Switch Theme:

Robert Gate's harsh critique of Obama's leadership.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

This is devastating:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/robert-gates-former-defense-secretary-offers-harsh-critique-of-obamas-leadership-in-duty/2014/01/07/6a6915b2-77cb-11e3-b1c5-739e63e9c9a7_story.html
Robert Gates, former defense secretary, offers harsh critique of Obama’s leadership in ‘Duty’

In a new memoir, former defense secretary Robert Gates unleashes harsh judgments about President Obama’s leadership and his commitment to the Afghanistan war, writing that by early 2010 he had concluded the president “doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.”

Leveling one of the more serious charges that a defense secretary could make against a commander in chief sending forces into combat, Gates asserts that Obama had more than doubts about the course he had charted in Afghanistan. The president was “skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail,” Gates writes in “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War.”

Obama, after months of contentious discussion with Gates and other top advisers, deployed 30,000 more troops in a final push to stabilize Afghanistan before a phased withdrawal beginning in mid-2011. “I never doubted Obama’s support for the troops, only his support for their mission,” Gates writes.

As a candidate, Obama had made plain his opposition to the 2003 Iraq invasion while embracing the Afghanistan war as a necessary response to the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, requiring even more military resources to succeed. In Gates’s highly emotional account, Obama remains uncomfortable with the inherited wars and distrustful of the military that is providing him options. Their different worldviews produced a rift that, at least for Gates, became personally wounding and impossible to repair.

In a statement Tuesday evening, National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said Obama “deeply appreciates Bob Gates’ service as Secretary of Defense, and his lifetime of service to our country.”

“As has always been the case, the President welcomes differences of view among his national security team, which broaden his options and enhance our policies,” Hayden said in the statement. “The President wishes Secretary Gates well as he recovers from his recent injury, and discusses his book.” Gates fractured his first vertebra last week in a fall at his home in Washington state.

It is rare for a former Cabinet member, let alone a defense secretary occupying a central position in the chain of command, to publish such an antagonistic portrait of a sitting president.

Gates’s severe criticism is even more surprising — some might say contradictory — because toward the end of “Duty,” he says of Obama’s chief Afghanistan policies, “I believe Obama was right in each of these decisions.” That particular view is not a universal one; like much of the debate about the best path to take in Afghanistan, there is disagreement on how well the surge strategy worked, including among military officials.

The sometimes bitter tone in Gates’s 594-page account contrasts sharply with the even-tempered image that he cultivated during his many years of government service, including stints at the CIA and National Security Council. That image endured through his nearly five years in the Pentagon’s top job, beginning in President George W. Bush’s second term and continuing after Obama asked him to remain in the post. In “Duty,” Gates describes his outwardly calm demeanor as a facade. Underneath, he writes, he was frequently “seething” and “running out of patience on multiple fronts.”

The book, published by Knopf, is scheduled for release Jan. 14.

[PHOTOS: A look at Robert Gates’s career in government]

Gates, a Republican, writes about Obama with an ambivalence that he does not resolve, praising him as “a man of personal integrity” even as he faults his leadership. Though the book simmers with disappointment in Obama, it reflects outright contempt for Vice President Biden and many of Obama’s top aides.

Biden is accused of “poisoning the well” against the military leadership. Thomas Donilon, initially Obama’s deputy national security adviser, and then-Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, the White House coordinator for the wars, are described as regularly engaged in “aggressive, suspicious, and sometimes condescending and insulting questioning of our military leaders.”

In her statement, Hayden said Obama “disagrees with Secretary Gates’ assessment” of the vice president.

“From his leadership on the Balkans in the Senate, to his efforts to end the war in Iraq, Joe Biden has been one of the leading statesmen of his time, and has helped advance America’s leadership in the world,” Hayden said. “President Obama relies on his good counsel every day.”

Gates is 70, nearly 20 years older than Obama. He has worked for every president going back to Richard Nixon, with the exception of Bill Clinton. Throughout his government career, he was known for his bipartisan detachment, the consummate team player. “Duty” is likely to provide ammunition for those who believe it is risky for a president to fill such a key Cabinet post with a holdover from the opposition party.

He writes, “I have tried to be fair in describing actions and motivations of others.” He seems well aware that Obama and his aides will not see it that way.

