Could you expand on that just a tad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mark Eichenlaub
This just does not sound like a very good idea at all.
I'm unsure what doesn't sound like a very good idea. Do you mean the previous comment by Watcher in the Middle or your Blog.
I'm not sure that abrreviated comment adds a great deal of
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mark Eichenlaub
My blog? Huh?
I meant ditching Petraues.
clarity but neither am I sure anyone other than Branfman on this thread is advocating ditching him, thus your answer to my question merely raises another question, I guess...
Why is it not a good idea?
I just wasted 150 minutes of my life...
reading something that wasn't interesting and then writing this...
Hacksaw, I really should have listened to my elder here ;)
I generally go by my great-grandmother's saying and try not to assume mainly because I do not like making an ass out of myself, or other people but Brafman makes a significant amount. Lets examine these
1) "McChrystal was also known for running the worst torture chambers in Iraq at his "Camp Nama" ("Nasty Ass Military Area"), and forbidding the Red Cross access to them in violation of the Geneva Conventions. As the Times reported on March 19, 2006"
This is a very dangerous allegation to be throwing around off-handed. I mean, a top Military commander in Iraq committing torture would be something that would be front page news across the globe, right? So one would think that there would be empirical proof that Branfman would have against McChrystal right?
"There, American soldiers made one of the Iraqi government's torture chambers into their own interrogation cell ... According to Pentagon specialists who worked with the unit, prisoners at Camp Nama often disappeared into a detention black hole, barred from access to lawyers or relatives, and confined for weeks without charges. `The reality is, there were no rules there,' another Pentagon official said ... The C.I.A. was concerned enough to bar its personnel from Camp Nama that August ... Since 2003, 34 task force members have been disciplined in some form for mistreating prisoners ..."
Really? That's all you have? They made a former torture chamber into an interrogation room... Wait, prisoners were held without charge, whoops forgot to mention the failure to give the 'criminals' their Miranda rights. Gotta let them go... Mistreating prisoners? Okay, lets see the reports and the ways they were mistreating as was attempted in Abu Ghraib
Eye witness testimony... "Jeff"
"By his reckoning, at least half of the prisoners were innocent, just random Iraqis who got picked up for one reason or another. Sometimes the evidence against them was so slight, Jeff would go into the interrogation without even knowing their names."
Really? Innocent people can be arrested? Good god, how could the military do such a thing, its not like LAPD or NYPD has never arrested someone who turned out to 'innocent' nor could Branfman be bothered to present some of the reasons one could be picked up for.
--Question for the members here as I know a limited amount amount about interrogation. Isn't it helpful to know the names of the 'prisoner' that one would be interrogating before you walk in? Be provided any information at all to use to ones advantage? Thanks
Continues with this line of attack with this:
"He killed, assassinated, and tortured countless Iraqis for five years with total impunity. Were international law applied to his activities, he might well be investigated for war crimes rather than rewarded for them. Placing him in charge of 58,000 U.S. troops will ensure that such practices will not only continue but be geometrically increased. "
In a war zone, an effect way of neutralizing ones enemy is to kill them correct? Assassinating people like Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi is helpful when you are trying to decapitate the enemy leadership. Admiral Yamamato anyone? Should FDR, Secretary of the Navy Knox, Admiral Nimitz and Admiral Halsey Jr be remembered for being 'war criminals' for assassinating a senior leader of the Japanese during WWII? Are they? No, and No. Again, the accusation of torture without proof that it even occured, or that he ordered it. Show me the orders, reports, etc.
(This one gave me a giggle)
2)Obama should not follow the military's lead.
"The Obama Administration could be capsized by a combination of likely losses in the "Af/Pak" theater and a popular Petraeus resigning, blaming Obama for "not listening to his military commanders"."
Isn't this a direct contradiction of the entire premise? Obama is spending too much time listening to the military, yet Petraeus could feel that he isn't listening enough? Tangent here, but isn't that a critique of the Bush Administration and SecDef Rumsfeld in that the civilians had too much control of the military? If that is the case, wouldn't Petraeus along with a plethora of other officers have resigned THEN? Shouldn't Branfman be applauding Obama for not making the same mistake that Bush made?
"Obama's main hope of political survival should his Middle East policy fail, as appears likely, is to claim he was following the military's lead. This may also explain why he has reversed himself and adopted such Bush policies as military tribunals and preventive detention."
Okay, I understand CvC to an extent to which I will boldly go and paraphrase him. War is to be subordinate in nature to the political instrument, by which it belongs purely to the reason. K, then tell me why if Obama made it the directive that Afghanistan should not be used as a safe haven for any terrorist attacks on the homeland, why this is wrong:
"Petraeus has driven the Taliban east into Pakistan, where they have joined forces with local jihadi forces and gained increasing amounts of territory"
"So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That is the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you."- President Obama, March 27, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/us...bama-text.html
So, he has confronted the Taliban in Afghanistan and pushed them into Pakistan whereby he has forced the Pakistani army to fight the Taliban, and fulfill his pledge to make the war more than just America's war.
"There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban. They must be met with force, and they must be defeated." - President Obama, March 27, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/us...bama-text.html
Just like to note that for such a supporter of Obama, he fails to criticize him for these policy changes, instead choosing to go after David Petraeus because he is perceived as grasping victory from the jaws of defeat in Iraq under Bush. As noted before by JKM, partisans will always be critical of him, regardless of how successful his commands are.
3) Petraeus's strategy has forced the Taliban into the Swat valley where it is engaging the Pakistani military
"Petraeus has driven the Taliban east into Pakistan, where they have joined forces with local jihadi forces and gained increasing amounts of territory"
"The Swat Valley is part of Pakistan proper, and the consolidation of Taliban forces there represented a major setback to U.S. and Pakistani interests. Pakistani government weakness there forced it to hand over effective control of the Valley including the imposition of Shariah law, to its enemies."
I do not see the problem with forcing the Taliban to agitate the Pakistani government if it forces the military to actively fight the Taliban and put pressure on the ISI to stop supporting them as well.
"On the military side, you're starting to see some recognition just in the last few days that the obsession with India as the mortal threat to Pakistan has been misguided, and that their biggest threat right now comes internally...And you're starting to see the Pakistani military take much more seriously the armed threat from militant extremists." -President Barrack Obama
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SP437584.htm
I know first link is timestamped the 1st of June, but the second one is from May 15th. Grabbed them from a quick google search
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...-Pakistan.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...stan-army.html
Okay, its understandable (barely) that he didn't know the Taliban were on the defensive and losing territory. But on May 15th, its reported that "Taliban terrorists, after shaving off their beards and cutting their hair, are fleeing from the area, the military said in a statement." IMHO, he is just trying to portray AF/PAK as untenable. I have read (unfortunately, but for debate cases you kinda have to) other rubbish from him in the past in which he claimed Iraq was not winnable, yet we are (it appears) on the path to victory in the years to come. He could have done the exact same thing I did and quickly googled it, but then again it wouldn't be the unbiased NY Times.
Pakistani military at long last is making headway
I note factually that the Pakistani miliary is making headway against the Taliban and al Qaida. Even bin Laden is upset at the Pakistan government and military progress to have risked being discovered with his latest voice tape via that Arab rag, al Jazeera.
Event are still building up for us, the Allies to fuller force going into 2010, and it is very much premature to judge there...but thus far, I see very effective pincher movements Afghan and Pakitani sides of the border.
Huffington is not just a moron, she is a slut sensationalist, along with her kindred nut cases.
Barber business is soaring in SWAT
Quote:
I note factually that the Pakistani miliary is making headway against the Taliban and al Qaida.
Saw a report today that the barber business in recently liberated areas of SWAT is booming. The people are joyous and celebrating their liberation from the Taliban. There big complaint is it took too long for the government to respond.