Lieutenant colonel breaks ranks: Afghanistan is a disaster, claims report

posted at 8:53 pm on February 6, 2012 by Allahpundit

Read it if you haven’t already followed the link from Drudge. His complaint is that military leaders from Petraeus on down aren’t leveling with the public about how bad things are on the ground, but this feels like a strange debate to have when the die on withdrawal has apparently already been cast. The White House claimed last week that Panetta’s comments about ending combat operations a year early were misunderstood, but here’s the NYT with a new report today about drawing down regular combat troops and offsetting their loss with a stronger presence of special forces to target Taliban units as circumstances require. The era of counterinsurgency is over, in other words, which means this report is less relevant as a catalyst for a change in policy than in the extent to which Obama will be able to spin the war as a victory when the withdrawals begin in earnest.

I saw the incredible difficulties any military force would have to pacify even a single area of any of those provinces; I heard many stories of how insurgents controlled virtually every piece of land beyond eyeshot of a U.S. or International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) base.

I saw little to no evidence the local governments were able to provide for the basic needs of the people. Some of the Afghan civilians I talked with said the people didn’t want to be connected to a predatory or incapable local government.

From time to time, I observed Afghan Security forces collude with the insurgency…

In all of the places I visited, the tactical situation was bad to abysmal. If the events I have described — and many, many more I could mention — had been in the first year of war, or even the third or fourth, one might be willing to believe that Afghanistan was just a hard fight, and we should stick it out. Yet these incidents all happened in the 10th year of war.

As the numbers depicting casualties and enemy violence indicate the absence of progress, so too did my observations of the tactical situation all over Afghanistan.

Plenty of anecdotes about Afghan troops’ haplessness and/or corruption at the link. The thing is, I’ve been reading news stories in that vein sporadically for years now. Davis would presumably say that that’s the point, that as the years roll on the same problems recur, but you don’t need his report to realize that. Look no further than the new NIE on Afghanistan, which the LA Times summarizes as warning that “security gains from an increase in American troops have been undercut by pervasive corruption, incompetent governance and Taliban fighters operating from neighboring Pakistan”. Or consider the bombshell NATO report based on detainee interrogations that was leaked just a few weeks ago describing “widespread collaboration between the insurgents and Afghan police and military,” in the BBC’s words, and concluding that the Taliban think they’ll be back in control of the country after the U.S. leaves. Davis’s claims are, unfortunately, old news. And while it’s true that 55 percent think things in Afghanistan were going very or fairly well as of last month, 56 percent nonetheless wanted the troops pulled ASAP rather than kept in place until the country has stabilized. What his report adds is a public note of dissent from within the ranks, but if you’ve been following the news, I don’t know how much extra weight that adds to the scale by now.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I’m starting to think that in these backwater $h!tholes we should just go in, eff ‘em up good, and leave quickly with a warning that we’ll be back if they even think about pulling it again. Go Keyser Söze on them. If the people in these countries are willing (or happy) to live like they do, screw ‘em. It isn’t worth the money, or the lives of our servicemen, to try and drag them out of their 4th century subsistence.

tpitman on February 6, 2012 at 10:44 PM

Sun Tzu said, “No country ever benefited from a protracted war”. But what did he know compared to those here who say the opposite?

VorDaj on February 6, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Lesson learned…. If you decide you have to go to war… kick the living sh#t out of your enemy and don’t think about nation building until you have done so.

iceman1960 on February 6, 2012 at 10:45 PM

We can not carpet bomb an entire country into submission anymore. Humanity has evolved past that.

libfreeordie on February 6, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Make no mistake; if the Taliban had the chance they would destroy the West. Not much humanity among that bunch of bungholes.

It’s squishes such as yourself that convince people that humanity has “evolved.”

We are still capable of incredible violence. All we have to have is a reason.

john1schn on February 6, 2012 at 10:47 PM

Afghanistan is a disaster, was a disaster, and will be a disaster for the foreseeable future because Islam dominates every aspect of life in that place. So why is anybody surprised that this war has been a failure?

Unless you are willing to impose separation of mosque and state on Afghanistan and kill lots of people in order to achieve it, like the Soviets tried to do back in the 1980s before we prevented them from doing so, Afghanistan cannot be built into a modern state. Iraq was and is the same story, and in fact that is the case throughout the Islamic world. You have three choices when dealing with military conflicts in the Islamic world:

(1) Fight a brutal war of conquest in which you impose modern western civilization on the people by ripping up their civilization in the process. You crush their religious establishment and elite, impose draconian measures to restrict the practice of Islam, etc.

OR

(2) You fight a war of retribution in which you lay waste until you kill who ever you want dead, declare victory, and get out. Do not try to help rebuild the country and do not stay.

OR

(3) Arm the lesser of two evils or create divisions within their society, keep your various enemies fighting each other instead of you. The more disorder in the Islamic world is actually not a bad thing. If they are killing each other, they will be less able to carry their jihad beyond their borders. Find non-muslim nations on their borders and form military ties with them.

William Eaton on February 6, 2012 at 10:49 PM

He has called me a chickenhawk, flyboy, idiot and more. Not sure why he’d hold back tonight.

hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 10:41 PM

He has? Thats rich. I dont see how that could fit at all with someone who is in the military.

Sultanofsham on February 6, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Alexis de Tocqueville said, “No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country”. But what did he know? Probably just another idiot like that Sun Tzu.

VorDaj on February 6, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Why would you use that to infer someone isn’t a front-line troop?

hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 10:30 PM

Had nothing to do with where you served. It has everything to do with how straight you talk.

And the idea that a professional soldier believes we are going to stop Iran from developing nukes through use of air power ain’t straight talk.

