OT: why I’m voting for Obama

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Sdgrrl: You sure covered a lot of ground in your post and I’m almost not sure where to begin, in terms of responding.

I don’t disagree with many of your points and as far as the fall of the Republicans go, I always quote Lord Acton: “Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely”. After 20+ years at the helm, an institutionalized arrogance had set in, with predictable results.

I don’t really have anything against Obama, but I tend to agree with Surveyor’s assessment of him as an empty suit. I didn’t see bi-partisanship at work on healthcare, I saw inexperience and an intellectually superior aloofness. I’m often struck by his almost clinically technocratic nature, which at times is positive (he tends to stay cool and distant in times of stress), but is often negative (too dispassionate when discussing issues that are emotional, like healthcare or America’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan).

Who steps up for the Republicans in 2012? Good question. I hope to God it’s not Palin, but I’m not really afraid of that happening. I happen to like Pawlenty, but as really more of the best choice of a bad lot. My wife, like you, is a Texan and I saw Dubya for what he was during his governorship of Texas.

The true conservatives in the Republican party, like Barry Goldwater, are long gone. Even Reagan’s vaunted “revolution” was more rhetoric than reality, given that Reagan raised taxes and went on a spending spree of his own.

I guess what I’m saying is that I agree neither side has a large contingent of angels. What scares me more about this Administration and Congress, is that we’re seeing what happens when the radical Left is in power and it’s much akin to what happened under Dubya when the radical Right was in power. Clinton, for all his faults, finally decided to hew close to center and did manage an effective Presidency, especially in his second term. And power is ultimately what the entire conversation ends up being about. Strip away the rhetorical flourishes from both sides and it’s about seizing and then retaining power. The potential long-term damage from this untrammeled spending spree (and it started under Bush) is terrifying and we’re just standing here and watching it happen.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Actually, I’ll use this dupe to address your question on Afghanistan.

Speaking from experience on counterinsurgency operations, I will say this: The greatest danger in Afghanistan is what is referred to as “mission creep”. We saw it in Vietnam, where we landed the 1st Marines at Da Nang in 1965 and within a few years, had 500,000 troops in country.

There isn’t a clear plan in Afghanistan. There are several competing ideas and thoughts and the most dangerous of these center on nation building, which in a country like Afghanistan is sheer lunacy.

So, the choices really boil down to two: One, get the major combat forces the hell out and focus on what was successful in 2001: Emphasis on Special Operations Forces (SOF), backed by air power and drones and with a specifically focused mission (interdicting the Taliban and al-Qaeda), or, Two, commit tens of thousands of additional American soldiers and Marines, which will cost many more billions of dollars and longer casualty lists for years and years to come.

While the answer really is obvious, the question becomes what Obama is politically prepared to do. In many ways, the questions he’s facing are not different from those faced by LBJ in 1964, and we all know how that turned out.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Actually, I’ll use this dupe to address your question on Afghanistan.

Speaking from experience on counterinsurgency operations, I will say this: The greatest danger in Afghanistan is what is referred to as “mission creep”. We saw it in Vietnam, where we landed the 1st Marines at Da Nang in 1965 and within a few years, had 500,000 troops in country.

There isn’t a clear plan in Afghanistan. There are several competing ideas and thoughts and the most dangerous of these center on nation building, which in a country like Afghanistan is sheer lunacy.

So, the choices really boil down to two: One, get the major combat forces the hell out and focus on what was successful in 2001: Emphasis on Special Operations Forces (SOF), backed by air power and drones and with a specifically focused mission (interdicting the Taliban and al-Qaeda), or, Two, commit tens of thousands of additional American soldiers and Marines, which will cost many more billions of dollars and longer casualty lists for years and years to come.

While the answer really is obvious, the question becomes what Obama is politically prepared to do. In many ways, the questions he’s facing are not different from those faced by LBJ in 1964, and we all know how that turned out.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Actually, I’ll use this dupe to address your question on Afghanistan.

