d16842

You mean just like the kind of ethnic bigotry employed to "protect" the culture of upper Amazon tribes, by restricting who can move there, visit there, and what they can do there? Why is one culture more valuable than another, and who is to say where the lines must be drawn? I think that must rest within the nation itself. Especially in the EU, where anyone free to stay or go to other nations. Tom B

In addition to the other answers provided, some of the ID laws were put in place to track drug and other crime money. Tom B

As I wrote before, I don't think it had anything to do with minarets. That was just the focal point. This issue was about proclaiming "This is our nation, and our culture. You may come live here, but we are drawing a line in the sand and saying we are keeping things as they are today. It is your choice to come or not. " I have a hard time finding fault with that viewpoint, regardless of if it is in an Islamic, African, Asian, or western nation. It is their nation and culture after all. It does not belong to those who wish to immigrate. The following article explains it much better however. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/07/AR2009120702945.html?hpid=sec-religion Tom B

Gee, and all these years of recruiting, interviewing, and hiring people, I thought we had to set their salary at whatever wage the job market required to attract the workforce we needed. The supply and demand thing. It doesn't matter much how long it takes to train someone in a field, if there are tons of them unemployed in the area, they are going to be cheap. And skilled workers, with or without college, who are in very short supply, are going to be expensive. Tom B

I was thinking of a more direct action on her part, especially before I retired. With the incredible term life insurance I had then, I was worth far more dead than alive. Tom B

I am not afraid of ladders. But I am afraid of looking far down and finding my wife with her hands on the ladder. Tom B

As my 33 year father in law would say, divide it in two piles, and burn them both. Or you could just set the house on fire with it all in it. Besides, after a man has been married for five years, all of his stuff is in the garage or long gone. Tom B

No we don't. Yes, we do. The linear approach has not worked in Afghanistan, and it has not worked in Iraq. General officers, e.g., Gen. Anthony Zinni (USMC Ret.), have acknowledged it's ineffectiveness. I wrote about a an example of a concurrent approach to SSTR being effective in the War on Terror in this post. If you want to have a discussion, and more importantly, be taken seriously, then don't snip other's comments so that they are completely distorted. What I wrote was: No we don't. We have proof that the combined total of what we did over an eight year period, planning and execution, hasn't yet worked." That is far from no we don't. I am not saying you are wrong, only that the proof is far from there. There are no guarantees in war. Finally. So your proof can't be proven. I get it. Mine is a hypothesis with supporting evidence. Then why do you insist on calling it proof? That it is possible for Taliban is proof that it is possible. Furthermore, are you sure they are far from governmental? This video gives a different impression of the Taliban shadow government. Back to proof again. Yes, the same thugs who made people go to the soccer stadium to watch their friends, neighbors, and family members be executed for the slightest infraction of their view of law. That kind of governmental? My vision and definition of government doesn't stretch that far. That is brutal tyranny. Are you saying that the Taliban is better able to develop and successfully implement strategy than we are? I am saying that their message and approach, tied to their zeal with implementing it, as opposed to our moralistic approach with such strict self imposed limits, makes our attempting a battle of hearts and minds from the shadows, a gross miss-match we can't win. Good God we are court martialing Navy Seals just for punching a known terrorist killer leader that they were tasked to capture. And you expect us to be able to chase the Taliban out and make them stay out with just a different approach? How about a completely different set of expectations, morals, and laws than we have today? From http://www.hazara.net/taliban/taliban.html Never has any group been more controversial then the Taliban of Afghanistan. Patrolling the streets in the pickup trucks, the Taliban members, under the General Department for the Preservation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (Amr-bil Maroof Wa Nahi Anil Munkar), search houses and destroy any television sets, radios, cassettes, and photographs. The bands of Taliban thugs roam the streets beating those they deem to be violators of the Shariah (Islamic code of Law) [2]. The Taliban's harsh fundamentalist rule has dismantled all civil institutions, and closed all women Institutions. Tom B

Exactly... someone got that idea. Which takes us up to the F35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is supposed to fight, bomb, attack, do regular, short, and vertical take offs and landings (different versions I admit), be stealthy, serve every military in the world, naval and land, and fit the seating height of 95% of the population. Add to that list about 1,000 other significant design compromises. The JSF program was designed to replace the U.S. military's F-16, A-10, F/A-18, AV-8B, A6's already out of the inventory, the British Tornado, and several other foreign aircraft. This list includes small and large aircraft with an incredible range of missions. The JSF is very large, along the lines of an F105. That must play into carrier operations, but I leave that discussion to the squids who know about it. It is quite expensive, at least compared to the aircraft it replaces, even accounting for inflation. Frighteningly, it is the only strike aircraft publicly known to be in the development pipeline for the US, one decades long. It has a problematic single engine, (how well do you swim Navy?) likely to be manufactured by a single manufacturer (no great engine war to reduce costs), so the entire national fleet could be grounded at once by an engine design or manufacturing problem. Anybody want to bet on the chances of all this coming together well? Tom B

