ChrisWeigant.com

Profiles In Cowardice

[ Posted Monday, September 29th, 2014 – 16:03 UTC ]

The United States Congress is currently abdicating one of its most solemn duties: declaring when America is at war, and with whom. This is nothing short of disgraceful, and every member of Congress who didn't actively push their leadership to hold a vote should be ashamed of themselves right now. Because by completely abdicating their constitutional warmaking power to the executive branch, they are displaying nothing short of their own "profiles in cowardice."

It matters not what their individual positions may be on the current (and escalating) conflict in Iraq and Syria, because whatever their stance it should now be clearly known by the public. Instead, they have shirked their duty to country and Constitution, and have not voted either for or against this new war. Being pro-war or anti-war doesn't make you a coward, in other words, but not publicly taking a stance either way most surely does.

There are really only two concrete reasons for Congress not holding a vote, and both of them are pathetic: (1) "Voting on war is hard," and (2) "It might hamper my bid to get re-elected." Neither one of these is even remotely close to being an acceptable excuse for not doing the job the taxpayers handsomely pay them to do. But when you strip away all the whining, these are really the two core issues which precluded such a vote.

The first of these is that a war vote -- any war vote, really -- is a tough thing for an elected official to contemplate. Lives hang in the balance, both American and foreign. It is a meaningful and significant thing for Congress to decide to do. Nothing could be more serious.

Adding to the toughness of such votes is the fact that it is not currently even a partisan issue. The laughably inadequate vote that they did take up (money for Syrian "moderates") was what I would call a truly bipartisan vote all around (which I'd define as: "significant numbers of both parties voted both for and against"). There are Democrats for the war and against the war. There are also Republicans on both sides of the issue. It is about as bipartisan as it gets, which is all fine and good because going to war should never be a political punching bag used by one party against the other for purely political reasons. It's far too serious for that sort of nonsense, to put this another way.

Both Republicans and Democrats instead chose the cowardly way out, by not voting on an "Authorization for Use of Military Force" (A.U.M.F.) for Iraq and Syria. Republicans are much more comfortable being Monday-morning quarterbacks, eager to pounce on anything Obama does wrong without having to explain beforehand how they would do anything differently. There is no alternative Republican war plan that contrasts with the president's, for good reason: because parts of any Republican alternative might prove to be wrong or ineffective. By not specifying what they'd do instead, it frees them up to endlessly complain about how Obama's waging the war. Democrats aren't much better, because they are caught between reflexive support for a president from their own party and the all-consuming fear that their own constituents won't agree with their vote (no matter which way they cast it).

To sum up: war votes are hard. My response: too bad. This is the job you signed up for, and shirking your duty should not be considered an option. Want this war? Vote "aye" and let the people know that. Don't want this war? Deliver a speech on the floor of Congress before voting "nay," in an attempt to convince others of your position. This is how it is supposed to work.

The second reason no vote was held was even more pathetic than the first. Congress is now off on the campaign trail, trying to get re-elected to serve another term. From the beginning of August to mid-November, Congress will have been in session for less than two full weeks. That is disgraceful, right there. Congress broke much earlier than they usually do to hit the election trail, in the midst of the start of a war. There is only one word for this, and it is cowardice.

What is ironic is that President Obama is relying on a previous war vote to shoehorn in this new war by using language written over a decade ago. He is essentially taking the legal position that this isn't a new war, but instead merely the continuation of a conflict that appears will have no end, ever. Even if America is successful in obliterating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, there will always be another hotspot that some future president will fit into the same logic: that the 2002 A.U.M.F. covers pretty much anything the occupant of the Oval Office wants it to. The irony is that this previous war vote happened in mid-October -- right before a midterm election. The Congress of 2002 didn't really want to vote on a war just before an election, but they did. The Congress of 2014 didn't, so Obama just used the previous A.U.M.F. instead. That's the ironic part.