Speaking from experience on counterinsurgency operations, I will say this: The greatest danger in Afghanistan is what is referred to as “mission creep”. We saw it in Vietnam, where we landed the 1st Marines at Da Nang in 1965 and within a few years, had 500,000 troops in country.

There isn’t a clear plan in Afghanistan. There are several competing ideas and thoughts and the most dangerous of these center on nation building, which in a country like Afghanistan is sheer lunacy.

So, the choices really boil down to two: One, get the major combat forces the hell out and focus on what was successful in 2001: Emphasis on Special Operations Forces (SOF), backed by air power and drones and with a specifically focused mission (interdicting the Taliban and al-Qaeda), or, Two, commit tens of thousands of additional American soldiers and Marines, which will cost many more billions of dollars and longer casualty lists for years and years to come.

While the answer really is obvious, the question becomes what Obama is politically prepared to do. In many ways, the questions he’s facing are not different from those faced by LBJ in 1964, and we all know how that turned out.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Actually, I’ll use this dupe to address your question on Afghanistan.

Speaking from experience on counterinsurgency operations, I will say this: The greatest danger in Afghanistan is what is referred to as “mission creep”. We saw it in Vietnam, where we landed the 1st Marines at Da Nang in 1965 and within a few years, had 500,000 troops in country.

There isn’t a clear plan in Afghanistan. There are several competing ideas and thoughts and the most dangerous of these center on nation building, which in a country like Afghanistan is sheer lunacy.

So, the choices really boil down to two: One, get the major combat forces the hell out and focus on what was successful in 2001: Emphasis on Special Operations Forces (SOF), backed by air power and drones and with a specifically focused mission (interdicting the Taliban and al-Qaeda), or, Two, commit tens of thousands of additional American soldiers and Marines, which will cost many more billions of dollars and longer casualty lists for years and years to come.

While the answer really is obvious, the question becomes what Obama is politically prepared to do. In many ways, the questions he’s facing are not different from those faced by LBJ in 1964, and we all know how that turned out.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Actually, I’ll use this dupe to address your question on Afghanistan.

Speaking from experience on counterinsurgency operations, I will say this: The greatest danger in Afghanistan is what is referred to as “mission creep”. We saw it in Vietnam, where we landed the 1st Marines at Da Nang in 1965 and within a few years, had 500,000 troops in country.

There isn’t a clear plan in Afghanistan. There are several competing ideas and thoughts and the most dangerous of these center on nation building, which in a country like Afghanistan is sheer lunacy.

So, the choices really boil down to two: One, get the major combat forces the hell out and focus on what was successful in 2001: Emphasis on Special Operations Forces (SOF), backed by air power and drones and with a specifically focused mission (interdicting the Taliban and al-Qaeda), or, Two, commit tens of thousands of additional American soldiers and Marines, which will cost many more billions of dollars and longer casualty lists for years and years to come.

While the answer really is obvious, the question becomes what Obama is politically prepared to do. In many ways, the questions he’s facing are not different from those faced by LBJ in 1964, and we all know how that turned out.

[sdgrrl]

Allan, in no way am I a military scholar, so my words are just that- words.

Its hard for me to imagine Afghanistan being seen as a Vietnam by the public until we get the casualties that were sustained during Vietnam. It was definitely the huge casualties, with no goal and no end in sight that made the Vietnam War so unpopular. The Dali Lama said something to the extent “People don’t mind suffering as long as they know there is a reason”. Which is why during WWII and its huge casualties we still supported the war; there definitely seemed to be a reason and victories won.

You are right; without a clear plan Afghanistan could resemble Vietnam, but Vietnam was lost in the public’s eyes and it seemed that brought it to a close before the job was complete. The public…isn’t to involved with Afghanistan, it’s definitely not a huge political platform like Iraq was.

I don’t know the military logistics that will keep Afghanistan calm and cool. What worries me though is the scenario that we do pull out of both Iraq and Afghanistan- Iran then gets a foothold in both countries. Iran rubs elbows with its old relatives, the Shia in Iraq. Its possible the Shia of both countries will exact revenge on the Sunni population, but most important is Iran’s influence and proximity to the nation.

