The President visits Dover

[squorch2]

Wrong - there is no "shall" about being politically neutral. The "shall" refers to how you manifest your political feelings. Big difference.

On AD, one is the same as the other. You can't campaign for partisan political causes. You can't help out your favorite partisan political campaign on election day (or any other day.) You can't even run for office!

The IG has some things to say on the subject as well.

I'd say the two are functionally equivalent.

 

[exhelodrvr]

On AD, one is the same as the other. You can't campaign for partisan political causes. You can't help out your favorite partisan political campaign on election day (or any other day.) You can't even run for office!

The IG has some things to say on the subject as well.

I'd say the two are functionally equivalent.

No, not the same. There are significant limitations, but there is also a lot that can be done, including: you can contribute to parties, have bumper stickers on your vehicle, can attend rallies (if not in uniform), write letters to the editor of newspapers.

 

[squorch2]

Right - but your activities are significantly curtailed from what any other person can do.

 

[exhelodrvr]

Right - but your activities are significantly curtailed from what any other person can do.

Yes, but that is not the same as a forced political neutrality.

 

[squorch2]

I think we're arguing semantics here, so... sure.

 

[exhelodrvr]

Just trying to clear up the common misconception that no political involvement is allowed for military personnel.

 

[helolumpy]

[/b]

For real???
The POTUS announced a "strategy" back in March.......look it up.
I also was under the impression that the Theatre Commander gave his recomendations 3+ months ago (if you want to talk about a plan....or maybe you are talking about John Kerry's?).... I wonder how many more retired flag officers are behind McChrystal vice against his opinion?? hmmmm?

Obama has not had a strategy for Afghanistan for over three months; what he has was a plan to change from CT to COIN.
GEN McChrystal's goal is to provide some security for the Afghan people so they will not support the insurgency.
That does not answer the larger question of what is the goal of Afghanistan? What do the people there really want; do they want Democracy? Do they want a moderate Islamic Republic? Do they want Sharia Law? All of that must be figured into the United States Strategy for Afghanistan.
Just adding 40,000 more troops to provide security does nothing towards developing good governance and enabling the Afghani government to provide basic services with reliable infrastructure to their people.
If the government of Afghanistan can not provide security, then someone, most likely Pashtun Warlords, will step in and fill that void.
So what is the role of the United States here? Do we keep security troops in Afghanistan forever? When do we transition from combat operations in Afghanistan and redeploy our forces???
ALL of these questions need to be answered and they haven't for 8 years!! You just don't say; 'We need more troops' and have no idea of the final outcome. Sure we can get more stability in Afghanistan with those troops; then what happens??? Or we can just keep dumping more blood and money into a black hole and have nothing to show for it.
If you don't know where you're going, then you will never get there

 

[Brett327]

Obama has not had a strategy for Afghanistan for over three months; what he has was a plan to change from CT to COIN.
GEN McChrystal's goal is to provide some security for the Afghan people so they will not support the insurgency.
That does not answer the larger question of what is the goal of Afghanistan? What do the people there really want; do they want Democracy? Do they want a moderate Islamic Republic? Do they want Sharia Law? All of that must be figured into the United States Strategy for Afghanistan.
Just adding 40,000 more troops to provide security does nothing towards developing good governance and enabling the Afghani government to provide basic services with reliable infrastructure to their people.
If the government of Afghanistan can not provide security, then someone, most likely Pashtun Warlords, will step in and fill that void.
So what is the role of the United States here? Do we keep security troops in Afghanistan forever? When do we transition from combat operations in Afghanistan and redeploy our forces???
ALL of these questions need to be answered and they haven't for 8 years!! You just don't say; 'We need more troops' and have no idea of the final outcome. Sure we can get more stability in Afghanistan with those troops; then what happens??? Or we can just keep dumping more blood and money into a black hole and have nothing to show for it.
If you don't know where you're going, then you will never get there

+1

Brett

 

[Mumbles]

I agree with every word you said lumpy...

There is a finite timetable for deliberation though.....
anything after this IS dithering.
The onus of this terrible decision is on th CinC....and we would presume that he understood this when he campaigned for the job.
I have a hunch that his decision was made months ago, but he'll make a much ballyhooed speech about it in the next week or so.
My fear is that he will choose the middle option and give McChrystal 12-15k more troops....and basically just keep kicking the can down the road, the most dangerous course.

 

[squorch2]

40k is a middle option too... Hell, even 100k additional is a middle option.

 

[helolumpy]

There are reports that ISAF asked for over 100K and the Pentagon pushed back saying it was way too much and they should send in a number under 50K.
That being said, now that Afghanistan has a 'legitimate' leader in Karzai, it's time to deal with this problem.
The senior leadership for this country (White House, Congress, JCS) need to establish priorities. What is our focus right now; Afghanistan, Iraq, Non-proliferation (Iran), Economic Recovery, Heath Care?
More rumor-int was that Obama was waiting for the November election in Afghanistan to ensure he was working with the legitamate leader of the country; an obvious delaying tactic. What now?
I agree that we need to have a strategy and this is something that should have been a front burner issue since January, as stated in campaign rhetoric, but it seems there is not a strategy.
In the meantime, the Commander in the field has requested more troops and JCS says they can support that request. Sign the DEPORDs and get the ball rolling. Temporary security is important, but the glaring lack of strategic thinking in DC is depressingly obvious!

 

[exhelodrvr]

ALL of these questions need to be answered and they haven't for 8 years!! You just don't say; 'We need more troops' and have no idea of the final outcome. Sure we can get more stability in Afghanistan with those troops; then what happens??? Or we can just keep dumping more blood and money into a black hole and have nothing to show for it.
If you don't know where you're going, then you will never get there

The biggest question is how the threat level to the United States changes based on the various approaches to Afghanistan-Pakistan (the two should not be separated) and whether the cost of those approaches outweighs the cost of the threat. (Cost of the threat being the likelihood of it occurring times the cost if it does.) The answer to that should be the determining factor.

 

[Brett327]

There are reports that ISAF asked for over 100K and the Pentagon pushed back saying it was way too much and they should send in a number under 50K.
That being said, now that Afghanistan has a 'legitimate' leader in Karzai, it's time to deal with this problem.
The senior leadership for this country (White House, Congress, JCS) need to establish priorities. What is our focus right now; Afghanistan, Iraq, Non-proliferation (Iran), Economic Recovery, Heath Care?
More rumor-int was that Obama was waiting for the November election in Afghanistan to ensure he was working with the legitamate leader of the country; an obvious delaying tactic. What now?
I agree that we need to have a strategy and this is something that should have been a front burner issue since January, as stated in campaign rhetoric, but it seems there is not a strategy.
In the meantime, the Commander in the field has requested more troops and JCS says they can support that request. Sign the DEPORDs and get the ball rolling. Temporary security is important, but the glaring lack of strategic thinking in DC is depressingly obvious!

Well, there are lots of ways to look at the recent Afghan election, but I don't think "legitimate" is a word that many people would use to describe it. Karzai may be the "official" winner of a very corruption-ridden election process, but legitimate is quite a stretch.

Brett

 

[mmx1]

Have I been asleep, or were they going to have a runoff?

 

[squorch2]

They were, then Abdullah withdrew from the runoff... yesterday, was it? Or the day before.