How about as simple as GDP minus any deficit spending (excluding FICA). That would be great, and I tried that approach, but I can't determine how much they have actually spent. We may know what was authorized, but not what was actually put into the US economy. Foreign spending doesn't count, and I have no idea where much of the war stuff fits in the GDP calculation. Tom B

No we don't. We have proof that the combined total of what we did over an eight year period, planning and execution, hasn't yet worked. Say we had planned it your way. Can you guarantee that you can plan an entire action and recovery before you even start or know who the nation's new leaders will be, that people will perfectly follow your plan and no execution failures will prevent success? Can you gurantee that even if the President gets distracted with another war and takes your assets, that you you will succeed? Using your logic, if you fail for any reason whatsoever, the failure is proof your initial pre-war planning process was bad. Corruption in tribal Afghanistan. Now there is a huge surprise. It appears to be part of the culture. Again, the only thing we know is that our combined actions of eight years have so far failed. Not why. Yours is theory, not fact or proof. We know it is possible for the Taliban, although they are far from governmental. But that comes no where close to demonstrating it is possible for us. We can't duplicate the religious factor for one thing, and that is huge. Then there is the fear factor. They are willing to use extreme methods that we as a nation are not. They are willing to blow up markets, behead tribal leaders, and far worse to create and use it. Are we? If not, how do we counter it? The Phoenix Program assinated 25K people, yet still never created the fear in the population that the Viet Cong did. We indicted Navy seals just for punching an Al Qaeda terrorist leader, the guy that killed four Americans and hung them from a bridge. Do you think from the shadows, we can match or overcome the fear that Taliban can create? And even if we could, after the indictments, and the AG's war on the CIA today, where are you going to find people willing to do it? I don't even know if we can do what you suggest with all the boots on the ground we have today. And you think we can do it from shadows? Tom B

US GDP includes government spending. Even in a down economy, you can increase it virtually any amount you want just by writing enough government checks financed by borrowed money.? Nothing wrong with that in a down economy, JUST AS LONG AS YOU PAY BACK WHEN TIMES ARE GOOD. I didn't say there is anything wrong with infusing the economy with cash at times of need. The problem is using GDP as an indicator of economic recovery for the period in which you poured money into it. You can literally get any GDP you want, just by spending money. I still haven't found numbers sans government spending. Tom B

That five star would merely be one of 2001-2009's four star generals who. If they are unable to accomplish their mission with only four stars, a promotion won't magically give them new insight into better military strategy. I disagree. A "General of the Armies" per se, can direct action in a declared state of war without consult to the legislative branch. It also would have delayed action, if any, into Iraq at that time. We already have a single commander in the role you describe. The "military assets" are already consolidated. Central Command, is a theater-level Unified Combatant Command, and directs all US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, just as the other theater commands do in their areas. On 23 April 2008, General David Petraeus was appointed by the President and confirmed by the US senate for a five year term in this command. Because of this, the theater commanders have somewhat more "safety" in disagreeing with their bosses. The number of stars Petraeus wears changes nothing whatsoever. We fought WWII with over ten million men under arms until late 1944, with no five star officers. And a declared state of war, really changes nothing either, except perhaps silence the Congress a bit. But there was never the slightest chance of getting it passed by them, so the point is moot. And Presidents obviously have taken us to several wars without declarations. The lack or presence of one doesn't seem to slow or speed anything. Petraeus remains accountable to the President, and by extension, to the Congress for his actions, either way. Tom B

The Taliban now exists as an effective shadow government, al Qaeda is still there, and the government we implemented is ripe with corruption. I'm not sure how one can consider such results as indicative of success. Sure eight years later. It didn't for a long while. And there is no objective evidence that we would have succeeded even if your path had been attempted. Absolutely, yes, we should have waited until we had a viable, coherent strategy to accomplish the entire mission, not just one artificially compartmentalized aspect of it. And what evidence supports that leaders of the Northern Alliance, and the subjegated forces they relieved would have accepted our plan even if we had? At that point, there was no solid way to even know who the national leader would be. From Wikipedia "Following Tora Bora, U.S. forces and their Afghan allies consolidated their position in the country. Following a Loya jirga or grand council of major Afghan factions, tribal leaders, and former exiles, an interim Afghan government was established in Kabul under Hamid Karzai." Only AFTER that could a joint plan be put in place, at least one they would support. It is fallacy to presume that could have been done earlier, and again, the 90 days made no real difference after years under the Taliban. Tom B