While serving as defense secretary, Gates gave Obama high marks, saying privately in the summer of 2010 that the president is “very thoughtful and analytical, but he is also quite decisive.” He added, “I think we have a similar approach to dealing with national security issues.”

Obama echoed Gates’s comments in a July 10, 2010, interview for my book “Obama’s Wars.” The president said: “Bob Gates has, I think, served me extraordinarily well. And part of the reason is, you know, I’m not sure if he considers this an insult or a compliment, but he and I actually think a lot alike, in broad terms.”

During that interview, Obama said he believed he “had garnered confidence and trust in Gates.” In “Duty,” Gates complains repeatedly that confidence and trust were what he felt was lacking in his dealings with Obama and his team. “Why did I feel I was constantly at war with everybody, as I have detailed in these pages?” he writes. “Why was I so often angry? Why did I so dislike being back in government and in Washington?” 

His answer is that “the broad dysfunction in Washington wore me down, especially as I tried to maintain a public posture of nonpartisan calm, reason and conciliation.”

His lament about Washington was not the only factor contributing to his unhappiness. Gates also writes of the toll taken by the difficulty of overseeing wars against terrorism and insurgencies in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Such wars do not end with a clear surrender; Gates acknowledges having ambiguous feelings about both conflicts. For example, he writes that he does not know what he would have recommended if he had been asked his opinion on Bush’s 2003 decision to invade Iraq.

Three years later, Bush recruited Gates — who had served his father for 15 months as CIA director in the early 1990s — to take on the defense job. The first half of “Duty” covers those final two years in the Bush administration. Gates reveals some disagreements from that period, but none as fundamental or as personal as those he describes with Obama and his aides in the book’s second half.

“All too early in the [Obama] administration,” he writes, “suspicion and distrust of senior military officers by senior White House officials — including the president and vice president — became a big problem for me as I tried to manage the relationship between the commander in chief and his military leaders.

Gates offers a catalogue of various meetings, based in part on notes that he and his aides made at the time, including an exchange between Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that he calls “remarkable.”

He writes: “Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary. . . . The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.”

Earlier in the book, he describes Hillary Clinton in the sort of glowing terms that might be used in a political endorsement. “I found her smart, idealistic but pragmatic, tough-minded, indefatigable, funny, a very valuable colleague, and a superb representative of the United States all over the world,” he wrote.

[READ: The Fix on what Gates’s memoir could mean for a Clinton campaign]

March 3, 2011

“Duty” reflects the memoir genre, declaring that this is how the writer saw it, warts and all, including his own. That focus tends to give short shrift to the fuller, established record. For example, in recounting the difficult discussions that led to the Afghan surge strategy in 2009, Gates makes no reference to the six-page “terms sheet” that Obama drafted at the end, laying out the rationale for the surge and withdrawal timetable. Obama asked everyone involved to sign on, signaling agreement.

According to the meeting notes of another participant, Gates is quoted as telling Obama, “You sound the bugle . . . Mr. President, and Mike [Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] and I will be the first to charge the hill.”

Gates does not include such a moment in “Duty.” He picks up the story a bit later, after Gen. David H. Petraeus, then the central commander in charge of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, made remarks to the press suggesting he was not comfortable with setting a fixed date to start withdrawal.

At a March 3, 2011, National Security Council meeting, Gates writes, the president opened with a “blast.” Obama criticized the military for “popping off in the press” and said he would push back hard against any delay in beginning the withdrawal.

According to Gates, Obama concluded, “ ‘If I believe I am being gamed . . .’ and left the sentence hanging there with the clear implication the consequences would be dire.”

Gates continues: “I was pretty upset myself. I thought implicitly accusing” Petraeus, and perhaps Mullen and Gates himself, “of gaming him in front of thirty people in the Situation Room was inappropriate, not to mention highly disrespectful of Petraeus. As I sat there, I thought: the president doesn’t trust his commander, can’t stand [Afghanistan President Hamid] Karzai, doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.

[READ: World Views: Gates was wrong on the most important issue he ever faced]

‘Breaches of faith’

Lack of trust is a major thread in Gates’s account, along with his unsparing criticism of Obama’s aides. At times, the two threads intertwine. For example, after the devastating 2010 Haitian earthquake that had left tens of thousands dead, Gates met with Obama and Donilon, the deputy national security adviser, about disaster relief.