It is propaganda.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 10:50 PM

Petraeus on down aren’t leveling with the public about how bad things are on the ground, but this feels like a strange debate to have when the die on withdrawal has apparently already been cast.

The reason why it is significant is that it indicates that US civilian leaders along with their enabling Flag rank military officers do not know how to win a war in the Middle East let alone define what is victory there. This is a cautionary tale as to what we can expect if we try another land war in the ME, particualry in Iran.

love2rumba on February 6, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Sun Tzu said, “No country ever benefited from a protracted war”. But what did he know compared to those here who say the opposite?

VorDaj on February 6, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Said it before and I’ll say it again. All you or any of your sockpuppets know about war is what men who have been to war have written about it. You love your war quotes.

Do you imagine that you’re there with them when they describe what they’ve seen. Does it ever intrigue you, the smell of cordite? The crack of the first shot and then the staccato of a protracted firefight. The thump of a close round and the debris and the dust when it settles. Is that why you comment so much about it?

hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 10:53 PM

And the idea that a professional soldier believes we are going to stop Iran from developing nukes through use of air power ain’t straight talk.

It is propaganda.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 10:50 PM

Oh, interesting because I didn’t infer we could. We won’t. Even if it were an imminent threat, this administration doesn’t have the will.

I should defer to your point though. You are a propaganda expert. I bow in your direction at the compliment.

hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 10:56 PM

I’m starting to think that in these backwater $h!tholes we should just go in, eff ‘em up good, and leave quickly with a warning that we’ll be back if they even think about pulling it again. Go Keyser Söze on them. If the people in these countries are willing (or happy) to live like they do, screw ‘em. It isn’t worth the money, or the lives of our servicemen, to try and drag them out of their 4th century subsistence.

tpitman on February 6, 2012 at 10:44 PM

Well I can agree on that. Iraq was a nice try and has a chance. Afganistan was a mistake to hang around given the history. thing is now that we are there just up and leaving might not be the best thing to do.

Sultanofsham on February 6, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Make no mistake; if the Taliban had the chance they would destroy the West. Not much humanity among that bunch of bungholes.

If that cow ever got the chance, he would eat you and everybody you care about!

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:00 PM

lm10001 on February 6, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Dude, LibFreeOrShyt should just get up and off-himself after that awesome smack-down. Amazing how history repeats itself, including the ignoring of itself over and over again. Neville ’38 just like today: Obama ’08: “Iraq is not a threat” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew5qP2oPdtQ. Yet before Nov. ’12 his bootlicker MSM sycophants will cheer him on to war with Iran….and I bet will ‘earn’ another Peace Prize in doing so. They will gleefully explain how this is different than W and Iraq, or even the ‘Good War’ in Afghanistan.

RavingLunatic on February 6, 2012 at 11:00 PM

Had nothing to do with where you served. It has everything to do with how straight you talk.

And the idea that a professional soldier believes we are going to stop Iran from developing nukes through use of air power ain’t straight talk.

It is propaganda.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 10:50 PM

Been through that before. You called it impossible to stop them via airpower. Your wrong. If Obama had the will we could, it wouldnt be easy but we could.

Sultanofsham on February 6, 2012 at 11:01 PM

I’m starting to think that in these backwater $h!tholes we should just go in, eff ‘em up good, and leave quickly with a warning that we’ll be back if they even think about pulling it again. Go Keyser Söze on them. If the people in these countries are willing (or happy) to live like they do, screw ‘em. It isn’t worth the money, or the lives of our servicemen, to try and drag them out of their 4th century subsistence.

tpitman on February 6, 2012 at 10:44 PM

And no more televising the war. I’m fine with people like Yon being long-term embeds, but the constant sniping from the press during the heat of the battle in Iraq was particularly loathsome. More than that, though, it was damaging.

The military needs to learn that a bargain with the press is by its very nature one that will end badly for the military. The days of national loyalty ended a long time ago. E.g. that Rolling Stone weasel who burned McChrystal. Not that the dude didn’t deserve to get burned, but let the military and its civilian overseers make that decision, not the idiot public.

Nom de Boom on February 6, 2012 at 11:01 PM

hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 10:41 PM

He has? Thats rich. I dont see how that could fit at all with someone who is in the military.

Sultanofsham on February 6, 2012 at 10:49 PM

And worst. It’s the indictment against the entire GWOT that is the insult. What some have said to LogBoy though has gotten me the closest to saying something stupid. That kid started on a thread one night being about as polite as is possible and was called every name in the book before the the was over. He doesn’t offer the same civility anymore and I can’t say that I blame him. No one has given more than him. He didn’t deserve the disrespect he got.

hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Oh, interesting because I didn’t infer we could. We won’t. Even if it were an imminent threat, this administration doesn’t have the will.

hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 10:56 PM

You’re right. You didn’t infer.

Listeners infer, Speakers imply.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:02 PM

JohnGalt and Libfree use some of the same dishonest tactics.

CW on February 6, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Afghanistan is a disater

In other words, Obama’s withdrawal is not a draw down of troops, but instead a retreat.

petefrt on February 6, 2012 at 11:03 PM

You’re right. You didn’t infer.

Listeners infer, Speakers imply.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:02 PM

The grammar police are here. IN OTHER words jackass he lit you up.

CW on February 6, 2012 at 11:03 PM

(2) You fight a war of retribution in which you lay waste until you kill who ever you want dead, declare victory, and get out. Do not try to help rebuild the country and do not stay.

