Sec.Defense Hagel warns ISIS is-

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You guys are armchair quarterbacking...

So . . . are you saying that's a bad thing? You do it a lot. Even in this thread and in this post to which I'm replying.

What would you be willing to give up for US troops to stay in Iraq? Bush had to give up some legal protections just to keep us there until 2011. What about contractors?

If you believe that the Arab nations are finally waking up to the monsters they've helped to create, wouldn't that make it an "easier" option for them to give us a wider latitude in helping them fight those monsters?

How do you build a coalition against Syria with steadfast Russian opposition? If the terrorist threat isn't imminent how do you get Arab support?

Perhaps the Arab's do not entirely desire a coalition with non-Arabs against terrorist threats, except those traditional coalitions such as being left to their own devices (tyranny, etc.) and a little economic and military support. But without ideological or utopian requests to become democracies, or to tolerate others, etc. Perhaps Arab rulers don't want to support that which lessens their power. Is that so hard for utopian masterminds to understand?

Don't we have to test Iraq and see if they can stand on their own? Isn't this nearly the same welfare dependency argument Conservatives are glued to at home?

Oh wait . . . so you agree with the "welfare dependency argument"? And you're glued to it like the Conservatives? Or do you just see it as a bunch of hooie, and are more inclined toward the progressive notion that one cannot stand on his own? That he can't build it on his own? This is confusing--you believe that Iraq can stand on its own, but on the other hand, maybe not? Which is it?

And no, it isn't nearly the same welfare dependency argument. The Federal government's constitutional duty, as conservatives see it, is to allow individuals or their local governments who represent their wishes to be independent, and to actually build things on their own, and to self govern. Its constitutional duty is to protect them from foreign threats, not to make foreign governments dependent on us. The Federal government's primary responsibility in Iraq is to do that which protects our homeland and its people from the foreign threats that are brewing there. If that takes seeing to it that the Iraqi government is able to fight our enemies, with whatever help it needs from us, that is what it should do, or if that government is not able, then to handle the matter ourselves with whatever might and power necessary.

And if it takes a more powerful military to do so, it should focus on that, not on micromanaging our personal lives.

Wouldn't a President Romney or McCain likely be saddled with the exact same constraints as Obama?

I think they would be.

-spence

There you go doing that armchair quarterbacking thing.

It is a bit mind-twisting how when Obama does or doesn't do something you think that those who oppose him would do or don't do the same thing. Did that apply to the things that Bush did or didn't do? So when Obama blames Bush for the problems he has "inherited," does that mean he's just blowing smoke up our butts because he would have been "likely saddled with the exact same constraints" as Bush?

[justplugit]

Direct hits, Detbuch.

Maybe the answer is for O to make another apology tour for all our transgressions. Then the extreme islamists will feel sorry for us, being we confessed for all the terrible things we have done as a country, mostly under Bush,give up their believe to kill all infidels, lay down their arms and peace will reign forever.

Oh that's right, that's how we became perceived as a second rate power and
our enemies began to rise up again.

[JohnR]

I think they may have done some of the same things, though maybe better, and would have done different things.

I don't think there would be as high a sense of panic, as high a lack of strategy. And even if there were a lack of strategy. THEY WOULDN'T SAY IT like that. That is amateur hour.

Announcing to our enemies we would leave AFG in 2014. Amateur hour. Hey guys, take all the potshots you can us while you wait us out - we're leaving on '14 and you can't do nothing about it. Amateur hour.

I think they WOULD have listened to their military advisers more and better. Obama's military advisers have been cowed into speaking the party line and to putting things like transgender troops to the top of the heap in importance* or spending significant millions or training and resource budgets to foster green technology (should come from other guv funding). This is not what the military is supposed to do yet under Obama it is.

Russia, China, Iran, Islamic non state actors / groups are the counterweights on the US and EU. All of those perceive the US and EU to be weak and indecisive. Most likely correctly. They will use the opportunity, NOW and in the next year, to leverage our incompetence and lack of spine and grab whatever gains they can.


* Off topic - I am mixed on having GLB serving only because it is taking from the primary missions of the military. So we are playing social engineering with our military rather than focusing on the basics: which is to defend the US, build coalitions, mutual defense, and commonality with partner nations, and when necessary break a lot of the other guy's sh1t. Transgender - a bridge too far.

[nightfighter]

Amateur hour is correct. Much of administration is filled with unproven personnel and headed up by someone who was no more than a sophomore senator when first elected. Past administrations would attract and pursue the captains of industry, who had actual experience to fill cabinets and senior level leadership positions. This group didn't even consult with a single US health insurance company before they hired a Canadian firm (why???) to build the Obamacare software program. Oh, and that Canadian firm had no experience in building software on such a scale....

[afterhours]

[QUOTE=JohnR;1050526]
I think they WOULD have listened to their military advisers more and better. Obama's military advisers have been cowed into speaking the party line and to putting things like transgender troops to the top of the heap in importance* or spending significant millions or training and resource budgets to foster green technology (should come from other guv funding). This is not what the military is supposed to do yet under Obama it is.

Russia, China, Iran, Islamic non state actors / groups are the counterweights on the US and EU. All of those perceive the US and EU to be weak and indecisive. Most likely correctly. They will use the opportunity, NOW and in the next year, to leverage our incompetence and lack of spine and grab whatever gains they can.


Bingo....we have Bingo!

[justplugit]

[QUOTE=JohnR;1050526] So we are playing social engineering with our military rather than focusing on the basics: which is to defend the US, build coalitions, mutual defense, and commonality with partner nations, and when necessary break a lot of the other guy's sh1t. QUOTE]

This, all at the same time reducing our military spending to pre 9/11 levels.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by justplugit

This, all at the same time reducing our military spending to pre 9/11 levels.

That is another thread altogether. There is really bad decision making going on by the defense contractors, the Pentagon, and Congress on both sides of the aisle.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnR

That is another thread altogether. There is really bad decision making going on by the defense contractors, the Pentagon, and Congress on both sides of the aisle.

Geez JR, can't I even hijack my own thread.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Geez JR, can't I even hijack my own thread.