Iran gets a foothold in Afghanistan, because the country is so fragile and easy to take over.

Iran then secures a relationship with Pakistan on good terms again. Suddenly, we are looking at a huge Iranian superpower with Pakistan and its nukes at their side.

So- we pull out, but I fear if we do when we go back the job will be even harder with enemies coming from all around with an enemy footing even more strong and nukes on the table.

Those are my fears, but I don’t know.

[sdgrrl]

Allan, in no way am I a military scholar, so my words are just that- words.

Its hard for me to imagine Afghanistan being seen as a Vietnam by the public until we get the casualties that were sustained during Vietnam. It was definitely the huge casualties, with no goal and no end in sight that made the Vietnam War so unpopular. The Dali Lama said something to the extent “People don’t mind suffering as long as they know there is a reason”. Which is why during WWII and its huge casualties we still supported the war; there definitely seemed to be a reason and victories won.

You are right; without a clear plan Afghanistan could resemble Vietnam, but Vietnam was lost in the public’s eyes and it seemed that brought it to a close before the job was complete. The public…isn’t to involved with Afghanistan, it’s definitely not a huge political platform like Iraq was.

I don’t know the military logistics that will keep Afghanistan calm and cool. What worries me though is the scenario that we do pull out of both Iraq and Afghanistan- Iran then gets a foothold in both countries. Iran rubs elbows with its old relatives, the Shia in Iraq. Its possible the Shia of both countries will exact revenge on the Sunni population, but most important is Iran’s influence and proximity to the nation.

Iran gets a foothold in Afghanistan, because the country is so fragile and easy to take over.

Iran then secures a relationship with Pakistan on good terms again. Suddenly, we are looking at a huge Iranian superpower with Pakistan and its nukes at their side.

So- we pull out, but I fear if we do when we go back the job will be even harder with enemies coming from all around with an enemy footing even more strong and nukes on the table.

Those are my fears, but I don’t know.

[sdgrrl]

Allan, in no way am I a military scholar, so my words are just that- words.

Its hard for me to imagine Afghanistan being seen as a Vietnam by the public until we get the casualties that were sustained during Vietnam. It was definitely the huge casualties, with no goal and no end in sight that made the Vietnam War so unpopular. The Dali Lama said something to the extent “People don’t mind suffering as long as they know there is a reason”. Which is why during WWII and its huge casualties we still supported the war; there definitely seemed to be a reason and victories won.

You are right; without a clear plan Afghanistan could resemble Vietnam, but Vietnam was lost in the public’s eyes and it seemed that brought it to a close before the job was complete. The public…isn’t to involved with Afghanistan, it’s definitely not a huge political platform like Iraq was.

I don’t know the military logistics that will keep Afghanistan calm and cool. What worries me though is the scenario that we do pull out of both Iraq and Afghanistan- Iran then gets a foothold in both countries. Iran rubs elbows with its old relatives, the Shia in Iraq. Its possible the Shia of both countries will exact revenge on the Sunni population, but most important is Iran’s influence and proximity to the nation.

Iran gets a foothold in Afghanistan, because the country is so fragile and easy to take over.

Iran then secures a relationship with Pakistan on good terms again. Suddenly, we are looking at a huge Iranian superpower with Pakistan and its nukes at their side.

So- we pull out, but I fear if we do when we go back the job will be even harder with enemies coming from all around with an enemy footing even more strong and nukes on the table.

Those are my fears, but I don’t know.

[sdgrrl]

Allan, in no way am I a military scholar, so my words are just that- words.

Its hard for me to imagine Afghanistan being seen as a Vietnam by the public until we get the casualties that were sustained during Vietnam. It was definitely the huge casualties, with no goal and no end in sight that made the Vietnam War so unpopular. The Dali Lama said something to the extent “People don’t mind suffering as long as they know there is a reason”. Which is why during WWII and its huge casualties we still supported the war; there definitely seemed to be a reason and victories won.

