Why Vice Presidents matter in this election

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

I think you have no CLUE what denial is

Really? Well what has the DEMCRATIC controlled congress done in the last 22 months except make things worse? When the democratic controlled congress took the majority they "promised" "quick and meaningful changes", well I am still waiting.

And don't give me this crap about Bush vetoing everything cause he has only vetoed 12 items and only one of them had an economic impact and the veto was over ridden so that means the democratic controlled congress has a 100% passage of what they have submitted. So given that fact tell me why we are not better off!!!

Bush is an asshole for getting us into the war and the congress is the blame for keeping us there.

If you even want to put on the gloves about the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac disaster I have only one word for you “Clinton”. And don’t get me wrong, I voted for Clinton both times and Gore too. If Clinton was able to run again I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

As for our wonderful speaker of the house, please tell me all the wonderful things that Pelosi has done to help us as a country and while you are at it explain the 9% approval rating under her leadership.

I personally think we are screwed whoever wins but a whole lot worse with Obama. Like I have said before the issue that does it for me is that I believe that my children and grandchildren will be safer with McCain.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Like I have said before the issue that does it for me is that I believe that my children and grandchildren will be safer with McCain.

Personally I dont want my grandkids having to serve in Iraq.I think Sen McCain... will be happy to have your grandkids going there.

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

Personally I dont want my grandkids having to serve in Iraq.I think Sen McCain... will be happy to have your grandkids going there.

Simple math here, he can't be in office when my grandkids are old enough to go! Oh, and personally I don't want my grandkids to have to speak German, French or any other foreign language because Obama has given the country away! You did notice that one of the first things he did was go to Europe to campaign there instead of his own, I mean our country!!! At least when McCain says “Country First” I know he is talking about the United States of America!!!

Now, please give me your thoughts as to the issues that I addressed.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Simple math here, he can't be in office when my grandkids are old enough to go!

Now, please give me your thoughts as to the issues that I addressed.

Hey.. your man is the one supporting a new 100 years war... when was the last one????....guess we as a species have not progressed as far as we claim in the last few hundred years....and here we go repeating the worst parts of our history

[steveorino 7]

Quote

If you're cool with Palin, as President, having the nuclear codes and facing down Putin, and China, and North Korea and Iran, and keeping Pakistan & India, and Israel and the Arabs states, from blowing each other up...then more power to you.

And you are comfortable with Obama being president having the nuclear codes and facing down Putin, and China, and North Korea and Iran, and keeping Pakistan & India, and Israel and the Arabs states, from blowing each other up..... shudder!

steveOrino

[likearock 2]

Quote

I watched the debate as well as General McKiernan's press conference so let me ask you this. What is a "surge" to you?

A surge to me would be more boots on the ground, temporary or permanent, in order to accomplish specific objectives. McKiernan wants 4 more brigade combat teams (14,000-20,000 additional troops) in order to establish better secruity in Afghanistan. The Iraq surge consisted of 30,000 additional troops to help quell sectarian violence throughout Iraq. The majority being in Baghdad.

Perhaps my terminology is wrong but it's looking like McKiernan wants a surge and why would he want something won't work?

Great debating tactic: if you're shown to be wrong, redefine the terms until you're right.

It doesn't matter how we define the terms, if we're talking about McKiernan all that matters is how he defines it. And judging from nerdgirl's quote clearly, however he defines it, he doesn't think it's appropriate for Afghanistan.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I watched the debate as well as General McKiernan's press conference so let me ask you this. What is a "surge" to you?

As [likearock] noted, in this context it really doesn’t matter what it means to me (altho' I will respond to that at the end) … or what “surge principles” are. The criticality is what GEN McKiernan said and how that does or does not correlate positively or negatively with what Sen Biden and Gov Palin asserted, i.e., who demonstrated the best understanding?

Who demonstrated the better understanding of stability operations (or "ops" - for [normiss]
Who demonstrated a better recognition of the complexity of the situation?

Who recognized that a single notional model (the ‘surge in Iraq’) does not automatically extend to Afghanistan?

Who was able to synthesize the tradition military operational, the counterinsurgency, and reconstruction challenges succinctly in a way that is amenable to the debate format & audience?

In thinking about this a bit, you may have helped convince me that it is a more important indicator than I had previously suggested … thanks … altho’ that may have not been the your desired endstate.


