« Fox News Poll Evidence Fox is Nothing But GOP Affiliated Brainwashers, as the White House Suggests | NobleCommentDecider's Blog | The Fire at Meena Bazaar »
Seymour Hersh: "Military Waging War with White House", "Want Obama To Fail"
From the Durham, North Carolina Herald Sun:
A lot of people in the Pentagon would like to see him get into trouble," he said. By leaking information that the commanding officer in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, says the war would be lost without an additional 40,000 American troops, top brass have put Obama in a no-win situation, Hersh contended.
"If he gives them the extra troops they're asking for, he loses politically," Hersh said. "And if he doesn't give them the troops, he also loses politically."
...The only way for the U.S. to extricate itself from the conflict, Hersh said, is to negotiate with the Taliban.
"It's the only way out," he said. "I know that there's a lot of discussion in the White House about this now. But Obama is going to have to take charge, and there's no evidence he's going to do that."
Hersh continues to say that policy towards Russia and Iran have improved under Obama.
A lot of people in the Pentagon would like to see him get into trouble," he said. By leaking information that the commanding officer in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, says the war would be lost without an additional 40,000 American troops, top brass have put Obama in a no-win situation, Hersh contended.
"If he gives them the extra troops they're asking for, he loses politically," Hersh said. "And if he doesn't give them the troops, he also loses politically."
...The only way for the U.S. to extricate itself from the conflict, Hersh said, is to negotiate with the Taliban.
"It's the only way out," he said. "I know that there's a lot of discussion in the White House about this now. But Obama is going to have to take charge, and there's no evidence he's going to do that."
Hersh continues to say that policy towards Russia and Iran have improved under Obama.
Advertisement
You don't think that might be why the toothless, incontinent chihuahua is farting out his blather, do you?
October 20, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You nailed it!
I got news, Bush already lost or radically limited what can be accomplished in the Afghan/Pak region as Bush gave the Taliban 7 years to regroup and learn how to blow things up! Reports are the Taliban in Pakistan pushed the Pak Army out of a key town today. This after Bush coddled Musharraf for 7 years while the guy and his buddies used the $12 billion in defense money for their own personal gain. I guess assholes like CBD are cheering, along with the Jihadists.
The Taliban got lots of help from the their kinfolk who went to the George W. Bush University for Terrorism in post-Saddam Iraq (with curriculum emphasis in IED's, VBIEDs, etc).
Bush got the Saddam's gun, thousands of Americans got killed, the US got a trillion dollar more in debt, and the Taliban got the time, the refuge, and the knowledge on how to fight the US military.
October 21, 2009 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, you would have supported Bush sending more troops to Afghanistan? Lie! You would have opposed Bush sending more troops just like you oppose Obama doing so. The war in Afghanistan heated up when the war in Iraq started being won, as the jihadists no longer flocked into the Iraq bug zapper and went to Afghanistan instead. This is why Bush launched a strategy review in 2008 to determine how to proceed since conditions were changing there.
October 21, 2009 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
The need for the 2008 review by the Bush Administration, however, was more the result of a lack of regional planning that coordinated the strategy of the wars than following these veterans to new battlegrounds. The immediate cause of the review was the sharp deterioration of Pakistan despite pumping money into the Musharraf regime.
October 21, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lie! You would have opposed Bush sending more troops just like you oppose Obama doing so.
You keep using that word.
I don't think it means what you think it means.
October 21, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The only way for the U.S. to extricate itself from the conflict, Hersh said, is to negotiate with the Taliban."
I agree with Hersh.
Politically speaking, this would be quite difficult for the Obama administration. In addition, I don't know why the Taliban would want to negotiate as long as they believe they are winning. Conventional logic dictates that only escalation would compel the Taliban to negotiate.
Bush left Obama with a political loser.
October 21, 2009 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure lets negotiate with the Taliban. How about they only behead little girls for going to school instead of stoning them to death? Sounds like progress to me.
October 21, 2009 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Toothless Chihuahua, wake up, in Pakistan women have been buried alive for choosing husbands with the practice defended by members of the government, although neither this incident nor the billions in 'no strings attached' Bush aid was likely ever reported on Fox News:
msnbc link
October 21, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, we should support it in Afghanistan? Is that your argument? As far as that 'no strings' aid, I think the 'strings' were just not made public.