Unfortunately, in the Muslim world, this is apparently the only strategy that won’t result in getting mired in a morass…but to do this successfully we’ve got to stop pretending we really care about anything other than protecting our national interest…and caring what the rest of the phonies in the world think about us.

ironmarshal on February 6, 2012 at 11:05 PM

hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Hey, hawk. Good to see you again. When you get done dealing with the ankle-biters, and if you’ve got time, I’ve got a question for you about a comment you (at least as I recall) made quite a long time ago. You said something to the effect that there was something “sinister” about the military. I’ve been wondering for a very long time what you meant by that, because I found that to be a very intriguing perspective. Could you elaborate on that a bit?

Nom de Boom on February 6, 2012 at 11:06 PM

Listeners infer, Speakers imply.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Fine. Start a grammar war. I pass most of your mistakes because I don’t care about making grammar points. We can play that though. So, I didn’t imply either and your link above as a serious answer to another commenters valid concern about the threat of terrorism makes your comment as flawed. At least, that’s what I inferred.

hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Been through that before. You called it impossible to stop them via airpower. Your wrong. If Obama had the will we could, it wouldnt be easy but we could.

Sultanofsham on February 6, 2012 at 11:01 PM

They are building facilities under mountains! Our own DoD is admitting we don’t have bombs powerful enought o do it.

It’s not a matter of will. It is a matter of physics. And those just aren’t on our side from the air.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:07 PM

So, I didn’t imply either and your link above as a serious answer to another commenters valid concern about the threat of terrorism makes your comment as flawed. At least, that’s what I inferred.

hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 11:07 PM

You’re learning. Good. Now, as far as the accuracy of your statement that you didn’t imply that…

He’s been wound up since this morning in the “Near Majority Approves of Military Force Against Iran” thread.

cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Oh good point. I did not consider that. John, they’ll do that with planes only probably. They still won’t need you.

What exactly, is the implication (as opposed to the inference)?

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:12 PM

In other words, Obama’s withdrawal is not a draw down of troops, but instead a retreat.

petefrt on February 6, 2012 at 11:03 PM

We lost this war when Bush did not fight it as a war retribution, but instead as a nation building exercise. A nation building exercise in which we did not impose our will on the people and force them to accept modern civilization. The Taliban and rest are simply the symptoms of the problem. Terror is just a tactic, it would be like fighting a war on Blitzkrieg in WWII, not on Nazism itself. We were not running around trying to find moderate Nazis to work with. Traditional Islam and the way it has been practice over the last 1400 plus years is the problem and will be the problem. You will have to make war on it in order to make Afghanistan a civilized modern state.

This is why I favored a simple war of retribution, because the American people are not ready yet for a war on traditional Islam. Obama is just the idiot that followed up on the same idiotic policy Bush put into place. Politics is the art of possible, not fantasy.

William Eaton on February 6, 2012 at 11:13 PM

They are building facilities under mountains! Our own DoD is admitting we don’t have bombs powerful enought o do it.

It’s not a matter of will. It is a matter of physics. And those just aren’t on our side from the air.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Dimwit for one Panetta could be lying and even in the article you linked to it says we are looking for the type of bombs that could do the job. Now read Sultans post again. You not only use the tactics of LibFree but you have the comprehension skills.

CW on February 6, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Dimwit for one Panetta could be lying and even in the article you linked to it says we are looking for the type of bombs that could do the job. Now read Sultans post again. You not only use the tactics of LibFree but you have the comprehension skills.

CW on February 6, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Dimwit Panetta is in a much better position to know than anyone here.

And I’m looking for ice cream that doesn’t make me fat. Someday, I’m sure there will be one. But I’m not prepared to risk nuclear war over it.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:16 PM

destroy all poppy…

equanimous on February 6, 2012 at 11:18 PM

Afghanistan was a shovel ready project to let off steam for 9/11. Had to do something. Could not go after the real source as that risked catastrophic stoppage of flow from Oil Ticks. Ostrich approach is effective as passions are quelled with no loss in oil output. 500 dead a year deemed a fair price to avoid facing reality. Lots of time to dabble in nation building and feel good things like precombustable girls schools. Or shove a thousand years of hard work called democracy into empty hearts and minds forgetting that democracy is a state of mind as much as a doctrine. Doesn’t matter, Soddys are safe and oil flows. Ice cream costs $500.00 a gallon to reach Islamisbad, $1000 unmelted. Flip a COIN, tales they win, heads you lose. My times up ladies and gentlemen….adios. Vote John McCain. And remember my brother Jebs the smart halfwit.

Then comes teh one to change it all and he didn’t, it’s worse.

So, here you are still stumbling around on square one, a lot poorer in all you will need to survive Islam. To win the game and advance your playing piece you will need to read the Muslim rules of the game they have tricked you into. Here is a most important tip, stop letting Muslims tell you the rules of the game. Also, you have no Muslim friends or partners.

BL@KBIRD on February 6, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Dimwit Panetta is in a much better position to know than anyone here.

And I’m looking for ice cream that doesn’t make me fat. Someday, I’m sure there will be one. But I’m not prepared to risk nuclear war over it.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Do you know how to read?

Try again dumbass.

CW on February 6, 2012 at 11:19 PM

It occurs to me that we are being buffaloed into throwing up our hands and agreeing with Obama’s early withdrawal announcement. It’s very easy to just throw in the towel after reading a piece like this, but are we reading a clear-eyed, unbiased assessment or just a coordinated effort on the part of the Obama admin to sway public opinion (further) in his favor on the issue?

Nom de Boom on February 6, 2012 at 11:21 PM

Do you know how to read?

Try again dumbass.

CW on February 6, 2012 at 11:19 PM

He could be lying.

And your evidence for this is..?

Dumbass.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Galt dumbass you suppose George Washington knew more about war than many of his day?