Again what Sen Biden said:

“The fact is that our commanding general in Afghanistan said today that a surge -- the surge principles used in Iraq will not -- well, let me say this again now – our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan, not Joe Biden, our commanding general in Afghanistan.

“He said we need more troops. We need government-building. We need to spend more money on the infrastructure in Afghanistan.”

Excerpts from what GEN McKiernan:

“As a military officer, I’ve said that the -- ultimately the solution in Afghanistan is going to be a political solution, not a military solution.”

“I think first of all, I find it sometimes not very helpful to try to compare Iraq and Afghanistan. I think they're two very different environments.”

“Afghanistan is not Iraq.”

‘The word I don’t use for Afghanistan is ‘surge’.”

“So the idea that the government of Afghanistan will take on the idea of reconciliation, I think, is appropriate, and we’ll be there to provide support within our mandate. It won't be a military-led operation.”

How is that dissonant with “the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan”?


~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
Comparatively, one could say that most skydiving rigs are not a good choice for BASE jumping. Alternatively, one could say that a Stiletto w/a 32” collapsible pilot chute canopy & a sub-9ft bridle packed w/the tightly rolled & tucked nose to open in 2000ft is less than ideal for the Potato bridge. A 32’ pilot chute (still not collapsible), however, would be a reasonable choice at Kjerag. And while some folks might choose that for Smellvagen, I wouldn’t.

It’s saying the same thing with quite different words. One is much more concise and geared to a more general audience. And one never uses the word “skydiving” but provides all sorts of details surrounding why skydiving gear is not a wise choice for BASE. The former is akin to Sen Biden's comments; the latter to GEN McKiernan's.

Sen Biden had 90 or 120 (?) seconds and still managed to address the originally asked nuclear question too. For accurate synopsis and recognition of the greater complexity of the Afghanistan situation, Sen. Biden did a very good job responding. His words, “our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan,” were completely consonant with what GEN McKiernan said. (I also need to start collecting all the geopolitical skydiving-BASE analogies I use. )

~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

What Gov Palin said: “Well, first, McClellan did not say definitively the surge principles would not work in Afghanistan” is not factually inaccurate – neither GEN McClellan (did any one else giggle at the irony (?), prescience (?) that McClellan was known for calling for troops that he didn’t need and challenged Pres Lincoln as Democratic nominee in 1864 … but lost largely because the DEM platform opposed the war of that day?) nor GEN McKiernan said that. It is also true that GEN McKiernan did not definitively rule out a number of other strategic or tactical options, ranging from the less-likely (e.g., use of nuclear weapons to proposing a strategy of ‘tea & crumpets’) to more rational (e.g., combined task force of Afghani/Pakistan/NATO forces or Fulda Gap style approach).

GEN McKiernan was speaking about a lot more than “quelling sectarian violence.” He specifically identified crucial parts of the Iraq counterinsurgency strategy that were not applicable to Afghanistan: a Pashtun “Awakening,” Sons of Iraq local securities groups, military-led operation, etc. He spoke about how different Iraq was from Afghanistan and how the same approach taken in Iraq was less likely, in his opinion, to be the best choice in Afghanistan.

In thinking through this to respond to you, you’ve helped me to re-evaluate a previous assertion. I’m no longer agnostic. The failure of Gov Palin to recognize the complexity of the situation and failure to recognize that one model does not fit all situations is a negative. A few commentators have excused or assumed that Gov Palin was just echoing the coaching from Sen McCain’s advisors; I do not agree with that. She’s smarter than that. It’s almost cliché that the military is always preparing to fight the last war … usually they’re not this close in time.

As to the question of what is the surge … there’s still an ongoing discussion as to whether “the surge” was a tactic or a strategy. (Counterinsurgency is a strategy that is much more than moving 30,000 troops into any geographical area.) Part of the problem is that the “surge” (30,000 troops) is confused with counterinsurgency doctrine and operations. 30,000 troops acting on Cold War-era (fighting in the Fulda Gap) or defense transformation/RMA strategies were not the most appropriate choice for fighting an insurgency. It’s application of the underlying strategy.

