[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on Nov 19 2009, 06:32 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Nov 19 2009, 03:38 PM, said:

BTW, was your service in the Army?

Some of it. Three years Army active duty, seventeen years Navy.

What is your opinion of Jeff Huber, if I may ask?

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Nov 19 2009, 07:08 PM, said:

Quote

You seem to feel that pulling out the troops now is absolutely the right decision, and so do more and more voters. Others (including some with a financial interest) strongly argue that staying in is mandatory.

I favor what works and oppose what does not work. I think Glenn Greenwald has nailed this pretty well, presenting compelling evidence over a number of posts that the Neocon who support war and intervention virtually everywhere is truly the greater enemy of American ideals while study after study shows that non-confrontation works much better at eliminating terror threats than military intervention.

Interested parties can go here and read through Greenwald's latest posts and his older ones as well: http://www.salon.com...lenn_greenwald/

Does this mean you'd favor war in the Middle East if you thought it would work?

[helene_t]

mike777, on Nov 19 2009, 11:56 PM, said:

I note we are only spending about 14,000$ per student for education in some places. This works out to 420,000$ for a classroom of 30 students per year. Yet we still have drop out rates of around 40% in places. Hopefully more money will help.

Sounds ridiculously cheap, probably more money could help meet some aims. Not sure if reducing drop-out rates should necessarily be first priority, though.

[luke warm]

mike777, on Nov 19 2009, 05:56 PM, said:

I note we are only spending about 14,000$ per student for education in some places. This works out to 420,000$ for a classroom of 30 students per year. Yet we still have drop out rates of around 40% in places. Hopefully more money will help.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Nov 20 2009, 01:56 AM, said:

I note we are only spending about 14,000$ per student for education in some places. This works out to 420,000$ for a classroom of 30 students per year. Yet we still have drop out rates of around 40% in places. Hopefully more money will help.

Normally, when one reads a sentence like this, one would infer that $14K per student is a minimum. In actuality, the $14K per student figure is a maximum for the US rather than a minimum.

Utah only spends about 1/3rd of this amount.

In general, there seems to be a clear discrepancy between States in the North East where seven of the top 10 spenders are located and the West and South which have heavy concentrations of schools that spend relatively little per student.

You also might want to consider examining whether there is a statistically significant relationship between spending and the drop out rate. It looks as if you are claiming that that increasing spending has no impact on drop out rates. (From what I can tell, this is a hotly disputed topic)

[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Nov 19 2009, 07:22 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Nov 19 2009, 07:08 PM, said:

Quote

You seem to feel that pulling out the troops now is absolutely the right decision, and so do more and more voters. Others (including some with a financial interest) strongly argue that staying in is mandatory.

I favor what works and oppose what does not work. I think Glenn Greenwald has nailed this pretty well, presenting compelling evidence over a number of posts that the Neocon who support war and intervention virtually everywhere is truly the greater enemy of American ideals while study after study shows that non-confrontation works much better at eliminating terror threats than military intervention.

Interested parties can go here and read through Greenwald's latest posts and his older ones as well: http://www.salon.com...lenn_greenwald/

Does this mean you'd favor war in the Middle East if you thought it would work?

I was not opposed to the initial Afghanistan invasion nor the U.N. led move to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. But notice these two actions had limited, specific, accomplish-able goals for military action.

I doubt whether any limited, specific, accomplish-able goal could be established for a Middle East war.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on Nov 18 2009, 09:38 PM, said:

Quote

He is the president, he must decide if it is worth it, and if it is then he must find a way to get the country behind it,

I believe this concept is a mistake that is made all too frequently - this rather blind trust that the guys at the top have all the information to make the correct decision and lead us in the correct path.

Perhaps there is a slight generation gap between me at 58 and Ken at 70. My generation was influenced by the Kennedy assassination, Vietnam, and Watergate - I don't think we trust the government, but feel compelled to challenge their claims as we have seen many times how facts were twisted to fit agenda.

I cannot think of what on Earth I may have said to lead you to believe I have blind faith in President Obama. Let me set your mind at rest, I worry greatly that the man may be intelligent (far short of brilliant, but probably intelligent), very assertive and very wrong.