October 21, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your faith in your Leader is touching.
October 21, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you have the President send enough troops to Darfur to stop the genocide?
October 21, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
All volunteers.
October 21, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You tell them Bulldog,
I'm sure you want us, er, not you in particular, to go around the world kickin' ass in all the countries that don't bend to our will. Iraq was just the start!
October 21, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The only way for the U.S. to extricate itself from the conflict, Hersh said, is to negotiate with the Taliban."
I agree with Hersh.
Politically speaking, this would be quite difficult for the Obama administration. In addition, I don't know why the Taliban would want to negotiate as long as they believe they are winning. Conventional logic dictates that only escalation would compel the Taliban to negotiate.
Bush left Obama with a political loser.
October 21, 2009 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
no way out.
When confronted with no way out, a true leader, leads us out.
October 21, 2009 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
And when confronted with no way in, a true leader leads us in.
When confronted with no way up, a true leader leads us up.
When confronted with no way _______, a true leader leads us _______.
October 21, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if you don't want to end up where you're headed, you better change directions.
October 21, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay.
A horse is a horse, of course of course...hahhahahaha
October 21, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are two possible outcomes in this.
One is we stay there and fight, for who knows how long, and ultimately lose just as we did in Vietnam.
Or we get out and people will critcize Obama (or whoever is in the WH) for losing.
If there is a practical distinction between these two outcomes it escapes me.
October 21, 2009 4:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
One very practical distinction is that one of those choices is a lot less expensive for America in both blood and treasure.
I do notice that you are measuring win/loss entirely by the effect of the choices on American politics. The effects on Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the middle east are ignored.
If you consider outcomes outside the borders of the U.S. then a whole lot of very important distinctions become clear. Foreign wars are not just shadow plays on distant stages, important only for their effects on the next American election. That's the way Bush/Cheney and the conservatives see them, though. It's a major reason why the conservatives could never establish successful policies and strategies for the middle east. Don't buy into their blindness.
October 21, 2009 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The war in Afghanistan that is spilling over into Pak is an existential crisis for the latter nation. It is nothing of the kind for us.
We can't blame the Pakistanis for not serving our own interests at the expense of theirs. The "Pakistan offensive" needs to be seen in the light of the regional map, not McChrystal's imperial aims. Unfortunately, I don't think it's possible for our strategists and leaders to disengage from this egocentric viewpoint. The stakes here are potentially far higher than in Vietnam.
October 21, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
McChrystal has no "imperial aims", what the hell are you smoking?
He was asked what it would take to "win", as in stabilize the entire country, which as I'm sure you know is the size of Texas and comprised of a mish-mash of competing ethnic groups that have never been ruled by a powerful central authority in Kabul. What did you expect the General to say, "how about send me some Peace Corps volunteers?"
When asked "what do you need", no general in history has asked for less troops. McChrystal isn't the enemy here, and Hersh is addled if he's trying to make this about the WH vs. the Pentagon.
October 21, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm against any surge in Afganistan, btw, and think we should get our fighting troops out in large numbers ASAP.
By leaking the troop request, the Pentagon showed their cards early. So what? As I said, they weren't going to ask for less troops, so what's the big surprise?
All the President needs to do is lay out a new mission, and tell McChrystal that the mission has changed, and so must our plans. The "surge" is for the old mission, the Prez can say, and won't work for our real goals in Afghanistan. I don't see it as a hard sell to the public, at all, who are certainly against a surge there anyway.
October 21, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should have been more vague, and simply said, "America's imperial aims."
October 21, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes Richard. I didn't include the effects on Afghanistan or Pakistan. Nor did I intend to reflect my comment so much in terms of U.S. politics either.
As for Afghanistan or Pakistan we truly have only a nominal influence on their countries proper. Their entire socio-politcal scheme has little or no dependency upon the western viewpoint. I think it's nonsense to hold a notion we can introduce any meaningful change to the region.
The other thing about our own political scheme I don't so much care as I do about the general influence it brings to the country because of the political bickering. We're on the same team but you would hardly know it most of the time. I don't know if thats a leadership issue or a general intransigence upon the part of some of the participants. I do know it has never been this bad in my lifetime though. I'm inclined to place the blame on republicans but democrats have been acting awfully flaky even though they have (had?) a chance to reverse some big mistakes we made.