My opinion is that ‘the surge’ (moving 30,000 troops into specific areas of Iraq) was a tactic; it was both a military and a political tactic: 30,000 troops (classic hard power) … nevermind the Awakening Groups/Sons of Iraq (paying former Sunni Iraqi insurgents to be security), more PRTs, increasing autonomy of O-3’s to spend money on local Iraqi projects/iniatives/bribes (the latter is historical among the best way to get information, along with sex & flattery), moving beyond the FOB, HTTs, DoDD 3000.5, or any other the other tactical, operational, and doctrinal changes that have occurred, e.g., US Army FM 3-07 on Stability Operations (released Monday) and the revised US Army FM 3-0, Operations (released in February): “Stabilizing war-torn nations is as important as conducting offensive and defensive operations, according to a new Army operations manual.” ““The doctrine is recognition that stability ops are as important, perhaps if not more so, than traditional combat operations,” [LTG William] Caldwell, USA CAC [he took over for GEN Petraeus in that role] said.”

Dave Kilcullen agrees with me. (Okay, maybe the vector is not quite in that direction. ) Gen McKiernan said that the tactics and strategy that were used in Iraq in 2007 would not be appropriate for Afghanistan. I agree with him. Sen Biden understood that; it’s not clear than Gov Palin or the authors of the NY Post Op-Ed understand that.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Quote

I think you have no CLUE what denial is

Really? Well what has the DEMCRATIC controlled congress done in the last 22 months except make things worse? When the democratic controlled congress took the majority they "promised" "quick and meaningful changes", well I am still waiting.

And don't give me this crap about Bush vetoing everything cause he has only vetoed 12 items and only one of them had an economic impact and the veto was over ridden so that means the democratic controlled congress has a 100% passage of what they have submitted. So given that fact tell me why we are not better off!!!

Bush is an asshole for getting us into the war and the congress is the blame for keeping us there.

If you even want to put on the gloves about the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac disaster I have only one word for you “Clinton”. And don’t get me wrong, I voted for Clinton both times and Gore too. If Clinton was able to run again I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

As for our wonderful speaker of the house, please tell me all the wonderful things that Pelosi has done to help us as a country and while you are at it explain the 9% approval rating under her leadership.

I personally think we are screwed whoever wins but a whole lot worse with Obama. Like I have said before the issue that does it for me is that I believe that my children and grandchildren will be safer with McCain.

Try looking up filibuster, republican, record. Then look up "nuclear option" from the nineties.

The Rs have successfully stymied the VERY SLIM Democratic majority, then blamed them for the lack of action. Excellent politics, on some levels. Quite an impressive disregard for the good of our country.

Those that comprehend the reality of their underhanded tactics despise them, and those that support them.

There are those that don't really understand what has been done, and by whom, spew a lot of vitriol related to the lack of success of the slim Democratic majority. They don't get that they are being fed a load of bullshit. It is like they are hypnotized - the bullshit tastes like the finest of meals to them. It is very odd.

I have a pretty good feeling that the Democratic Majority isn't going to be slim real soon. Vote the bastards out.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I have a pretty good feeling that the Democratic Majority isn't going to be slim real soon. Vote the bastards out.

But it's been very difficult for either party to get to 60 Senators. The Democrats came close in '92, but several close losses left them at 57, and the Republicans held strong and effectively fillibustered until Clinton gave up (too soon). I think he would have been more effective to force the issue until the public got fed up.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

I watched the debate as well as General McKiernan's press conference so let me ask you this. What is a "surge" to you?

A surge to me would be more boots on the ground, temporary or permanent, in order to accomplish specific objectives. McKiernan wants 4 more brigade combat teams (14,000-20,000 additional troops) in order to establish better secruity in Afghanistan. The Iraq surge consisted of 30,000 additional troops to help quell sectarian violence throughout Iraq. The majority being in Baghdad.

Perhaps my terminology is wrong but it's looking like McKiernan wants a surge and why would he want something won't work?

Great debating tactic: if you're shown to be wrong, redefine the terms until you're right.

It doesn't matter how we define the terms, if we're talking about McKiernan all that matters is how he defines it. And judging from nerdgirl's quote clearly, however he defines it, he doesn't think it's appropriate for Afghanistan.

First of all I never debate. I don't use tactics. I simply discuss. By engaging in a discussion with nerdgirl I know I'm bound to learn something (i.e. lose ). Especially regarding a subject that , if not within, is very near her area of expertise.


Nerdgirl - After thinking about it this weekend, it is very clear McKiernan does not want a surge. However it is also very lcear McKiernan never said a surge won't work.

www.FourWheelerHB.com