As mentioned by Passed, we should await his decision and the thoughts he presents. But here are my thoughts on the general collection of options:

Pull out: I doubt he will do this.
We went to war there after 9/11 with pretty widespread support. For reasons that most feel were a mistake we downplayed that conflict and decided Iraq was the most important. During the campaign, Obama argued it was really Afghanistan, not Iraq, that was important. We already look a little foolish and if we now decide Afghanistan isn't important, I think that it would be fair for others to ask us if we could please make up our minds about what is important. We should not stay there just to avoid acknowledging that we have no consistent idea of what we are doing, but pulling out will have very substantial consequences and we had better be prepared for them.

Follow McChrystal's recommendations. Obama seems disinclined to do so. The general can give us his best opinion of what it will take to succeed. Wars rarely go as planned, so we would have to be prepared for setbacks. The general cannot tell us if the war would be worth the effort.

McChrystal light: This is rumored to be the way he will go. There are problems. McChrystal is clearly on record emphatically stating that the chances for success would be slim. Asking a general to lead his troops into war based on an approach he doesn't believe in is asking a lot. Obama can, of course, replace him. Or he could ask to be replaced.

None of the choices look great. Probably Obama's final choice will not exactly be any of them.

I never have blind faith in any president but I would be happier if I had more confidence in this one.

[ArtK78]

kenberg, on Nov 20 2009, 09:57 AM, said:

I never have blind faith in any president but I would be happier if I had more confidence in this one.

I have a lot more confidence in this President than I had in the last one.

[blackshoe]

The President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. If he doesn't trust his General's opinion of what is needed to succeed, perhaps he should turn over his other duties to his VP, and go take command in the field. Oh, wait, Obama has zero experience or expertise in that area.

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on Nov 20 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

The President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. If he doesn't trust his General's opinion of what is needed to succeed, perhaps he should turn over his other duties to his VP, and go take command in the field.

I think it's even more basic that that. The first question is exactly what it means "to succeed" in Afghanistan. And how, exactly, can one tell when that success has been achieved.

[ArtK78]

blackshoe, on Nov 20 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

The President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. If he doesn't trust his General's opinion of what is needed to succeed, perhaps he should turn over his other duties to his VP, and go take command in the field. Oh, wait, Obama has zero experience or expertise in that area.

I think you have it backward. If the President does not trust his General's opinion, then he needs a new General.

By the way, exactly what experience did our last President have in this area?

[vuroth]

ArtK78, on Nov 20 2009, 02:05 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Nov 20 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

The President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. If he doesn't trust his General's opinion of what is needed to succeed, perhaps he should turn over his other duties to his VP, and go take command in the field. Oh, wait, Obama has zero experience or expertise in that area. 

I think you have it backward. If the President does not trust his General's opinion, then he needs a new General.

By the way, exactly what experience did our last President have in this area?

One was an officer in the military, one wasn't?

Then again, one was a lawyer, and one wasn't, so you can't have everything.

In general, neither of these are a big deal, nor is the issue of experience, really.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Nov 20 2009, 07:13 PM, said:

The President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. If he doesn't trust his General's opinion of what is needed to succeed, perhaps he should turn over his other duties to his VP, and go take command in the field. Oh, wait, Obama has zero experience or expertise in that area.

There have been any number of military leaders who have assumed the office of President

Washington
Eisenhower
Jackson
Grant
Taylor
Tyler
Harrison
...

I'm having trouble remembering many examples of president's with any real military background taking any kind of active role in military matters.

Let's ignore your asinine hypothetical about leading troops in the field. I'm having enormous difficulty coming up with examples of Presidents who had significant miltary experience who launched major wars:

Kennedy's service in WWII is (obviously) well known; however, I do think anyone who claim that he had any significant leadership experience.

Bush I is an obvious war hero, however, here once again I don't really think of him as a military leader in the same way that one thinks of Eisenhower or Grant.

Can anyone come up with anything better than Jackson and the Indian Wars?

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Nov 20 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

The President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. If he doesn't trust his General's opinion of what is needed to succeed, perhaps he should turn over his other duties to his VP, and go take command in the field.

