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.

Ace of Spades, thanks for serving our country.

But I'd like to point out that the election is about much more than Iraq and Afghanistan, and that's why McCain is going to lose.

The country is in an economic meltdown -- which might get worse before it gets better -- and that outweighs everything else right now. The election is going to boil down to the fact that people don't like the Bush adminstration's handling of the economy, and McCain hasn't really articulated how he'd be any different.

I don't think his campaign has done a very good job either. But it's important to note that McCain isn't a puppet. If his campaign has been all over the place, it's because *he's* been all over the place. Just one example -- McCain championed deregulation, and now since that policy has proven to be a disaster, he's trumpeting greater regulation.

The American people are kind of a dumb bunch in some ways, but they see through that kind of thing. It's really made McCain look like an ordinary politician, flip-flopping when the situation requires.

That contradicts his message that he's the "steady hand" and plays right into the Dems' contention that he's erratic (which also is a stealthy way they suggest he's too old). And here's how the American people usually get it right with these elections -- they ask themselves, how is this candidate going to run this country for four or eight years if he can't even run an effective campaign for one?

That's what bit Kerry (and Gore to a lesser extent) in the a$$. Kerry never really made the case for Kerry. And even though the people were already growing dissatisfied with Bush, they asked themselves why they should vote for Kerry if he couldn't even explain it. It raises a lot of leadership questions -- which is also McCain's problem right now.

When McCain loses, it'll be on merit. It doesn't have anything to do with liberal media or anything else. It's just like gaming, y'know -- if you lose, accept that you need to play better next time.

Or play when the economy goes into a recession on the Democrat's watch. Ding, instant win.

It's not an instant win. It just means that the odds are against the incumbent. If you're talented enough you can play your way out of it.

IIRC, Clinton won re-election in Arkansas more or less on the message that "yeah, okay, I sucked...but give me another chance and I'll do better." Clinton sure was a lot of things, but one of them was a masterful campaigner.

While it wasn't strictly an economic crisis (although I guess that usually comes with a civil war), Lincoln faced some pretty steep odds and he won re-election. Roosevelt could have been booted out of office multiple times during the Great Depression.

McCain hasn't shown himself to be similarly gifted. It's like a game in which your reserve rolls stink...it sure doesn't help you, but it's probably not the only reason you lost if you did.

Gorgon I was referring to the US Presidency, not governor positions.

If you look historically, if the economy is good the VP is elected. If not they aren't. Gore is a big exception, but one could argue the US had had enough of the scandals - with Gore being involved in at least one major financial one. Plus Gore was as interesting as petrified wood.

Incumbent Presidents generally do better, but the rule still applies to them. Carter-economy bad so he's out. Bush I-economy bad so he's out. If Cheney had been running it would have been a landslide against him and Obama didn't start really pulling ahead until the bailout exploded onto the scene.

gorgon wrote:Ace of Spades, thanks for serving our country.

But I'd like to point out that the election is about much more than Iraq and Afghanistan, and that's why McCain is going to lose.

The country is in an economic meltdown -- which might get worse before it gets better -- and that outweighs everything else right now. The election is going to boil down to the fact that people don't like the Bush adminstration's handling of the economy, and McCain hasn't really articulated how he'd be any different.

I don't think his campaign has done a very good job either. But it's important to note that McCain isn't a puppet. If his campaign has been all over the place, it's because *he's* been all over the place. Just one example -- McCain championed deregulation, and now since that policy has proven to be a disaster, he's trumpeting greater regulation.

The American people are kind of a dumb bunch in some ways, but they see through that kind of thing. It's really made McCain look like an ordinary politician, flip-flopping when the situation requires.

That contradicts his message that he's the "steady hand" and plays right into the Dems' contention that he's erratic (which also is a stealthy way they suggest he's too old). And here's how the American people usually get it right with these elections -- they ask themselves, how is this candidate going to run this country for four or eight years if he can't even run an effective campaign for one?

