[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Dec 2 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 2 2009, 01:41 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Dec 2 2009, 12:54 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 2 2009, 05:11 PM, said:

I think every decision he has made thus far has been largely unpopular.

Is FoxNews the only channel you get on your TV? If you're going to call out other people's opinions as 'rubbish', maybe you shouldn't make comments like this.

Which major decision of his has been very popular?

Apparently, his commitment to the war in Afghanistan. We Americans love still being at war in the Middle East. That's why Bush was so popular.

I'll never remember which, but I remember seeing a poll or two lately that Americans are roughly split on whether to stay in Afghanistan or not. Of course that means by default no decision he was going to make on the issue would be very popular, that is true.

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Dec 2 2009, 01:47 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Dec 2 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 2 2009, 01:41 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Dec 2 2009, 12:54 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 2 2009, 05:11 PM, said:

I think every decision he has made thus far has been largely unpopular.

Is FoxNews the only channel you get on your TV? If you're going to call out other people's opinions as 'rubbish', maybe you shouldn't make comments like this.

Which major decision of his has been very popular?

Apparently, his commitment to the war in Afghanistan. We Americans love still being at war in the Middle East. That's why Bush was so popular.

I'll never remember which, but I remember seeing a poll or two lately that Americans are roughly split on whether to stay in Afghanistan or not. Of course that means by default no decision he was going to make on the issue would be very popular, that is true.

My best recollection is that the ones I saw indicated a solid plurality opposed (maybe 40-45%?) with the remainder split between staying and being undecided.

[luke warm]

chris matthews said he made a mistake going to the enemy camp to make his speech... probably worried not enough cadets got tingles up their legs

[Winstonm]

It sounds to me as if Obama is always in campaign mode - he is campaigning for this war build-up but I get the sense he could as quickly campaign the other way if he thought it politically expedient.

He painted himself into a box with his "war of necessity" statement and he knows it. The world will hold him to that statement, regardless if it is right or wrong.

It is odd that "balancing the budget" is a campaign promise no one believes will hold true, but say "war of necessity" and the entire chicken-eating, beer-guzzling world will say "Amen!" and hold you to it.

At least he didn't say we are sending more troops to make Afghanistan a mini-me-democracy. I appreciate his toning down that rhetorical horseshit.

[Winstonm]

At least ABC news is catching on...

Quote

As he justified sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan at a cost of $30 billion a year, President Barack Obama's description Tuesday of the al Qaeda "cancer" in that country left out one key fact: U.S. intelligence officials have concluded there are only about 100 al Qaeda fighters in the entire country.

A senior U.S. intelligence official told ABCNews.com the approximate estimate of 100 al Qaeda members left in Afghanistan reflects the conclusion of American intelligence agencies and the Defense Department. The relatively small number was part of the intelligence passed on to the White House as President Obama conducted his deliberations

However, it is NOT a political decision....

[Winstonm]

It's hard to run a good propaganda campaign when people are so inconsiderate as to keep records of what was said and what was happening only a year ago that conflicts with the current need to obfuscate:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/...ref=mpstoryview

Too bad the Taliban had renounced al-Qaeda ties a year ago - that makes the claim about "safe havens" less than believable.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Dec 2 2009, 08:47 PM, said:

It's hard to run a good propaganda campaign when people are so inconsiderate as to keep records of what was said and what was happening only a year ago that conflicts with the current need to obfuscate:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/...ref=mpstoryview

Too bad the Taliban had renounced al-Qaeda ties a year ago - that makes the claim about "safe havens" less than believable.

Of course regardless of this claim it is harder to tell the difference between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in 2009-2010 than in 2001.


NBC among others have done alot of reporting on this issue.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Of course regardless of this claim it is harder to tell the difference between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in 2009-2010 than in 2001

Well, that is certainly what the war party would have you believe. But I demand more than rhetoric and vague allusions to "un-named sources".
I want to know exactly where those 96 operatives that the Defense Department admits are the remnants of al-Qaeda are living in Afghanistan who can keep open training bases and safe havens on the coast that requires 100,000 U.S. Army forces to find and remove. Where are those 96 super villains - is the Penguin and Joker part of that mix?