After assuming command in Cambridge, Washington found that only thirty-six barrels of powder remained after Bunker Hill. That was only enough for nine rounds per man. Realizing the disastrous result of a British attack with the munitions so low, Washington sent messengers into Boston with the story that he had eighteen hundred barrels, and this same rumor was circulated in the American camp. Thus, a British attack was temporarily stalled.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2004_winter_spring/washington.htm

You’re tiresome dipshit.

CW on February 6, 2012 at 11:23 PM

They are building facilities under mountains! Our own DoD is admitting we don’t have bombs powerful enought o do it.

It’s not a matter of will. It is a matter of physics. And those just aren’t on our side from the air.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:07 PM

And again, as last time, why do you think you have to strike directly at the sites to shut them down? Also we do have weapons that can knock them out if we want to direct strike, its a lack of will. These are non moble sites that need alot of support. This is much easier than having to deal with a chem/bio factory that can be done anywhere.

Sultanofsham on February 6, 2012 at 11:23 PM

I think this is what happens when we decide that we aren’t out to “win”. It takes three generations to change a culture. If that is what we are there to do, we can’t expect to be done in 10 years.

If you want a yardstick to use to judge Afganistan’s progress (or lack thereof) look at domestic cement production. Afghanistan has all of the minerals required to produce cement it produces nearly none. First they need energy for the kilns, though. They have practically none of that, either.

But until they become an Afghan nation, rather than a collection of tribes, then we are peeing in the wind.

crosspatch on February 6, 2012 at 11:24 PM

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Evidence? Dipshit do you even have a clue? Apparently not. See that is the point you dummy. Sheesh you are as stupid as they get you pompous jerk. Do you know what the word misinformation means?

CW on February 6, 2012 at 11:24 PM

He’s been wound up since this morning in the “Near Majority Approves of Military Force Against Iran” thread.
cozmo on February 6, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Oh good point. I did not consider that. John, they’ll do that with planes only probably. They still won’t need you.

What exactly, is the implication (as opposed to the inference)?

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:12 PM

The implication is that you’re trying to invent a point that I wasn’t seriously trying to make. You’re seemingly having a good time on a grammar point and completely lost on some tongue in cheek humor? Interesting. Should I ask you why you give The Simpsons so much importance when trying to make a foreign policy point?

hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 11:25 PM

destroy all poppy…

equanimous on February 6, 2012 at 11:18 PM

Yes, god forbid we do that.

Sultanofsham on February 6, 2012 at 11:26 PM

Unfortunately, in the Muslim world, this is apparently the only strategy that won’t result in getting mired in a morass…but to do this successfully we’ve got to stop pretending we really care about anything other than protecting our national interest…and caring what the rest of the phonies in the world think about us.

ironmarshal on February 6, 2012 at 11:05 PM

Exactly, A violent quick war is better than a long drawn out slow bleed war. People will complain, the liberal MSM will whine about killing people, but within a month or two people will move on, and most Americans will be happy to have won, killed those we wanted dead quickly, and sent a message around world which is don’t screw with us. The only message we have sent with our current mission in Afghanistan is we know how to waste billions upon billions of dollars to accomplish very little.

William Eaton on February 6, 2012 at 11:26 PM

Ever wonder why Sir Henry Clinton kept his troops in New York instead of helping Comwallis in Yorktown? Again, the Washington misinformation machine! The British commander, Clinton, had decided to attack the recently arrived French army before it could become entrenched. Accordingly, Clinton mustered six thousand troops and sailed to Huntington Bay off the north side of Long Island. An American spy, Robert Townsend, code name Culper, Jr., reported the British movement of troops. The misinformation machine quickly generated a “top secret” detailed plan stating that Washington would attack New York with every available soldier in the middle states.

Galt get a friggin clue.

CW on February 6, 2012 at 11:27 PM

The implication is that you’re trying to invent a point that I wasn’t seriously trying to make.

hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 11:25 PM

Must have missed that /sarctag.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Must have missed that /sarctag.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Didn’t know it was required.

hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 11:30 PM

Galt get a friggin clue.

CW on February 6, 2012 at 11:27 PM

IO have the Defense Secretary backing me up on this one.

Perhaps you could cite someone of equal authority claiming it is “just a matter of will”, as opposed to a working military reality?

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:30 PM

lost on some tongue in cheek humor? Interesting.
hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 11:25 PM

Galt was nailed and simply played games …hmmm much like Libfree does.

CW on February 6, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Didn’t know it was required.

hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 11:30 PM

There are some people here who, by all appearances, really think we’re stopping that program with bombs.

Just for the record, do you think we’re stopping that program with bombs?

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:32 PM

IO have the Defense Secretary backing me up on this one.

Perhaps you could cite someone of equal authority claiming it is “just a matter of will”, as opposed to a working military reality?

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:30 PM

Pssst dimwitted jackass who could not comprehend a 1st grade reader…why do you think you can believe him? He may be well playing Iran and YOU . You really are one thick tard.

CW on February 6, 2012 at 11:33 PM

The Afgan war was won six months after it started. We should have left at that point. Instead, we stayed spending blood and treasure for 10 more years to walk away with nothing further gained. Reminds me of the VN years. (Yes, I am a VN Vet) Now the clan wars will commence as the Taliban moves in and takes back over.

aposematic on February 6, 2012 at 11:34 PM

Do you imagine that you’re there with them when they describe what they’ve seen. Does it ever intrigue you, the smell of cordite? The crack of the first shot and then the staccato of a protracted firefight. The thump of a close round and the debris and the dust when it settles. Is that why you comment so much about it?

hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 10:53 PM

You seem to be writing some kind of screen play for a movie without a purpose.

Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. Sun Tzu

VorDaj on February 6, 2012 at 11:34 PM

It occurs to me that we are being buffaloed into throwing up our hands and agreeing with Obama’s early withdrawal announcement. It’s very easy to just throw in the towel after reading a piece like this, but are we reading a clear-eyed, unbiased assessment or just a coordinated effort on the part of the Obama admin to sway public opinion (further) in his favor on the issue?

Nom de Boom on February 6, 2012 at 11:21 PM

Could be. Wouldn’t be the first time something like that happend.

Sultanofsham on February 6, 2012 at 11:35 PM

They are building facilities under mountains! Our own DoD is admitting we don’t have bombs powerful enought o do it.

It’s not a matter of will. It is a matter of physics. And those just aren’t on our side from the air.

JohnGalt23

Iran says they aren’t trying to build a bomb, lol.

xblade on February 6, 2012 at 11:35 PM

why do you think you can believe him? He may be well playing Iran and YOU . You really are one thick tard.

CW on February 6, 2012 at 11:33 PM

All I’m asking for is why you think he’s lying.

And you, dumbass, have given no such evidence.

But then I should be surprised that a dumbass behaves as a dumbass?

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:36 PM

There are some people here who, by all appearances, really think we’re stopping that program with bombs.

Just for the record, do you think we’re stopping that program with bombs?

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:32 PM

We’re not doing anything to that program right now except through sanctions. But if we did, do you have the impression bombing their facilities will have no effect?

hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 11:36 PM

Galt —

George Washington could have sold you swampland in Florida…and you would have proclaimed “but I have George Washington on my side”.
Are you really this slow or are you just too proud to admit that you do not understand how such games are played by our politicians and military leaders?

CW on February 6, 2012 at 11:36 PM

Iran says they aren’t trying to build a bomb, lol.

xblade on February 6, 2012 at 11:35 PM

I don’t believe them either.

But exactly how do you stop them?

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:37 PM

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:36 PM

You’re gullible. Would be cute for a kid but not a supposed adult.

CW on February 6, 2012 at 11:38 PM

hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 10:53 PM

You seem to be writing some kind of screen play for a movie without a purpose.

Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. Sun Tzu

VorDaj on February 6, 2012 at 11:34 PM

You sockpuppets are just always so literary. I thought you liked that.

hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 11:39 PM

CW on February 6, 2012 at 11:36 PM

I ask again… your evidence that he is lying. Because if you don’t have any, my default assumption is my government’s SecDef isn’t understating our capabilities. The history of the DoD is to do exactly the opposite.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Islam does not teach the same sort of compassion for the other that virtually every other religion including today’s “secular humanism” teaches. Muslims murder and torture each other without compunction and their own ummah, “brotherhood” has no condemnation to offer. That’s because they don’t value individual human life the way Christian westerners do. It’s not a concept in Islam, which means it’s not a concept in Muslims “hearts and minds”. Their hearts and minds instead understand what Allah teaches them in the Koran, namely, the Collective Will to Power.

When will our leaders understand this? And moreover understand that it is necessary in the end to treat Muslims in the way they themselves understand moral principles? Which ultimately means that they must be beaten back and vanquished and humiliated by a greater strength. That is clearly what they understand. Every move to win their hearts and minds only strengthens them, emboldens them to advance their own peculiar ethics of the world, which couldn’t give a damn about “hearts and minds”, as we understand the term. They will accept the shehada from anyone they can swindle and connive to recite it while at the same time are willing to kill anyone who leaves Islam. Whatever it takes to build the army of Islamic soldiers is what their ethics is about.

There is no way of avoiding the reality that the adults in this world are going to have to act like adults and step up and slap, and in a big way, Muslims who have made of their own societies the equivalent of “Lord of the Flies” and who now threaten to overrun every more advanced society with their mayhem. We’re going to have to come to terms this reality. Either that or it’s simply going to be cruel for all of us, with no kindness in sight, and possibly no one left to come and rescue us off an Island from Hell that in our passivity and cowardice we allowed to be taken over by moral pygmies.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on February 6, 2012 at 11:40 PM

CW on February 6, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Once again, sir… your evidence that we have bombs capable of destroying Iranian underground facilities, if you please?

Because I have the SecDef saying we do not.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:40 PM

Your

hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 11:40 PM

my default assumption is my government’s SecDef isn’t understating our capabilities. The history of the DoD is to do exactly the opposite.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:39 PM

What? Where do you get this crap from?

Sultanofsham on February 6, 2012 at 11:44 PM

We never want to show all of our cards. There are certainly so much not known to the general public that could support putting out false information . Maybe the Iranians will slip up and show their cards if they feel we are not close to a weapon to shut them down. The fact is I don’t trust Panetta and in fact if he was telling the truth that is not very smart sharing that information with our enemies .

CW on February 6, 2012 at 11:44 PM

Because I have the SecDef saying we do not.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:40 PM

Wow you are gullible …..seriously. I thought you libertarian types were distrustful of government you are so willing to buy into what he has stated. Do you believe everything he says?

CW on February 6, 2012 at 11:47 PM

To refresh everyone’s memory, there is no such thing as a non violent muslim! Only those that have not yet attacked us. I do admit though, that there are MANY muslim women that if given the chance would bail right on out of islam! America’s military is STILL UNWILLING to admit that the attacks and murders of U.S. troops and contractors BY Afghan military or police ARE NOT “isolated” incidents and when they occur, as usual, the motive for those attacks are “unknown” idiots, can’t see the enemy for the muslims. Islam is the enemy that shall not be named.

RasThavas on February 6, 2012 at 11:48 PM

What? Where do you get this crap from?

Sultanofsham on February 6, 2012 at 11:44 PM

He’s a piece of work. If Panetta is being totally honest, which I doubt, he should be removed from his position.

