#Herbert: Worse than a nightmare
5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09
Worse Than a Nightmare
By BOB HERBERT
Published: June 25, 2010
President Obama can be applauded for his decisiveness in dispatching the
chronically insubordinate Stanley McChrystal, but we are still left with
a disaster of a war in Afghanistan that cannot be won and that the
country as a whole will not support.
No one in official Washington is leveling with the public about what is
really going on. We hear a lot about counterinsurgency, the latest hot
cocktail-hour topic among the BlackBerry-thumbing crowd. But there is no
evidence at all that counterinsurgency will work in Afghanistan. It’s not
working now. And even if we managed to put all the proper pieces
together, the fiercest counterinsurgency advocates in the military will
tell you that something on the order of 10 to 15 years of hard effort
would be required for this strategy to bear significant fruit.
We’ve been in Afghanistan for nearly a decade already. It’s one of the
most corrupt places on the planet and the epicenter of global opium
production. Our ostensible ally, President Hamid Karzai, is convinced
that the U.S. cannot prevail in the war and is in hot pursuit of his own
deal with the enemy Taliban. The American public gave up on the war long
ago, and it is not at all clear that President Obama’s heart is really in
it.
For us to even consider several more years of fighting and dying in
Afghanistan — at a cost of heaven knows how many more billions of
American taxpayer dollars — is demented.
Those who are so fascinated with counterinsurgency, from its chief
advocate, Gen. David Petraeus, all the way down to the cocktail-hour
kibitzers inside the Beltway, seem to have lost sight of a fundamental
aspect of warfare: You don’t go to war half-stepping. You go to war to
crush the enemy. You do this ferociously and as quickly as possible. If
you don’t want to do it, if you have qualms about it, or don’t know how
to do it, don’t go to war.
The men who stormed the beaches at Normandy weren’t trying to win the
hearts and minds of anyone.
In Afghanistan, we are playing a dangerous, half-hearted game in which
President Obama tells the America people that this is a war of necessity
and that he will do whatever is necessary to succeed. Then, with the very
next breath, he soothingly assures us that the withdrawal of U.S. troops
will begin on schedule, like a Greyhound leaving the terminal, a year
from now.
Both cannot be true.
What is true is that we aren’t even fighting as hard as we can right now.
The counterinsurgency crowd doesn’t want to whack the enemy too hard
because of an understandable fear that too many civilian casualties will
undermine the “hearts and minds” and nation-building components of the
strategy. Among the downsides of this battlefield caution is a disturbing
unwillingness to give our own combat troops the supportive airstrikes and
artillery cover that they feel is needed.
In an article this week, The Times quoted a U.S. Army sergeant in
southern Afghanistan who was unhappy with the real-world effects of
counterinsurgency. “I wish we had generals who remembered what it was
like when they were down in a platoon,” he said. “Either they never have
been in real fighting, or they forgot what it’s like.”
In the Rolling Stone article that led to General McChrystal’s ouster,
reporter Michael Hastings wrote about the backlash that counterinsurgency
restraints had provoked among the general’s own troops. Many feel that
“being told to hold their fire” increases their vulnerability. A former
Special Forces operator, a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan, said of
General McChrystal, according to Mr. Hastings, “His rules of engagement
put soldiers’ lives in even greater danger. Every real soldier will tell
you the same thing.”
We are sinking more and more deeply into the fetid quagmire of
Afghanistan and neither the president nor General Petraeus nor anyone
else has the slightest clue about how to get out. The counterinsurgency
zealots in the military want more troops sent to Afghanistan, and they
want the president to completely scrap his already shaky July 2011
timetable for the beginning of a withdrawal.
We’re like a compulsive gambler plunging ever more deeply into debt in
order to wager on a rigged game. There is no victory to be had in
Afghanistan, only grief. We’re bulldozing Detroit while at the same time
trying to establish model metropolises in Kabul and Kandahar. We’re
spending endless billions on this wretched war but can’t extend the
unemployment benefits of Americans suffering from the wretched economy
here at home.
The difference between this and a nightmare is that when you wake up from
a nightmare it’s over. This is all too tragically real.
Foxtrot
>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/opinion/26herbert.html?hp
>
>Worse Than a Nightmare
>By BOB HERBERT
>President Obama can be applauded for his decisiveness in dispatching the
>chronically insubordinate Stanley McChrystal, but we are still left with
>a disaster of a war in Afghanistan that cannot be won and that the
>country as a whole will not support.
