Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 42

Thread: McChrystal Talked With Obama Only Once

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Masschusetts
    Last Seen
    03-01-14 @ 10:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,512

    Re: McChrystal Talked With Obama Only Once

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Your selective outrage has been noted;
    Outrage should be selective.....unless someone is just mad at the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    But how amusing that you complain about Fox News yet during the campaign of stupidity and anti-Iraq War BS spewed for the last six years by the NY Times, LA Times and Washington Post, you probably thought all that criticism of the Administration was patriotic while men and women were getting blown up by roadside bombs and the critics mimed the prophesy and strategy of Osama Bin Laden.

    I would laugh if it were not so offensive and stupid/misguided.
    Just as Off Topic as my earlier post was, but I like the way you:
    1. Set up a hypothesis.
    2. Decide How I would "Probably" answer it
    3. Chastise me for your guess!

    Very creative
    Last edited by Devil505; 09-29-09 at 04:15 PM.

  2. #32
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: McChrystal Talked With Obama Only Once

    Aside from the political tradeoffs involved with increasing manpower in Afghanistan--a decision I believe is important, increasingly urgent, and should be undertaken--may well loom a larger issue concerning the U.S. military's fundamental assumption concerning the role of technology. If so, there are real gaps in U.S. power that need to be addressed.

    In recent years, at least back to the 1990s, the increasingly de facto operating assumption was that manpower had been rendered less important on account of new technologies. Bolstering that assumption was the experience in the air war against Serbia during the ethnic war in and around its Kosovo region.

    In Iraq, General Tommy Franks (with the strong support of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld) assumed that a "light" strategy would accomplish the military's objectives in bringing about regime change in Iraq and providing post-combat security. That assumption, much as General Eric Shinseki expected, proved disastrously wrong, and it was not until the troop surge that things were turned around. Now, a similar situation appears to be unfolding in Afghanistan, even if the specific dynamics differ.

    In effect, the Kosovo experience may well have been the exception. The reality may well remain that manpower is the most important ingredient of maintaining the conventional power necessary for victory, though the breakdown of such manpower e.g., heavy units vs. special forces, would need to vary from conflict to conflict based on needs, circumstances, challenges, and opportunities. As such, a more refined military doctrine would recognize that while technology can augment manpower and its capabilities, it cannot substantially eliminate the need for manpower. That, of course, would raise questions as to how the U.S. can substantially expand its combat forces within the framework of voluntary enlistment not to mention significant public discontent over the Iraq war and growing dissatisfaction concerning the war in Afghanistan.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 09-29-09 at 04:30 PM.

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: McChrystal Talked With Obama Only Once

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    Just as Off Topic as my earlier post was, but I like the way you:
    1. Set up a hypothesis.
    Where did I hypothesize?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    2. Decide How I would "Probably" answer it
    Answer what?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    3. Chastise me for your guess!
    Where did I chastise you? Do you even know what chastise means?

    Main Entry: chastise (+)chas-!tIz
    Pronunciation: \ (ˌ)chas-ˈtīz \
    Function: transitive verb
    Inflected Form(s): chas•tised, chas•tis•ing,
    Etymology: Middle English chastisen, alteration of chasten
    Date: 14th century
    Results

    1. 1to inflict punishment on (as by whipping)

    2. 2to censure severely : castigate


    Once again it is obvious that you don't get it and do wander way off the topic on many threads with your funny little anti-Fox/anti-Conservative misguided populist rants.

    I am not sure you even comprehend what a hypothesis is:

    Main Entry: hypothesis
    Pronunciation: \ hī-ˈpä-thə-səs \
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural hy•poth•e•ses \ -ˌsēz \ ,
    Etymology: Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put - More at - do
    Date: circa 1656
    Results

    1 a. an assumption or concession made for the sake of argumentb. an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
    2. a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

    3. the antecedent clause of a conditional statement</DT< td>



  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: McChrystal Talked With Obama Only Once

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Aside from the political tradeoffs involved with increasing manpower in Afghanistan--a decision I believe is important, increasingly urgent, and should be undertaken--may well loom a larger issue concerning the U.S. military's fundamental assumption concerning the role of technology. If so, there are real gaps in U.S. power that need to be addressed.