And I want to see proof of al-Qaeda in Pakistan and I want to see proof of those terrorist attack plans being drawn up even as we speak. If we are talking about the Denver guy, he has lived in the U.S. since 1999 and in no way was involved in current plans. What CURRENT plans have we disrupted? If you can't tell me because of national security, then I do not believe you. You do NOT have my trust.

We made this same mistake with Bush and Cheney by believing the WMD lies. We made this same mistake with Lyndon Johnson by believing the Gulf of Tonkin lies. Let's not repeat the same mistake because we think Barack Obama is a really great guy.

I listened to the guy and all he did was what he always does - make a speech using hollow campaign rhetoric that sounds nice but means nothing. Where are the specifics, Mr. Obama? You say we support those who build and are the enemies of those who destroy. What the hell does that mean in the real world?!?! Could you tell who was friend and who wan enemy in Saigon? How about Baghdad? Go into Kabul, on the streetcorner, and pick out one of each, one builder and one destroyer: I bet you can't do it and neither can the 100,000 young men we send to that hell-hole with orders to kill the bad guys and protect the good guys.

This is no longer the election campaign trail, Mr. President. Show us the proof. Or knock off the bullshit rhetoric.

[Winstonm]

This sums up everything that is wrong with the Obama "surge" - Billy Kristol is in ecstasy:

Quote

But in today’s Washington Post Kristol was hailing the new “War President”.

    “By mid-2010, Obama will have more than doubled the number of American troops in Afghanistan since he became president; he will have empowered his general, Stanley McChrystal, to fight the war pretty much as he thinks necessary to in order to win; and he will have retroactively, as it were, acknowledged that he and his party were wrong about the Iraq surge in 2007 — after all, the rationale for this surge is identical to Bush’s, and the hope is for a similar success. He will also have embraced the use of military force as a key instrument of national power.’’

The rational for this surge is identical to Bush's - meaning a rational provided by the neo-conservative think-tanks. And then there is the neo-conservative's wet dream: military force as a key instrument of national power. Bill Kristol is also a Sarah Palin supporter, if that helps you understand how small minds work...

[mike777]

"There really isn't that much of a difference any more. I had a Taliban commander tell me exactly that recently. They both have the same goals."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mann/ms...e_b_315663.html



-----------------------

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33329950/ns/wo...d_central_asia/

"That suggested a conscious decision by al-Qaida to embed within the Taliban organization, helping the Afghan allies with expertise and training while at the same time putting an Afghan face on the war."

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Dec 2 2009, 11:50 PM, said:

"There really isn't that much of a difference any more. I had a Taliban commander tell me exactly that recently. They both have the same goals."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mann/ms...e_b_315663.html



-----------------------

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33329950/ns/wo...d_central_asia/

"That suggested a conscious decision by al-Qaida to embed within the Taliban organization, helping the Afghan allies with expertise and training while at the same time putting an Afghan face on the war."

According to GEN James Jones, the National Security Advisor:

http://www.washingto...ust-do-better/#

Quote

"I don't foresee the return of the Taliban. Afghanistan is not in imminent danger of falling," Gen. Jones said. "The al Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies."

We can play post-a-quote until we are blue in the face but I doubt it will change any minds - especially considering the sources you quote: reporters and un-named intelligent sources?

[blackshoe]

It is fairly ridiculous to focus on "unnamed intelligence (I'm sure that's what you meant) sources" as being somehow tainted because they're unnamed. First, "intelligence sources" generally prefer (rightly, IMO) to remain anonymous, lest general knowledge compromise their ability to do their job, second, even if that's not the case, "sources" in Washington, particularly where classified information is involved, will right wish to remain anonymous in order to avoid prosecution for their illegal disclosure of that classified information or, if that's not seen as a potential problem, they don't want to get on the bad side of their boss. None of that affects the validity of the information. Of course, you could postulate some "agenda" somewhere that requires giving us false information, but if you go that route, I predict you'll end up gibbering on the floor.