How can any politician say with a straight face "politically campaigning for re-election was more important than deciding if America should go to war"? Do they know no shame? How can any politician -- right or left -- later have the temerity to complain about how a war is going, when they couldn't even bring themselves to either support it or oppose it when it was proposed? Bill Maher should deliver one of his "new rules": you don't ever get to criticize a war you refused to vote on. Period.

Congress doesn't even have the excuse that the war was inconveniently started (for their own schedules). The disgracefully short period when they were actually in session coincided with President Obama's announcement of the war. They had plenty of time to deal with it, one way or another. They could have wholeheartedly supported Obama's new war. They could have shut it down completely by voting it down. Or they could have even tried to micromanage it to one degree or another, by the language they chose to vote on (where they could have explicitly stated "no ground combat troops shall be used," for instance). They had plenty of options on their plate, in other words. They chose none of them. They chose instead to maybe come back and vote later -- either after the elections, or perhaps after the new Congress is sworn in next January. When they get around to it, in other words.

There is plenty of blame to go around on this one. Harry Reid and John Boehner should both be ashamed to show their face in public, for not doing their sworn duty. Either one of them could have forced the issue in their own house, which would have made the pressure on the other to follow suit enormous. They didn't -- neither one of them. The Republicans or the Democrats could have loudly staged a protest against their own leadership for ducking such an important responsibility. They didn't. Instead, they slunk out of town to go beg the voters to send them back to Washington.

I don't know why any voter in their right mind would do so. Why should these politicians be sent back when they have so adequately proved that they cannot do the job, through nothing more than sheer cowardice?

This is nothing short of a disgrace. I have nothing but contempt for any member of Congress who wasn't speaking out in public in favor of an A.U.M.F. vote (to be fair: there were actually a number of congressmen and congresswomen who were calling loudly for a vote -- these members are completely exempt from all the sentiments I've expressed in this column). If any individual voted counter to what I believed about this war, I would have disagreed with them but I would have done so with respect for them taking a position. That is not even possible, though, because none of them went on the record either way. Which leaves me with nothing but contempt, all around.

Congress will now have the luxury of waiting a few months to see how the war is progressing before they have to take a stand on it. If John Boehner gets his way, this might not happen until January or February -- over six months after the first bombs fell. Such a vote will be pretty meaningless, because it will be nothing short of either: "The war's going well, yay!" or: "The war's going badly, boo!"

This isn't even "putting party before country," folks. This is nothing short of "putting my own job before all else." My thesaurus isn't big enough to contain enough terms to express the depth of my feelings about this inaction. It is pathetic. It is disgraceful. It is contemptible. It is self-serving in the extreme. It is a complete and utter dereliction of duty. It is downright disgusting. It is completely shameful. It is an outrage. If any historian later writes a book about this period, they can borrow John F. Kennedy's title, with only one small change, because today's Congress is nothing short of a collection of profiles in cowardice.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

35 Comments on “Profiles In Cowardice”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    What is ironic is that President Obama is relying on a previous war vote to shoehorn in this new war by using language written over a decade ago.

    And, what makes the irony even MORE pathetic is that Obama is relying on the EXACT SAME AUMF that he tried to repeal when he was a senator...

    Excellent commentary.. It matches my contempt for politicians perfectly....

    Well said.. Kudos...

    Michale

  2. [2] 
    dsws wrote:

    The Constitution says Congress shall have power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces". That would include making rules that authorize action even when no war is declared, and it would include leaving existing rules unchanged. Not taking any vote (or calling for any, in the case of a legislator other than the leadership of the party that controls its respective chamber) is, in effect, an endorsement of existing law on the subject.

    Existing law authorizes too much use of force, and grants too much discretion to the president in how to use it. But Congress is taking a clear position by declining to change existing law.

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    Existing law authorizes too much use of force, and grants too much discretion to the president in how to use it.

    That's an opinion that is usually shared by the entirety of the Left..

    Except in cases where it's a Leftie who is using the force..

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It's a complete abdication of responsibility.

    This does, however, seem to fit in with the modus operandi that goes back to the Gingrich/Clinton years.