You are right; without a clear plan Afghanistan could resemble Vietnam, but Vietnam was lost in the public’s eyes and it seemed that brought it to a close before the job was complete. The public…isn’t to involved with Afghanistan, it’s definitely not a huge political platform like Iraq was.

I don’t know the military logistics that will keep Afghanistan calm and cool. What worries me though is the scenario that we do pull out of both Iraq and Afghanistan- Iran then gets a foothold in both countries. Iran rubs elbows with its old relatives, the Shia in Iraq. Its possible the Shia of both countries will exact revenge on the Sunni population, but most important is Iran’s influence and proximity to the nation.

Iran gets a foothold in Afghanistan, because the country is so fragile and easy to take over.

Iran then secures a relationship with Pakistan on good terms again. Suddenly, we are looking at a huge Iranian superpower with Pakistan and its nukes at their side.

So- we pull out, but I fear if we do when we go back the job will be even harder with enemies coming from all around with an enemy footing even more strong and nukes on the table.

Those are my fears, but I don’t know.

[sdgrrl]

Allan, in no way am I a military scholar, so my words are just that- words.

Its hard for me to imagine Afghanistan being seen as a Vietnam by the public until we get the casualties that were sustained during Vietnam. It was definitely the huge casualties, with no goal and no end in sight that made the Vietnam War so unpopular. The Dali Lama said something to the extent “People don’t mind suffering as long as they know there is a reason”. Which is why during WWII and its huge casualties we still supported the war; there definitely seemed to be a reason and victories won.

You are right; without a clear plan Afghanistan could resemble Vietnam, but Vietnam was lost in the public’s eyes and it seemed that brought it to a close before the job was complete. The public…isn’t to involved with Afghanistan, it’s definitely not a huge political platform like Iraq was.

I don’t know the military logistics that will keep Afghanistan calm and cool. What worries me though is the scenario that we do pull out of both Iraq and Afghanistan- Iran then gets a foothold in both countries. Iran rubs elbows with its old relatives, the Shia in Iraq. Its possible the Shia of both countries will exact revenge on the Sunni population, but most important is Iran’s influence and proximity to the nation.

Iran gets a foothold in Afghanistan, because the country is so fragile and easy to take over.

Iran then secures a relationship with Pakistan on good terms again. Suddenly, we are looking at a huge Iranian superpower with Pakistan and its nukes at their side.

So- we pull out, but I fear if we do when we go back the job will be even harder with enemies coming from all around with an enemy footing even more strong and nukes on the table.

Those are my fears, but I don’t know.

[Zeitgeist]

sdg- Sticks and stones. Just because I do not agree with your world view does not make me a loon. I say you are a twit because you behave in a superficial, condescending way. You are a typical uninformed, petty, name calling person who resorts to taunts and insults when the argument does not go your way. Do not bring my family into this discussion. I did not bring yours into it. Your guild mentality shows what a real xenophobe you really are.

[Zeitgeist]

sdg- Sticks and stones. Just because I do not agree with your world view does not make me a loon. I say you are a twit because you behave in a superficial, condescending way. You are a typical uninformed, petty, name calling person who resorts to taunts and insults when the argument does not go your way. Do not bring my family into this discussion. I did not bring yours into it. Your guild mentality shows what a real xenophobe you really are.

[Zeitgeist]

sdg- Sticks and stones. Just because I do not agree with your world view does not make me a loon. I say you are a twit because you behave in a superficial, condescending way. You are a typical uninformed, petty, name calling person who resorts to taunts and insults when the argument does not go your way. Do not bring my family into this discussion. I did not bring yours into it. Your guild mentality shows what a real xenophobe you really are.

[Zeitgeist]

sdg- Sticks and stones. Just because I do not agree with your world view does not make me a loon. I say you are a twit because you behave in a superficial, condescending way. You are a typical uninformed, petty, name calling person who resorts to taunts and insults when the argument does not go your way. Do not bring my family into this discussion. I did not bring yours into it. Your guild mentality shows what a real xenophobe you really are.

[Author]

Posts