Okay, now it's getting scary.

[Chesapeake]

www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-says-u-s-losing-afghan-war-tense-meeting-generals-n789006

Let me get this straight. Trump is complaining that we're not winning the war in Afghanistan, and is thinking about firing the general-in-charge. (As we all know, he knows more about warfare than the generals anyway.) The military is saying we can't win the war without a strategy, and Trump can't make up his mind about picking one. In the meantime, he's going with what he heard from some troopers in the mess hall.

Have I got that about right?

[Dub]

You are a keen observer.

[epaul]

Yep, sounds like you have the optics dialed in. The calculus doesn't add up.

[Cosmic Wonder]

It's OK. Trump is going on vacation. To his golf club in Zoo Jersey. What could go wrong?

Mike

[aquaduct]

Really?!? Isn't that what generals and advisors are for? To come up with acceptable strategies?

It would seem to be entirely appropriate to fire anyone who can't do what they're being paid to do.

[Deleted]

Keep repeating to yourselves about a thousand times a day, "There is no military solution in Afghanistan." That takes the sting out of the above. Doesn't matter a whit what we do there militarily. Unless we can figure out some way to wave a magic wand and make the Afghans themselves support a central government, preferably their own central government, we are wasting our time.

We should have spent 6 moths there in 2001-2002 killing as many Al Qaeda as possible, and left. One the way out, we should have dropped leaflets on Kabul saying, "Don't host assholes again, or we'll be back." By 2003, nobody would have given a rat's ass about the place.

Amazing to me more people, to include our own military leaders, don't get this. Nation building only works in places that have a culture of a strong central authority (psssst - like Germany and Japan), or where you are willing to stay, like, forever (psssst - like Korea that wasn't really democratic until thirty years after the war...)

Just - - - damn.

[Chesapeake]

Aug 3, 2017 14:53:18 GMT -5 aquaduct said:

Really?!? Isn't that what generals and advisors are for? To come up with acceptable strategies?

It would seem to be entirely appropriate to fire anyone who can't do what they're being paid to do.

As I understand it, the job of the general on the ground, Nicholson - who Trump wants to fire because he's not winning the war - is to execute the strategy the commander-in-chief chooses, not to come up with the choices. That is the job of the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the National Security Advisory, etc., which they have done, and which they presented Trump at that meeting. (The alternatives included, by the way, just walking away.) 

Whether because he doesn't have the backbone to make a decision that he will have to own, or (I'm beginning to wonder) if his attention span is so short that he just doesn't understand them, Trump adjourned the meeting and walked out of the room without making a decision, but still open to firing Nicholson.

I'm guessing everybody here has had bosses who couldn't make decisions. So I'm guessing the people in that room feel like chewing nails right now.

[Doug]

Whether because he doesn't have the backbone to make a decision that he will have to own,

3rd or 4th guy sitting in that chair with the same problem. 

Only two military solutions, get the fuck out or kill them all (and even the Russians wouldn't do that). The military's job is to destroy things not build things. 

[Chesapeake]

Aug 3, 2017 18:41:29 GMT -5 Doug said:

Whether because he doesn't have the backbone to make a decision that he will have to own,

3rd or 4th guy sitting in that chair with the same problem. 

Only two military solutions, get the fuck out or kill them all (and even the Russians wouldn't do that). The military's job is to destroy things not build things. 

At least Obama made a decision. Remember the troop surge in 2009? Thirty-thousand troops to shock the Taliban into submission? We can debate whether it was a good idea or not, but at least it was a decision.

[Doug]

Aug 3, 2017 18:52:41 GMT -5 Chesapeake said:

Aug 3, 2017 18:41:29 GMT -5 Doug said:

3rd or 4th guy sitting in that chair with the same problem. 

Only two military solutions, get the fuck out or kill them all (and even the Russians wouldn't do that). The military's job is to destroy things not build things. 

At least Obama made a decision. Remember the troop surge in 2009? Thirty-thousand troops to shock the Taliban into submission? We can debate whether it was a good idea or not, but at least it was a decision.

30 thousand lives risked for political gain not for a military solution. 

[RickW]

Aug 3, 2017 19:29:56 GMT -5 Doug said:

Aug 3, 2017 18:52:41 GMT -5 Chesapeake said:

At least Obama made a decision. Remember the troop surge in 2009? Thirty-thousand troops to shock the Taliban into submission? We can debate whether it was a good idea or not, but at least it was a decision.

30 thousand lives risked for political gain not for a military solution. 

Good Lord, Doug. I agreed with you again. Sumbitch. What is the world coming to?

I truly believe Paul is entirely correct. Get the fuck out and let them figure it out. And let them know what'll happen if they start pissing off the US. The ONLY other reason to stay is to keep bases around China and Russia. Which may play more into it than we know.

[Doug]

Never risk the lives of your troops unless the country is committed to doing what ever it takes to win. In war winning is the only thing that matters. 