CW on February 6, 2012 at 11:48 PM

We’re not doing anything to that program right now except through sanctions. But if we did, do you have the impression bombing their facilities will have no effect?

hawkdriver on February 6, 2012 at 11:36 PM

It could have an effect.

But it wouldn’t stop them. Experts here, and in Israel, have said as much. In fact, one Israeli (I forget who, but I posted the link here at some point) was of the opinion that a bombing campaign would likely accelerate their program, as they would probably perceive bombing as a prelude to invasion, and would do what they could to develop a nuclear deterrent.

Add on top of that, we can never really be certain where all of there facilities are, and even if we successfully stopped the ones we did hit. We could make pretty good estimates, but you and I both know the only way to be certain about that is have boots on the ground.

And if you are talking about starting a war (which bombing of this scale would amount to) in which the stakes are nuclear weapons, anything short of certain is, IMO, unacceptable.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:49 PM

their facilities

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:50 PM

Wow you are gullible …..seriously. I thought you libertarian types were distrustful of government you are so willing to buy into what he has stated. Do you believe everything he says?

CW on February 6, 2012 at 11:47 PM

Once again, sir… your evidence that we have bombs capable of destroying Iranian underground facilities, if you please?

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:52 PM

my default assumption is my government’s SecDef isn’t understating our capabilities. The history of the DoD is to do exactly the opposite.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:39 PM

What? Where do you get this crap from?

Sultanofsham on February 6, 2012 at 11:44 PM

“Days, not weeks”

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:53 PM

Any reason we didn’t nuke them from the orbit yet?

Archivarix on February 6, 2012 at 11:56 PM

He’s a piece of work. If Panetta is being totally honest, which I doubt, he should be removed from his position.

CW on February 6, 2012 at 11:48 PM

Guy must not have been paying attention what the DOD said and did from the 40′s to now. I doubt they all of a sudden decided to start telling the truth about any weapons system or platform.

Sultanofsham on February 6, 2012 at 11:57 PM

their facilities

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:50 PM

Steep learning curve for us all huh John? But I digress. You made a pretty broad statement here seeming to assert we could destroy them at all. It made me wonder whether you’d gotten past the title of the article.

Once again, sir… your evidence that we have bombs capable of destroying Iranian underground facilities, if you please?

Because I have the SecDef saying we do not.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:40 PM

For instance. Named source says they can last November.

The bombs, designed to be delivered by B-2 stealth bombers and called Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOP), “will meet requirements for the current operational need,” U.S. Air Force spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Jack Miller said in a statement in November.

Another unnamed source only makes a comment about making a full stop. (Is this your argument John? That we can’t put a full stop to it? Because they only really seem to be concerned with the depth at Fordo. And it sounds like they’re willing to use a Nuke there.)

However, speaking to the Wall Street Journal on Friday, U.S. officials estimated that even the 15-ton bombs would not be powerful to put a full stop to Iran’s nuclear program, either because of some of the facilities’ depth or their newly added fortifications.

Did you skip this part, John?

Should Washington decide to use the MOP anyway,Panetta added, it could cause “a lot of damage” to Iran’s hidden facilities, adding, however, that the bunker busters wouldn’t necessarily destroy them outright.

And then there was this.

Despite questions regarding the MOP’s ability permanently damage Iran’ nuclear facilities, one U.S. security official speaking to the Wall Street Journal said that “the Massive Ordnance Penetrators are by no means the only capability at our disposal to deal with potential nuclear threats in Iran.”

And this.

Another official said that the U.S. make up for the MOPs’ current inability by using them in tandem with other guided weapons against a bunker’s entry and exit points—provided, however, that U.S. intelligence is aware of the position of those openings.

My question to you is this. If it were determined by the SECDEF that we were indeed able to destroy their facilities to a significant extent, should we?

hawkdriver on February 7, 2012 at 12:00 AM

Couldn’t destroy them at all. (it’s late or the curse steepens)

hawkdriver on February 7, 2012 at 12:01 AM

Add on top of that, we can never really be certain where all of there facilities are

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:49 PM

Bull, this is not some bio lab you can run out of a garage.

Sultanofsham on February 7, 2012 at 12:01 AM

My question to you is this. If it were determined by the SECDEF that we were indeed able to destroy their facilities to a significant extent, should we?

hawkdriver on February 7, 2012 at 12:00 AM

My sleeping family shares my opinion but wouldn’t approve of me screaming HELL YEAH on top of my lungs.

Archivarix on February 7, 2012 at 12:02 AM

My sleeping family shares my opinion but wouldn’t approve of me screaming HELL YEAH on top of my lungs.

Archivarix on February 7, 2012 at 12:02 AM

Don’t wake up your family. As a matter of fact, I’m not far behind.

hawkdriver on February 7, 2012 at 12:04 AM

The only message we have sent with our current mission in Afghanistan is we know how to waste billions upon billions of dollars to accomplish very little.

William Eaton on February 6, 2012 at 11:26 PM

Washington loves spending more than anything.

Winning might crimp the flow.

profitsbeard on February 7, 2012 at 12:05 AM

hawkdriver on February 7, 2012 at 12:00 AM

That’s a long post, but I had to deal with this point immediately.

Is this your argument John? That we can’t put a full stop to it? Because they only really seem to be concerned with the depth at Fordo. And it sounds like they’re willing to use a Nuke there.

Now we are talking about a bombing campaign that involves FIRST-USE NUCLEAR STRIKES.

Sorry for shouting, but let’s not let that point slip under the radar. First-use nuclear strikes?

Okay, we’ve gone waaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy beyond bombing campaign, right there.

