On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 21:05:34 -0500, wrote:


It might survive as 2 countries.

Then there would be Pakistan, North Pakistan and Outer Pakistan.

East Iran and North Pakistan.

I don't disagree with your analysis. I hope that causes you angst.

It does give you pause doesn't it.


I think it is encouraging that we are actually having a civilized
conversation and actually agreeing on something ;-)



Someone please explain to me in polite terms how the leaders of two
administrations, the current one and the one in the immediate past,
hoodwinked themselves into believing anything worth saving could be made
from either Iraq or Afghanistan.

I understand what Bush I did with his war with Iraq. It was rational. I
understand what Clinton did in Bosnia. That was rational.

Iraq? Afghanistan? Huh?

I think the ultimate blame still comes back to GHWB. If he had
actually brought our troops home in 1991 like he was advised, we would
not have been in any of this.

Clinton could have pulled the plug too but he didn't. It just went
down hill from there.

So, he should have listened to his generals? Just a while ago, you
were claiming he shouldn't have. Pick one please.

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:14:05 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 21:03:48 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 21:05:34 -0500, wrote:


It might survive as 2 countries.

Then there would be Pakistan, North Pakistan and Outer Pakistan.

East Iran and North Pakistan.

I don't disagree with your analysis. I hope that causes you angst.

It does give you pause doesn't it.


I think it is encouraging that we are actually having a civilized
conversation and actually agreeing on something ;-)



Someone please explain to me in polite terms how the leaders of two
administrations, the current one and the one in the immediate past,
hoodwinked themselves into believing anything worth saving could be made
from either Iraq or Afghanistan.

I understand what Bush I did with his war with Iraq. It was rational. I
understand what Clinton did in Bosnia. That was rational.

Iraq? Afghanistan? Huh?

I think the ultimate blame still comes back to GHWB. If he had
actually brought our troops home in 1991 like he was advised, we would
not have been in any of this.

Clinton could have pulled the plug too but he didn't. It just went
down hill from there.

So, he should have listened to his generals? Just a while ago, you
were claiming he shouldn't have. Pick one please.

I have never changed my opinion about Iraq. I have always said get out
now.

Listening to generals will give you their plan to win, not whether you
should be there at all.

So, in a war you don't want to know how to win, you just want to
decide without any facts. If the opinion polls say get out, then get
out. Is that what you're claiming?

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:32:03 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:27:32 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:14:05 -0500, wrote:



Clinton could have pulled the plug too but he didn't. It just went
down hill from there.

So, he should have listened to his generals? Just a while ago, you
were claiming he shouldn't have. Pick one please.

I have never changed my opinion about Iraq. I have always said get out
now.

Listening to generals will give you their plan to win, not whether you
should be there at all.

So, in a war you don't want to know how to win, you just want to
decide without any facts.

I am saying it is the general's job to have a plan to win, no matter
what the cost.

But, he shouldn't be listened to, even if the plan sounds reasonable.
Since Bush barely served in the Guard, I'm sure that would make him
qualified to know.

They are not the people to ask if you want to know if you should be
there at all. No general who wants to stay a general will tell his
boss "this is hopeless and there is no way to win". They come up with
something and it is usually "I just need more (troops, guns, air
support or whatever)"

I don't know any generals, but it seems to me that honesty is the best
policy, esp. if asked by one's boss. Are you saying all of them lied
to Bush and all of them are lying to Obama??

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:10:01 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:34:22 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:32:03 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:27:32 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:14:05 -0500, wrote:



Clinton could have pulled the plug too but he didn't. It just went
down hill from there.

So, he should have listened to his generals? Just a while ago, you
were claiming he shouldn't have. Pick one please.

I have never changed my opinion about Iraq. I have always said get out
now.

Listening to generals will give you their plan to win, not whether you
should be there at all.

So, in a war you don't want to know how to win, you just want to
decide without any facts.

I am saying it is the general's job to have a plan to win, no matter
what the cost.

But, he shouldn't be listened to, even if the plan sounds reasonable.
Since Bush barely served in the Guard, I'm sure that would make him
qualified to know.


You are simply obsessed. We were talking about NOW and GW is back in
Texas.

You can't seem to focus on what happened in the recent past. You're
claiming that what Bush did was wrong, but well, he's no longer in
office, so we should just forget about it. Sorry, but that's not going
to happen. He's one step removed from a war criminal.


They are not the people to ask if you want to know if you should be
there at all. No general who wants to stay a general will tell his
boss "this is hopeless and there is no way to win". They come up with
something and it is usually "I just need more (troops, guns, air
support or whatever)"

I don't know any generals, but it seems to me that honesty is the best
policy, esp. if asked by one's boss. Are you saying all of them lied
to Bush and all of them are lying to Obama??

No I am saying it is not their job to question policy, they only say
"can do sir" and give you the plan to do it.
It is the president and congress's job to decide when and where we go
to war.

And, when a general gives his best, honest assessment, that should be
ignored because he just wants to win? What nonsense.

