Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues The Obama Administration President Obama's military policies

That from the "Obama's Memorial Day washout" thread prompted me to post this article about President Obama's military policies.
When I have said in the past that I didn't see differences in the military policy campaign promises of McCain and Obama, what I meant and should have been clearer about was that both scared and disappointed me equally.

Well I was wrong. Apparently Obama is going even further than the previous administration.
I shouldn't be surprised but I find myself disappointed just the same.

U.S. 'secret war' expands globally as Special Operations forces take larger role
my bolds
Wow is all I've got to say.

But the difference is that Obama is attempting to use EFFICIENCY.
He wants bang for the buck.
If we have to fight a war I want not just peace, but I also want the enemy to SURRENDER and admit DEFEAT.
Call me old fashioned but I like my wars with whitewall tires and
Glenn Miller. I certainly appreciate it when modern technology makes it count more, but I don't dig the modern attitudes or philosophies. The military has a job.
It ain't building nations, restoring services, sharing democracy or any of that crap.
It's killing people and breaking things until the enemy screams "UNCLE".

If that means predator drones then so be it.
Giant flying cans of RAID buzzing around in the sky, giving Taliban and AQ operatives nervous breakdowns.
There will be innocent loss of life, there will be innocent blood shed. The object is to be honest about the ratio and by that I mean the ratio of enemy to innocent and the comparative innocent stats of the various weapons and campaigns employed.

If the drones prove to kill less innocents overall compared to everything else then we've done our best, especially if they are bringing in big kill numbers in the ENEMY column.

And last but not least, when the enemy preaches against modern values and the curse of the infidel then GODDAMIT what in hell is our business community doing cozying up and trading with them for? They want the 7th century? The whole goddam world should make it their mission to do everything in its power to force them to put their money where their mouth is, and we will just have to figure out a way to get along without whatever it is they have.

It AINT WORTH IT.
That way, we don't find ourselves in a constant state of war with these morons.
Defense industry dont like that? Tough titty.
Make sewing machines instead.

Too-Shay, Jeff.

Obviously no lessons learned in Vietnam and even in Iraq "except that during less than stable ecomomic times"...that it keeps our country from formally declaring bankruptcy. History tells us that we can't win a war in another country where their fighting forces don't wear uniforms, blend in with everyday citizens. I think history will show that to be the case for other warring countries who fought under similar situations.

The "collateral damage factor" is the only thing that keeps us, and more in particular, so-called "civilized" countries, from winning such a type of war as our nation has repeatedly experienced over the last near 50 years.

Even Russia began to climbed out of the barbaric stage of evolution after Stalin. It took awhile, but they too have made the same war engagement mistakes as we have. A prime example is their little 8 plus year war in Afghanistan.

Apparently diplomatic methods of resolve in these 7th century countries is impossible...much like it was in Vietnam. Only unplugged, relentless brutality that involves no regard for civilian life is the only way America can claim a geniune victory in Iraq and Afghanistian.

Should that type of military policy be deployed by the U.S. Government...then I say it's time for the average American to study over and over and over the first several paraphraphs of the Declaration of Independence. Then take the necessary action to remove some folks in Washington...well, maybe clean the slate completely in Washington, make a few revisions in the Constitution that gave too much power to the Federal Government and give our Republic form of goverment another try. I believe that it can work...only if the 4th branch of our form of government makes it work.

When I have said in the past that I didn't see differences in the military policy campaign promises of McCain and Obama,
[/quote]

Olive
Later I will post links and quotes that go directly to the pont (you know me ) But for the moment, I would like to raise just a couple of issues.

First, you say "I didn't see differences in the military policy campaign promises of McCain and Obama, "

Would you say that view is the result of any detailed research into their respective positions? Or is it possible that you are are so enervated by current Obama policies in this respect that you simply make a reflexive assumption that things could not be worse under McCain? Think about it.

As I said, I will later post links that go directly to the point that you raise.

In the mean time, there is this other issue. You provided some quotes from me. I would like to refresh and expand the context within which those quotes were written.

As it turns out, it is a little difficult to be entirely certain what policies McCain would have chosen.... just as it is impossible to know what would have happened in Iraq had we not invaded. And for this reason, I feel it is interesting to go back and look at Bush vs Gore.