    In recent years, at least back to the 1990s, the increasingly de facto operating assumption was that manpower had been rendered less important on account of new technologies. Bolstering that assumption was the experience in the air war against Serbia during the ethnic war in and around its Kosovo region.

    In Iraq, General Tommy Franks (with the strong support of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld) assumed that a "light" strategy would accomplish the military's objectives in bringing about regime change in Iraq and providing post-combat security. That assumption, much as General Eric Shinseki expected, proved disastrously wrong, and it was not until the troop surge that things were turned around. Now, a similar situation appears to be unfolding in Afghanistan, even if the specific dynamics differ.

    In effect, the Kosovo experience may well have been the exception. The reality may well remain that manpower is the most important ingredient of maintaining the conventional power necessary for victory, though the breakdown of such manpower e.g., heavy units vs. special forces, would need to vary from conflict to conflict based on needs, circumstances, challenges, and opportunities. As such, a more refined military doctrine would recognize that while technology can augment manpower and its capabilities, it cannot substantially eliminate the need for manpower. That, of course, would raise questions as to how the U.S. can substantially expand its combat forces within the framework of voluntary enlistment not to mention significant public discontent over the Iraq war and growing dissatisfaction concerning the war in Afghanistan.
    Fairly good and accurate commentary, however, you left off one very important element in the analysis; the importance of good on-the-ground intelligence gathering.


  5. #35
    Student
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    07-19-11 @ 08:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    205

    Re: McChrystal Talked With Obama Only Once

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Aside from the political tradeoffs involved with increasing manpower in Afghanistan--a decision I believe is important, increasingly urgent, and should be undertaken--may well loom a larger issue concerning the U.S. military's fundamental assumption concerning the role of technology. If so, there are real gaps in U.S. power that need to be addressed.

    In recent years, at least back to the 1990s, the increasingly de facto operating assumption was that manpower had been rendered less important on account of new technologies. Bolstering that assumption was the experience in the air war against Serbia during the ethnic war in and around its Kosovo region.

    In Iraq, General Tommy Franks (with the strong support of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld) assumed that a "light" strategy would accomplish the military's objectives in bringing about regime change in Iraq and providing post-combat security. That assumption, much as General Eric Shinseki expected, proved disastrously wrong, and it was not until the troop surge that things were turned around. Now, a similar situation appears to be unfolding in Afghanistan, even if the specific dynamics differ.

    In effect, the Kosovo experience may well have been the exception. The reality may well remain that manpower is the most important ingredient of maintaining the conventional power necessary for victory, though the breakdown of such manpower e.g., heavy units vs. special forces, would need to vary from conflict to conflict based on needs, circumstances, challenges, and opportunities. As such, a more refined military doctrine would recognize that while technology can augment manpower and its capabilities, it cannot substantially eliminate the need for manpower. That, of course, would raise questions as to how the U.S. can substantially expand its combat forces within the framework of voluntary enlistment not to mention significant public discontent over the Iraq war and growing dissatisfaction concerning the war in Afghanistan.
    But it was not simply the addition of soldiers in the "surge" that turned Iraq around. It was that, but it was also (and I think more importantly) a fundamental change in our overall and tribal strategies at the same time. More soldiers without a clear mission will not equate to success.

    That said, at the same time, (and I wrote a position paper on this) when we pull back, the tribes could fall right into a civil war because we would no longer be there to hold it together. Hopefully I am wrong, but we will see.

    At the same time, I am in 100% agreement about the idea that manpower cannot be replaced completely by technology, and that needs will vary based on the conflict. That is partially why I am so opposed to the what restructuring of the military to fight wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, when arguably the next war will be nothing like that.
    Last edited by FlanaganReport; 09-29-09 at 04:35 PM.

