Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Really depends on which review you read or which talking head you listen to as to which quotes will be prevalent. The NY Times says:

In a new memoir, Mr. Gates, a Republican holdover from the Bush administration who served for two years under Mr. Obama, praises the president as a rigorous thinker who frequently made decisions “opposed by his political advisers or that would be unpopular with his fellow Democrats.”

And:

Mr. Gates writes that Mr. Obama’s approval for the Navy SEAL mission, despite strong doubts that Bin Laden was even there, was “one of the most courageous decisions I had ever witnessed in the White House.”

In his final chapter, Mr. Gates makes clear his verdict on the president’s overall Afghan strategy: “I believe Obama was right in each of these decisions.”

So, each side is gonna pick their favorite quotes and put them out devoid of context. At some point I may read the book. We'll see.

I need to finish Decision Points and then start up Clinton's book.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
So what in your mind is "a win in Afghanistan"? What does that look like?

Remember: the instant you express a sentiment other than annihilating the country, someone is immediately going to call you weak on terrorism and someone else is going to tell you you're playing politics with the lives of American troops.

I'd be very curious to hear/read what our military folks would say, and how.

I could be wrong, but to me a "win" is a stable Afghanistan government (in whatever form) that's friendly to US interests. That might be impossible... *shrugs*

Why? A win should have been a pile of dead Al Qaeda and a destroyed country as a warning to others about harboring terrorists that attack the US.
When we tried to start building a nation where none has ever existed we ed up.

Frazzled is right.

The war was lost when the CotW failed to secure the Pakistani border and let the Taleban and Bin Laden escape.

The allied forces should have been pulled out as soon as feasible after that, but they were kept in Afghanistan due to political considerations of needing to justify their presence there.

Did I miss, "Obama is truly History's greatest monster!" already?

 CptJake wrote:
Really depends on which review you read or which talking head you listen to as to which quotes will be prevalent. The NY Times says:

In a new memoir, Mr. Gates, a Republican holdover from the Bush administration who served for two years under Mr. Obama, praises the president as a rigorous thinker who frequently made decisions “opposed by his political advisers or that would be unpopular with his fellow Democrats.”

And:

Mr. Gates writes that Mr. Obama’s approval for the Navy SEAL mission, despite strong doubts that Bin Laden was even there, was “one of the most courageous decisions I had ever witnessed in the White House.”

In his final chapter, Mr. Gates makes clear his verdict on the president’s overall Afghan strategy: “I believe Obama was right in each of these decisions.”

So, each side is gonna pick their favorite quotes and put them out devoid of context. At some point I may read the book. We'll see.

Nice find, I had not seen those.

 Frazzled wrote:
Why? A win should have been a pile of dead Al Qaeda and a destroyed country as a warning to others about harboring terrorists that attack the US.
When we tried to start building a nation where none has ever existed we ed up.

Exactly.
Trying to build a democracy in a land which has no history of it, little literacy, tribal conflicts, malnutrition, and religious law at it's judicial system, with a neighbour (and supposed ally) actively undermining our efforts was not a wise or sensible course of action. If we really wanted to do that then, and were realistic about the time needed (i.e. generations) then the public may not have been quite so supportive.

My opinion has been, and likely always will be, that the War on Terror should have been fought in the shadows, not shock and awe. A quick brutal destruction of AQ assets in Afghanistan so that those harboring hostile intentions towards us could gauge our wrath and have pause in their actions, and that our own would know that we will not allow harm to come to us without reprisal. Then followed by intelligence lead precision strikes by covert forces aimed at AQ infrastructure and personnel to cripple them and put them on the defensive. Not attempts at nation building.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Trying to build a democracy in a land which has no history of it, little literacy, tribal conflicts, malnutrition, and religious law at it's judicial system, with a neighbour (and supposed ally) actively undermining our efforts was not a wise or sensible course of action. .

.. but that's enough about America ...





I kid, I kid

 reds8n wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Trying to build a democracy in a land which has no history of it, little literacy, tribal conflicts, malnutrition, and religious law at it's judicial system, with a neighbour (and supposed ally) actively undermining our efforts was not a wise or sensible course of action. .