At the outset, let us remember that during the Bush vs Gore campaing, there were lots of people who said... "it makes no difference between the two of them" Nader was one of those, and perhaps Olive was also of that opinion? Regardless, it is a historical fact that many people did express that opinion at that time.

link

Now, we are in a position to look back at the choice of Bush vs Gore with 20-20 hindsight. And we can ask whether it actually did make a difference to elect Bush and not Gore? Would Gore have invaded Iraq? I doubt it. Would Gore have given away all the budget surpluses in tax cuts for the rich? I doubt it.

So... what can we say about the people who said at the time there is no difference between Bush and Gore? The most generous thing that we can say is that they were absolutely and completely incorrect!!!!! Given the closeness of the election, it is not far fetched to say that such people swung the election to Bush by not voting for Gore.

It certainly was the right of people to vote for the candidate that they actually preferred.... Nader. But, as it turns out, this was not a choice without consequences for our country.

And, in the case of Bush Vs Gore.... it seems to me that one near certain consequence of the "there is no difference" attitude was in fact the Bush invasion of Iraq.

Olive, that was the point I was making when I said that it seemed to me that you were indifferent the unintended war related consequences of your view that "there is no difference"

OK, I will provide links later to address the specific point about difference between McCain and Obama... I am sure you are anxious for that.

By the way, just to be clear, I am not at this point advocating any particular policy about the issue that we are discussing....

I am addressing the separate issue... Does it really make no difference if you vote for Bush or Gore? Does it really make no difference if you vote for Obama or McCain?


What if we say if makes no difference... but it actually does make a difference?

To call French Indo-China a seventh century society is pretty Neanderthal---and reveals a shocking lack of education.

The phony Gulf of Tonkin "incidents" reveal that the top echelons of the USA power structure had no desire for peace.

By the way, why were the people who manufactured that false propaganda never tried for war crimes?

They were certainly guilty of war crimes under the Nuremburg conventions.

yes I do! Ardy go back and look at my words in the opening post concerning that. I amended that.

I got busy today. I'll be back in a little bit.
Ardy, now don't work too hard. I will respond to what you're saying but that's not really what this thread is about.
It's about Obama's war policy and how that disappointed me and what you guys think of it.
Not about how I've voted in the past.
That is beside the fact that I didn't vote for him. I was glad he was elected instead of McCain but I got to tell you things like his military policies give me pause big time.

Ardy, as I said earlier, that isn't what this thread is about but I do realize that I started it with a quote of yours so it's fair that I respond to what you've written.

Ardy, that is what I wrote to open this thread.
I know there are slight differences. Just as there are differences between Bush and McCain or Obama and Clinton.
I do overall feel though that the two parties are essentially morphing into one big one though. They are both war mongering corporate whores. They control the election process to keep others out as well as the debates.

I know you think I threw my vote away when I voted for a third option. I can't change your mind there.
I voted that way because there was somebody running who I was actually "for" and who best represented my values. I also voted that way because I was actively working with the Green Party and was interested in party building and all that goes with that...ballot access, matching funds, etc.
We need more choices.

Would I rather McCain/Palin to have won? No!
And I also hope President Obama truly does correct some of the problems that Bush left behind.
But that said, this article points out that President Obama's military policies are even worse than even I thought they would be and I'm dreadfully disappointed.

I'm not sorry I didn't vote for Gore and don't feel responsible for electing George Bush...twice. The American people who vote for him did that.

I was shocked that President Obama, according to this article has so greatly increased our secret preemptive wars around the world and deeply disappointed.
He campaigned that he would increase action in Afghanistan so though I disagree I wasn't surprised.
The other does shock me.

Yes to both of you.
It all makes my heart hurt.

Thats a very WW2 version of war, one that no longer holds true and one that no longer has much utility in the modern world.


this model of war only works well when 2 (or more) nations organised state armies knock the hell out of each other. Modern warfare is asymetrical and killing people and breaking things is ultimately self defeating.

how long did the US spend in Vietnam doing just that? to what end?

Did this approach provide much reward in Iraq? hell it was only when the US bought off the sunni insurgency (and allowed the shia ethnic clensing of baghdad) that the number of attacks dropped off.

in modern conflicts the people are both the battlefield and the prize.