BW: Thank you for this one ...
Quote:
....and letting our efforts to take down Bin Laden's gang go back into the shadows where they can continue their girm, and quiet business of avenging the attacks of 9/11 and shutting down his his ability to wage UW to incite the populaces of the middle east
although I expect many novenas to St. Jude will be necessary to see that plan become practice.
PS: Bill Moore - did you mean "flesh out" (the post), rather than "flush out" ? No need to respond - I think I'm getting a bit punchy.
'Nother good post, Entropy. Thank you..
While I agree with you and with Bob's World on the possibility of major failure of a future Afghan government and its institutions and with the description of the path that got us where we are today -- and decry the effort to build an Army like our own to the maximum possible extent that is in fact not only ego but ignorance driven (most of the US Army knows very little about how other Armies are organized or train; too many do not care...), I think we all should recall the diplomatic effort that brough NATO to Afghanistan -- a very good diplomatic coup for us.
Good diplomatically but bad militarily for unity of command, overall flexibility and decision making reasons -- since NATO nations are helping with the training and equipping, I suspect that decision also significantly impacted the ANA design as a western Army clone. People like what they're comfortable with...
I also seem to recall there was much upset by some NATO Foreign Ministers at the thought of paying and equipping Warlords...
BW: The third step won't work ...
Quote:
BW
So, "All men are created equal" is a principle; but how we valued that principle in 1776 is very different than how we value it today.
So, for engagement, I decided that we need to:
1. Stand on Principles, (here are core beliefs that we think are important)
2. Hold Values (here is how we in Amereica assess and apply this principle, and this is the standard we hold ourselves to)
3. Withhold Judgment (we don't expect you to have the same values, but know that we will be persistent about about the principle for continued engagement).
No problems with 1 - I'd think of "All men are created equal" as a theory, until it is reduced to practice. But, whether a concept is called a principle or theory, that concept can become a belief even though never reduced to practice. An example is the end state of Communism in M-L theory, which was never reached because they never got beyond the Dictatorship of the Workers (which morphed to the Dictatorship for the Workers, and then to the Dictatorship for the Dictators).
No problems with 2 - I'd call this step the reduction of the theory to practice, but we are saying the same thing (I think). Again applying the priniciple (BW) that "All men are created equal", your history is correct that "how we valued that principle in 1776 is very different than how we value it today." In fact, there was a difference of opinion as to what that principle meant in terms of how it was valued (BW) in 1776 and before.
Now I digress briefly. On May 18, 1652, the governing body of Providence & Warwick (1/2 of Rhode Island) enacted a statute providing for abolition of slavery. The rest of the future state (whose economy relied more heavily on chattel slavery) was not about to adopt such a statute. That division presaged the greater national division of the next 3 centuries.
Nonetheless, this action by these Rhode Island Reds (several ancestral to my wife - which partially explains her attitude :D) began the abolitionist thread which extended, in fits and starts, to the present - where, if nothing else, the principle that "All men are created equal" was vindicated at the presidential level.
Now, my digressive point is that the principle "All men are created equal" was not seriously in dispute. J.C. Calhoun adhered to that principle, but you can be assured that how he valued that principle (that is, how he reduced the theory to practice) was far different from how Barrack Obama or I value that principle.
In school, I skimmed through the Slave Cases Reports (texts of all US cases involving slaves). There was a case from the early 1800's in one of the Deep South states where the defendant (white) argued that he could not be prosecuted for manslaughter because the victim (black) was not a human being. The court (in long opinions) divided, with the majority holding that yes, indeed, an African-American was a human being. No doubt, the defendant believed that "All men are created equal" - his definition of "man" was the limiting factor (which was his valuation of the principle).
Turning to step 3 (quoting it again, but adding the words for the principle to be valued):
Quote:
3. Withhold Judgment (we don't expect you to have the same values, but know that we will be persistent about the principle "All men are created equal" for continued engagement).
Now, so happens that Xistan (absolutely essential to the national strategic interests of the US) is firmly committed to chattel slavery; and happens to have a foreign minister who is a direct descendent of J.C. Calhoun and inherited all of his legal and political skills - his gg-grandfather having left S. Carolina after the War of Division.
He says, "COL Jones, I understand exactly what you are telling me about the principle that "All men are created equal". As you can see here, that principle is inscribed in our constitution. Now I also realize we value that principle a bit differently than you USians. But your ROEs here state you will withhold judgment about valuation and, furthermore, that we can expect continued engagement so long as we accept that principle. We, of course, as you can plainly see right here, accept that principle. Now, we need an ODC, 3 ODBs, 12 ODAs and your super aviation group for insertion and extraction. When can we expect them ?"
What does COL Jones tell President Obama ?
Yup, it's a variation of the "Can we kill the shepherd boy" hypothetical.
Bill Moore, I ought to have known better ...
than to engage in verbalistics with a Moore. Point conceded to you.
The mind picture I got from "flush out" was one of the old castles where the privies were built into the walls with chutes to the outside - and where they did "flush out" stuff.
I guess you had to take care if you pulled sentry duty and had to patrol the lower walls. :eek:
Ken: I imagine that pulling that duty was involved in one of your early deployments. Can you tell us what precautions you took - or were you too busy looking for unicorns. As you well know, they existed in those bygone days. :D