    I just read Michael Lofgren's book The Party is Over: How Republicans went crazy, Democrat became useless, and the middle class got shafted .

    If anyone hasn't read, it's an excellent account of D.C. and how it has been taken over by corporate special interest groups. Lofgren worked in D.C. as an analyst for 28 years and knows how D.C. works like few others.

    -David

  5. [5] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    70% of respondents to a poll on billoreilly.com think The Plan is a good idea. I know this because Billo said so last night. Congress should vote on that. It would be difficult to cook up anything else that enjoys that level of popular support.

    "In your life, when you confront a person who criticizes you, but has nothing constructive to say, run fast." - Billo

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    70% of respondents to a poll on billoreilly.com think The Plan is a good idea.

    Shows how much they know..

    Only one who is completely ignorant of the military and tactical objectives would think that Air Power alone will win wars....

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    dsws -

    So, to quote Rush (the Canadian rock band, not the blowhard on the radio), you're saying:

    "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"

    :-)

    Michale -

    And libertarians. Some of them object strongly to Congress abdicating warmaking authority. Some righty constitutional law types, too. It's not as partisan an issue as you might think...

    akadjian -

    That sounds like a good book. Is Lofgren related to Zoe Lofgren, I wonder?

    John From Censornati -

    Which Plan? Obama's plan? I'm confused....

    -CW

  8. [8] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "Which Plan? Obama's plan? I'm confused...."

    Billo calls his own plan to exterminate the evildoers The Plan™. Sometimes he's as funny as Colbert. He really did cite a poll from his website to prove that The Plan™ was a great idea. He thinks we should hire a mercenary army to spread out across the world and kill everybody who hates America. The quote refers to Colbert. SC apparently mocked The Plan™ although I didn't see his bit. Billo's show last night was like a hall of mirrors in a rabbit hole.

  9. [9] 
    YoYoTheAssyrian wrote:

    American Mercenaries are weird aren't they? Makes this whole mess of states, proto-states and non-state actors, look more like something out of the thirty years war rather than something modern.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    And libertarians. Some of them object strongly to Congress abdicating warmaking authority. Some righty constitutional law types, too. It's not as partisan an issue as you might think...

    It's been my experience that, by and large, those types are at least consistent...

    Unlike the Left, they haven't changed their position just because their guy is in charge...

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    American Mercenaries are weird aren't they?

    By strict definition of the term, ALL American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are mercenaries...

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-

    "Only one who is completely ignorant of the military and tactical objectives would think that Air Power alone will win wars...."

    I think your poor straw man needs a rest. Anybody with an actual air force to order about would agree with you. No government is proposing to defeat The Entity Formally Known as ISIS with air power alone. There are lots ground forces currently fighting the guys dressed in black. Syria, what remains of Iraq, various militias, Peshmerga etc. Committing air power, along with with other measures, is intended to tilt the balance in favor of the opposition. That's what needs to be debated, not your raggedy scarecrow.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think your poor straw man needs a rest. Anybody with an actual air force to order about would agree with you. No government is proposing to defeat The Entity Formally Known as ISIS with air power alone. There are lots ground forces currently fighting the guys dressed in black. Syria, what remains of Iraq, various militias, Peshmerga etc. Committing air power, along with with other measures, is intended to tilt the balance in favor of the opposition. That's what needs to be debated, not your raggedy scarecrow.

    It's part and parcel to the same debate... The same issue..

    The US cannot achieve an outcome beneficial to the US AND to the region with air power alone..

    One only has to look at Libya to know this is a fact...

    The idea that 10 or 20 ragtag and defeated armies can make use of the advantages that US Air Power affords them is laughable...

    Especially since it is well-documented that US Forces are not even co-ordinating air strikes with those 10-20 ragtag and defeated armies..

    So, split hairs if you wish...

    But it's a fact that there will not be an outcome beneficial to the US and the region without American boots on the ground...

    And anyone who has served and knows military matters will tell you the same thing...

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The Constitution says the President is Commander in Chief and that Congress declares war.