>
>No one in official Washington is leveling with the public about what is
>really going on. We hear a lot about counterinsurgency, the latest hot
>cocktail-hour topic among the BlackBerry-thumbing crowd. But there is no
>evidence at all that counterinsurgency will work in Afghanistan. It’s not
>working now. And even if we managed to put all the proper pieces
>together, the fiercest counterinsurgency advocates in the military will
>tell you that something on the order of 10 to 15 years of hard effort
>would be required for this strategy to bear significant fruit.
>
>We’ve been in Afghanistan for nearly a decade already. It’s one of the
>most corrupt places on the planet and the epicenter of global opium
>production. Our ostensible ally, President Hamid Karzai, is convinced
>that the U.S. cannot prevail in the war and is in hot pursuit of his own
>deal with the enemy Taliban. The American public gave up on the war long
>ago, and it is not at all clear that President Obama’s heart is really in
>it.
Listen up you Obama suckasses. Herbert has been one of his most
ardent supporters. But when he says "we" and "our", he's talking
about Obama. Yes Bush started the wars but he has had plenty of
time to end them but he chose not to. So now he owns them.
When you've lost Herbert, you've lost the PR war.
>We are sinking more and more deeply into the fetid quagmire of
>Afghanistan and neither the president nor General Petraeus nor anyone
>else has the slightest clue about how to get out.
Don't try to blame Patraeus, Herbert. We have a Commander in
Chief who makes all foreign policy decisions. He's solely responsible
for your "Worse Than a Nightmare."
>We’re like a compulsive gambler plunging ever more deeply into debt in
>order to wager on a rigged game.
That's right. And Caviar Obama sees those brave men and women
as inanimate chips to be played with for his entertainment.
Phlip
> order to wager on a rigged game.
That's called the "sunken cost fallacy".
But, gee, if only we had gone with McCain. He knew all about that
"compulsive gambler" thing!
5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09
Um, bubbles? I've opposed Obama's stance on Afghanistan from the
beginning, and wrote back when he took office that Afghanistan could
destroy his presidency the way Vietnam destroyed LBJ's.
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot wrote:
>> Listen up you Obama suckasses. Herbert has been one of his most ardent
>> supporters. But when he says "we" and "our", he's talking about Obama.
>> Yes Bush started the wars but he has had plenty of time to end them but
>> he chose not to. So now he owns them.
>>
>> When you've lost Herbert, you've lost the PR war.
>
>Um, bubbles? I've opposed Obama's stance on Afghanistan from the
>beginning, and wrote back when he took office that Afghanistan could
>destroy his presidency the way Vietnam destroyed LBJ's.
You're not a columnist for the NY Times.
Most of us agree that we don't belong in Afghanistan nor Iraq.
But outside of the .0001% Americans who read these groups,
nobody gives a crap what we think.
OTOH the NY Times has *real* power and so do its columnists.
When Obama's most loyal writer there describes his foreign
policy as "Worse than a nightmare", he's got big problems.
5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09
> "5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09" <dea...@deadduz.com> wrote:
>
>>Foxtrot wrote:
>>> Listen up you Obama suckasses. Herbert has been one of his most ardent
>>> supporters. But when he says "we" and "our", he's talking about Obama.
>>> Yes Bush started the wars but he has had plenty of time to end them
>>> but he chose not to. So now he owns them.
>>>
>>> When you've lost Herbert, you've lost the PR war.
>>
>>Um, bubbles? I've opposed Obama's stance on Afghanistan from the
>>beginning, and wrote back when he took office that Afghanistan could
>>destroy his presidency the way Vietnam destroyed LBJ's.
>
> You're not a columnist for the NY Times.
Well, you'll be happy to know that Herbert has opposed Obama on his
Afghanistan stance right along, too. This is not some magical Walter
Chronkite "This war cannot be won" moment that brings down a president.
This is an articulate and intelligent columnist explaining what nearly
every intelligent and articulate person already knows: Afghanistan became
a terrible mistake the minute Bush decided to occupy the place, it's a
lost cause, and Obama will eventually have to acknowledge that.
>
> Most of us agree that we don't belong in Afghanistan nor Iraq. But
> outside of the .0001% Americans who read these groups, nobody gives a
> crap what we think.
It's good to know you aren't like Steve, who is apparently convinced that
hundreds of thousands wait for his next word on anything.
>
> OTOH the NY Times has *real* power and so do its columnists. When
> Obama's most loyal writer there describes his foreign policy as "Worse
> than a nightmare", he's got big problems.
Oh, yeah, he's definitely go big problems. We don't disagree on that.
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot wrote:
>
>> "5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09" <dea...@deadduz.com> wrote:
>>>Um, bubbles? I've opposed Obama's stance on Afghanistan from the
>>>beginning, and wrote back when he took office that Afghanistan could
>>>destroy his presidency the way Vietnam destroyed LBJ's.
>>
>> You're not a columnist for the NY Times.
>
>Well, you'll be happy to know that Herbert has opposed Obama on his
>Afghanistan stance right along, too. This is not some magical Walter
>Chronkite "This war cannot be won" moment that brings down a president.
>This is an articulate and intelligent columnist explaining what nearly
>every intelligent and articulate person already knows: Afghanistan became
>a terrible mistake the minute Bush decided to occupy the place, it's a
>lost cause, and Obama will eventually have to acknowledge that.
Eventually?? The wars are absolute disasters. Obama couldn't have
ended them immediately but he sure as fuck could be doing a lot
more than he is now.
They're by far the biggest disaster he has any power to fix but he's
apathetic. He probably pitches RationCare 100 times more than he
talks about the wars. He doesn't give a shit.
You're concerned enough to put the death toll in your nym (as tacky
as it is). How can you defend anything he does while he allows the
wars to grind on?
Steve
<dea...@deadduz.com> wrote:
Well obviously, Fatass Jamieson can't get me out of his mind....
I figure it's time to start considering legal action
against this little stalker.
--David B.(Zepp) Jamieson 2 Mar 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/b503459d6b2db5b2?hl=en&
David W
> When you've lost Herbert, you've lost the PR war.
>
>>We are sinking more and more deeply into the fetid quagmire
>>of Afghanistan and neither the president nor General
>>Petraeus nor anyone else has the slightest clue about how
>>to get out.
>
> Don't try to blame Patraeus, Herbert. We have a Commander
> in Chief who makes all foreign policy decisions. He's
> solely responsible for your "Worse Than a Nightmare."
>
>>We're like a compulsive gambler plunging ever more deeply
>>into debt in order to wager on a rigged game.
>
> That's right. And Caviar Obama sees those brave men and
> women as inanimate chips to be played with for his
> entertainment.
King is not defined as a republican nor democrat. He has become
a human rights icon. Retard.
5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09
> "5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09" <dea...@deadduz.com> wrote:
>
>>Foxtrot wrote:
>>
>>> "5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09" <dea...@deadduz.com> wrote:
>>>>Um, bubbles? I've opposed Obama's stance on Afghanistan from the
>>>>beginning, and wrote back when he took office that Afghanistan could
>>>>destroy his presidency the way Vietnam destroyed LBJ's.
>>>
>>> You're not a columnist for the NY Times.
>>
>>Well, you'll be happy to know that Herbert has opposed Obama on his
>>Afghanistan stance right along, too. This is not some magical Walter
>>Chronkite "This war cannot be won" moment that brings down a president.
>>This is an articulate and intelligent columnist explaining what nearly
>>every intelligent and articulate person already knows: Afghanistan
>>became a terrible mistake the minute Bush decided to occupy the place,
>>it's a lost cause, and Obama will eventually have to acknowledge that.
>
> Eventually?? The wars are absolute disasters. Obama couldn't have ended
> them immediately but he sure as fuck could be doing a lot more than he
> is now.
Yeah, eventually. For gawd knows what reason, he's still pretending
America can prevail there. And yes, I know it's a disaster NOW.
>
> They're by far the biggest disaster he has any power to fix but he's
> apathetic. He probably pitches RationCare 100 times more than he talks
> about the wars. He doesn't give a shit.
He'll have to at some point, won't he?
>
> You're concerned enough to put the death toll in your nym (as tacky as
> it is). How can you defend anything he does while he allows the wars to
> grind on?
This from a guy who whines endlessly about him playing golf while there
is oil spilling into the Gulf of Cheney.
Steve
<dea...@deadduz.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:20:22 -0700, Foxtrot wrote:
>
>> "5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09" <dea...@deadduz.com> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/opinion/26herbert.html?hp
>>>
>>>Worse Than a Nightmare
>>>By BOB HERBERT
>>
>>>President Obama can be applauded for his decisiveness in dispatching the
>>>chronically insubordinate Stanley McChrystal, but we are still left with
>>>a disaster of a war in Afghanistan that cannot be won and that the
>>>country as a whole will not support.
>>>
>>>No one in official Washington is leveling with the public about what is
>>>really going on. We hear a lot about counterinsurgency, the latest hot
>>>cocktail-hour topic among the BlackBerry-thumbing crowd. But there is no
>>>evidence at all that counterinsurgency will work in Afghanistan. It?s
>>>not working now. And even if we managed to put all the proper pieces
>>>together, the fiercest counterinsurgency advocates in the military will
>>>tell you that something on the order of 10 to 15 years of hard effort
>>>would be required for this strategy to bear significant fruit.
>>>
>>>We?ve been in Afghanistan for nearly a decade already. It?s one of the
>>>most corrupt places on the planet and the epicenter of global opium
>>>production. Our ostensible ally, President Hamid Karzai, is convinced
>>>that the U.S. cannot prevail in the war and is in hot pursuit of his own
>>>deal with the enemy Taliban. The American public gave up on the war long
>>>ago, and it is not at all clear that President Obama?s heart is really
>>>in it.
>>
>> Listen up you Obama suckasses. Herbert has been one of his most ardent
>> supporters. But when he says "we" and "our", he's talking about Obama.
>> Yes Bush started the wars but he has had plenty of time to end them but
>> he chose not to. So now he owns them.
>>
>> When you've lost Herbert, you've lost the PR war.
>
>Um, bubbles? I've opposed Obama's stance on Afghanistan from the
>beginning,
Errrrr, since you're not even a citizen, who cares what you oppose.
"I have the right to vote against him in the next
election."
--David B.(Zepp) Jamieson, 1996
http://www.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4l6trj%24iq4%40news.snowcrest.net
"I will throw my vote away on a 3rd party candidate."
--Zepp Jamieson,2000/02/15
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=38a8c8d3.16637502%40news.snowcrest.net
"I can just as easily vote once now--in my local Congressional race"
--David B.(Zepp) Jamieson, 1996
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.misc/msg/a6fa6287419ce925?hl=en&
"You just doubled the value of my vote."
--David B.(Zepp) Jamieson, 2000/04/25
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3905050c.66719349%40news.snowcrest.net
"I -can- vote"
--David B.(Zepp) Jamieson, 2000/04/25
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=4lmnit%24eiv%40news.snowcrest.net
[...] if we decide elections by square miles, my vote is worth
200 Los Angeles votes.
--David B.(Zepp) Jamieson, 2000-12-18
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=tbit3tc60l1a6c1mj89b4o285anpe11kqa%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8
"Legal resident alien [David B.(Zepp) Jamieson,] a Canadian who has lived
in the United States for more than 30 years, said his status
changed dramatically with the Patriot Act."
http://www.mtshastanews.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2003/June/04-1695-news11.txt
Legal resident aliens aren't allowed to vote, Jamieson.
Why were you lying and pretending to be a citizen?
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot wrote:
I'd like to see his presidency destroyed. You're defending it. The
war is a part of his presidency. By defending him, you show that
his political career is more important to you than ending the war.
BTW seventeen men and women died in Afghanistan and Iraq
last week. Meanwhile Obama played golf. Of course we should
bring him down for his horrible decisions.
Ray Fischer
>>This from a guy who whines endlessly about him playing golf while there
>>is oil spilling into the Gulf of Cheney.
>
>I'd like to see his presidency destroyed.
You're a treasonous asshole, in other words.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Phlip
> Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote:
> >"5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09" <dea...@deadduz.com> wrote:
> >>This from a guy who whines endlessly about him playing golf while there
> >>is oil spilling into the Gulf of Cheney.
>
> >I'd like to see his presidency destroyed.
>
> You're a treasonous asshole, in other words.
He's a Republican - the GOBP. He would rather destroy America than see
any of Obama's reforms succeed.
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>>"5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09" <dea...@deadduz.com> wrote:
>
>>>This from a guy who whines endlessly about him playing golf while there
>>>is oil spilling into the Gulf of Cheney.
>>
>>I'd like to see his presidency destroyed.
>
>You're a treasonous asshole, in other words.
You feel the same way about Repubs, hypocrite.