JohnGalt23 on February 7, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Once again, sir… your evidence that we have bombs capable of destroying Iranian underground facilities, if you please?

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:52 PM

You say we have no bomb that can. Not a one? We have no bomb that can touch even the hardest site?

Sultanofsham on February 7, 2012 at 12:07 AM

As a woman(and a free human, and a Patriot, and a Zionist) I kind of have a major problem with the Taliban taking over Afghanistan again.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 6, 2012 at 9:34 PM

As a woman and a patriot, I can tell you to please go sign up at your nearest recruiting station and put your money where your mouth is. Until their population is ready for a women’s lib movement, it ain’t happenin’ I feel sorry and sick for all the girls over there, but the right and appropriate response is asylum.

Firefly_76 on February 7, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Im shocked these people and warring clans cant climb out of caves and deserts to form a functioning country! shocked i tell ya!

Greed on February 7, 2012 at 12:12 AM

Okay, we’ve gone waaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy beyond bombing campaign, right there.

JohnGalt23 on February 7, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Geez, you’re the worst person to try to have a discussion with. First, that was a long comment because you characterized the article much differently that what was actually written. I don’t deny that nukes are a serious upgrade to the situation. My “only” point is your mischaracterization. It’s much like you do with anything regarding the military.

As to your all caps, I don’t care. I find it telling that part of the article was a surprise to you.

hawkdriver on February 7, 2012 at 12:14 AM

I’m starting to think that in these backwater $h!tholes we should just go in, eff ‘em up good, and leave quickly with a warning that we’ll be back if they even think about pulling it again. Go Keyser Söze on them. If the people in these countries are willing (or happy) to live like they do, screw ‘em. It isn’t worth the money, or the lives of our servicemen, to try and drag them out of their 4th century subsistence.

tpitman on February 6, 2012 at 10:44 PM

Opened the link, and the first reply I saw.

If people are unwilling to maintain their own freedom, even after it’s handed to them on a silver platter with another country doing all the heaving lifting.

That country doesnt’ want to be free, they want to be ruled.

It’s their decision, let them have their way. But don’t start crying when Tomohawk missiles are dropping in your backyard when a terrorist scumbag is your neighbor. Our missiles aren’t perfect…

Hog Wild on February 7, 2012 at 12:18 AM

My question to you is this. If it were determined by the SECDEF that we were indeed able to destroy their facilities to a significant extent, should we?

hawkdriver on February 7, 2012 at 12:00 AM

First of all, could you provide a link or links to all that.

Secondly, I would expect, given those circumstances, that SecDef at very least have POTUS go to Congress and formally recognize that what he is proposing constitutes war, and that they had better well be on board, and I mean all the way on board. In for a penny, in for a pound. And that means if SecDef is wrong, we go in. Because if we don’t, they will have a nuclear weapon, and we will have started a war with them.

Do I really need to paint the picture of where it goes from there?

Now, if he does that, then the ball is in Congress’ court. And I once again ask you, do you honestly see a government next year, regardless of who wins the WH, regardless of who wins either house of Congress, that is going to authorize war under those circumstances?

The American people are sick of war. They’ve had ten years of it. Congress is not going to sign off.

And that means Iran, if they so choose (and I think it is perfectly rational for them to do so), will get nuclear capabilities, if not a weapon itself. Which means it is time to start diplomacy, and I mean like now.

Frankly, I don’t see how you limit it to only bombing, even if you are reasonably certain you can do extensive damage. The way I see it playing out is if we bomb them, they are likely to unleash Hezbollah to retaliate, either here, in Israel, or both. What do you think the people are going to do if shopping malls start getting shot up, or airliners start going down, or schools start getting bombed.

They’re going to demand escalation. At some point, invasion becomes inevitable.

JohnGalt23 on February 7, 2012 at 12:20 AM

Now we are talking about a bombing campaign that involves FIRST-USE NUCLEAR STRIKES.

Sorry for shouting, but let’s not let that point slip under the radar. First-use nuclear strikes?

Okay, we’ve gone waaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy beyond bombing campaign, right there.

JohnGalt23 on February 7, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Sorry its not way past a bombing campaign. It not talk about wrecking the county. It a pinpoint strike with a low yeld weapon. Might even be one of the micro’s they were working on back in the 90′s.

You freak out the same way back in the 80′s when we told the USSR that we would use tacs first if they invaded europe? I doubt you even noticed. We only had a ride it out policy with the strategic ones.

Sultanofsham on February 7, 2012 at 12:21 AM

Sorry for shouting, but let’s not let that point slip under the radar. First-use nuclear strikes?

JohnGalt23 on February 7, 2012 at 12:07 AM

And you problem with that is…?

Archivarix on February 7, 2012 at 12:22 AM

JohnGalt23 on February 7, 2012 at 12:20 AM

John, it was a hypothetical. Let me ask again. If it were determined by the SECDEF that we were indeed able to destroy their facilities to a significant extent, should we?

Yes or no?

hawkdriver on February 7, 2012 at 12:22 AM

My question to you is this. If it were determined by the SECDEF that we were indeed able to destroy their facilities to a significant extent, should we?

hawkdriver on February 7, 2012 at 12:00 AM

First of all, could you provide a link or links to all that.

Wait, links to what I quoted in that comments?

hawkdriver on February 7, 2012 at 12:23 AM

Geez, you’re the worst person to try to have a discussion with. First, that was a long comment because you characterized the article much differently that what was actually written. I don’t deny that nukes are a serious upgrade to the situation. My “only” point is your mischaracterization. It’s much like you do with anything regarding the military.

As to your all caps, I don’t care. I find it telling that part of the article was a surprise to you.

hawkdriver on February 7, 2012 at 12:14 AM

You didn’t provide a link. I didn’t have a chance to see it in context.