    Suppose Congress declares war, and the President declines to bring his forces to battle?

    Is a declaration of war really necessary for a president to commit the US to military action? Must a president get a declaration from Congress 15 minutes before the ICBMs impact on US soil?

    It's practical details like these that long ago drove Congress into a deferential posture when it comes to practical war powers. That said, it sure would be nice if Congress engaged in some formal advice and consent BEFORE the upcoming elections. Come on peole, get cack to Washington, even if Boehner doesn't call you home. Do a little legislative warm up, maybe defund ACORN again, then get down to some heavy lifting.

  15. [15] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M -13 "it's a fact that there will not be an outcome beneficial to the US and the region without American boots on the ground"

    You've abandoned your straw man so you can beg your question. What makes you presuppose American boots are going to achieve some grand, yet completely undefined "beneficial outcome for the US and the region?" Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan suggest it's not a good bet. American boots eventually come home. Or, are you proposing the US conquer and colonize the region? American State in Syria and Levant? Dibs on the acronym ASSL.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    You've abandoned your straw man so you can beg your question.

    No, I haven't. It's the same question from a different angle..

    What makes you presuppose American boots are going to achieve some grand, yet completely undefined "beneficial outcome for the US and the region?"

    Your right. American boots on the ground may not bring the desired outcome..

    But it is ASSured that NO American boots on the ground will make things much much worse..

    One only has to look at Libya to know it's true..

    Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan suggest it's not a good bet. American boots eventually come home.

    Political leaders threw away victory in Vietnam and Iraq... American boots will stay in Afghanistan past the pullout date...

    Or, are you proposing the US conquer and colonize the region?

    I am proposing that we do the job right or not at all...

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M - I think we've stumbled into a genuine discussion!

    But, I'm still confused about what your "desired outcome" looks like. Especially when the American combat troops leave. Or do they ever leave?

    "But it is ASSured that NO American boots on the ground will make things much much worse..

    One only has to look at Libya to know it's true.."

    Only if you had personal expectations that exceeded UN/NATO objectives, which were fully met. The Libyan civil war of 2011 was an immediate threat to regional stability. The Libyan civil war of of 2014 is a threat to Libyan stability. That's an improvement, at least from our perspective, if not the Libyan's

    The only thing the US ever won in Vietnam was all the battles. We never destroyed the NVA as fighting force, and we lost the American home front. The NVA destroyed the SVA when the US pulled out. The NVA plan worked, ours didn't. George Washington used much the same playbook to win the Revolutionary War, although he did manage to win the last major battle, and a few other critical ones.

    As for the second Iraq War, the stated primary objective was to destroy Iraq's military so we could destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The latter did not exist. That's analogous to the point where your mechanic leans back from the hood, sucks his teeth and says "there's yer problem".

    Anyhow, get back to me with a specific desired outcome.

    TS

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Only if you had personal expectations that exceeded UN/NATO objectives, which were fully met. The Libyan civil war of 2011 was an immediate threat to regional stability. The Libyan civil war of of 2014 is a threat to Libyan stability. That's an improvement, at least from our perspective, if not the Libyan's

    The ultimate goal in Libya was a stable Libya. Obama said so..

    It was an utter failure..

    Just like Iraq was an utter failure..

    Unless you want to give Bush credit for a stable Iraq...

    No??

    Didn't think so... :D

    The only thing the US ever won in Vietnam was all the battles.

    EXACTLY... And the political leadership threw away all those victories.. Just like they did in Iraq...

    As for the second Iraq War, the stated primary objective was to destroy Iraq's military so we could destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The latter did not exist.

    Really??

    So, Saddam DIDN'T gas his own people with WMDs???

    Talk about revisionist history...

    Anyhow, get back to me with a specific desired outcome.

    Simple... ISIS eliminated as a threat to regional stability and to US interests...

    And that outcome simply CANNOT be accomplished without American boots on the ground..

    Ask anyone who has served and know military matters and they will tell you the same thing..