That's what bit Kerry (and Gore to a lesser extent) in the a$$. Kerry never really made the case for Kerry. And even though the people were already growing dissatisfied with Bush, they asked themselves why they should vote for Kerry if he couldn't even explain it. It raises a lot of leadership questions -- which is also McCain's problem right now.

When McCain loses, it'll be on merit. It doesn't have anything to do with liberal media or anything else. It's just like gaming, y'know -- if you lose, accept that you need to play better next time.

Thanks Gorgon....well the run to the White House isn't over yet but I will admit that McCain/Palin are definitely going to have to work hard in the closing days.

This election is about a whole plethora of problems the economy, national security, energy, health care....just to name a few. Is it looking pretty grim right now for the US I have to say yes.

McCain needs to be be the man who just about everyone admired. The guy who is known for working across party lines. The next President has to be able to get bi-partisian buy in and work with both parties within the government to get the country back on track.

Look y'all have your opinions and I have mine that's why were having this discussion. But I do remember another very Liberal President (some say probably the smartest one ever) who got elected in kind of the same type of campaign that is going on right now. His presidency was heralded as the potential second coming just like Obama. The man was Jimmy Carter. His time in office was so bad that his own cabinet basically went rouge on him his last two years in office. Now I'll admit he's done some great things since leaving office but the man has made/said/done some things that have been just plain awful for the US.

Even McGovern (uber-Lib) says the things that Obama wants to do with the economy and the folks that he has in his circle are suspect.

Is McCain totally the right fit...no but when I look at Obama I get a really bad feeling...kind of like the guy who you play in round three of an RTT and you knw he is going to slow play or rules lawyer you to death because his skills in the game just aren't up to par. He may be a great player on Friday night/Sat morning with the regular crew as his local store but in the GT/regional RTT setting he short-comings force him to cheat to stay ahead. He is willing to sacrifice his personal honor and integrity to win at any cost. A person like that I cannot respect and that is what I see when I look at Obama. His past radical associations/friendships and the constant changing of his "history"....it all makes my innner alarms go off.

But in the end IF Obama gets elected then I'll continue to serve him as my CinC. Unfortunately, it will mean that I'll have to wait out his term in office until the next Repeublican gets elected so that he isn't the one signing my retirement paperwork. Who knows maybe it'll be Jindal/Romney in '12.

Anyhow, goog stuff going on here and I glad I could have this "talk" with y'all.

AoS

Ace_of_Spades wrote:
I served in the Kosovo Air campaign were Wesley Clark was the the CC. It was a complete shambles. He was a political appointee during the Clinton years. Those eight years were some of the hardest years of my nearly 20 years of service. If you were a "wartime" leader you got the shaft but if you were a sycophantic ass kiss political type you got promoted. It was brutal. To compare Clark to McCain is really doing the Maverick an injustice. Clark got fired! His folks hated him becuase it was never his fault (always someone elses usually a subordinate) and he was an incompetant leader. His own CFACC (Commander of the Air Forces in theater) said that he couldn't or wouldn't make a decision to use military forces at his disposal effectively. This caused his subordinates to lose faith with his definite lack of leadership.

A lot of that has to do with the mission profile provided for the Kosovo intervention. Political policy written in the detonation of laser guided bombs. Very similar to what was done in Vietnam, and generally a poor tactic. That's why Clark was appointed, to be a mouthpiece for Clinton's Peacekeeping doctrine. In most instances that doesn't make for a strong chain of command, but in certain circumstances it can be beneficial. Namely when the compromise of military objectives is necessary in pursuit of political ones. That's one of the reasons, besides stress consideration, that theatre command is rotated on a regular basis. Flexibility in determining command character.

Ace_of_Spades wrote:
Take it from this Texan, McCain may have his issues (age, cancer) but he is the steady hand that we need right now. His campaign managers are pissing me off because they and their candidate aren't always on the same sheet of music. Plus the MSM isn't helping matters especially when a large percentage of "journalists" are in the tank for Obama. But give the man credit he knows Washington and he does put country first.

I have no doubt that he puts country first. My doubts lie in the way he views the geopolitical landscape. I think he sees a world where the US can afford to be uncompromising. And that simply isn't reality.