The question, it seems to me, is whether any putative Al-Qaeda infiltrators of the Taliban are included in this estimate of 100 AQ operatives in Afghanistan, or whether the infiltrators, if counted, would increase that number (and if so, by how much). A followup question would be "what is the likelihood that, left alone, Afghanistan would again become a training ground for new Al-Qaeda operatives, and how many such operatives are we likely to see over the next several years?" I'm sure I don't know the answers to those questions, and I suspect even an expert in the field might have problems with the second one.

[cherdanno]

blackshoe, on Dec 3 2009, 10:16 AM, said:

It is fairly ridiculous to focus on "unnamed intelligence (I'm sure that's what you meant) sources" as being somehow tainted because they're unnamed. First, "intelligence sources" generally prefer (rightly, IMO) to remain anonymous, lest general knowledge compromise their ability to do their job, second, even if that's not the case, "sources" in Washington, particularly where classified information is involved, will right wish to remain anonymous in order to avoid prosecution for their illegal disclosure of that classified information or, if that's not seen as a potential problem, they don't want to get on the bad side of their boss. None of that affects the validity of the information. Of course, you could postulate some "agenda" somewhere that requires giving us false information, but if you go that route, I predict you'll end up gibbering on the floor.

Do you really think the "intelligence sources" reporters in DC are talking to on one day work as undercover agents the other day?
And yes in most cases such anonymous sources do have an agenda, isn't that obvious? Who would do something unethical (I doubt they are formally releasing classified information, then it would even be illegal.) unless they had some intention in mind? Pretending otherwise strikes me as incredibly naive.

I am not saying such information is completely useless. E.g. in the days before the Iraq war, the German press would regularly double-check the new "information" coming from the US administration about Iraq's WMDs, and "usually well-informed intelligence sources" from the German BND would explain why that information was questionable. I guess in retrospect they weren't doing this anonymously because they were afraid of crossing their boss, but their bosses let them do this because , say, the head of the BND publicly announcing he didn't believe this information would have a bigger diplomatic fallout.
But nevertheless, it should be taken with a big grain of salt.

[blackshoe]

It's not just "undercover agents" in intelligence work who need to protect their identity.

I'm not sure what you mean by "formally releasing classified information". If I know, for example, the rated yield in equivalent megatons of tnt of a particular type of nuclear weapon, and I know that information is classified, then if I tell anyone who I do not know to be authorized to have access to that information what that yield is, I have committed a federal felony. The reason I have done this (I have an agenda, my boss has an agenda, my boss told me to do it, whatever) is irrelevant. Whether I have told the person that the information is classified is also irrelevant.

Quote

But nevertheless, it should be taken with a big grain of salt.

Not sure what the antecedent of "it" is here.

[mike777]

I wonder why Gen. Jones wants 100,000 troops or more in Afghanistan.

We arent going to build anything in 18 months. I doubt we can even get 30,000 troops and all their equipment in country in 8 months. We still dont have all the equipment in country for the last 21,000.

I mean the Taliban live there, we arent going to kill them or move them out.


Lets call it Mission Accomplished and send our kids home.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on Dec 3 2009, 04:56 PM, said:

It's not just "undercover agents" in intelligence work who need to protect their identity.

I'm not sure what you mean by "formally releasing classified information". If I know, for example, the rated yield in equivalent megatons of tnt of a particular type of nuclear weapon, and I know that information is classified, then if I tell anyone who I do not know to be authorized to have access to that information what that yield is, I have committed a federal felony. The reason I have done this (I have an agenda, my boss has an agenda, my boss told me to do it, whatever) is irrelevant. Whether I have told the person that the information is classified is also irrelevant.

Quote

But nevertheless, it should be taken with a big grain of salt.

Not sure what the antecedent of "it" is here.