    Obama biggest mistake is by trying to micro-manage the war and his total incompetence is on display for the world to see...

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    What a frakin' clown!!

    President Obama:"I have the full confidence in Secret Service Director Julia Pierson and I know she will.... What's that??? She resigned!!???..... Er.... After careful consideration, I have determined that it's time for new leadership at the Secret Service."

    The guy talks out of BOTH sides of his ass and the Hysterical Left eats it all up with not a peep.....

    Useful Idiots, indeed...

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama was talking to Pierson hours before her resignation and he was heard to say, "If you like your job, you can keep your job. PERIOD"

    :D

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "The ultimate goal in Libya was a stable Libya."

    That may have been a long term goal, but the proximate objective of the Libya campaign was to enable the Libyan insurgents to defeat the Kadhafi military, which was judged to be an immediate threat. Treat the acute crisis first, then deal with the chronic problems.

    Yes agreed, Iraq was an utter failure. There is no doubt that Hussein used chemical weapons against Iran and his own people. But,Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction in 2003 (Iraq Survey Group). Intel to the contrary was bogus and/or bad. I lean towards bogus.

    Eliminate ISIS. Ah, we're there. Your contention is only American ground forces can do that. Yet in Libya, militia defeated the Kadhaffi military with the help air power, naval blockade, economic sanctions, some weapons, some advice. No NATO ground combat units. It can done, it was done. The feasibility of the approach is a matter of record. The air campaign over Bosnia is another matter of record. Despite what those who served or know military matters say or shout. Your argument is true because you say it's true. That is begging the question, it's circular reasoning.

    The only thing in doubt (and yes it's a BIG thing) is the odds of success in this particular application, and what happens after you defeat(or don't defeat) the enemy military. You can only play so many moves ahead. That is situation normal in the war fighting profession.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    . But,Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction in 2003 (Iraq Survey Group).

    That is not accurate.. Iraq possessed a dozen 500lb bombs with sarin and mustard gas.. Granted, the chemicals had degraded, but they were still a threat..

    Yet in Libya, militia defeated the Kadhaffi military with the help air power, naval blockade, economic sanctions, some weapons, some advice.

    Daffy's military wasn't as well equipped, well-funded or well-received as ISIS (oh mighty) is..

    Further, just because Libyan rebels "defeated" Daffy's military, that is in NO WAY indicative to the success of the militias forming up against ISIS..

    The feasibility of the approach is a matter of record.

    Bullshit...

    The air campaign over Bosnia is another matter of record.

    NOW you are comparing apples and Eskimos..

    The only thing in doubt (and yes it's a BIG thing) is the odds of success in this particular application, and what happens after you defeat(or don't defeat) the enemy military. You can only play so many moves ahead. That is situation normal in the war fighting profession.

    We obviously disagree...

    But the point is, I have experience, expertise and training to back up my opinion.. All you have is Obama...

    We can always wait and see who is right..

    I bet ya a million quatloos that we WILL see American combat units in the TOP before this is over...

    Or, we could make a more substantial wager. If I am right, you match my donations in the CW Annual Holiday Fundraiser...

    If I am wrong, I'll DOUBLE my normal weekly donations...

    Care to dance?? :D

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    While we're at it, we can also wager on who takes control of the Senate in the upcoming midterms..

    Any takers?? :D

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes agreed, Iraq was an utter failure.

    So.... Iraq was a failure, but Libya was a success...

    You see why I take your proclamations with a huge grain of salt??

    Because they are clearly based on nothing but a partisan agenda and they have no objectivity whatsoever...

    No offense meant at all... It's difficult to be objective when one is so ensnared by political ideology..

    Iraq was CLEARLY more of a success than Libya was... The only failure was not to keep a residual force in Iraq...

    Obama readily concedes this failure, as evidenced by the reports that a 10K strong US force will remain in Afghanistan when US forces depart...

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-22

    Just to clarify a few things.

