TAH sharing column inches with John Bolton
Yeah, my head is swelling when I share space in a column with John Bolton. I did a brief interview with Hope Hodge of Human Events. She’s their defense and national security reporter. Her column today is entitled “On anniversary of bin Laden’s death, outlook still dire for War on Terror“;
Bolton said. “[Osama’s] death doesn’t materially change the equation, I don’t think.”
Hope asked me if I thought that making a big deal about the anniversary had any positive effect on the troops;
And a veteran who maintains the popular military blog This Ain’t Hell compared Obama’s grandstanding on the anniversary of the raid to President George W. Bush hanging out a “Mission Accomplished” banner in 2003: unwarranted and without real significance.
“Of course, I’m glad (bin Laden is) dead and I wish he’d been killed sooner. Other than that, I really don’t see the value of bringing it up in an election year,” Jonn Lilyea said. “I think the initial death of bin Laden was a morale booster, but I don’t think these anniversaries serve any purpose, not for troop morale.”
Yeah, I know the “Mission Accomplished” banner was for the sailors on a ship that was returning from a successful mission, but my point was that the Democrats made a big deal about President Bush strutting around the deck of that carrier under the banner, but they don’t see any problem with Obama strutting around taking credit for the Obama Osama ventilation project.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Terror War
All hail the ‘Stache!
A little Freudian slip with that last sentence there Jonn?
Ok, we all want autographs, photos and celebrity memorabalia. mandibula. mandibalia. Man I suck at speling.
No Freud — I heard Rush Limbaugh do the same — probably at least five times: “Barack OSAMA”
I assume you’ll never wash that hand again….oh, I forgot, you didn’t actually touch him. But I will say you tough guys are transparently pathetic and kinda sad, stewing in your own juices over when the shoe is on the other foot.
blah, blah, blah
Meanwhile, in the adult conversation – way to go, Jonn! Cream does rise to the top.
John Bolton is actually a pretty cool guy. Hey and no one can accuse him of sleeping his way to the top unlike a certain current Secretary of State…oooh burn Joe! Cause we know Hillary wouldn’t be there without Bill.
Anybody who speaks American english fluently understands that wars are won by accomplishing lots and lots of successful missions on different days by different people. There was nothing wrong with that banner, and everything wrong with the dishonesty it was treated.
John Bolton for Sect of State … he is a brilliant Statesman.
..if the job of a statesman is to piss everyone off….
Joe, Joe, Joe; do you make such limp-wristed statements in order to get verbally abused? Is it a fetish of yours? I know gay guys tougher than you. They would even call you a pussy.
@5 Joe–this from a guy who would never wash his face again if he got a bukake train from Ayers, Obama, and Van Jones.
Nice to see you mentioned again Jonn. 1)From article… “By the numbers, the night raid that took down the Taliban leader and al Qaeda kingpin may have had some positive effect on the trajectory of the war in Afghanistan, at least in the short run. U.S. and NATO casualties and the number of U.S. wounded were all down in a year-over-year comparison during the 12 months following bin Laden’s death. Reports released by the International Security Assistance Force show a decrease in enemy-initiated attacks on ISAF troops in Afghanistan for every month since May 2011, compared to the same month the previous year. Force officials added that the reduction in enemy-initiated attacks, the first such trend since 2008, was the longest sustained year-over-year downward trajectory recorded since ISAF began in 2001.” Bin Laden may no longer have had day to day operational control of Al Qaeda but did provide strategic guidance and chose its priorities. He can’t be dismissed as having no relevance, he was never irreplaceable though either, Bin laden did succeed Azzam after all. His death is a body blow, not a death one in itself. The reason coalition casualties decreased is because we grounded up most of the Taliban formations/shadow entities in the South. The way we did that was not relying exclusively on the surgical decapitation campaign but dismantling the entire organisational apparatus from top to bottom, which also eventually scooped up their lower leaders. They have lost near total control and the ability to fight. 2) More… ““It’s bad enough that we will surrender Afghanistan to the people who brutalized it for decades before we overthrew them,” Center for Security Policy Director Frank Gaffney said. “Far from cutting our losses, I believe this will be a catalyst for far more intensive jihadist activity.”” Gaffeny is almost certainly right. Our defeat(or proxy’s) will breath new life into our adversary and its Jihadist movement. It will also return an almost inaccessible sanctuary to them. 3)More.. ““Al Qaeda is not a corporate organization,” Bolton said. “It doesn’t have an organizational charter on the wall. It’s a loosely networked… Read more »
Didn’t change my day at all. Went on patrol, came back, took a nap, checked TAH at the TOC. I brought up to the guys today that Obama was here, and there was a collective shrug.