Call me crazy, but I don't follow the logic.

[kenberg]

In 1952 I think that Eisenhower's experience in WWII led voters to hope he could help bring the Korean Wat to an end. "I will go to korea" was part of his campaign. He did. From a slate article on an analogy suggested by Bush, suggesting his successor would continue his policies as Eisenhower continued truma's:

http://www.slate.com/id/2174605/


"First, Eisenhower did not continue the most unpopular aspect of Truman's foreign policy—the war in Korea, then in its third year, grinding in stalemate, with 50,000 American troops dead. During the 1952 campaign, Eisenhower pledged, "I will go to Korea," and he did just that, on a secret trip in late November, soon after the election. By the end of July 1953, an armistice was signed; the fighting stopped.

"How much Ike had to do with the end of the war is still a matter of historical dispute. There were several factors: Josef Stalin's death in March 1953 (the Soviets were always reluctant in their backing of China's support for North Korea's adventure, and the transition in the Kremlin may have turned this to opposition); the undisguised stationing of U.S. nuclear-armed bombers in Okinawa (which may have been taken as a warning); and the settlement of a POW exchange as part of armistice talks that had been going on for over a year.



Obviously a president will not be leading the charge up Porkchop Hill and of course a non-military president could have made a secret trip to Korea. So I would not at all claim that military experience is essential or even all that desirable for a president.

Back to Obama. As I mentioned a few posts back, Obama must decide if the war is all worth it. That decision is beyond McChrystal's job description. But I hope he will be very cautious about telling McChrystal "You just think you need 40,000 more, I have figured out how you can do it with 20,000." He wouldn't put it that way of course, but he needs to think whether he wants to put it at all.

We shall all see what he decides. There is a lot at stake, the success of his presidency being only one of many things.

[mike777]

The Pentagon's main job is to make plans, thousands upon thousands of plans for all sorts of things.

It does concern me that roughly 7-8 years in the Pentagon offered the President a reported 4 options and the President sent them back to the drawing board, rejecting them all.

This cannot install confidence in our soldiers and marines in the field of battle with their leadership.

There have been numerous reports, I think 60 minutes was the latest, that in talking with those grunts in the field their number one objective was to stay alive and go home, not win or stabilize the govt or get rid of the Taliban.

I rather they send my relatives and friends home until they decide just what they want to accomplish over there.

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on Nov 20 2009, 11:57 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Nov 20 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

The President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. If he doesn't trust his General's opinion of what is needed to succeed, perhaps he should turn over his other duties to his VP, and go take command in the field.

I think it's even more basic that that. The first question is exactly what it means "to succeed" in Afghanistan. And how, exactly, can one tell when that success has been achieved.

Bingo! We have a winner.

The so-called goal of this occupation is a non-starter, a non-accomplish-able dream that only serves to perpetuate endless low-grade conflict.

[Winstonm]

Btw, this is what McChrystal said during his confirmation hearing:

Quote

..Central to counterinsurgency is protecting the people. Efforts to convince Afghans to confer legitimacy on their government are only relevant if Afghans are free to choose. They must be shielded from coercion while their elected government secures their trust through effective government and economic development at all levels.

Thus, we have a non-starter from the get-go. Afghanistan has never had and never will have a legitimate government or a legitimate democracy. To believe that goal accomplish-able is a Neocon wet dream to justify endless aggression.

Quote

Although I expect stiff fighting ahead, the measure of effectiveness will not be enemy killed. It will be the number of Afghans shielded from violence.

Substitute "South Vietnamese" for "Afghans" and you have the basis for this idiotic counterinsurgency campaign idea.

Now, give me a million men to seal the borders from China and North Vietnam....

[jdonn]

Winston you make it seem so easy. If only it was all as obvious to Obama as it is to you, he could have made this decision a whole lot more quickly.

[mike777]

If the President thinks the war is a necessary war and a war we need to win and die for he needs to tell our young 18-19 year old Soldiers, Marines and their families. If he has a plan, great, but lets not wait 16 weeks and counting and let our young family members twist in the wind. If he thinks after 7-8 years the Pentagon does not know what it is doing, great, send the troops home.


If he needs more time, great, send them all home and wait.