    I have never served in the armed forces, but I spent about ten years as a military analyst, during the period 1985-1995 when the US military was trying to determine what it's role would be in the post cold war world. Transformation, joint operations, everybody netted together for high speed information flow, right down to the squad level. It was semi-fantasy at the time, but the trend line was obvious and the Pentagon jumped on it.

    As a junior level guy, I supported a lot of scenario building. By support, I mean actual work, as opposed to administering actual work. Oddly enough, one of my menial tasks was updating the Libyan order of battle. I saw no lock-step in military strategic thinking (at least in private) especially at the higher ranks. There is a surprising amount of soul searching. Colonels soul search! Who knew?

    Conflict resolution was a hot topic. Not surprisingly, it's a lot easier to get out if you can steer clear of ground combat. Proxy wars were attractive in this regard, the downside of lack of control was also clearly recognized. By the way the Tom Hanks movie Charlie Wilson's War struck me as uncannily accurate.

    Anyhow, what happened in Libya 2011 was gamed out decades ago, it's in the play book, so to speak. (So were the basics of "Shock and Awe"). Obama didn't make this stuff up. Smart stand off weapons and advanced air platform surveillance/command/control have fundamentally changed the way the US (and a few other countries) can tilt asymmetrical conflicts. It's a style in which the US holds a huge advantage (for now). Military minds love advantage. Attrition used to be the bugaboo of sustained air campaigns. But, if air attrition is near zero, these campaigns can go on for years if needed, and at much lower cost to us (people,material, bucks, politics) than ground war commitments.

    So, I'm not placing all that much faith in Obama when I think the concept he loosely laid out is viable, but not sure fire. The Commander in Chief doesn't draw up plans, he gets options, looks them over, asks questions, seeks advice and ultimately signs off (probably crossing the fingers.

    I'm going on the merits of the case, and some people will disagree.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, if air attrition is near zero, these campaigns can go on for years if needed, and at much lower cost to us (people,material, bucks, politics) than ground war commitments.

    But air power simply cannot achieve the goal that prompts a nation to go to war in the first place..

    THAT is my point...

    We can bomb ISIS back into the Stone Age, but unless their is a force on the ground that can press the advantage, the campaign is one big failure..

    Air Power never has, nor ever will, win a war... There HAS to be a capable and competent force on the ground...

    It's really that simple...

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    And now we are learning that Iraq wanted a residual force to remain in Iraq after the withdrawal..

    But Obama was so eager to wipe his hands of Iraq that he ignored the advice of his senior Military Officials, including SecDef Panetta and totally threw away the blood and sweat that our American soldiers gave to free Iraq...

    I saids it before and I'll says it again.. Obama is a crappy leader..

    He makes Jimmy Carter look like Winston Churchill..

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M - 26

    "Air Power never has, nor ever will, win a war... There HAS to be a capable and competent force on the ground....."

    Never say never, but the force on the ground doesn't have to capable or competent by OUR standards. They just have have to be more capable and competent than the other guy, or if that isn't possible just more numerous and capable and competent enough to make use of the numerical advantage. Which, if we are honest, pretty much describes the Allied forces in France 1944, and more so the Russians 1942-45.

    Air power is simply a means to tilt the capable:competent:numerous index in your favor. Naval blockade is another, plus diplomatic pressure (close the borders), economic sanctions AND YES, "boots-on-the-ground" are all complementary measures. None have to work perfectly, especially if the layers of your strategy are deep. If you work the numbers, and all others options are sufficient, committing your own ground forces is optional, and quite possibly counterproductive (I'll leave that for later if you choose to pursue it, which you probably will).

    "We can bomb ISIS back into the Stone Age"

    Yes, but there is no need to go all Curtis Lemay on the Sunni territory of "Iraq" and Syria. That's the utility of smart weapons. The current generation almost always hit what they are aimed at, and when they hit, they usually mission kill. Even if the warhead is just concrete. In Libya, the French were plinking Libyan tanks with target bombs filled with concrete. Yeah, yeah the French copy no one, and no one copies the French. Except for military terminology.