  6. #36
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: McChrystal Talked With Obama Only Once

    Quote Originally Posted by FlanaganReport View Post
    But it was not simply the addition of soldiers in the "surge" that turned Iraq around. It was that, but it was also (and I think more importantly) a fundamental change in our overall and tribal strategies at the same time. More soldiers without a clear mission will not equate to success.
    Agreed. But without sufficient manpower, the revised tactics would very likely have been implemented on such a small scale that the outcome would have been largely inconsequential. Needless to say, real tensions among the parties (Shia, Sunni, Kurds, and some smaller minority groups) persist and some major differences remain to be resolved. How those issues are handled down the road could well determine whether Iraq again undergoes an increase in ethnic tensions, etc.

    That is partially why I am so opposed to the what restructuring of the military to fight wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, when arguably the next war will be nothing like that.
    In my opinion, the military should never be permanently configured for the proverbial "last war." Instead, much as is the challenge for any organization seeking to build or maintain world leadership, it must have the capacity to rapidly shift to meet current or emergent challenges.

  7. #37
    Guru
    F107HyperSabr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Last Seen
    10-21-10 @ 09:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,617

    Re: McChrystal Talked With Obama Only Once

    Gen McChrystal started his assignement in June of this year. This is only Sept. What we do not have documented for comparison is how often did other presidents speak with thier theatre commanders.

    Without the real information the ramblings of the OP could just be what they usually are - partisan clap trap !!!

    Well I believe in don't trust any and verify !!!
    Last edited by F107HyperSabr; 09-29-09 at 08:51 PM.
    “I do not recall the Viet Cong asking me if I was a natural born or Naturalized American before they shot at me, they just shot at all of us “ f107HyperSabr

  8. #38
    Guru
    F107HyperSabr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Last Seen
    10-21-10 @ 09:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,617

    Re: McChrystal Talked With Obama Only Once

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Don't even try to compare Obama to Eisenhower, it just isn't there for you. You really are unbelieveable sometimes.
    I do not think that the Child was comparing the two only the situation. Of during the EISENHOWER years the Korean War was essentially over and except the early Lebanon crises we were not in a war such as Vietnam yet.

    I think that you are both in the wrong - Child for comparing the conditions of the Eisenhower Administartion's crises to Obama's and you for the flippant

    "You really are unbelieveable sometimes." - commnet. That is not debate it is slam the other guy.
    “I do not recall the Viet Cong asking me if I was a natural born or Naturalized American before they shot at me, they just shot at all of us “ f107HyperSabr

  9. #39
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: McChrystal Talked With Obama Only Once

    if you read the links at the top of this thread you will see that it is mcchrystal clear that:

    1. the general, in his assessment delivered to the white house on aug 30, says in unambiguous language we must increase our commitment in afghanistan AND completely revise our strategy or we are almost sure to lose

    2. furthermore, mcchrystal maintains urgency is exigent, delay is doom

    3. obama, on the other hand, has SAT on mcchrystal's assessment for a month

    4. he blitzed the sunday talks 9 days ago (sept 20) to say he hasn't received any assessment

    5. and, obama continued, no one has asked him yet for more troops

    6. also, it is clear that the prez is pressuring his people to HOLD OFF on making any recommendations (which they've already forwarded)

    7. very strange

    8. mcchrystal says---act fast or fail

    9. so the prez goes to copenhagen and AVOIDS talking to his commanders

    10. while 50 men a month pay the ultimate sacrifice

    it is what it is

  10. #40
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: McChrystal Talked With Obama Only Once

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Um, Eisenhower was a general himself, in fact he was the Supreme Allied Commander, the idea that he would need further advice on war fighting efforts in Vietnam simply isn't the same thing as a two term state senator, a half a term federal Senator and a Harvard law professor not needing such advice. Not to mention that as POTUS only employed peace keeping forces in Lebanon and military advisers in Vietnam, he never had a war during his Presidency.
    And you completely ignored what I wrote (seems to be a theme of yours).

    Do you even know how Eisenhower conducted himself in office?
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •