And Osama bin Laden's head is still attached to his body.
That, Mr. President, is your failure. Let me see, almost 3800 of our dead, trillions spent, and your Head of Homeland Security has a gut feeling that something bad is going to happen. How's that "War on Terror" going? Oh yeah, we're fighting them there (glad we could make a nice place for them to play in, Rummy's World) so we don't have to fight them here. Like Al Qaeda has landing craft and are going to storm Virginia Beach, or do you also not trust the security theater of the TSA like the rest of us don't? Also, I'm glad that Al Qaeda has also choose to get bogged down and over spend their resources on Iraq, just like we did. Oh, wait, they didn't do that.
6 comments:
Nice way to summarize the whole freakin' mess.
I'm leaning towards the idea that our administration does not want him found or caught, because that would mean war over. Got to keep them big industry and bankers happy by profiting from the war.
Never mind the human costs on both sides. For this reason, the war will continue into the next administration and possibly even the next one after that. When Osama finally does die of old age, they will find another nefarious figure to blame things on and keep the ball rolling.
Sigh.
Greeny, thanks. It just makes me furrious that we have to relearn what we knew back in the 80s about how to fight terrorism. Michael Yon is posting bits of Petreus' COINtel Manual in his blog posts. I keep saying, "hey, I remember that one..." My impression is that his "new" manual is meerly applied theory we all had.
Ken, I've also had those thoughts and it just rankles me to no end. But I think it's more they want to keep the balls in the air, and cut out of town at the end of January 2009. then they can claim that "victory was there's but those people who came after just weren't up to the job," (no matter who is in the Whitehouse).
As usual, well said, Steve. Strangely enough this was the topic I too chose to write about for the last two days.
Ken, I suspect you are probably right. Though I would say that the "human cost" is probably irrelevant the current administration. On our side, it's only the military folks and the administration has nothing but disdain for the military. They see us as necessary, like a guard dog, but not something you'd let out in polite company and certain not anything you'd shed a tear over if it dies defending you - that's it's job after all. You can always get more. And the other side, well, they're heathen camel jockey's, doesn't matter that the vast majority of the Arab world had absolutely nothing to do with 911 or that most of the terrorists were from a country that we give aid and comfort to (and buy oil from), they are all in it together. I've been around this administration and their ilk, and that's exactly how they think.
As you said, sigh
Jim, thanks. Sometimes I talk with other vets and I feel like I'm the only one to have learned some things. It's not like I was all that special in my service time, didn't a lot of people get these briefings and training I did?
Also, when I read on Yon's blog (which I tend to skip by the politics he adds in) that some marine commanders are upset that their guys are just "patrolling" and not expending rounds I have to do a reality check. I know Marines as a group are gungho (hey Dave), but in my experience they've also been the most level-headed combat commanders. And their complaining their guys aren't in thick firefights everyday?
But then, like I said I'm reading the snippets from the new COIN (I guess it's now modern to drop the "tel" part, just like "Puffs" are "Spookys" these days) manual and saying to myself, we knew this stuff already. Didn't we? Isn't this lessons learned from the 70s and 80s? Sure, he's made it more theater specific in language, but isn't this basic Green Beret training on how to work with indigenous military (on either side of the insurgency coin - lowercase)?
Steve, the Marine sentiment expressed is not surprising based on the Corps primary mission, training, inclination, and history. Understand, this statement is NOT a condemnation of the Corps, I've worked with many and I have the highest respect for the Jarheads and what they do. Marines have one Mission, fight, and they are very, very good at it. But, they are not peace keepers or police officers. They are the United States' specialized quick reaction force, and if you don't want it blown up, don't call them. They are selected and trained specifically for this mindset, and for very good reason. This is why history has shown repeatedly that they aren't very good in peace keeping/police action type situations, those roles are deny them access to their greatest strength, to wit strike hard and fast and fight until there is nobody left to oppose them. Look at the history of the Corps, they excel in hopeless situations, where they are out numbered and out gunned, but the objectives are clearly defined and the restrictions on their doctrine are minimal. You don't direct Marines, you unleash them. Every Marine, from the Commandant to the lowest private is a warrior first and everything else second. Drop them into Baghdad and tell them they're an occupying force and you're going to have problems, drop them on a beach and tell to fight their way to Baghdad and you're going to have victory. The Corps job ended the day the President declared an end to major combat operations. Occupation is the Army's job, they are the general purpose force.
But, like you said, our illustrious leadership learned not a dammed thing from the past. And so the Corps will do what they always do, the best they can with the mission assigned.
Post a Comment