    Unlike all previous eras, it's now possible to accomplish a lot with relatively few missions, munitions and with low attrition. Over time, you degrade enemy forces with a thousand cuts, not hundreds of thousands of cuts, or God forbid, nukes. Combat support is the least efficient use of air power. Interdiction and economic choke points are better. Going after command and control is useful in the sense it makes the enemy leadership move around a lot, which makes them tired and inefficient, but don't to kill many VIPs.

    Like it or not, it's a brave new world out there. Discussing it makes me sound a bit too much like Dr. Strangelove for my own comfort. It's very easy to get lost in the numbers and forget that people are going to die. That's what the colonels know in full context.

  29. [29] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "And now we are learning that Iraq wanted a residual force to remain in Iraq after the withdrawal.."

    No, Obama fought hard to keep a residual combat ready force in Iraq. That is a matter of record.

    Malaki was a smart ass, or dumb ass, take your pick, and couldn't come to terms with a standard US force status agreement. Malaki favored local politics and ignored US political realities. Precedents might have been bent in more harmonious political times, but US politics is anything but. Imagine the uproar.

    So Malaki puffed himself up, and Iraq is dismembered. FN dumbass.

    Winston Churchill. He was a brilliant politician, and the right leader at the right time in 1940. He personally courageous. He could turn a phrase, especially as an editor. He could move people to action, he move people to defiance.

    His military instincts were consistently dangerous. In two world wars, especially the first one. He was micro manager. As Sea Lord, he drove the admiralty crazy. Gallipoli. As prime minister, he was prone to waste scarce sources on sideshows. Italy, Floating harbors, Turbinne lights. This didn't matter so much when the US aid and manpower started to flow copiously, but it was a real problem in the early years.

    I think it's accurate to say the Allies won WWII both because of and in spite of Churchill.

    "I saids it before and I'll says it again.. Obama is a crappy leader.."

    I'm somewhat in agreement with your assessment. As a politician, he is a first class campaigner, but is at best mediocre when it comes working with/around Congress. Outside of campaign mode, he doesn't read the public mood well. He can speak soaringly, he usually falls flat.

    I have to say, and purely on the merits as I see them, he has good instincts as a commander in chief, in this era. He doesn't over react. He is willing to take a calculated risk if the benefit to risk ratio looks good. He is patient.

    Overall, I am disappointed with him. I have been disappointed with every president since I began to follow politics, many, many years ago. It's a matter of degree.

    Let's not get started on Congress....you could make it marginally cleaner by urinating on it.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, Obama fought hard to keep a residual combat ready force in Iraq. That is a matter of record.

    Not according to SecDef Panetta..

    Who are you going to believe??

    A POTUS who has a proven history of lying and refusal to accept responsibility for ANY mistake??

    Or a loyal Democrat who has absolutely NO REASON to lie..

    I'm somewhat in agreement with your assessment. As a politician, he is a first class campaigner, but is at best mediocre when it comes working with/around Congress. Outside of campaign mode, he doesn't read the public mood well. He can speak soaringly, he usually falls flat.

    Couldn't have said it better myself.. :D

    Although I try to each and every day... :D

    I have to say, and purely on the merits as I see them, he has good instincts as a commander in chief, in this era. He doesn't over react. He is willing to take a calculated risk if the benefit to risk ratio looks good. He is patient.

    I disagree. What you call "patience" is nothing more than ignoring a problem in hopes that it will go away..

    Obama is reactive, pure and simple.. A good leader is pro-active..

    Let's not get started on Congress....you could make it marginally cleaner by urinating on it.

    "Ouch!! And the ref takes a point away!!!"
    -Jim Carrey, LIAR LIAR

    Good one.. :D

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    TheStig wrote:

    LP is a small particle in the matter of record. The memoir tends to be a self-serving literary device.
    Self serving tidbits are quickly picked up and distributed by bottom feeding media.

    When independent sources corroborate LP's account, I'll put more credence in it.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    LP is a small particle in the matter of record. The memoir tends to be a self-serving literary device.