If there is any lying at all it is in what they really think they need
and what they ask for.
Patton used to call it "rock soup". You make a modest request and then
keep needing a little more until you get what you wanted in the first
place. That is how we get into these wars that were only supposed to
take 3 months and a few thousand covert operatives. Then 10 years
later we are asking whether we should "double down" and put in another
50,000 guys.

Wow... quite a reach going back to WW2. Try quoting Petraeus.

In article ,
says...
If there is any lying at all it is in what they really think they need
and what they ask for.
Patton used to call it "rock soup". You make a modest request and then
keep needing a little more until you get what you wanted in the first
place. That is how we get into these wars that were only supposed to
take 3 months and a few thousand covert operatives. Then 10 years
later we are asking whether we should "double down" and put in another
50,000 guys.

Wow... quite a reach going back to WW2. Try quoting Petraeus.


When you are dealing with the military, you can quote Caesar's Gallic
Wars and still be relevant.

Petraeus used the "rock soup" tactic in Iraq and he is using in
Afghanistan as we speak. What else can you call "double down"?


Sun Tzu is taught at the USMA (West Point).

On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 19:13:51 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...
If there is any lying at all it is in what they really think they need
and what they ask for.
Patton used to call it "rock soup". You make a modest request and then
keep needing a little more until you get what you wanted in the first
place. That is how we get into these wars that were only supposed to
take 3 months and a few thousand covert operatives. Then 10 years
later we are asking whether we should "double down" and put in another
50,000 guys.

Wow... quite a reach going back to WW2. Try quoting Petraeus.


When you are dealing with the military, you can quote Caesar's Gallic
Wars and still be relevant.

Petraeus used the "rock soup" tactic in Iraq and he is using in
Afghanistan as we speak. What else can you call "double down"?


Sun Tzu is taught at the USMA (West Point).


That's the Art of War you idiot. It's not "war" itself.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 12:31:02 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:38:52 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:10:01 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:34:22 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:32:03 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:27:32 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:14:05 -0500, wrote:



Clinton could have pulled the plug too but he didn't. It just went
down hill from there.

So, he should have listened to his generals? Just a while ago, you
were claiming he shouldn't have. Pick one please.

I have never changed my opinion about Iraq. I have always said get out
now.

Listening to generals will give you their plan to win, not whether you
should be there at all.

So, in a war you don't want to know how to win, you just want to
decide without any facts.

I am saying it is the general's job to have a plan to win, no matter
what the cost.

But, he shouldn't be listened to, even if the plan sounds reasonable.
Since Bush barely served in the Guard, I'm sure that would make him
qualified to know.


You are simply obsessed. We were talking about NOW and GW is back in
Texas.

You can't seem to focus on what happened in the recent past. You're
claiming that what Bush did was wrong, but well, he's no longer in
office, so we should just forget about it. Sorry, but that's not going
to happen. He's one step removed from a war criminal.

How is he a war criminal? Only the losers are war criminals. They
never hang the winners.

He lied and 10s of 1000s died for one thing. I think that's good
enough to qualify.



They are not the people to ask if you want to know if you should be
there at all. No general who wants to stay a general will tell his
boss "this is hopeless and there is no way to win". They come up with
something and it is usually "I just need more (troops, guns, air
support or whatever)"

I don't know any generals, but it seems to me that honesty is the best
policy, esp. if asked by one's boss. Are you saying all of them lied
to Bush and all of them are lying to Obama??

No I am saying it is not their job to question policy, they only say
"can do sir" and give you the plan to do it.
It is the president and congress's job to decide when and where we go
to war.

And, when a general gives his best, honest assessment, that should be
ignored because he just wants to win? What nonsense.

That is the job of the civilian leadership, to look at the general's
assessment and weigh the cost against the objective and what we hope
to win. In the case of Afghanistan the cost is far greater than
anything we can possibly hope to win.

Yes, and that's something Bush didn't do.. or claimed he was doing but
didn't.

In the case of Iraq, if we take a threat away from Israel, it might
have been worth it. That will be WWIII if it really gets going.

Huh? Israel is or isn't capable of defending herself? So, we should or
shouldn't be the world's police? Please pick one.


If there is any lying at all it is in what they really think they need
and what they ask for.
Patton used to call it "rock soup". You make a modest request and then
keep needing a little more until you get what you wanted in the first
place. That is how we get into these wars that were only supposed to
take 3 months and a few thousand covert operatives. Then 10 years
later we are asking whether we should "double down" and put in another
50,000 guys.

Wow... quite a reach going back to WW2. Try quoting Petraeus.


When you are dealing with the military, you can quote Caesar's Gallic
Wars and still be relevant.

Really? Even the 100 Years War (actually 116, but who's counting)?

Petraeus used the "rock soup" tactic in Iraq and he is using in
Afghanistan as we speak. What else can you call "double down"?

An avenue that may bring us to a way to get out without abandoning
them to utter chaos.