Ace_of_Spades wrote:
In Iraq we are definitely carrying the lion's share of the work. But are slowly giving more and more of the work to the Iraqis. The government has passed 15 of the 18 benchmarks set for them. The also just recently began to start taking investments into their own oil infrastructure for exploration. Money for them means less money of ours going to stabilize their country.

Is Iraq perfect far from it but...what my friends and I have fought for and helped to build is why we are there. Now it is the front-line in the global war on terror. Al-Zawahiri, Al-Qeada's No 2, even said so. The Iranian Quds forces are supplying training and personnel to Shiite special groups to undermine the Coalition and Government. An Iraq in the Iranian image is something the Arab Gulf States and the World does not want.

I will admit that Iraq had taken a turn for the positive. Though I am reticent to attribute all that success to the surge. The surge was effective in developing US leverage against the various factions, essentially forcing them to cooperate, but it certainly didn't somehow eliminate them. Asan extension, what disturbs me most about McCain is his consistent assertion that WE can win Iraq. It isn't our conflict to win. What we can do is give the Iraqi government (which we installed) breathing room to develop a cohesive identity. In the end it will be the survival of that identity which determines 'victory'.

In the interest of fairness, I also believe that Obama's policy on Afghanistan is a joke. More troops is not the answer to that problem. The terrain simply isn't suited to a major deployment of force (just ask the Soviets). Realistically, that theatre should take advantage of the relatively rag-tag nature of the opposition to progressively train local forces under live-fire conditions. Not unlike the Green Beret force-multipliers in Vietnam.

As for Iraq being the front line against global terror, you're right, it is. But it is important to recognize that we chose the battleground, not the terrorists. There is a serious lesson to be learned in that; we hold all the cards, and it is our actions which determine the nature of wars to be fought. In any case, Iran would have a great deal of difficulty in securing Iraq as a mirror state. Between the Kurds, Sunnis, and the threat of American air strikes on any major forces moved across the border they are held well in check.

Ace_of_Spades wrote:
Afghanistan is a NATO run mission. Getting a coalition of 38+ countriess to do anything is almost impossible. Are we making gains...yes we are. Are the Taliban and Al-Qeada learning and adapting yes they are. Is the fact that they pretty much get carte-blanche in western Pakistan frustrating yes it is. It makes rebuilding a country and engaging anit-government fighters difficult. But we are commited to that engaement as well. Once the government can effectively influence/control the majority of the country most of the US troops will likely come home.

Aside from organizational issues, the campaign in Afghanistan is being handled in much the way Iraq should have been. Small groups of highly trained soldiers operating from a few heavily equipped strong-holds while taking advantage of courageous, if poorly trained, local forces.

Ace_of_Spades wrote:
The general consensus in the military is that Iraq/Afghanistan will become like post WWII Germany (been there), Japan (grew up and stationed there as well) or South Korea (yep been there too). Those three countries are some of our staunchest allies across the globe. Do we always see eye to eye, nope, but we always make the effort to mutally support one another.

With all due respect, comparing any of those nations to either Iraq or Afghanistan is something of a reach. Germany, Japan, and South Korea all benefitted from either a strong national identity (Japan, SK, and Germany in a complicated sense) or intervention at the hands of perceived peers (Germany).

In any case, all my respect to the men of the armed services.

Frazzled, I guess my objection is to partisans blaming environmental factors instead of taking a long, hard look at their candidate. Confusing ballots didn't do in Gore, swift boat shenanigans didn't do in Kerry, and a credit crisis isn't what's going to do in McCain.

Using those exact examples, Gore should never had let Florida get that close, Kerry should have hit back against the swift boat crew, and McCain should have come out weeks ago with the economic package he just proposed instead of going negative during that time. In each case, you have questions about the leadership qualities of the men involved. Was Gore too cocky? Was Kerry too slow/meek to respond? Does McCain have good judgment?

Obama's not the perfect candidate, but (ironically) he looks to have learned from the Bush crew. Stay the course, and even those who don't agree with you may come to respect you.