.. but that's enough about America ...





I kid, I kid

The UK: World Record holder at nation building even though they actually wanted to keep all of them

 reds8n wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Trying to build a democracy in a land which has no history of it, little literacy, tribal conflicts, malnutrition, and religious law at it's judicial system, with a neighbour (and supposed ally) actively undermining our efforts was not a wise or sensible course of action. .

.. but that's enough about America ...

 Easy E wrote:
Did I miss, "Obama is truly History's greatest monster!" already?

I'll help with the alternative-
Thanks Obama!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Why? A win should have been a pile of dead Al Qaeda and a destroyed country as a warning to others about harboring terrorists that attack the US.
When we tried to start building a nation where none has ever existed we ed up.

Exactly.
Trying to build a democracy in a land which has no history of it, little literacy, tribal conflicts, malnutrition, and religious law at it's judicial system, with a neighbour (and supposed ally) actively undermining our efforts was not a wise or sensible course of action. If we really wanted to do that then, and were realistic about the time needed (i.e. generations) then the public may not have been quite so supportive.

My opinion has been, and likely always will be, that the War on Terror should have been fought in the shadows, not shock and awe. A quick brutal destruction of AQ assets in Afghanistan so that those harboring hostile intentions towards us could gauge our wrath and have pause in their actions, and that our own would know that we will not allow harm to come to us without reprisal. Then followed by intelligence lead precision strikes by covert forces aimed at AQ infrastructure and personnel to cripple them and put them on the defensive. Not attempts at nation building.

Agreed.

 Ouze wrote:

He had doubts about the military leadership he inherited? Wow, that's amazing, considering the original plan was "to be greeted as liberators", "the war would pay for itself", and the one guy who actually told the truth about what the war would actually take was immediately forced out despite being right. I myself might have had some concerns about the judgement of these tactical wizards. The whole enterprise was such a fiasco from the beginning, it would be laughable if not for all the brave men and women whose lives we squandered to accomplish... well, that's up for debate. I suspect veterans of Fallujah are wondering if their sacrifices were worth it, anyway.

To be fair, the military officership that Obama inherited was not the same one that pushed for war over a decade ago. Generals basically have a very limited tenure, they don't get to stick around at the top levels for longer than a handful of years before they have to retire. Most of the top officers that Obama 'inherited' would have been colonels and/or brigadier generals/rear admiral(lower half) and thus fairly well removed from the politics of the wars when they started. Regardless, that doesn't justify the behaviors described by Gates in which Obama systematically ignored and/or avoided input from military brass and leadership who are far better suited to things like planning military options in Libya than any aide in the White House.

I don't think it does. There is no scandal to be had here. Robert Gates seems like a good guy who did his job and was largely apolitical. His insights into how the administration handled the wars are interesting but not at all unexpected or really problematic IMO.

Except maybe to the Hillary campaign...

In a democracy, the leadership must do things that look good politically in order to sustain public support. That may mean doing things that are suboptimal in strategy.

Only if you're runing for a second term, and that isn't leadership, thats politicking. REAL leadership is doing the unpopular thing because its the right thing to do.

Regardless, that doesn't justify the behaviors described by Gates in which Obama systematically ignored and/or avoided input from military brass and leadership who are far better suited to things like planning military options in Libya than any aide in the White House.

It does actually. Its a pattern and practice that has been noted across the board. Its a very centralized command structure run by the Whitehouse staff and not the Cabinet officers. Sometimes that works (Nixon and foreign affairs) and sometimes it doesn't (Johnson and foreign affairs-especially the management of Vietnam War strategy and bombing campaign).

Yeah, like Carter did when he made that speech criticising some things that were wrong with America at the time. He sure got rewarded politically for that! Edit- in reply to the poster above Frazzled.

I'm ambivalent about this, but I can see why someone would be sceptical of a military/intelligence leadership that:
- Apparently provided some pretty shoddy intelligence about the other war Obama inherited (I never did see those WMDs in the end )
- Had managed to spin both conflicts out into tremendously expensive wastes of lives to no real gain for America and thousands of dead natives.

