I hate the press. Seriously.

[Flatlander Fox]

I think that it is not that simple. It certainly isn't true in reverse, that just because some media establishment exists and produces news, it's news that people want to hear.

No, the problem is people are able to choose which news they want to hear in general...

[David Floyd]

The problem with the article isn't the mention of casualties, but the implication that Obama was dragging his heels and causing the casualties, because he hadn't responded to a request for reinforcements made less than a week prior. I hate Obama, but the implication is disingenuous in the extreme.

My strategy for winning in Afghanistan? ****, I don't have one. I'm not a professional. Which is exactly my point. The politicians and media should shut up, let the military do the job it is asked to do with the resources the military requires. Let's try that strategy. Having Obama dictate both strategy and troop levels is about as smart as letting me do so.

As for freedom of the press, I've said in another thread that I don't believe that right should extent to war zones. The USMJ should apply in war zones, to both military and civilian personnel. This report may not have been filed from a war zone, but the military should be free to clamp down and impose information blackouts and the like.

[Wezil]

My strategy for winning in Afghanistan? ****, I don't have one. I'm not a professional. Which is exactly my point. The politicians and media should shut up, let the military do the job it is asked to do with the resources the military requires. Let's try that strategy. Having Obama dictate both strategy and troop levels is about as smart as letting me do so.

I was beginning to wonder if I was going to get an answer. TY.

I'm not sure it is wise to leave decisions of war and peace exclusively to the generals. Generals will rarely tell you a mission cannot be accomplished - it's not in their DNA.

The military is currently asking for a considerable troop buildup. Is there the public will in the US for such action? Could Obama raise support for a troop increase even if he wanted to?

[David Floyd]

Yeah, sorry I have been out of town since Friday.

But I'm not advocating leaving the decision of war and peace to the generals. I am saying, once the politicians decide to go to war, let the generals who will fight the war dictate troop levels (within the constraints of available resources - expanding the army is a political decision as well).

Public support for a war should not be relevant to how the war is carried out. If the public opposes a war, the answer isn't to inadequately support the war. The answer might be to end the war, but that's not what we are talking about here. If you want my opinion, in 99% of the cases the public is too uninformed to know whether a war is good policy or not, so a poll should virtually never be taken into account when making a war vs. peace decision, or foreign policy in general.

[Wezil]

I am saying, once the politicians decide to go to war, let the generals who will fight the war dictate troop levels...

This is where the discussion needs to be focused. The US public is coming late to this debate as you've been distracted by other issues for 8 years now. Before committing more troops to what may well be a failed strategy it is prudent to reevaluate first. Just because the generals fighting the war want more troops doesn't mean they should get them. Pouring troops into Afghanistan may actually hurt more than it helps. The larger the foreign presence the more the fiercely independent Afghani's will feel they are being occupied.

Public support for a war should not be relevant to how the war is carried out. If the public opposes a war, the answer isn't to inadequately support the war. The answer might be to end the war, but that's not what we are talking about here. If you want my opinion, in 99% of the cases the public is too uninformed to know whether a war is good policy or not, so a poll should virtually never be taken into account when making a war vs. peace decision, or foreign policy in general.

Public opinion shouldn't decide (entirely) how a war is fought but it should certainly play a role in the decision whether to fight.

[David Floyd]

This is where the discussion needs to be focused. The US public is coming late to this debate as you've been distracted by other issues for 8 years now. Before committing more troops to what may well be a failed strategy it is prudent to reevaluate first. Just because the generals fighting the war want more troops doesn't mean they should get them. Pouring troops into Afghanistan may actually hurt more than it helps. The larger the foreign presence the more the fiercely independent Afghani's will feel they are being occupied.

That would depend on the objectives of the war. However, if the military is directed to win the war through a military solution, then the methodology to do so should be based almost exclusively on what the professionals say they need. If the objective is to win through non-military means, then the military should be told so, and adequate resources should be directed towards the non-military solution.

But you can't direct the military to win a war, through a military solution, and then ignore the military when it tells you what resources it needs. Or did we fail to learn that lesson in Iraq, when Rumsfeld ignored what the commanders on the ground told him? And the flip side of that would be the success of Petraus's Surge strategy. Or am I missing something here?

Public opinion shouldn't decide (entirely) how a war is fought but it should certainly play a role in the decision whether to fight.

I can maybe see your point if conscription is in effect. If not, though, it is a simple fact that the public - or at least the American public - is too ignorant, and willfully so, on foreign policy to be allowed to decide foreign policy. We're not a direct democracy, after all.

And ultimately the public does have a vote on foreign policy - Congressional, Senatorial, and Presidential elections.

[Wezil]

That would depend on the objectives of the war. However, if the military is directed to win the war through a military solution, then the methodology to do so should be based almost exclusively on what the professionals say they need. If the objective is to win through non-military means, then the military should be told so, and adequate resources should be directed towards the non-military solution.