No, Joe. The job of a statesman is to convince his countrymen to further his country’s interests. Sometimes that requires pissing people off.
Bolton was dealing with the UN. A group like the UN consists largely of anti-American morons. So it’s a given that an American statesman who is looking out for America’s interests will piss off many of them.
From your comment, I’d guess Bolton pisses you off too. I guess that means you have more in common with the anti-American morons at the UN than with your fellow Americans.
Damn. Second sentence of #15 above should read “the job of a statesman is to further his country’s interests.” Incomplete edit on my part before posting.
Yo, TSO – you’re supposed to be incommunicado! (smile)
Seriously, good to hear from you. Be careful out there.
@Cedo – I won’t rehash our disagreement over the relative importance of Afghanistan to al Qaeda, but I am curious as to the factors you use to give weight to the following statement:
“Gaffeny is almost certainly right. Our defeat(or proxy’s) will breath new life into our adversary and its Jihadist movement. It will also return an almost inaccessible sanctuary to them.”
Is there anything specific for you that gives credence to that theory as opposed to the current realities of jihadi recruitment, financial backing and general support due explicitly to our presence in AFG [and AQ’s stated strategy of miring us in AFG].
Just checking in briefly before the daily head shed meeting. No time to write more right now I fear.
CI: common sense gives it credence; it’s human nature to back the “winning horse”.
We leave and Afghanistan reverts back to 12th century theocratic thugocracy under the Taliban, AQ will claim partial responsibility for “standing with their Islamic brothers and defeating the Great Satan”. Their standing within the Islamic world will then rise, particularly among the radicalized fringe elements. They will garner markedly more support as a result, and will become a larger threat to US security.
In contrast, our successful operations in Iraq diminished Al Qaeda. There, we largely killed off one AQ-related movement (al Qaeda in Iraq) as well as removed a state sponsor of terrorism. (That one could still turn to crap, but seems to be holding reasonably status-quo for now. I personally think we left Iraq about 1-2 years early – and should have taken out the younger al Sadr before we left.) That success hurt AQ. Repeating the process in Afghanistan will hurt them much more, as AQ has a larger stake in Afghanistan due to their own history.
@ Joe (who ever that is)
Sir,
In reference to your unkind and unflattering words against one of our Nation’s most respected dipolmats, Ambassador John Bolton, may I recommend that you inflict a painful rectal cranial inversion on thy self. From there hence one might breath bountyful amounts of what you truly expound.
Most graciously submitted,
The Master Chief
@Hondo – Common sense also include the psychological aspects of what incites emotion and common cause. Our withdrawal will give some amount of fodder for al Qaeda, but compare it to the ability of our presence in AFG in regards to recruitment and support.
A perceived offense normally draws support for the duration of that offense. This level has remained fairly constant, being diminished some by al Qaeda’s targeting of fellow Muslims. Contrast that with our phased and announced withdrawal. This will amount to a spike, especially since those literate Muslims with media access will correctly see that this is not a battlefield defeat.
CI: By your logic, our support for the Arab Spring revolutions should be resulting in US-friendly regimes in Lybia, Tunisia, and Egypt. That doesn’t seem to be happening. Rather, we seem to be seeing regimes arise that are trending Islamic fundamentalist/extremist. And don’t forget: it was Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood which served as both the theological and practical model for AQ – and which provided it’s current leader, al-Zawahiri. Further: prior to the Arab Spring, trends seem to have been towards more engagement with the West and more democratization. That’s obviously no longer the case. And that change seems to have coincided roughly with our disengagement in Iraq and our announced intention to disengage in Afghanistan. IMO, the relevant audience to consider isn’t the highly-educated, relatively Western-looking Islamic intelligencia but the average follower of Islam – the proverbial “Ahmed”, if you will. The Islamic intelligencia generally appears to support the status quo under current regimes, all of which appear to perceive AQ as a threat. As shown by popular support for the current Arab spring regime changes, it’s apparent that the average “Ahmed” doesn’t necessarily share those perceptions of AQ – and don’t seem that kindly disposed towards the West, either. It is from among the latter group (plus those already turned extremist) that AQ recruits and draws the bulk of its support. Among that group, the US “packing up and going home” followed by a return of the Taliban to power shortly thereafter will indeed be seen as a US defeat at the hands of the Taliban. Al Qaeda will jump in and claim partial credit. And then it’s “back to the future” time, circa 1996. That result will also cause a loss of US prestige throughout the Islamic world – much like that which persisted for over the decade-plus between the end of Vietnam/Iranian hostage crisis/Desert One fiasco and the first Gulf War. The US will again be seen as nothing but a “paper tiger”, unwilling to act decisively or in a sustained manner even when long-term interests are at stake. This will complicate our foreign policy dramatically in… Read more »
@Hondo – I’m not seeing your connection of “my logic” between our inarguable foreign/infidel presence in a Muslim land…..and the quasi democratic uprisings in other Arab nations. I’m not certain what reinforces a notion that oppressive regimes allied with the US [in Egypt’s case at least] would necessarily be convivial with the US/West.