Again, we cannot think of SSTR as a linear process. Thinking of it as such (e.g., nation building being mission 2) is part of the problem. What I view as mission one took place during a three month period from Oct 7th to January, during which the Taliban was forcibly removed from nearly all of Afghanistan, and an an interim government was established in Kabul under Hamid Karzai. In mind that ends stage one. I am not sure what more could have been done in that three month period to win hearts and minds and prevent reemergence of the Taliban than we did, given the physical constraints, the limited force we had in the nation, and literally, the time it takes to move significant resources to such a remote region. If you were there and know of more that could have been done in that period, please expand. We crossed the world, defeated a large force, threw one government out, and implemented a new one, all in just three months. I don't think that three month period of less than perfect parallel process is the problem faced today. If that had taken a prolonged period, I agree the steps would have to have been taken in parallel. But should we have delayed combat operations to wait for the resources for the second aspect? Tom B

US GDP includes government spending. Even in a down economy, you can increase it virtually any amount you want just by writing enough government checks financed by borrowed money. I am trying to get non-government spending numbers with little success. Anyone have them? Tom B

This is a zoning enforcement rule saying you may move in move in and build new structures, but you have to follow these image rules... Kind of like telling a Medal of Honor veteran of three wars he can't erect a six meter flag pole in his yard. Tom B

India and Pakistan seem to be doing a bit of confronting each other in recent years. Tom B

One of the problems with democracy, is that the citizens often demand the impossible from our government. Cheap and immediate health care for everyone, without limits, comes immediately to mind. Any politician who attempted to block entry into Afghanistan was very likely soon to be out of a job. The original military mission of removing the Taliban from power, and ousting Al Qaeda was far easier than anyone expected. No we didn't kill Bin Laden, but he is no longer effective. And worldwide, Al Qaeda operations are down, apparently due to their expending so much effort in Iraq beginning in 2004. But stomping out every element of the Taliban just isn't in the cards. When we let up, they return. Mission two, nation building, taking a largely uneducated, poor tribal civilization possessing few natural resources, and expecting it to be transformed in short order is simply impossible. If Afghanistan is to have a bright future, it is generations in the future. Our expectation that the government there not have corruption is insane. The only way Afghanistan will have a positive outcome is for someone like Tito to take power there, and for us to let him. And that is not going to happen either. But many will question if Afghanistan goes back to the Taliban, what happens to Pakistan, and most importantly, its nukes? Tom B

I include the CinC when I refer to military leadership. I grant that he is the CinC obviously, but most think of generals when someone says military leadership, Primarily I think, because that is the way Presidents themselves describe things. They don't refer to SecDef as military leadership, but more Sec Def AND military leadership, drawing a distinction between the two. It does clear things up in your earlier comments though, and I agree with them in that context. Thanks. I think that would would be a HUGE coincidence. We'll have to agree to disagree. Since you are one of the rational ones here, I am curious of your thinking on that one. Please expand. Mine is that the violence escalation was coming regardless. The Shi' were beginning to get organized, that took some time, and flexing their muscles, greatly angering the Baathists/Suni. Bremmer's policies were slowly stripping the latter of any rights to that which they still held. I believe the Suni reaction was coming regardless of if Saddam was captured or not. But the numbers of US casualties (wounded and dead) don't reflect a great spike coinciding with Saddam's December 2003 capture. Pure hell didn't break loose till April. These are the numbers I found. Nov 337 Dec 261 Jan 188 Feb 150 Mar 233 Apr 1,214 They generally stay above 500 per month for the following year. I certainly and fully agree that our policy failed, although I object to Saddam being an characterized as an effective leader. Maybe brutally effective at subjugating a population. I don't believe pure democracy is likely work in Iraq over time, and sure as hell think it has no chance in Afghanistan. Some places need a Tito. Yugoslavia certainly did, and went to hell in a hurry when he died. Bremmer's sending the Iraq military home, and firing so many of the mostly Baathist police force, with our having less than 150K men in country was a disaster. Again, MacAuthor's model, using the Japanese military to maintain civilian order, distribute food, etc. would have worked better I think. Again, the prime confusion was the term military leadership. But I didn't and don't see rules as the problem, either in restricting operations, or being a cop-out. Instead there was a distinct lack of common sense, and denial of reality. In fact the only rules problems I know of didn't restrict us, but instead were the ones we ourselves implemented. Tom B

You made me smile at least. But at $50K-$100K per night on the dinner circuit, Palin's smile is much larger. And why not, if the market is there. If she wanted a serious shot at national politics she would have finished her term, and ran for Senator from AK. Then she would have said the right things for a few years. That is how Hillary fixed her image issues. And hundreds of others before them. Tom B

