Troops Before Policy?

GOPolitico Joe Klein. Its who they are. If you want to know why you shouldn't link to Politico without verifying their stuff read this piece in The New Republic about how they run their shop. Its aptly titled "The Scoop Factory" And this is from the horses mouth so its very enlightening. When "news folks" tell you they strive to be linked to by Drudge you should listen to them.
.
Second I don't know why its troubling other than having egg on your face. The troops are needed for breathing room to craft a viable strategy. It is what it is.

In the future, I'm going to double-check the stories that use unnamed sources at the Pentagon before linking to them.
.
I will refrain from taking the obvious cheap shot and instead point out that one of the things that scares me most is the degree to which members of the military and intelligence feel immune from the responsibilities that stem from serving in a free democracy.
.
There are very important reasons that our Constitution was set up with the military being held under civilian control. Even the notion of a permanet standing army was seen as a danger to freedom and that is why all military appropriations have a term limit of two years.
.
With that in mind, I find it very troubling that there be any hint that people within the Pentagon may be interested in undermining the President's authority. We used to refer to places where that happens as "Failed States"

Joe-What about the fact that our lack of boots or the ground is causing our forces to rely primarily on air power and predator drones which in turn is causing a lot civilian deaths because we can't clearly identify who we are actually killing? Could that be a factor?

So this is all about getting your tiny feelings hurt.
Remember Politico ----> Drudge ----> Rush.

We didn't have a policy in Iraq and I don't remember your gnashing your teeth or rending your garments.
Of course we expect Obama to do better but the troops haven't arrived in Afghanistan yet and the president has time to clearly enunciate what his policy will be there.

"In the future, I'm going to double-check the stories that use unnamed sources at the Pentagon before linking to them."
.
I bet you will. Not holding by breath.

From what I've read; a larger number of troops were wanted but instead the administration simply diverted troops bound for Iraq to Afghanistan. This allows for the generals to get some extra troops; solidifys and signals his intent to draw down in Iraq (which people in the Pentagon DO seem to be opposing; and allows the review to be completed and analyzed.

I don't think Cloud was wrong; I think this was a tactical decision that actually supports the administrations goals of getting out of Iraq and beginning to address Afghan/Pakistan issues.

JMHO

"We don't have a policy there yet" - Says who? Don't tell me the bug you have planted under the President's staff meeting table is on the fritz again. Just because the Republicans buy theirs at Radio Shack...

Joe:

Aren't you SUPPOSED to confirm things before you quote/cite/link to them? Would that not be the responsible journalistic thing to do?

As far as the troop deployment - can we get you a fainting couch? Obamma has been saying for months that he would do that, and for all you know it is part of the policy that you simply have not been informed about yet. Or were you waiting for Politico to tell you what that policy is?

My brother is one of those troops heading for Afghanistan and already has a good idea of his mission there. It is not like these troops will land today- they will have time to finish up a plan as these troops and equipment are on the way. Turn around the pullout time for Iraq and understand how long it takes to deploy these troops. Mr. Klein needs to stop shooting first and asking questions later.

President Obama should not get a pass on Afghanistan.
.
There has not been a clear war policy but forth by any administration for conducting a war since WWII.
.
Without a clear war policy the military can not put forth a viable strategy for winning.

In fact, there's been a steady stream of unreliable leaks coming out of the Pentagon--about troop levels, about the Defense budget--that seem to be emanating from a cadre that opposes the Obama Administration

.
Joe Klein if you want to learn more about that "cadre" here is a story you might just want to link to instead of Politico.
.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45720

Before I get accused of defending the military, I believe if a clear war policy is put forth by President Obama, it is doubtful that the military is capable of drafting a winning strategy.

d3vt: God speed to your brother.

There's that peculiar use of the word 'winning' again which assumes that warfare is a game with rules and a final outcome. The debate over how to deploy our troops where they will do the most good gets distorted to near-insanity when the undefinable notion of 'winning' gets thrown into the mix. We "won" Iraq after less than a week. The notion that we acheive victory over the isolated terror cells and loose networks of people who wish to harm us can only lead to a disproportionate response which will inevitably do more harm than good.

Remarkable. Klein assumes Politico knows exactly what it's doing, but Obama is just taking random actions with our military.
.
I'll give you a topic: one of these assumptions may be more incorrect than the other. If so, which one? Discuss.

Foxnews.com has an article on their website: Hitler Had Terrible Table Manners. Whoda thunk?

Between the last post regarding Cheney and this one (and particularly sg's link), it would appear that the press getting deliberately played by people to spread disinformation and advance personal agendas appears to be a running theme for the day. In the current environment double-checking anonymously sourced stories is the absolute minimum requirement.
.
We know you're tight with Gen. Petraeus. How asking him to rebut this charge:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45720

" .. We don't have a policy there yet. We don't know what the goal is - .."

All options are on the table.
Goal? Why do you ask - just so that we can debate it?
There is the Nixonian thing: We can bomb them back past the stone age. Then there is always the My Lai thing: That we save Afghanistan by killing everyone/everything there ..
[Save your outrage: The people who did it still walk tall and proud among us ..]

When is the last time you moaned the demise of North America's Indian tribes? Or the Aztecs and Incas and etc ?

.

31 - - Days we have been waiting for the president to officially declare the KKK and "Aryan Nation" as TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS.

Any success in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Gaza, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or even Lower Splevobia can only come about if the folks living there want stability because they've figured out how to make their lives better in that environment. In other words, the people of the middle class who have a hope of being rich but don't want a missile or roving gang ruining their chances at an adequate life.
-
If the troublemakers are seen as more of a problem than our troops then we're "winning". If "Join the Taliban or we'll slit your throat" is the most popular bumpersticker then we have a lot of work to do... or we should leave.
-
If Obama stays with his belief in the power of a strong middle class for all situations needing stability then I don't think he can go too far wrong. In some cases, however, the middle class won't grow back for generations.

In the future, I'm going to double-check the stories that use unnamed sources at the Pentagon before linking to them.
.
Does this mean that Pete Hoekstra is going to have to get a second Twitter account?

CENTCOM wanted 30,000 more troops in theater, minimum.

So the obfuscating MOOP approves only 17k (about 1 division less logistics).

THAT, Say Joe, IS the problem.

Meanwhile, back at ACORN HQ...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96E4E781&show_article=1

" .. 31 - - Days we have been waiting for the president to officially declare the KKK and "Aryan Nation" as TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS. .."

These groups of 'hateful ideologies' have terrorized good Americans for decades and are responsible for the gruesome deaths of more Americans than those who died on 9/11.

Their members are terrorists and those who pall around with them and provide them with succor and comfort are suspected terrorists who are to be considered and dealt with in the manner we deal with such people.

To answer Paul Dirks I probably should not of used the word winning strategy, but in my defense I am defining a winning strategy as a strategy that results in achieving the stated policy.

cfukara
... ...

Have you or Eric Holder EVER been to Gettysburg?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96E4E781&show_article=1&catnum=-1

Move On, indeed.

Hula, did CENTCOM suggest the troops wear boots on their hands and walk on all fours to "double" the boots on the ground or are we going to get a loan from the Chinese army? I believe the Republican's are in charge of the "start war first, find troops later" strategy. And what if the Taliban whips out their big magnifying glass and melts them... you know, like what happened in your sandbox yesterday.