I haven’t forgotten the ideological relationship that existed between the MB and AQ; nor do I forget that the US has had a relationship of varying degrees with the MB since the 1950’s, and that the MB today is not necessarily the MB if yesterday. They are still making the transition from militant opposition group to political group. I’m not saying we’ll be BFF’s but there’s room for some amount of optimism.
“IMO, the relevant audience to consider isn’t the highly-educated, relatively Western-looking Islamic intelligencia but the average follower of Islam.”
I tend to disagree, though you raise a valid concern. The Islamists who wield the technical and financial faculties to enable recruitment and material support are the educated class. The illiterate class has it’s intrinsic value; but as akin to the tactical level targeting, we’re not nearly as concerned with the emplacer or even the cell commander as we are the Hawala manager or bombmaker.
I completely understand the concerns of a Taliban regime in what would likely be confined to S/SW AFG…but I’m of the opinion that it could actually be a net plus compared to the glacial progress we’ve had over the last ten+ years. A Taliban regime in power would be far more vulnerable than they are now, as they would be both consolidated and responsible for the machinery of state….all highly targetable and in a permissible environment.
We still may not meet in the middle, but I appreciate your response.
CI: the connection you’re not seeing is the removal of an irritant. You’re thesis is that the US presence in AFG is an “irritant” and generates AQ support. The same can be said about the presence of repressive regimes in the Arab world/North Africa/Central Asia – they’re also “irritants” to their populations. We assisted (directly in Libya, indirectly in Egypt/Tunisia by withholding support for the status quo ante bellum) in removing several such irritants during the Arab Spring. However, the result was not a swing towards more open and liberal societies in those nations. Rather, the result appears to be a trend towards repressive Islamic hardline or theocratic rule, obtained at least partly through willing popular support of hardline factions in free elections.
Look to Iran 1978-1979 as a model for the Arab Spring. The parallel is not exact, but is IMO close enough to be damned scary based on what we’ve see to date in Egypt and Libya. That process may well be repeating itself in some form in both of those countries.
The majority of the Shah-era Iranian “intelligensia” didn’t side with Khomeini and his ilk in 1978-1979. Rather, as the quote attributed to both Bismark and Stalin says, there Khomeini and his supportes instead made operative the principle that “mass has a quality all its own.” Most of the Shah-era Iranian intelligencia either went silent/underground or voted with their feet; Khomeini and his ilk used mass popular support and co-opted the existing resources of Iran to work their will. They used relatively free elections to ram through a constitution that allowed them to attain and keep power. After doing so, they systematically destroyed or marginalized all moderate or Western-oriented opposition. And Khomeini’s successors are still in power, and are still a problem regarding US interests in the Islamic world.
Was it just me or was joe more retarded than usual yesterday? It was like he slipped off of his jr wall climber wall and fell and doinked his head.
#18 CI I think my two sentences there were self explanatory. We will likely just rehashed our earlier disagreement. Hondo’s expanded reponse in #20 I’m in general agreement with though. His number #23 is also outstanding. That boy is on fire today.
Go Hondo, go Hondo, it’s your Birthday!
#25 God damn that boy is clearing house today!
“CI: the connection you’re not seeing is the removal of an irritant. You’re thesis is that the US presence in AFG is an “irritant” and generates AQ support.” Yes, Yes, tell’em Hondo!
Its called the antibody theory, the idea being that American soldiers are the foreign entities whos very presence generates opposition(antibodies), that in the long run it can’t supress. This was the theory that both Generals Abizaid at Centcom and Casey in Iraq operated under in PreSurge Iraq. How did that work out? Granted, my context is tactical/operational not geopolitical, but still.
@Cedo – You are forgetting that it’s in al Qaeda’s interest to keep us in AFG as part of their catalyst strategy; they’ve stated thus.