    Really??? Around here these parts, LP is the cat's meow.... I guess until he says something against the Messiah... :D

    When independent sources corroborate LP's account, I'll put more credence in it.

    Where you been?? The account has been corroborated by military leaders and SecState Clinton...

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Besides, you didn't answer the important question..

    Why would Leon Panetta lie?? He has been a loyal Democrat for decades....

    Why, all of the sudden, would he scroo Democrats in the mid-terms???

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M- 33

    As usual, you see the world in black and white, as usual, I see shades of grey.

    There are always factions within a presidency. I don't see that a bad thing, a President ought to be aware of and seriously ponder, a wide range of viewpoints before calling the shot. Panetta is more hawkish than Obama, and more conventional. So is H. Clinton for that matter.

    The "Obama-didn't-want-no-residual-forces" has been publicly percolating since summer, with the Time magazine extracts from Penneta's memoir being the latest round. It's worth noting that Time's version is bowdlerized, only a select few have seen the whole account in full context...including the all important foot notes and references.

    Anyhow, according to the Time account Panetta's main points were:

    all Iraqi factions wanted the US forces military forces to remain, but were not willing to say this publicly.

    any agreement would have to go before the Iraqi parliament, and would be hard sell in Iraq (the Time account doesn't mention this would be a hernia inducing lift in the US as well).

    the US had a lot of leverage to use the Iraqi's-to force them to publicly what wanted to do privately.

    Distilled, this is called haggling, "Life of Brian" style."

    Beard Seller:
    Fourteen? Are you joking
    Brian:
    That's what you told me to say! Tell me what to say, please!

    Beard Seller:
    Offer me fourteen.
    Brian:
    I'll give you fourteen.
    Beard Seller:
    (to the onlookers) He's offering me fourteen for this!
    Brian:
    Fifteen...
    Beard Seller:
    Seventeen. My last word. I won't take a penny less, or strike me dead.
    Brian:
    Sixteen!
    Beard Seller:
    Done! (shaking Brian's hand)Nice to do business with you. Tell you what, I'll throw in this as well. (Gives Brian a gourd)
    Brian:
    I don't want it, but thanks.
    Beard Seller:
    Bert!
    Bert:
    (appearing rapidly) Yes?
    Brian:
    All right! All right!! Thank you.
    Beard Seller:
    Where's the sixteen then?
    Brian:
    I already gave you twenty.
    Beard Seller:
    Oh yes ... that's four I owe you then.

    Unlike Brian, Obama couldn't swallow the deal. Panneta says he should have leveraged the beard sellers. Is leverage more money=aid, which amounts to a higher bid? Is leverage the threat of less money - that amounts to bidding less!? Is Obama supposed to steal the merchandise? Another form of leverage is threaten to walk away from deal. Obama chose that leverage.

    "Why would Leon Panetta lie?? He has been a loyal Democrat for decades....

    He's been a Republican too! I don't think he's a bad guy, I think he's pretty competent, if conventional.

    He's not lying, at least in the commonly accepted sense of deliberate deception. But he suffers from selective memory, as does any other human being. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Memoirs are basically eyewitness testimony, typically augmented by cursory historical research.

    He also saw only part of the picture. You can bet there is a ton of stuff outside Panetta's domain that he doesn't know. There is a huge paper trail out there, but most of the really interesting stuff is classifie. By the time it's declassified, most of will be dead, or wish we were.

    Panneta's motivation for going public is likely complex. Part of it may be the simple joy of saying "I told you so." Another part is Panneta's passion for foreign policy. There is a think tank known as the Panneta Institute for Public Policy. It pushes his viewpoint in the public forum. Pennata may be looking to 2016. Help Hillary? Run for POTUS himself?

    You can construct all kinds of scenarios, but useful only if you consider alternatives and don't sweep complexities and conflicting interests under the rug.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iddn't it funny how Panetta is the cat's meow around here..

    Right up to the point that he says something against the Messiah...

    Then he is all sorts of bad person... :D

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.