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

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

Michale

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

"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.

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

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

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.

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

Any takers?? :D

Michale

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

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.

:D

Michale

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

"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.

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

Michale

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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