This presumes a military solution is possible.

But you can't direct the military to win a war, through a military solution, and then ignore the military when it tells you what resources it needs. Or did we fail to learn that lesson in Iraq, when Rumsfeld ignored what the commanders on the ground told him? And the flip side of that would be the success of Petraus's Surge strategy. Or am I missing something here?

Afghanistan is not Iraq.

I can maybe see your point if conscription is in effect. If not, though, it is a simple fact that the public - or at least the American public - is too ignorant, and willfully so, on foreign policy to be allowed to decide foreign policy. We're not a direct democracy, after all.

And ultimately the public does have a vote on foreign policy - Congressional, Senatorial, and Presidential elections.

That is a "say" then isn't it? It leads back to my earlier question - Do you think Obama can sell a troop surge politically?

[David Floyd]

This presumes a military solution is possible.

What does the military think? Presumably, they are more knowledgeable than politicians.

Afghanistan is not Iraq.

OK, then let's go back to WW1, when there was INTENSE political pressure for Pershing to break up the AEF and funnel it into French and British armies as reinforcements. He resisted on military grounds, and ended up being right. The Germans ended up fearing American divisions far more than French or British units.

For another example, Lincoln's constant meddling with the Army of the Potomac almost certainly contributed negatively to the US Civil War.

We can easily bring up Vietnam and Korea as examples, too, where excessive civilian interference in military matters cost unnecessary casualties. Korea is actually a great example, where the military was given a mandate to win, but saddled with political restrictions, which absolutely increased casualties.

Let's leave the decision for war to the politicians, and the execution of war to the military.

That is a "say" then isn't it? It leads back to my earlier question - Do you think Obama can sell a troop surge politically?

Is his objective to win the war, or win re-election? If it's the former, then he shouldn't care, just like Bush didn't care that Petraus's surge was unpopular. If Obama would rather win re-election than the war, then he is a traitor to the United States and doesn't deserve to hold office.

[David Floyd]

Also, in your next post, please provide more than one line truisms and platitudes.

"Afghanistan is not Iraq", and "That presumes a solution is possible", are not arguments. I responded, but I shouldn't have.

[Ben Kenobi]

The media is a business, which requires that they sell things to stay in business.

Is that why they are asking for bailouts? As a business, they are failing.

[Flatlander Fox]

As a business, they are failing.

Yes they are. The other (bigger) problem is that there's only so many angles to a story and the public is usually tired of them after the first day...

[Theben]

...and Karsi has a least a figleaf of being chosen democratically. The leaders of South Vietnam were just a string of military dictators.

??
Are you arguing that having a facade of democracy which might fool some people is actually better than a blatant dictatorship which fools no one?!

[SlowwHand]

No, he's talking out of his ass. Sorry, Zk.
The people of South Vietnam were fine with being citizens of South Vietnam.
Were they all standing around, waiting for liberation by the North? Uh, no.
What about "boat people"? There weren't masses of people trying to reach North Vietnam. They were coming here.

[Wezil]

What does the military think? Presumably, they are more knowledgeable than politicians.

The British military thought they could subjugate the Pashtuns. So did the Russian military. Were they simply not knowledgeable or were perhaps filled with some hubris?

If the Generals are so smart why did they wait 8 years before realising they don't have enough troops?

OK, then let's go back to WW1, when there was INTENSE political pressure for Pershing to break up the AEF and funnel it into French and British armies as reinforcements. He resisted on military grounds, and ended up being right. The Germans ended up fearing American divisions far more than French or British units.

Oh goody! Iraq was a bad example so you'll reach back almost another hundred years for a worse example. DF - Afghanistan is not the deserts of Iraq or the plains of Europe. We have several Afghanistan examples already - Why don't you use one of them?

For another example, Lincoln's constant meddling with the Army of the Potomac almost certainly contributed negatively to the US Civil War.

150 years and a couple continents away. We'll be back to the Greeks before long.

We can easily bring up Vietnam and Korea as examples, too, where excessive civilian interference in military matters cost unnecessary casualties. Korea is actually a great example, where the military was given a mandate to win, but saddled with political restrictions, which absolutely increased casualties.

"We" won't. You will apparently.

Is his objective to win the war, or win re-election? If it's the former, then he shouldn't care, just like Bush didn't care that Petraus's surge was unpopular. If Obama would rather win re-election than the war, then he is a traitor to the United States and doesn't deserve to hold office.

Again you make the automatic assumption that surge = victory wrt Afghanistan completely avoiding the point I made earlier.

[Wezil]

Also, in your next post, please provide more than one line truisms and platitudes.

In your next post please provide an argument other than "The Generals know best". That's not even a truism.

"Afghanistan is not Iraq", and "That presumes a solution is possible", are not arguments. I responded, but I shouldn't have.

Do I have to explain to you why they are different DF? I thought you were smart enough to figure that out on your own. Judging by your response you don't see a difference.