From that perspective, I would feel a little ill disposed towards the top brass too.

(I am open to having my perspective broadened, of course)

Well, the crap intelligence wasn't exclusively military - credit where credit is due, so to speak. The ever-competent CIA provided most of that stuff.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
To be fair, the military officership that Obama inherited was not the same one that pushed for war over a decade ago. Generals basically have a very limited tenure, they don't get to stick around at the top levels for longer than a handful of years before they have to retire. Most of the top officers that Obama 'inherited' would have been colonels and/or brigadier generals/rear admiral(lower half) and thus fairly well removed from the politics of the wars when they started. Regardless, that doesn't justify the behaviors described by Gates in which Obama systematically ignored and/or avoided input from military brass and leadership who are far better suited to things like planning military options in Libya than any aide in the White House.

Thank you for that info for the first few sentences. I am unfamiliar with the turnover at the top for military bureaucracy. I also did agree with the latter point; the civilian leadership needs to keep defense in the loop so they can be fully aware of their options.

And Britain was a big part as well. I think saying the intel and leadership that went into Iraq created the mistrust is foolhardy. A man in his position knew the score, and knew that no one who made those decisions was in power when he took the reigns.

There were drastic overhauls between 2002 and 2008 on all fronts. The AF's Chief of Staff had changed 4 times since 2001. The Navy 4 times. Army 4 times. Marines 3 times.

The CIA has seen more then 6 changes in it's director since 2006. One of those he picked to become SecDef so he had to have some faith in his Intel community. Another director he picked to come over from the Army.

So what was the distrust? What fostered it?

To play devil's advocate, why should there be trust? The military is a bloated government entity, like any other, with a myriad of internal vested interests both as a discrete entity and those of its members.

For example: "the surge." The military wanted large numbers, and substantially larger than Afghanistan (and probably larger than what was used in Iraq).
Why?
We did the same in Vietnam and that, er didn't work out. The Rooskies did the same in Afghani land. Why should they have trusted it would have worked in Afghanistan?
many of the advocates for the surge were and continue to advocate for a continuing presence in both countries. Why on earth would we want to do that???

Indeed, judging from current events, it didn't work in Iraq either.

 Frazzled wrote:
To play devilo's advocate, why should there be trust?

He was the one who appointed most of those people?

Because no man is an island, Obama doesn't know everything there is to know about the military (in fact, ironically, civilian control of the military often makes the least qualified person to manage military affairs responsible for running it. The reason why they are so often successful as running it is because they take advice from people more qualified than themselves) just as a General doesn't necessarily know everything there is to know about the political situation.

For example: "the surge." The military wanted large numbers, and substantially larger than Afghanistan (and probably larger than what was used in Iraq).
Why?
We did the same in Vietnam and that, er didn't work out. The Rooskies did the same in Afghani land. Why should they have trusted it would have worked in Afghanistan?

Indeed, judging from current events, it didn't work in Iraq either.

Uhh, the surge worked pretty damned well on all accounts. Its the drawdown AFTER the surge that doesn't work. You will notice, violence and deaths in Iraq was way down in Iraq when troop levels peaked, and now there aren't any troops there, violence has peaked. In other words... the surge worked.

 Frazzled wrote:
To play devil's advocate, why should there be trust? The military is a bloated government entity, like any other, with a myriad of internal vested interests both as a discrete entity and those of its members.

For example: "the surge." The military wanted large numbers, and substantially larger than Afghanistan (and probably larger than what was used in Iraq).
Why?
We did the same in Vietnam and that, er didn't work out. The Rooskies did the same in Afghani land. Why should they have trusted it would have worked in Afghanistan?

Indeed, judging from current events, it didn't work in Iraq either.

It did work in Iraq. We crushed the opposition when we delivered the force. The comparison to Vietnam is foolish at best, considering we were never on the offensive there. We fought a defensive war the entire time, and it's why we "lost". The critical failure with Iraq was cutting out when we did. As is obvious, the Iraqi military was not ready to take over, while I think we should have stopped combat ops, there was no reason we shouldn't have pushed harder to kept troops there to conduct training. A US footprint would have kept AQIR quieter. Us just completely pull out emboldened them.