When developing a strategy, all of those must be considered together. We cannot look at them as separate things. They occur concurrently and must be considered that way. They should indeed. Just remember that just one side of that equation, the President, sets the policy, and all the others must follow it, wise or not. That the policy in Vietnam was such a disaster, yet still followed, demonstrates that the military does respect that constitutional line. Should it be selective? Yes. But we are probably speaking of different infrastructure. The targets of highest interest are communications, command and control of the enemy military, and some physical assets that let them move forces where we don't want them to be. In Iraq, a lot that people think we destroyed, in reality hadn't worked in years, and wasn't touched by our military. There is a huge difference in correlation and causation. I believe that was largely an incident of timing. The insurgency was already building by then. And what alternative was there in any case? Undoubtedly, political constraints can make things tougher. So can those pesky rules from Geneva Conventions. However, we cannot blame the failures of our military leaders on such things, as they should be known and/or anticipated prior to deploying troops. Failures of our military leaders? Military leaders wear uniforms. Iraq went to hell the day the civilian czar, Paul Bremer arrived, and started imposing rules that made no sense militarily, and more importantly, for the civilian recovery of the nation. Much of the insurgency rose from his decisions, including disbanding the Iraqi military, when there was no other force there that could have served in a police role. We sent them home, to no jobs, no food, and no control. And many of them later used their training against us. Mac Author used Japanese military to maintain order. And to keep them busy. Geneva Convention rules? If we followed them strictly, we could just shoot thousands for carrying arms in a conflict area without uniform, id, etc. We don't. And before you go there, the aggressive interrogation techniques were designed by ??? and approved by the AG office, for better or worse. But political rules of engagement are quite different. They are why the world now views UN Peacekeepers as a joke. No military, anywhere, could be effective under the rules imposed by some European nations on their soldiers in Afghanistan. I believe them to have been purposefully imposed, precisely to see that their troops are not employed. Thus they meet their political troop quota, with less risk that their soldiers will be fully used. Some of the finest soldiers in the world come from these nations. They must choke at the restrictions. Tom B

Interesting application of lean on military. However, you intermix policy making, a role of our elected leadership, with the subservient role of military leadership. A great example is a recent news article describing how German soldiers must now carry a humanitarian rules of engagement card with them at all times, and that they are not permitted to engage enemy forces unless the enemy attacks first. They literally had a known bad guy leader in their gun sights, but could do nothing as the bad guys didn't initiate contact that day. They withdrew after watching them just walk away. Vietnam was the poster boy of this. Start and stop offensives, and giving the enemy time to rebuild and restore were the story of the war, along with taking ground at great cost, then departing. Many of the vital targets the military wanted to deal with were off limits until the very end, when Nixon's patience was exhausted by their leaving the peace talks. Among them were airfields, where Russian advisors might possibly be, and we choose not to offend them at great cost. When the gloves finally came off, we fairly quickly achieved air superiority over North Vietnam, their major harbors were mined, and most of their major bridges to China were down. This could have been done almost a decade earlier at so much less cost. I don't know if it would have changed the eventual outcome, but certainly would have reduced our loses, and our time there. Compare that to Desert Storm, or the more recent wars, where major infrastructure was immediately hit, and hit hard, quite effectively. Our failures are more about political will constraints, than how our military projects force. On the down side, I have recently read several articles making it clear that the Brits were much better than us at productively engaging the local populations, pre-surge. Hearts and minds are always important in wars with no fronts. Tom B

Criminal... Interesting choice of words. As the former leader of a defense contractor R&D lab, I know that is exactly what the US government would soon be calling defense researchers who knowingly submitted false data and received funding from their use of it. Tom B

Perhaps you will tell that to the estimated million dead from the Iran-Iraq war. As for Desert Storm, the only reason it was easy, was that he stopped at the Saudi boarder, and gave us six months to prepare. It could not have been done otherwise. Do you plan on keeping forces in the middle east forever to stop his next incursion? That explains why it took 17 sequential UN orders. And 17 threats. Yes, that was clearly working. And why Bill Clinton said near the end of his term that the program wasn't working and we would have to use real force to remove Saddam. The bottom line is that he used the Oil for Food money to bribe enough officials so that all sanctions were about to be lifted, and then there would be no basis for more threats or for him to comply. That was why Bush was in a rush, my opinion anyway. Yes he did. It was shipped to Canada last year, but attracted little notice in the election cycle. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/ And before you follow the left line that this was just his old reactor fuel, partially enriched yellow cake is NOT reactor fuel. The French removed the reactor fuel after the Israeli bombing. The only reason to have 550 tons yellow cake at all is if you plan to go into the uranium processing or enrichment businesss, for it is about useless otherwise. Tom B