Whatever happens, it's been a historic campaign and the results will be equally historic.

Gorgon, don't misinterpret. I'm not saying McCain is an ideal candidate by any means. I'm agreeing that economics put a strong weight behind a particular party.

I disagree on the respect point though. I don't see much repsect across either aisle at this point. Minimal has been given to Clinton, none to Bush II, and none to the candidates. I don't think thats going to change no matter who is elected. That is unfortunate.

He is willing to sacrifice his personal honor and integrity to win at any cost.

Really ? Because from here watching the campaign it looks like McCain is the one who has sacrificed everything he was/might have been in an attempt to win. Not saying Obama has been an immobile rock of integrity but he's seemed far more steadfast in what he's said and done.


Respectfully I don't know when you were stationed in Germany but the impression from euroland is that the Germans/Germany aren't keen on you at all. I'm sure a lot of that is really due to the strong French influence. With the exception of a few countries like Poland and maybe some of the balkans the Uk is your onlu ally here as such. Belusconi might have a bit of a love in for Bush but he's as trustworthy as a magic bean salesman.

gorgon wrote:...
...
...

The American people are kind of a dumb bunch in some ways, but they see through that kind of thing. It's really made McCain look like an ordinary politician, flip-flopping when the situation requires.
...

...
...

Winston Churchill once said that you can rely on the Americans to do the right thing, just as soon as they have tried every other way of proceeding.

Channel 4 News (UK) which has just finished, said that McCain's and Palin's negative campaigning on the Obama character issue backfired badly, and caused a slump in their ratings. Also, that McCain is getting crucified on the economy. So McCain's flip was a damage limitation exercise.

I think I will stay up late to watch tonight's debate. It is McCain's last chance to pull things back, so he will use every bit of firepower at his disposal.

He has to "use his forepower", but he hasn't yet learned how to apply it or how not to look like a fool while doing it. Unless he's made miraculous progress on content (by all reports, no) or delivery (unlikely at this point) in the past week, the debate will have little to no impact at best, and nail the coffin shut at the worst.

dogma wrote:

A lot of that has to do with the mission profile provided for the Kosovo intervention. Political policy written in the detonation of laser guided bombs. Very similar to what was done in Vietnam, and generally a poor tactic. That's why Clark was appointed, to be a mouthpiece for Clinton's Peacekeeping doctrine. In most instances that doesn't make for a strong chain of command, but in certain circumstances it can be beneficial. Namely when the compromise of military objectives is necessary in pursuit of political ones. That's one of the reasons, besides stress consideration, that theatre command is rotated on a regular basis. Flexibility in determining command character.

True...do a good job and get promoted to bigger things (or sometimes do a total crap job and get a buddy to give a plum assignment). Most of the time a good leader get rewarded by getting moved up to a larger role and his subordinate(s) will move in to fill tha vacuum.

dogma wrote:
I have no doubt that he puts country first. My doubts lie in the way he views the geopolitical landscape. I think he sees a world where the US can afford to be uncompromising. And that simply isn't reality.

I have to disagree...my assessment is that he is willing to compromise to a point (the old bend but not break) but he won't put US needs on the back seat to anyone else. It's a fineline distinction. I don't think he'll have the "bull-in-a-china-shop" approach to the geopolitical landscape but a more Teddy Roosevelt approach.

dogma wrote:
I will admit that Iraq had taken a turn for the positive. Though I am reticent to attribute all that success to the surge. The surge was effective in developing US leverage against the various factions, essentially forcing them to cooperate, but it certainly didn't somehow eliminate them. Asan extension, what disturbs me most about McCain is his consistent assertion that WE can win Iraq. It isn't our conflict to win. What we can do is give the Iraqi government (which we installed) breathing room to develop a cohesive identity. In the end it will be the survival of that identity which determines 'victory'.

In the interest of fairness, I also believe that Obama's policy on Afghanistan is a joke. More troops is not the answer to that problem. The terrain simply isn't suited to a major deployment of force (just ask the Soviets). Realistically, that theatre should take advantage of the relatively rag-tag nature of the opposition to progressively train local forces under live-fire conditions. Not unlike the Green Beret force-multipliers in Vietnam.