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
To play devilo's advocate, why should there be trust?

He was the one who appointed most of those people?

He appointed the JC's in 2009? Assuming so...and?
The civilian makes policy. The generals implement it or they can get the feth out.

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
To play devilo's advocate, why should there be trust?

He was the one who appointed most of those people?

He appointed the JC's in 2009? Assuming so...and?
The civilian makes policy. The generals implement it or they can get the feth out.

The Generals also advise. As Gates is saying he didn't trust the advisers he appointed. That is the problem.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Because no man is an island, Obama doesn't know everything there is to know about the military (in fact, ironically, civilian control of the military often makes the least qualified person to manage military affairs responsible for running it. The reason why they are so often successful as running it is because they take advice from people more qualified than themselves) just as a General doesn't necessarily know everything there is to know about the political situation.

For example: "the surge." The military wanted large numbers, and substantially larger than Afghanistan (and probably larger than what was used in Iraq).
Why?
We did the same in Vietnam and that, er didn't work out. The Rooskies did the same in Afghani land. Why should they have trusted it would have worked in Afghanistan?

Indeed, judging from current events, it didn't work in Iraq either.

Uhh, the surge worked pretty damned well on all accounts. Its the drawdown AFTER the surge that doesn't work. You will notice, violence and deaths in Iraq was way down in Iraq when troop levels peaked, and now there aren't any troops there, violence has peaked. In other words... the surge worked.

No it merely delayed what is happening now. It did not do what was intended, create a stable state.

Frankly crazy Biden is right in aspect. At the end of the day there is likely to be three Iraqs: Kurdistan, Sunnistan (for lack of a better word) and greater Iran.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
To play devil's advocate, why should there be trust? The military is a bloated government entity, like any other, with a myriad of internal vested interests both as a discrete entity and those of its members.

For example: "the surge." The military wanted large numbers, and substantially larger than Afghanistan (and probably larger than what was used in Iraq).
Why?
We did the same in Vietnam and that, er didn't work out. The Rooskies did the same in Afghani land. Why should they have trusted it would have worked in Afghanistan?

Indeed, judging from current events, it didn't work in Iraq either.

It did work in Iraq. We crushed the opposition when we delivered the force. The comparison to Vietnam is foolish at best, considering we were never on the offensive there. We fought a defensive war the entire time, and it's why we "lost". The critical failure with Iraq was cutting out when we did. As is obvious, the Iraqi military was not ready to take over, while I think we should have stopped combat ops, there was no reason we shouldn't have pushed harder to kept troops there to conduct training. A US footprint would have kept AQIR quieter. Us just completely pull out emboldened them.

The opposition wasn't crushed. Its taking over as we speak.
Vietnam wasn't offensive? You missed Rolling Thunder, Linebacker, and Linebacker II, and the counterinsurgancies in Loas and Cambodia.
To be any more offensive you woulto invade Northern Vietnam, and then China.

To be more offensive you would have had to Invade Iran and Syria.

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
To play devilo's advocate, why should there be trust?

He was the one who appointed most of those people?

He appointed the JC's in 2009? Assuming so...and?
The civilian makes policy. The generals implement it or they can get the feth out.

The Generals also advise. As Gates is saying he didn't trust the advisers he appointed. That is the problem.

That's what I was driving at earlier...

Doesn't anyone think a memoir of this magnitude is a bit tasteless though? Regardless, if all this is true, you gotta give the man props for keeping his mouth shut while working.

The point of the surge wasn't to create a stable state, it was to curb violence, which it successfully did. Everyone understood that violence would remain low so long as troops remained in significant enough numbers to maintain a lasting presence. Even during the drawdown (as numbers dropped) the violence remained low, it wasn't until some weeks/months after troops had all but completely pulled out that violence began picking up again. Had Iraqi security forces been prepared to handle the responsibility of policing and securing their own country after we left, this current state of affairs would not have occurred. That isn't a failure of the surge, that is the failure of the Administration not having the patience to allow our training programs to complete what they were doing, and a failure of the administration to listen to the Generals who were begging for more time to finish the job.

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
To play devilo's advocate, why should there be trust?

He was the one who appointed most of those people?

He appointed the JC's in 2009? Assuming so...and?
The civilian makes policy. The generals implement it or they can get the feth out.

The Generals also advise. As Gates is saying he didn't trust the advisers he appointed. That is the problem.

That I don't disagree with.

Effectively we have a situation where the Presdient relied on internal WH people and not the Cabinets. At the end of the day its the same thing and the same problem. Whoever is actually running things have to be good and trusted. Appointing cabinet guys/gals and not entrusting them is usually not a good sign that you know how to manage, but it can be done if the people you rely (your "real" cabinet) are good.

Cabinet officers are there for a time honored reason. Use them.

Frazzled, as much as I love the Air Force, you can't win wars in the air alone. Rolling Thunder, Linebacker, and Linebacker 2 were failures in the end, because we did nothing more then drop bombs on targets that we did not move in on, on the ground. Our refusal to take the fight into N. Vietnam lost us the war, plain and simple.

And yes, the opposition in Iraq was crushed. It took them years to rebuild after what we did to them.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The point of the surge wasn't to create a stable state, it was to curb violence, which it successfully did. Everyone understood that violence would remain low so long as troops remained in significant enough numbers to maintain a lasting presence. Even during the drawdown (as numbers dropped) the violence remained low, it wasn't until some weeks/months after troops had all but completely pulled out that violence began picking up again. Had Iraqi security forces been prepared to handle the responsibility of policing and securing their own country after we left, this current state of affairs would not have occurred. That isn't a failure of the surge, that is the failure of the Administration not having the patience to allow our training programs to complete what they were doing, and a failure of the administration to listen to the Generals who were begging for more time to finish the job.

Thats nonworkable, and a nonanswer. It only works if we keep troops there indefinitely and we'll only do that if we annex them, which wasn't going to happen in this circumstance. Victory was tactical but not strategic. It only delayed the eventual breakup of Iraq and return to Afghanistan conditions pre 2001.
on the plus side we are out and - although not out quick enough - are crusing to be out of Afghanistan too. Leave the region and never return.

 Frazzled wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The point of the surge wasn't to create a stable state, it was to curb violence, which it successfully did. Everyone understood that violence would remain low so long as troops remained in significant enough numbers to maintain a lasting presence. Even during the drawdown (as numbers dropped) the violence remained low, it wasn't until some weeks/months after troops had all but completely pulled out that violence began picking up again. Had Iraqi security forces been prepared to handle the responsibility of policing and securing their own country after we left, this current state of affairs would not have occurred. That isn't a failure of the surge, that is the failure of the Administration not having the patience to allow our training programs to complete what they were doing, and a failure of the administration to listen to the Generals who were begging for more time to finish the job.

Thats nonworkable, and a nonanswer. It only works if we keep troops there indefinitely and we'll only do that if we annex them, which wasn't going to happen in this circumstance. Victory was tactical but not strategic. It only delayed the eventual breakup of Iraq and return to Afghanistan conditions pre 2001.
on the plus side we are out and - although not out quick enough - are crusing to be out of Afghanistan too. Leave the region and never return.

Indefinite troops is not necessary. Further training and equipping to create a force that would have been capable was. We failed in that, and that is why Iraq is in it's current state of affairs. That falls of the Presidents shoulders, because he failed to push the issue with Iraq. He didn't even bother to try to renegotiate the SOFA, he just took the out that Bush gave him, and ran with it.

 djones520 wrote:
Frazzled, as much as I love the Air Force, you can't win wars in the air alone. Rolling Thunder, Linebacker, and Linebacker 2 were failures in the end, because we did nothing more then drop bombs on targets that we did not move in on, on the ground. Our refusal to take the fight into N. Vietnam lost us the war, plain and simple.

Our refusal to take the fight into NV avoided KOREA II THIS TIME ITS NUCLEAR.

And yes, the opposition in Iraq was crushed. It took them years to rebuild after what we did to them.

Strangely it seemed to only take them the same amount of time as it took for us to leave.