

    Subscribe to VetVoice in a feed reader!

    Subscribe to VetVoice by Email!
    Diaries and comments at VetVoice do not necessarily represent the views of VoteVets.org. VetVoice will strive to remove any illegal material as soon as it is flagged. Similarly, VetVoice will use its discretion in determining whether to remove exceedingly offensive material. However, between posting and removal, any offensive or illegal material does not reflect the condoning or endorsing of said material by VoteVets.org or VetVoice.
    Similarly, the views expressed on this website are those of the authors alone. Opinions on this website do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense or any of its components.
    Menu

    Make a New Account

    Username:

    Password:


    Forget your username or password?

    Front Page Writers
    PTSD Resources
    TBI Resources
    IRR Information
    Casualty Reports
    VA Information
    Support the Troops
    Veteran Candidates We Support
    Congressional Committees
    Contact Your Elected Leaders
    Sites We Like

    Paid for VoteVets Political Action Committee. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. VoteVets Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on behalf veterans and their families. VoteVets Political Action Committee is a federal political committee which primarily helps elect Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran candidates and educates about veterans and military issues aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election.

    Site Design: Articulated Man

    VoteVets Political Action and Vote Vets Action Fund are separate organizations.

    Powered by: SoapBlox