As for Iraq being the front line against global terror, you're right, it is. But it is important to recognize that we chose the battleground, not the terrorists. There is a serious lesson to be learned in that; we hold all the cards, and it is our actions which determine the nature of wars to be fought. In any case, Iran would have a great deal of difficulty in securing Iraq as a mirror state. Between the Kurds, Sunnis, and the threat of American air strikes on any major forces moved across the border they are held well in check.

Gen Petreus is an mastermind at COIN (Counter Insurgency Ops) an his approach was the right one. Alot of mil-types wanted that approach and when we got it...well it worked.

Afghanistan...I worked with an Estonian Captain who fought in the Rus/Afghan war. He had a real hard on for the Governor of Herat, Ismail Khan, because he had killed a bunch of his guys during their war. But even he admitted that the way to make things work was just like in Iraq.

As to the rag tag nature of the opposition I have to disagree. These guys are being taught by combat vets from Chechnya, the Former Yugoslavia, Iraq and even Iranian Quds types. They learn (to a point) from their mistakes. Each year we notice that more and more often they fight harder and better (not always smarter) and they don't give up.

We do need more troops...kind of like like a mini surge. Making FOBs/bases that support special ops teams that can travel out and help the Afghans seize and hold territory. Kind of like we are doing now but on a grander scale. But we also need more help from our NATO allies as well.

dogma wrote:
Aside from organizational issues, the campaign in Afghanistan is being handled in much the way Iraq should have been. Small groups of highly trained soldiers operating from a few heavily equipped strong-holds while taking advantage of courageous, if poorly trained, local forces.

dogma wrote:
With all due respect, comparing any of those nations to either Iraq or Afghanistan is something of a reach. Germany, Japan, and South Korea all benefitted from either a strong national identity (Japan, SK, and Germany in a complicated sense) or intervention at the hands of perceived peers (Germany).

In any case, all my respect to the men of the armed services.

It's a best case scenario...will it happen I hope so. Especially in Afghanistan...Kabul is the capital and the "cosmopolitan" city in the country. When I drive through the city it was depressing. That country has seen nothing but war for nearly thirty years and it shows. The Afghan people are tough and resilient but they need help. Will they appreciate everything we are doing? I beleive the majority do and when it's all said and done we will have a staunch ally in the region in that country.

Iraq...well it won't be a democracy as we understand it (no Middle Eastern "democratic" country is) but they will be an ally and to some extent should/would become an ally like Japan/S Korea/Germany only to a lesser degree.

If you go by the the ethinic divisions...the Kurds are totally on board with us..the Sunnis are getting there...the Shia are split...but what do you expect when Western powers come in and divide a country up on a map with no concern for tribal/historical affiliations.

I would hope in my heart that those two countries would become as strong an ally as the three other countries. But that will be a long time coming.

AoS

The best way to help the Afghans would be to legalise the purchase of their opium for manufacturing medical Heroin.

This would annoy western pharmaceutical companies, but it would allow the Afghans a valuable cash crop with which to bring in money and start rebuilding their country.

Do you think legalizing opium is a good thing? Ask the Chinese in the 1800s how legalized opium dens worked.

I don't think Killkrazy means legalising opium or heroin, but rather allowing the opium grown by the afgans to be processed into pain relieving drugs like morphine and the like. Opiates have more uses than just getting people stoned.

Isn't that already done though DB?

To be honest I have no idea. I know they don't have the facilities to produce and export it themselves. Possibly they are exporting the raw materials to more developed nations for refining, but that wouldn't be as profitable.
My brother served out in Afganistan with the Royal Marines, he was saying it was horrible taking the heroin off their hands because it left entire villages with no way to survive, literally condemning them to starvation. It's really a very sticky situation whatever way you look at it.

Heroin kills how many people per year worldwide (addicts not drug related violence)? Grow something else.

Yeah I'd prefer that too, but they see opium as a safer bet. Even if they lose half the crop from bad circumstances, they can still make enough profit to feed everyone.
I'd also say to the addicts: Don't take heroin, you morons.

Ah, a closet Republican!

Well, over here Republican has a different meaning

Erp ya got me there.

Frazzled wrote:I disagree on the respect point though. I don't see much repsect across either aisle at this point. Minimal has been given to Clinton, none to Bush II, and none to the candidates. I don't think thats going to change no matter who is elected. That is unfortunate.

What I meant by that was simply that Bush was elected twice, and each time there were groups of voters who said things like "I don't agree with everything that Bush says, but I know where he stands." Sticking to your message can win you character points.

Meanwhile, Gore and especially Kerry got labeled (and it stuck) as flipfloppers by Rove. And Gore and Kerry lost to Bush despite the fact that on a purely political level, more Americans are on their side of the issues. There are, after all, many more registered Dems than Reps. The whole flipflopper thing hurt them badly.

It's almost like the roles were reversed this time around. Obama's campaign managed to stick the "erratic" label (code for both "flipflopper" and "old") on McCain, while their candidate seemed to do a better job of playing it cool and staying on course.

lord_sutekh wrote:He has to "use his forepower", but he hasn't yet learned how to apply it or how not to look like a fool while doing it. Unless he's made miraculous progress on content (by all reports, no) or delivery (unlikely at this point) in the past week, the debate will have little to no impact at best, and nail the coffin shut at the worst.

McCain didn't get it done last night. The more I watch him, the more I wish he was the McCain of 10 years ago. He just comes across as old, angry, and even a little mean now. On a side note, HDTV really doesn't help him. A younger, more (genuinely) maverick McCain would have given Obama a much tougher battle even with the current economic environment.

I'm an independent...I want to see strong candidates on either side. It's better for the country. McCain might be the right man, but it might be at the wrong time in his life.

I can never understand how someone would look at heroin and think "yeah, I know it ruins basically everyone that touches it...but I really think it's going to work out for me."

Frazzled wrote:Isn't that already done though DB?

DB ?

I'd put forward this as an example of what could be done,

and to be fair things are being looked at

Da Boss

I'm all for opium use for painkillers. Selling opium for heroin is no bueno however.

To reply to several points in one post:

1. I am advocating the legal purchase of the Afghan opium crop to use it for manufacture of legally prescribed heroin and morphine used in hospitals.

2. While opium was bad for the Chinese in the 1800s, cannabis consumption had little deleterious social effects in India in the 1800s. This may be due to the social milieu in which the drugs were used.

3. The dangers from heroin and other drugs are largely due to mixing them inadvisedly and the impurities in illegal street drugs.

1. I am advocating the legal purchase of the Afghan opium crop to use it for manufacture of legally prescribed heroin and morphine used in hospitals.
*****OK if those supplies are not already available. I don't have evidence that its not already.

2. While opium was bad for the Chinese in the 1800s, cannabis consumption had little deleterious social effects in India in the 1800s. This may be due to the social milieu in which the drugs were used.
******The opium trade was so deleterious China resorted to solving the problem via shooting the dealers and addicts alike. It was having a disastrous effect upon their economy, but was indeed completely legal.

3. The dangers from heroin and other drugs are largely due to mixing them inadvisedly and the impurities in illegal street drugs.
****I disagree strongly. When used properly, heroin will eventually kill you, slowly over time. It will make your life a living first though.

The Afghans grow opium because its been a reliable cash crop for a long time. The problem with legalising it for use in medical or narcotic drugs is that other countries will quickly do it better and for less, as Afghan farming infrastructure is pretty crappy, to say the least.

Helping them develop the infrastructure and skills to develop different cash crops is probably the best long term solution, although there's certainly a lot of challenges to overcome. Besides the Taliban and other local powers having a vested interest in stopping modernisation, there's also the difficulty of competing with the commercial farming of the West and Asia.

No drugs (including tobacco and alcohol are totally safe. In fact, people in the UK have died of water intoxication!