[Doug]

I can only think of two reasons to go to war.  
1. To take something the other guy has (land, money, resources etc.) 
2. The barbarians are at the door

Most any other reason is BS.

For #1 you need a country behind stealing what ever, (example: starving population because of lack of arable land, take land)
For #2 you need a country that believes losing means death or slavery for the entire population. 

Not judgement but sending people to die takes a really big commitment.  And it should be a really big commitment by the population (in the US represented by the Congress). And winning should give something to the people.  In #2 you are still alive, in #1 you share in the something the other guy had.

Both have grey areas. How close do the barbarians have to be before you consider them knocking at the door. (domino theory) 
We fought Indians for land and we gave away a lot of that land to the people "sharing in the spoils" I think you could bend that "sharing in the spoils" a lot. Is Wall Street booms and the rest hangs on so the country is better off, is that "sharing in the spoils", I'm guessing it depends on what politician is speaking. 

Ran my mouth too long, sorry.

[lar]

I think it would be hard to bring central government, let alone a democracy, to a country that has only known tribal rule by the toughest, meanest, S.O.B. in the tribe. It's understandable that the people would have an instinctive distrust of something they've never known even if they were fully able to comprehend the ramifications.

Let's assume that a successful strategy is implemented and we win the war. Then what happens? Yup, same as every time before. We put somebody in power that we don't know very well. He begins to line his pockets and kill anyone that doesn't like him. Things go on as before, only worse. We express surprise that things didn't turn out well.

No one has ever ruled a truly united Afghanistan. I think it might be quite a while before that happens, if ever.

[Village Idiot]

The point of the original post here isn't what can be accomplished in Afghanistan, but that Trump is considering firing the general in charge, and if that makes any sense.

[jdd2]

So has he got the best generals, or is he smarter than the generals?

If he fires someone, he'll have to replace them, and replacing them is indicative of a policy choice.

[Marshall]

Aug 3, 2017 22:11:14 GMT -5 lar said:

I think it would be hard to bring central government, let alone a democracy, to a country that has only known tribal rule by the toughest, meanest, S.O.B. in the tribe. It's understandable that the people would have an instinctive distrust of something they've never known even if they were fully able to comprehend the ramifications.

Let's assume that a successful strategy is implemented and we win the war. Then what happens? Yup, same as every time before. We put somebody in power that we don't know very well. He begins to line his pockets and kill anyone that doesn't like him. Things go on as before, only worse. We express surprise that things didn't turn out well.

No one has ever ruled a truly united Afghanistan. I think it might be quite a while before that happens, if ever.

There was a story on NPR yesterday, I can't find it. But it was talking about domesticating foxes and dogs I think. It was getting down to the genetic level. But it talked about how domesticated animals were bred. And that wild aggressive males were shot. So that, the gene pool in domesticated animals was altered towards tranquility. The story then surmises that much the same happens in human development in societies. Where cooperation is rewarded. And violence is punished. Thus shifting the gene pool towards compromise and cooperation.

My point is these Mid East societies that are tribal in nature are still aggressive confrontational. No amount of wishing and hoping is going to make them behave like western societies do now. They are still in their Medieval stage. They're still in an "only the strong survive" mode. It'll take generations for them to evolve to Western levels of inter-cooperation.

[millring]

I know that's a pretty common perception. I happen to disagree, though. I don't think man has changed one bit. I don't believe in primative/violent man vs. evolved/peaceful man. We have found a more invisible way of doing genocide and we certainly have changed the mix of our society by doing so, but not toward peace. Both the left and the right are strongly bent toward, and standing on the precipice of violent fascism to achieve their respective goals. Everyone fears the right and thinks that violence is obvious there. But those same people dissociate themselves from the violence bred by their own ideologies that bred Dallas and Ferguson and so many other violent revolutions. And they embrace the violent implications in the writings of their favorite "science" writers like Dawkins who would eliminate religious people.

[jdd2]

Aug 4, 2017 8:13:31 GMT -5 millring said:

I know that's a pretty common perception. I happen to disagree, though. I don't think man has changed one bit. I don't believe in primative/violent man vs. evolved/peaceful man. We have found a more invisible way of doing genocide and we certainly have changed the mix of our society by doing so, but not toward peace. Both the left and the right are strongly bent toward, and standing on the precipice of violent fascism to achieve their respective goals. Everyone fears the right and thinks that violence is obvious there. But those same people dissociate themselves from the violence bred by their own ideologies that bred Dallas and Ferguson and so many other violent revolutions. And they embrace the violent implications in the writings of their favorite "science" writers like Dawkins who would eliminate religious people.

Hmm....

[aquaduct]

Aug 3, 2017 23:26:23 GMT -5 Village Idiot said:

The point of the original post here isn't what can be accomplished in Afghanistan, but that Trump is considering firing the general in charge, and if that makes any sense.

No. It's about a news report (third hand) of a tense staff meeting where Trump apparently expressed displeasure with the state of Afghanistan. Which I think is great. We're sending kids there to die. The President better damn well not be happy about that.