Eaton fires broadside at Cheney

[Fuchs]

Some domestic U.S. politics:

The record is clear: Dick Cheney and the Bush administration were incompetent war fighters. They ignored Afghanistan for 7 years with a crude approach to counter-insurgency warfare best illustrated by: 1. Deny it. 2. Ignore it. 3. Bomb it. While our intelligence agencies called the region the greatest threat to America, the Bush White House under-resourced our military efforts, shifted attention to Iraq, and failed to bring to justice the masterminds of September 11.

"The only time Cheney and his cabal of foreign policy 'experts' have anything to say is when they feel compelled to protect this failed legacy. While President Obama is tasked with cleaning up the considerable mess they left behind, they continue to defend torture or rewrite a legacy of indifference on Afghanistan. Simply put, Mr. Cheney sees history throughout extremely myopic and partisan eyes.

http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/1442

[Ken White]

quietly shuffled aside for non-performance directing Iraqi training. Not that I'd suggest sour grapes from one who as Chief of Infantry and Commandant of the US Army Infantry School before going to Iraq was not known for being a COIN expert...

That said, your post is as you said, domestic US politics. If the thread discusses operations, fine -- it it veers into domestic politics, I'll shut it down.

There are plenty of discussion boards that relish that stupidity; this is not one of them.

[Abu Suleyman]

Once again fuchs, you have struck at our American system, and I for one am wounded to the core.

This indeed is a demonstration of what is wrong with America, although perhaps not in the way that you meant to illustrate. My question is, who on earth thought that this was a response to anything? Based upon reading MG Eaton’s statement, he gives no indication that he has even read what former-Vice President Cheney said. Given that his current ‘prominence’ derives primarily from being an outspoken critic of George Bush, I would be fairly surprised if he did. It seems as though this was a hip pocket statement to be whipped out whenever anyone in the past administration dared to voice dissent. Indeed, the provenance of the site on which this ‘response’ was posted is politically interesting, and perhaps relevant.

However, while it is easy to mock MG Eaton, he is not wholly responsible for the piss poor response, assuming that he wrote it. After all he is just following the grand tradition of military argumentation. For those who have not followed the link allow me to summarize “P1: You suck. P2: You Suck. P3: Here is my resume. P4: Therefore I am right.” I have seen this exact argument unfold over everything from work orders to national strategy and it always is the same. In fact, I am fairly sure that every single person in the military has had someone when arguing say “Well, if you had (been in combat/to ranger school/ in SF/ in supply/the right clearance) you would understand.” 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.

A real response would have raised points that Dick Cheney had made, and then refuted them with facts. This response is nothing more than an ad hominem attack on Cheney. But it doesn’t matter how wrong someone is, if her facts are right and her logic is sound, odds are in favor of her being right. Instead, in most political discourse, we get sophistry and logical fallacies left and right. It gets even worse when dealing with military issues.

Finally, while I am not defending Dick Cheney at all, my main take away from his speech was that the president should stop pondering his navel and do something. For all the Bush administrations many flaws, it was decisive. I was always taught, and continue to believe, that in war the best thing you can do is the right thing. Then next best thing you can do is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing. Put another way, it is hard to correct your course, if you aren’t moving at all.

In other words, get the lead out and make a decision, before someone else makes it for you. Indeed no decision is a decision all to itself. I don’t think that this is an unrealistic request since this is the president who was supposed to have superior judgement, be ready day one, will listen to his generals, and already issued the Afghanistan plan. I don’t buy the ‘we need more time’ thing. If time were such an issue, then perhaps we could put Health Care, Global Warming, The Olympics, Harvard Professors et al. on the back burner for a couple of weeks, and sort this out. After all, soldiers are dying now, and Commander in Chief is actually a Constitutional responsibility of the President.

[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]

Originally Posted by tequila

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]

Originally Posted by Abu Suleyman

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.

Originally Posted by tequila

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

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by tequila

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]

Originally Posted by John T. Fishel

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]

Originally Posted by John T. Fishel

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?

[John T. Fishel]

It's a resourcing argument. People - troops are a scarce resource in the all volunteer force. So, you must ask whether expending that scarce resource in a particular conflict is worth it. Remember that all strategies consist of ends (objectives) ways (COA) and means (resources) in some combination. We test a strategy by the FAS test which answers the following questions:
1. If I follow the indicated COA will I achieve my objective? (suitability)
2. Can I carry out this COA (thereby achieving my objective) with the resources available or that can be made available? (Feasiblity)
3. Are the costs of this COA acceptable in financial, material, personnel, and moral terms? (Acceptability).
If the answer is no to any of the questions then the strategy must be changed.

Cheers

JohnT

PS so, it's more than Econ 101, it is also a strategic argument.

[Fuchs]

Americans are really annoying to me with their "Econ101", I'm so happy there's no translation for it in German language.
There's no such thing as Econ101 according to my university-educated economist knowledge. Economics laymen use that word just way too often when they want to create the impression that what they're talking about is not disputable. Truly annoying (no offense intended in this particular discussion)


I would object to the use of the term "scarce resources" in context of soldier casualties. It's extremely off, misleading and simply ethically unacceptable.

I advise to use terms like "harm to society" instead, for soldiers are still members of the society, not one of its possessions.
The harm is also done no matter how many are (and whether there are any) in a replacements pool.

[Schmedlap]

It's usually microeconomics.
Econ 101

[Fuchs]

Lol, funnily, I've encountered it in context of micro for the very first time today. Most of the time people annoy me with "Econ101" in regard to national economics (macro) and I wasn't able to find a definition anywhere.

Well, we call it "Mikroökonomie I" then.

[Tom Odom]

Americans are really annoying to me with their "Econ101", I'm so happy there's no translation for it in German language.
There's no such thing as Econ101 according to my university-educated economist knowledge. Economics laymen use that word just way too often when they want to create the impression that what they're talking about is not disputable. Truly annoying (no offense intended in this particular discussion)

Econ 101 is slang for economics 101 as in entry-level economics or basic economics. Anyone who has ever been exposed to econ 101 or 601 for that matter knows that everything in econ is disputable.

Adding a disclaimer at the end does not absolve you of posting a truly annoying comment.

Tom

[tequila]

PS so, it's more than Econ 101, it is also a strategic argument.

Except Abu Suleyman's argument doesn't seem predicated on resource constraint. We're not going to run out of soldiers or Marines anytime soon.

The argument appears to be that MORE soldiers or Marines are dying / are going to die than would otherwise be the case because the President is taking his time to make a strategic decision. This strikes me as silly, especially given the time it would take for any additional forces to deploy.

Bill Moore argues that the enemy may strike harder to influence the President, but this does not appear to be happening, and one could just as easily argue the other side --- the enemy could ratchet down their campaign in order to appear to pose less of a threat in order to avoid a troop increase.