The problem for me is not the "unnamed intelligence sources" but the perpetual use of such sources as a substitution for actual news gathering and reporting.

And it becomes even more curious when the "unnamed" sources directly contradict the "named" sources.

General Jones said....
Unnamed phantoms contradicted.....

[blackshoe]

Journalism died about twenty years ago, unfortunately. All that's left is talking heads and sensationalism.

And you forgot the ubiquitous "so-and-so failed to immediately respond to phone calls (or questions or whatever)", implying that ignoring the talking heads (or more likely their gofer minions) is some kind of heinous crime.

[Winstonm]

The problem with the death of real journalism is that urban legends are passed along as fact and become part of the nation's consciousness.

Andrew Bacevich points out the end result:

Quote

According to the first illusion, 9/11 occurred because Americans ignored Afghanistan. By implication, fixing the place is essential to preventing the recurrence of terrorist attacks on the U.S. In Washington, the appeal of this explanation is twofold. It distracts attention from the manifest incompetence of the government agencies that failed on 9/11, while also making it unnecessary to consider how U.S. policy toward the Middle East during the several preceding decades contributed to the emergence of violent anti-Western jihadism.

[PassedOut]

Speaking of journalism, I enjoyed this long piece by Peter Baker in today's New York Times: How Obama Came to Plan for ‘Surge’ in Afghanistan

Quote

The three-month review that led to the escalate-then-exit strategy is a case study in decision making in the Obama White House — intense, methodical, rigorous, earnest and at times deeply frustrating for nearly all involved. It was a virtual seminar in Afghanistan and Pakistan, led by a president described by one participant as something “between a college professor and a gentle cross-examiner.”

Mr. Obama peppered advisers with questions and showed an insatiable demand for information, taxing analysts who prepared three dozen intelligence reports for him and Pentagon staff members who churned out thousands of pages of documents.

This account of how the president reached his decision is based on dozens of interviews with participants as well as a review of notes some of them took during Mr. Obama’s 10 meetings with his national security team. Most of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, but their accounts have been matched against those of other participants wherever possible.

Mr. Obama devoted so much time to the Afghan issue — nearly 11 hours on the day after Thanksgiving alone — that he joked, “I’ve got more deeply in the weeds than a president should, and now you guys need to solve this.” He invited competing voices to debate in front of him, while guarding his own thoughts. Even David Axelrod, arguably his closest adviser, did not know where Mr. Obama would come out until just before Thanksgiving.

While folks of the "real men don't think things through" persuasion found the process grating, I most emphatically want my president to act this way in matters of crucial importance. And committing troops militarily sits right at the top of the list of matters of crucial importance. I particularly like the way Obama questioned all participants at end of the November 29 meeting.

Quote

On the following Sunday, Nov. 29, he summoned his national security team to the Oval Office. He had made his decision. He would send 30,000 troops as quickly as possible, then begin the withdrawal in July 2011. In deference to Mr. Gates’s concerns, the pace and endpoint of the withdrawal would be determined by conditions at the time.

“I’m not asking you to change what you believe,” the president told his advisers. “But if you do not agree with me, say so now.” There was a pause and no one said anything.

“Tell me now,” he repeated.

Mr. Biden asked only if this constituted a presidential order. Mr. Gates and others signaled agreement.

“Fully support, sir,” Admiral Mullen said.

“Ditto,” General Petraeus said.

Obama's Afghanistan decision has plenty of detractors, particularly in his own political party. And it may yet turn out to be a colossal failure.

But Obama did not send soldiers to war thoughtlessly. I wish the best for him, for the soldiers he is sending, and for the people of Afghanistan.

[Winstonm]

Quote

But Obama did not send soldiers to war thoughtlessly. I wish the best for him, for the soldiers he is sending, and for the people of Afghanistan.

I never thought Obama made his decision thoughtlessly - but I am unconvinced of the reliability of the advisers who have his ear. I am afraid the influences of warmongers like Kristol and Kagan have crept into the discussion via Gates, Patraeus, Mullen, et al.