October 21, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a sick irony that Obama CHOSE McChrystal, and the General sells him out publicly. My stars; look in the man's eyes; his dark past is right there to make us shiver.
Obama and Hillary have said that there needs to be a government there to work with; now the Pentagon is leaking that the military are pissed; i.e., 'We hang in dangerous limbo while the President dithers.' What a conundrum. Whatever way he chooses, it will look political, not practical or wise.
October 21, 2009 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yup! These remarks violate military codes of conduct.
October 21, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh, what does Corporate America think? Aren't they the "deciders"?
October 21, 2009 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
No offense to Seymour but this isn't news. As soon as McChrystal opened his mouth about truth strengths Obama should have had his ass in the oval office offering him a chance to retire gracefully.
October 21, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, one thing a democrat can't stand is someone in the military telling the truth.
October 21, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
...Yeah, like General Shinseki, you asshat, who told the Bush administration the truth about how many troop would be needed to secure Iraq and your shining Idol George W. Bush had him retired pronto CBD, why do Republicans always project their behavior to others without a shred of evidence?
October 21, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, as usual you are wrong on all counts. First, he testified that 'several hundred thousand' troops would be needed in postwar Iraq. Even after the troop surge, the number required was less than half that. So, yes more troops were needed, but not the number he claimed. As far as Bush having him retired, his term was up and as is typical he then retired.
October 21, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Iraq is a peaceful and secure paradise today?
If you're so gung-ho why have you not yet enlisted? Could it be you're all yap and no bite? Typical chickenshit Republican type? All for military action as long as someone else does the bleeding?
Fuck off and die, you miserable coward. You're worth less than a pile of shite by the side of the road, and your hypocritical bellicosity is not working for you.
October 21, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush did no wrong! CleverBullDog.
CBD-In case you haven't visited Arlington National Cemetery in recent years, the thousands of new graves of troops are because Bush did not follow Shinseki's advice from day one. Most died in the incompetent occupation not the invasion.
Sufficient forces would have saved lives, but I know that means nothing to Republicans like you who only care about keeping your own ass out of the fire.
Higher levels of forces in Iraq as Gen. Shinseki advised would have saved not only US lives but Iraqi lives and infrastructure, and billions in Iraqi economic losses and US war costs.
October 21, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course this isn't news to anyone who has a brain but I argued at the time Obama was making a huge mistake holding onto politically motivated petraeus.
But Obama lost the winning hand by escalating the killing in Afghanistan and stalling on the Iraq withdrawal.
He had the people behind him to end all American involvement in killing innocent Muslims yet he chose to appease the "we want more war crowd" and the generals who never met a bomb they didn't love to drop.
October 21, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
"killing innocent muslims" - classic liberal view of murderous jihadist psychopaths who desperately want to kill us all. Please go over there and meet with them, then when they chop your head off you can see just how innocent they are.
October 21, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Grow up and get enlightened would you.
There are innocent families, women, and children living in Afghanistan that have been victims of our military actions there... as in killed. If you can't acknowledge that, I consider your already questionable opinions completely uninformed and unworthy of attention.
October 21, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to argue with pure, unadulterated prejudice. It's a foreign concept for people like you and I, who can manage to see individuals. But simple minded people lack that capacity and without any experience to challenge their bigotry, they maintain their beliefs in an imaginary caricature, such as the notion that all people of the Muslim persuasion are "murderous jihadist psychopaths". But this belief is a sure example that the terrorists have won, when a person is so terrorized they can succumb to such an outrageous fabrication, the terrorists have won, and there will never be any peace, which is what they wanted and now, what they have encouraged their opponent to agree, he has in fact agreed. In peace we prosper, in war we diminish, so whether they win or lose, as long as we are in a war, we are deteriorating. Mission accomplished for the terrorists and the Bulldog has unwittingly become their ally.
October 21, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, my comment was to refute the idiotic claim that we are involved in the killing of innocent muslims as if that is our goal. Sure some innocent people have been killed, but that was not the goal, they were not intentionally targeted. The people being targeted were terrorists, and I do not like the smear directed at our troops.
October 21, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
A smear is when something is manufactured that did not occur. Amaerican involvement has led to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, whether we meant to kill them or not. Drunk drivers just want to get home, that is their intent. If they run over a few pedestrians on the way, they are stil responsible and the miliary, with the assistance of private contractors, is, at times, mowing down people like a drunk driver. We should take responsibility for that, and I am not in agreement that sending Zipperupus is the best we can do, although I would say that he is probably the best at doing it.
October 21, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a smear on the troops you mouth-breathing asshat, it's on the occupation.
October 21, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are other strategic alternatives - the most important is getting tough with Pakistan. Pak has all sorts of interests in keeping the border areas aflame - it has been a river of aid and arms to them, after all. The Nato/US forces have been very successful in stabilizing Afghanistan, except for the Af-Pak border, and the Pak army has been unhelpful in supporting US Af-Pak objectives, except in a few rare cases under the direct threat of Nato/US military intervention. The drone attacks would be unnecessary if the Pak army was doing its job.
October 21, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The wars are indeed a source of aid and arms for Pakistan- we are its richest suppliers.
If Pakistan did what we wanted, broke up the Taliban, told the ISI to stop fomenting chaos in Afghanistan, what would they get for this? Other than a civil war of their own?
No, it is in Pakistan's interest to keep the aid flowing. That requires wars. We have the drones and the checkbooks (when our money runs dry, there's always China.) But for now, the Taliban and AQ-like groups are a strategic asset for getting the US to prioritize them over India. (They are very afraid that when the wars stop, so will our generosity. They have history on their side.)
October 21, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
War and no peace keep the aid and contributions flowing, just ask Israel.
China has a 26 mile border with Afghanistan and no apparent panic about the world ending if North or South Waziristan or Pashtun areas are not cleared of armed fundamentalist nutcases who love their guns.
October 21, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know why more people don't make the seemingly obvious analogies between Pakistan and Israel. Both products of British gerrymandering in the late phase of their empire-building, both created by fiat by the UN in the late 40s, dividing territories across ethnic/religious lines, which of course have been endlessly disputed by all parties since their inceptions, often involving bloodbaths.
Both with nukes, too.
October 21, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point diachronic. I recently read A Shameful Flight from Oxford Press about the irresponsible Mountbatten rush to split India, which Gandhi was steadfastly against, and which Churchill derided with a quote in Parliament used for the book title above. The split in Israel was no less rushed and catastrophic in its results.
Neither Israel nor Pakistan have become anything like what some may have hoped for in the late 1940's. It comes to the point that only the poor, the war profiteers, and the fundamentalist nutjobs remain in such perpetual conflict zones.
October 21, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama should start by banning Faux on all military bases. All six that I have visited in the last decade has had it playing on all the TVs.
October 21, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, no sense allowing those soldiers to have any rights. In fact, the great one should ban Fox for everyone! And ban any criticism of his greatness by anyone anywhere!
October 21, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Such as rights to watch any other channel besides FOX? Are those the rights you are suggestinghave been impeded? And, which amendment was that, anyway, the right to watch FOX shall not be impugned. Maybe that was how the New Conservative Bible interprets the ten commandments, honor they GOP Father, Mother, and TV network?
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
October 21, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Soldiers sign their rights away when they sign up. That's the deal. They get them back when the get out. You can whine about fairness and rights but that is how it works. Always has been. Idiot.
October 21, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've never been able to understand what Obama is doing with the military. Look, those military guys loved bush, right? And look what they did for him. They gave him nothing but "Yes Sir, We can do that Sir" and then went in and scrwed up real good, killing lots of Americans, untold other people and making all kinds money disappear.
Now what does Obama think they are gonna do for him? They are gonna screw him over cheerfully! Mission No.1 for our military (and associated private interests)is avoiding any kind of accounting for the last eight years. And their best ally in that mission is increased violence and chaos.
And if they can screw over Obama in doing that, it's a win-win for them.
Before any squeals, I'm not talking about the enlisted soldiers.
October 21, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hersh is not doing a very good job of promoting what he thinks is best course to take by saying "negotiate with the Taliban" without qualification.
After all, our guy in Kabul Karzai has at different times sent signals that he wanted to talk with them.
Talking with them doesn't have to mean agreeing to share power with them. It could start by agreeing that we won't try to kill them if they stop doing x, y and z.
By stating that it is a matter of negotiate or retreat, Hersh is fueling the militaristic necessity he purports to be opposed to.
October 21, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink