Eaton fires broadside at Cheney

[tequila]

After all, soldiers are dying now, and Commander in Chief is actually a Constitutional responsibility of the President.

This is an interesting argument.

How many soldiers' and Marines' lives will be saved by the President making a decision on an Afghan strategy now versus thirty days from now?

[Abu Suleyman]

This is an interesting argument.

How many soldiers' and Marines' lives will be saved by the President making a decision on an Afghan strategy now versus thirty days from now?

Perhaps none, but lives are a scarce resource. If they die while waiting for a strategy, then it is wasted. At least, if they die once a strategy is in place they are contributing to that strategy, and to our knowledge of whether that strategy will work.

[Schmedlap]

I have actually seen a conversation where one person was unaware of the resume of the other and they cycled through four of five ‘accomplishments’ before they found one they could rely upon. Indeed, I tell my non-military colleagues, that you know when you have won the argument when out comes the ‘combat’ card.

It's even more fun when you only reveal the resume to certain people and then someone else tries to use it against you.

Example: Someone informs you that "maybe your opinion would change if you'd ever been to combat." This is great fun when you simply reply, "yeah, maybe," and leave it at that, when 10 people within earshot know that you've done about three years in Iraq but the person who makes the lame argument doesn't know... but finds out a week later.

How many soldiers' and Marines' lives will be saved by the President making a decision on an Afghan strategy now versus thirty days from now?

26

[tequila]

It's even more fun when you only reveal the resume to certain people and then someone else tries to use it against you.

My immensely interesting and varied biography tells me that the true number of lives saved will be 17. But this number skyrockets to 19 if the President delays a further week.

At least, if they die once a strategy is in place they are contributing to that strategy, and to our knowledge of whether that strategy will work.

Do you really believe this?

The gunner who dies because his hummvee rolls over while dodging an IED blast won't have contributed one whit to our knowledge of whether or not the strategy is working, and his death or life will not acquire any more meaning or lose any because of whatever strategic directive was in effect at the time. My friends who died in Iraq in 2007 did not die any more meaningful or meaningless deaths than my friends who died in 2005 because the strategy changed.

[Schmedlap]

My immensely interesting and varied biography tells me that the true number of lives saved will be 17. But this number skyrockets to 19 if the President delays a further week.

If you haven't been to Airborne School then you have no idea.

[John T. Fishel]

I have been concerned for a long time that we make too much of "force protection" in a volunteer armed force. Since 1973 we have all volunteered to fight for our country even unto death for "good" foreign policies or "bad" - but we ceased to be a conscript force at that time (I know it took a number of years for the draftees to flow out of the system completely). So, while casualties are always tragic and more so if they are unnecessary, I have believed that we (the US govt and public) make too much of them. But Abu Suleyman makes an economic argument - a correct one IMHO - that casualties need to be taken itno account in making decisions etc. Thanks for the Econ 101 reminder

Cheers

JohnT

[Bill Moore]

we make too much of "force protection" in a volunteer armed force

Concur that we do tend to let the media manipulate policy too easily with issues that are not germane to the strategy. Not to be cold, because I'm far from it, but the number of casualties should have very little to do with determining whether or not we're achieving our objective or not.

If they die while waiting for a strategy, then it is wasted. At least, if they die once a strategy is in place they are contributing to that strategy, and to our knowledge of whether that strategy will work.

I think we have a strategy now that the guys on the ground are executing (without adequate resources), so the issue is whether the strategy will change, and if it doesn't will the current strategy be adequately resourced?

This means we're at decision point and the enemy is trying hard to influence that decision. IMO the longer we drag out the decision process the harder the enemy will hit us in an attempt to influence the decision.

[Fuchs]

I have been concerned for a long time that we make too much of "force protection" in a volunteer armed force.

I'd phrase it differently:

It's a mistake to allow citizens/politicians to request for safety of troops in a war zone without exposing it as B.S..

Too many people generate and play with the illusion that certain policies could create safety for the troops.

[Abu Suleyman]

But Abu Suleyman makes an economic argument - a correct one IMHO - that casualties need to be taken itno account in making decisions etc. Thanks for the Econ 101 reminder

I couldn't have said it that well myself. Thanks.

[tequila]

But Abu Suleyman makes an economic argument - a correct one IMHO - that casualties need to be taken itno account in making decisions etc.

How?

Should we make decisions more quickly under the theory that no matter the strategy chosen, at least the speed of the decision will result in some sort of additional meaning for troop deaths, or will generate greater understanding of the strategy's effectiveness?

How does this relate to Econ 101?

[Fuchs]

Afghanistan is very low priority in Germany and I am under the impression that it isn't even near top priority in the U.S. as well.
That is in my opinion a justified prioritization, if the numbers I've read about annual preventable deaths of ill-insured or uninsured patients are anywhere near correct. AQ would not kill that many U.S. citizens ever (much less the Taliban).

I despise ad hominem attacks (I've had my share as the target and usually expose them), but this doesn't exactly look like one. Cheney had a history of involvement in the conflict and the Bush/Cheney administration did reject a troops increase requested by McKiernan in 2008, right? So that's no good background for Cheney to criticize the current situation.

Cheney gets media attention due to the fact that he was in office as Vice President until recently, so his credentials-enabled publicity basically offers his credentials as a target.


Overall, the thread probably belonged more into the historical sub-forum, though.