Donilon was “complaining about how long we were taking,” Gates writes. “Then he went too far, questioning in front of the president and a roomful of people whether General [Douglas] Fraser [head of the U.S. Southern Command] was competent to lead this effort. I’ve rarely been angrier in the Oval Office than I was at that moment. . . . My initial instinct was to storm out, telling the president on the way that he didn’t need two secretaries of defense. It took every bit of my self-discipline to stay seated on the sofa.”

Gates confirms a previously reported statement in which he told Obama’s first national security adviser, retired Marine Gen. James Jones, that he thought Donilon would be a “disaster” if he succeeded Jones (as Donilon did in late 2010). Gates writes that Obama quizzed him about this characterization; a one-on-one meeting with Donilon followed, and that “cleared the air,” according to Gates.

His second year with Obama proved as tough as the first. “For me, 2010 was a year of continued conflict and a couple of important White House breaches of faith,” he writes.

The first, he says, was Obama’s decision to seek the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy toward gays serving in the military. Though Gates says he supported the decision, there had been months and months of debate, with details still to work out. On one day’s notice, Obama informed Gates and Mullen that he would announce his request for a repeal of the law. Obama had “blindsided Admiral Mullen and me,” Gates writes.

Similarly, in a battle over defense spending, “I was extremely angry with President Obama,” Gates writes. “I felt he had breached faith with me . . . on the budget numbers.” As with “don’t ask, don’t tell,” “I felt that agreements with the Obama White House were good for only as long as they were politically convenient.”

Gates acknowledges forthrightly in “Duty” that he did not reveal his dismay. “I never confronted Obama directly over what I (as well as [Hillary] Clinton, [then-CIA Director Leon] Panetta, and others) saw as the president’s determination that the White House tightly control every aspect of national security policy and even operations. His White House was by far the most centralized and controlling in national security of any I had seen since Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger ruled the roost.

It got so bad during internal debates over whether to intervene in Libya in 2011 that Gates says he felt compelled to deliver a “rant” because the White House staff was “talking about military options with the president without Defense being involved.”

Gates says his instructions to the Pentagon were: “Don’t give the White House staff and [national security staff] too much information on the military options. They don’t understand it, and ‘experts’ like Samantha Power will decide when we should move militarily.” Power, then on the national security staff and now U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has been a strong advocate for humanitarian intervention.

Another time, after Donilon and Biden tried to pass orders to Gates, he told the two, “The last time I checked, neither of you are in the chain of command,” and said he expected to get orders directly from Obama. [whembly: ]

Life at the top was no picnic, Gates writes. He did little or no socializing. “Every evening I could not wait to get home, get my office homework out of the way, write condolence letters to the families of the fallen, pour a stiff drink, wolf down a frozen dinner or carry out,” since his wife, Becky, often remained at their home in Washington state.

“I got up at five every morning to run two miles around the Mall in Washington, past the World War II, Korean, and Vietnam memorials, and in front of the Lincoln Memorial. And every morning before dawn, I would ritually look up at that stunning white statue of Lincoln, say good morning, and sadly ask him, How did you do it?”

The memoir’s title comes from a quote, “God help me to do my duty,” that Gates says he kept on his desk. The quote has been attributed to Abraham Lincoln’s war secretary, Edwin Stanton.

At his confirmation hearings to be Bush’s defense secretary in late 2006, Gates told the senators that he had not “come back to Washington to be a bump on a log and not say exactly what I think, and to speak candidly and, frankly, boldly to people at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue about what I believe and what I think needs to be done.”

But Gates says he did not speak his mind when the committee chairman listed the problems he would face as secretary. “I remember sitting at the witness table listening to this litany of woe and thinking, “What the hell am I doing here? I have walked right into the middle of a category-five gakstorm. It was the first of many, many times I would sit at the witness table thinking something very different from what I was saying.”

“Duty” offers the familiar criticism of Congress and its culture, describing it as “truly ugly.” Gates’s cold feelings toward the legislative branch stand in stark contrast to his warmth for the military. He repeatedly describes his affection for the troops, especially those in combat.

Gates wanted to quit at the end of 2010 but agreed to stay at Obama’s urging, finally leaving in mid-2011. He later joined a consulting firm with two of Bush’s closest foreign policy advisers — former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser during Bush’s second term. The firm is called RiceHadleyGates. In October, he became president-elect of the Boy Scouts of America.