And yeah… a deviation from the No-First-Strike doctrine is a big deal to me. I know it’s something you never take off the table. but it’s also something you aren’t supposed to say out loud.

JohnGalt23 on February 7, 2012 at 12:24 AM

John, it was a hypothetical. Let me ask again. If it were determined by the SECDEF that we were indeed able to destroy their facilities to a significant extent, should we?

Yes or no?

hawkdriver on February 7, 2012 at 12:22 AM

Given that… no. No half measures. Not when it comes to possible nuclear war.

JohnGalt23 on February 7, 2012 at 12:26 AM

Sorry its not way past a bombing campaign. It not talk about wrecking the county. It a pinpoint strike with a low yeld weapon. Might even be one of the micro’s they were working on back in the 90′s.

Sultanofsham on February 7, 2012 at 12:21 AM

It is crossing the nuclear threshold. And it is something to which I hope any President would say, as people who served in the State Department instructed me they would: “Give me another option”.

No nuclear first strikes. That is doctrine, and has been my entire adult life. For damned good reasons.

JohnGalt23 on February 7, 2012 at 12:29 AM

You didn’t provide a link. I didn’t have a chance to see it in context.

And yeah… a deviation from the No-First-Strike doctrine is a big deal to me. I know it’s something you never take off the table. but it’s also something you aren’t supposed to say out loud.

JohnGalt23 on February 7, 2012 at 12:24 AM

Oh, I got you. You want the comments I supplied in a link so you can see them in context. Sure thing. It’s the article you linked too. Did you even read it?

They are building facilities under mountains! Our own DoD is admitting we don’t have bombs powerful enought o do it.

It’s not a matter of will. It is a matter of physics. And those just aren’t on our side from the air.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:07 PM

hawkdriver on February 7, 2012 at 12:30 AM

No nuclear first strikes. That is doctrine, and has been my entire adult life. For damned good reasons.

JohnGalt23 on February 7, 2012 at 12:29 AM

Is there any reason why? I truly hope that the reason makes sense, because “goodness of the heart” doesn’t. It’s effin’ Middle East we’re talking about.

Archivarix on February 7, 2012 at 12:33 AM

Oh, I got you. You want the comments I supplied in a link so you can see them in context. Sure thing. It’s the article you linked too. Did you even read it?

hawkdriver on February 7, 2012 at 12:30 AM

Sorry. Was looking at another article already.

Yeah, I read it, but I missed the part about tactical nuclear weapons. That made me think you had posted something else.

Of course, you made it sound like Panetta was advocating them. he wasn’t.

Thank God.

JohnGalt23 on February 7, 2012 at 12:37 AM

Because I have the SecDef saying we do not.

JohnGalt23 on February 6, 2012 at 11:40 PM

In times like the present it is doubtful that such clarity as a yes or no answer on such weapons existence is reliable no matter what the source. At times like this yes or no might well mean the same thing.

No, we have no such weapons capability at present….(but they will be operational next Monday)

Yes, we have such weapons capability at present……(hopefully they will be operational by Monday)

BL@KBIRD on February 7, 2012 at 12:37 AM

And that means Iran, if they so choose (and I think it is perfectly rational for them to do so), will get nuclear capabilities, if not a weapon itself. Which means it is time to start diplomacy, and I mean like now.

Yes, diplomacy worked real well with North Korea. Worked so good that now anything (sink a ship, shell a town) is open to then and unless we want to hit them with nukes we cant do a thing.

Frankly, I don’t see how you limit it to only bombing, even if you are reasonably certain you can do extensive damage. The way I see it playing out is if we bomb them, they are likely to unleash Hezbollah to retaliate, either here, in Israel, or both. What do you think the people are going to do if shopping malls start getting shot up, or airliners start going down, or schools start getting bombed.

As with Korea, one they have the bomb all that you wrote is on the table for them short of us hitting them with nukes. We’ll end going from airstrikes that kill thousands to hundreds of thousands or more. Best to do it while its cheapest.

Also once they have a nuke do you really think the DHS would be up to the task of stopping one from being smuggled in to the country or even fired off a container ship.You like to complain about money, what would be the cost if something like that happend?

And kinda off point but one thing that really bothers me about Ron Paul is he wants to cut missle defense. Why? This is a purely a defensive weapon and he is suppose to be strong on defence (compared to Carter maybe).

They’re going to demand escalation. At some point, invasion becomes inevitable.

JohnGalt23 on February 7, 2012 at 12:20 AM

No. If they do the stuff that you typed then we knock out all thier refining ability and take out the power grid.

Sultanofsham on February 7, 2012 at 12:38 AM

Is there any reason why? I truly hope that the reason makes sense, because “goodness of the heart” doesn’t. It’s effin’ Middle East we’re talking about.

Archivarix on February 7, 2012 at 12:33 AM

It is a critical part of MAD doctrine. The alternative is you allow for the possibility of a nuclear first strike, and then try to contain the escalation. But every time theorists game this out, it always ends up with global escalation.

If we ditch that doctrine, even over the Middle East, it will severely and negatively impact our nuclear calculus vs both Russia and China. They will see that, despite all of our claims, we are willing to engage in nuclear first strikes, and they will adjust their doctrine accordingly.

JohnGalt23 on February 7, 2012 at 12:41 AM

No nuclear first strikes. That is doctrine, and has been my entire adult life. For damned good reasons.

JohnGalt23 on February 7, 2012 at 12:29 AM

BS, then you most certainly didnt live through the late 60′s to the fall of the USSR. We told the USSR we would use tacs if they invaded Europe.

Sultanofsham on February 7, 2012 at 12:42 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4