Gates writes, “I did not enjoy being secretary of defense,” or as he e-mailed one friend while still serving, “People have no idea how much I detest this job.”

I've got two mind of this...

One: "President Obama’s leadership and his commitment to the Afghanistan war, writing that by early 2010 he had concluded the president “doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.”"
This is sickening... Men are being killed at three times the rate as they died under Bush's leadership, and Obama is not even trying to win.

o.O

Two: As much as I like to ding Obama... the timing of this memoir is awfully tawdry... you don't do this to a sitting President that you once worked for... imho.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions






With so many people still respecting the decorum of not airing their private thoughts about sitting Presidents I wonder what will come out of the woodwork after Obama's term ends.

 
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

This was neither devastating nor harsh nor even to be honest unreasonable. I can't imagine any president being too excited about inheriting two wars, one of which was deeply, deeply unpopular and the other of which has no actual endgame in which "we win".

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.

So far as the war being framed in political views... that's what war is. Wars are a normal part of politics. The decision to go to war, how to order the war be prosecuted, the level of force to use, and how and when to end are all innately political decisions. These are not exactly shocking discoveries. These are intended and normal features of how civilian control of the military work. I'm not even sure what the point is about how you bolded and giant sized the world "political" like it was somehow dirty.



This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/08 04:28:56


 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

So where does this fit on your Dakka Bingo card?

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

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.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

 whembly wrote:
So where does this fit on your Dakka Bingo card?


Right next to Zimmerman is a Monster and below 'Dey gonna tak ur gunz!'


   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
With so many people still respecting the decorum of not airing their private thoughts about sitting Presidents...


I have to say that I always thought this was kind of a dumb rule but in hindsight I think Bush may have convinced me of the merits of it. His class really stood out when compared to, say, Cheney, whose every appearance seemed to exude a desperate desire for an attack on American soil so he can justify his heavy handed, overcompensating, chickenhawk approach.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Ouze wrote:
This was neither devastating nor harsh nor even to be honest unreasonable. I can't imagine any president being too excited about inheriting two wars, one of which was deeply, deeply unpopular and the other of which has no actual endgame in which "we win".

Um... he did run for Presidency. It's not like he went into this "blind". You'd hope he'd have a fething clue as to what he wanted to do, once he's in office.

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.

There's something to be said for that... that's true. But, the sense I got was that the opinions for the military weren't given the proper merits. That's dangerous...

So far as the war being framed in political views... that's what war is. Wars are a normal part of politics. The decision to go to war, how to order the war be prosecuted, the level of force to use, and how and when to end are all innately political decisions. These are not exactly shocking discoveries. These are intended and normal features of how civilian control of the military work. I'm not even sure what the point is about how you bolded and giant sized the world "political" like it was somehow dirty.

When you send your people/treasure to war, you'd define your objective and do what you can to achieve. If it's political, aka "it makes Obama look tough on terrorism", then you're simply throwing lives away. That's what is "dirty" about that word.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ouze wrote:
 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
With so many people still respecting the decorum of not airing their private thoughts about sitting Presidents...


I have to say that I always thought this was kind of a dumb rule but in hindsight I think Bush may have convinced me of the merits of it. His class really stood out when compared to, say, Cheney, whose every appearance seemed to exude a desperate desire for an attack on American soil so he can justify his heavy handed, overcompensating, chickenhawk approach.

Precisely...

Hence, my "tawdry" statement earlier... I mean, I don't begrudge him for doing this, but he could've waited until Obama is out of office at least.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/08 04:39:07


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

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.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 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*

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

There comes a point (and we've probably passed it) where victory really isn't possible. There honestly at this stage might not be a win in Afghanistan and if Obama firmly believes that he should just order the immediate withdrawal. I don't think Obama is quite that pessimistic. I think the reality is that he doesn't want to leave the country because he knows it will be collapse leaving every sacrifice pointless, but he's in a quagmire over how to take something positive from the conflict that could be called a 'token real victory.' If it were as simple as Obama not believing in the war entirely he'd have quit completely when Osama got killed.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/01/08 04:53:26


   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

 whembly wrote:
I could be wrong, but to me a "win" is a stable Afghanistan government (in whatever form) that's friendly to US interests.


That strategy in Iran has begun to bear fruit that we consider unpalatable.


 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




Not all that shocked about any of this. Obama doesn't like the military, the military doesn't like Obama. Welcome to having a Democrat for president.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Ouze wrote:
 whembly wrote:
I could be wrong, but to me a "win" is a stable Afghanistan government (in whatever form) that's friendly to US interests.


That strategy in Iran has begun to bear fruit that we consider unpalatable.


O.o



Not sure where you're going with this...

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions






 LordofHats wrote:
There comes a point (and we've probably passed it) where victory really isn't possible. There honestly at this stage might not be a win in Afghanistan and if Obama firmly believes that he should just order the immediate withdrawal. I don't think Obama is quite that pessimistic. I think the reality is that he doesn't want to leave the country because he knows it will be collapse leaving every sacrifice pointless, but he's in a quagmire over how to take something positive from the conflict that could be called a 'token real victory.' If it were as simple as Obama not believing in the war entirely he'd have quit completely when Osama got killed.

I think that victory was possible - but in a very narrow sense of destroying the AQ infrastructure and some Taliban assets and leaving with a warning that next time an attack comes from Afghanistan we won't be so restrained.

When we got involved in nation building in Afghanistan that was when we lost because the mission got so muddled and confused.

 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




Maybe he thinks the Shah just got deposed? I dunno.
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

 whembly wrote:
Not sure where you're going with this...


That if you install a puppet government, the people are eventually going to overthrow it, and then hate you for substantially longer than the period in which you reaped benefits in. It's a net negative. I agree with Dreadclaw - our responsibility was to serve American interests, not Afghani ones when we invaded. Let the UN do nation building, our role should have been much more closed-ended. There is no victory to be gleaned, we're only prolonging whatever's going to happen anyway by staying.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/08 05:18:47


 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





Chicago, Illinois

Interesting. I like what he is talking about, nice insight into the empire government.

From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war. 
   
Made in us
Crazed Bloodkine




Baltimore, Maryland

 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.


Why should the military leadership that Obama inherited, which had been competent (Petreaus comes to mind), be distrusted because of the comments of civilian appointees or elected officials of the previous administration?

It was Paul Wolfowitz, deputy director of Defense that made the "paying for itself" comment on Dec 12 2002. It was Dick Cheney that said the "greeted as liberators" comment in March 16 2003.

You seem to be under the impression that it was military staff that made those comments, and thats incorrect.

"Sometimes the only victory possible is to keep your opponent from winning." - The Emperor, from The Outcast Dead.
"Tell your gods we are coming for them, and that their realms will burn as ours did." -Thostos Bladestorm
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Ouze wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Not sure where you're going with this...


That if you install a puppet government, the people are eventually going to overthrow it, and then hate you for substantially longer than the period in which you reaped benefits in. It's a net negative. I agree with Dreadclaw - our responsibility was to serve American interests, not Afghani ones when we invaded. Let the UN do nation building, our role should have been much more closed-ended. There is no victory to be gleaned, we're only prolonging whatever's going to happen anyway by staying.

Fair enough...

I'd posit that just spanking Afganistan/Taliban for 9/11 and leaving the nation building to the UN as a "victory".

I wonder if the mentality for Iraq/Afgahnistan started with Powell's "if you break it, you fix it" thang?

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Not as Good as a Minion






Brisbane

 whembly wrote:

I'd posit that just spanking Afganistan/Taliban for 9/11 and leaving the nation building to the UN as a "victory".


That would have been up to the previous president though right? I mean you could have been in and out and leaving the nation building to others before Obama, so pinging him for the nation building isn't really fair, is it? The whole 'we need a clear mission if we are going to get involved' thing in regards to Afghanistan and Iraq is not related to Obama at all, since we were already well tangled up there before he got into office.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/08 06:00:53


I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own... 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Ouze wrote:
I agree with Dreadclaw - our responsibility was to serve American interests, not Afghani ones when we invaded. Let the UN do nation building, our role should have been much more closed-ended. There is no victory to be gleaned, we're only prolonging whatever's going to happen anyway by staying.


The problem is that the destruction of the Taliban was done with an army that was majority Northern Alliance fighters. There existed in Afghanistan a significant coalition that was not in fact hostile to the US, and it just plain made sense to help them form a government.

Now, we should have been a lot more realistic about exactly how well that government might satisfy our modern liberal sensibilities, and we should have been a hell of a lot smarter about which individuals and tribal groups we put forward as leaders (ie not Karzai), but I think it's way too easy to just declare that nothing could have been done to save these people from themselves.

Plenty could have been done, but we fethed it up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
Fair enough...

I'd posit that just spanking Afganistan/Taliban for 9/11 and leaving the nation building to the UN as a "victory".


I think that's really a false distinction. Having US and European money funelled through the UN, instead of directly in to Afghanistan isn't going to make any recovery cheaper or more likely to succeed, and having Pakistanis with blue helmets is going to be significantly less effective than US and other coalition troops.

Unless the concern is purely whether it's Americans dying, or just peacekeeping soldiers from some other part of the world.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/08 07:37:05


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot




WA

Gates acknowledges forthrightly in “Duty” that he did not reveal his dismay. “I never confronted Obama directly over what I (as well as [Hillary] Clinton, [then-CIA Director Leon] Panetta, and others) saw as the president’s determination that the White House tightly control every aspect of national security policy and even operations. His White House was by far the most centralized and controlling in national security of any I had seen since Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger ruled the roost.


Obama confirmed for dictator in training

"So, do please come along when we're promoting something new and need photos for the facebook page or to send to our regional manager, do please engage in our gaming when we're pushing something specific hard and need to get the little kiddies drifting past to want to come in an see what all the fuss is about. But otherwise, stay the feth out, you smelly, antisocial bastards, because we're scared you are going to say something that goes against our mantra of absolute devotion to the corporate motherland and we actually perceive any of you who've been gaming more than a year to be a hostile entity as you've been exposed to the internet and 'dangerous ideas'. " - MeanGreenStompa

"Then someone mentions Infinity and everyone ignores it because no one really plays it." - nkelsch

FREEDOM!!!
- d-usa 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




Whether Afghanistan is/was "winnable" isn't really what Gates is getting at; he's talking about specific strategies Obama employed, such as the Afghanistan version of the surge. His assertions that Obama didn't actually believe in them, combined with quotes like, "I felt that agreements with the Obama White House were good for only as long as they were politically expedient," paint a picture of a president who was committing troops and risking lives not out of a belief that it was the right thing to do, or sound strategy, but because it looked good politically.

Which, again, isn't terribly shocking. Obama doesn't like or understand the military, and the military doesn't like Obama.
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

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.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

We have, fortunately, had presidents who weren't quite this craven.

I'm curious if you actually believe the things you say, though, as you seem to be endorsing the idea of sacrificing lives in favor of political popularity.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/08 10:24:47


 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 Ouze wrote:
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.


Agreed. His statements reinforce public views of the events and individuals noted.

Obama doesn't care about the wars: check
Obama team high handed authoritarians without a clue: check
Obama and Biden political: check
Biden an idiot?: check

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Fate-Controlling Farseer





Fort Campbell

As a service member, here is my take on this.

None of it surprises me. Our President has never come across to me as someone who pays more then lip-service to the military. While I don't begrudge a regular citizen of that, I've worked with commanders who haven't given a gak about their enlisted corp before and it sucked, and having a CinC who is like that, isn't any better.

Gates says he "Supported the troops, but didn't believe in the mission." Well, that gak didn't fly back when Bush was Pres, it doesn't fly now. You cannot support us if you don't even believe in what you are sending us to die for. If your convictions are that weak, you are doing nothing for us.

He distrusts us? Well... we distrust him. He's shown no hesitancy to take the budget axe to us, while we were in the middle of world spanning conflicts. We've seen more cuts to our benefits that in any other time since Carter under him. During his tenure, we've seen the smallest annual pay increases ever. For 3 years in a row now we've been 1.7% or less. That's resulted in thousands of dollars of lost pay.

How can we trust a man who doesn't trust us, sends us to fight in things he doesn't believe in, and then cuts our pay, our jobs, our benefits, left and right?

I don't think I've ever vocalized this before, but honestly I've got no reason not to anymore. While I still afford the Office of the President with all of the respect it rightfully deserves, and will always do so, I have no respect at all for the man Barack Obama.

Full Frontal Nerdity 
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






"I respect the office but not the man" sounds a lot like "I support the troops but not the mission".

Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in us
Fate-Controlling Farseer





Fort Campbell

 Ahtman wrote:
"I respect the office but not the man" sounds a lot like "I support the troops but not the mission".


It's more like saying "I support the mission, but not the troops." if you really want to get into the semantics of it.

Full Frontal Nerdity 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: