Comment from Sasha
Time: January 26, 2008, 8:21 am

I actually don’t agree that the democratic candidates are tippy-toeing aroound the issue of war. They so agree that there just isn’t a lot to discuss. And a discussion of the war amongst the candidates at a debate is mostly insider politics, the sort of thing that voters find off-putting. I, for one, am quite content to wait until a candidate is selected and then to aim that discussion at the opposite party. Herein lies the huge difference.

I do agree, though, that as soon as a candidate is selected the democrats should rally and go after the other party full bore dealing with everything from the 946 (or whatever) lies they told to get us into the war, the total lack of a plan to “win” the war, the ongoing lack of an exit strategy, the diversion from going after the Taliban, the increased danger from Iran and Afghanistan, etc., etc., etc. And every damn wounded veteran they can find should be on the podium at the Democratic National Convention. Oh, and the candidate should point out how she or he won’t make the same mistake. Ever.

Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: January 26, 2008, 9:39 am

This will be hard to do since the Democrats, for the most part, are accomplices. None of the Democratic nominees strick a strong commander-in-chief image, as I see it. Whoever runs needs a General Patraeus as a VP to add some credibility, not a John Edwards or Joe Lieberman type.

The bigger problem I see is what is the strategy for fighting the so-called war on terrorism. In psychological terms you can’t just be against something without creating a hole that imaginations will fill. Being for something always works better than being against something.

Any specific ideas on that front?

Comment from timr
Time: January 26, 2008, 10:37 am

Josh, your post plays to the fears of the dem congressional leadership, that is, they are sore afraid that the repigs will paint them soft on defense and terrorism, thus the timidity also shown by the candidates-who all come from the senate. I read a lot, both on and off line, from all political views and what I see-in the MSM-is the repig story line. democrat(sic) can not be trusted on either war or terror, so we have to elect repig prez. The dems need to get a hard slap up side of their heads to wake them up to the fact that they have bought the repig line. As the saying goes, hook, line, and sinker. Looks to me that you have also bought into this line by saying that the dem candidate MUST pick a military man as a VP. I don’t think that this is necessary. Why? Because, that is what the joint chiefs are there for, to provide military expertise. One can easily see what happens when the prez and his potty ignore that expertise-see the past 7 years under gwb. IMO if the dems take your advice, then the repigs can make even more attacks by claiming that the prez will abrogate his responsibilities as commander in chief to his VP(kind of like gwb to the dick) and don’t think that this position will not resonate in right wing land, because it has already started, esp in Military magazines(not published by the military, but for active and retired members) and gun magazines. Attacks have spread from clinton to include obama, don’t forget just how many members the NRA has, check out their TV programs, magazines, and websites if you have trouble beliving that this is happening.

Comment from Sasha
Time: January 26, 2008, 11:51 am

I also disagree with the military VP or any strong emphasis on the military. I have always believed, as do many other nations, that terrorism is a police problem. As long as we try to uncover plots with platoons, we will be unsuccessful. In my view the answer is to prevent military encroachment WHEN THAT IS INDICATED and to treat a police problem as a police problem. That leads me to want a strategy that emphasizes intelligence and the ability to deal in nuance as well as not being a pushover.

Comment from Leftcoast
Time: January 26, 2008, 11:53 am

When candidate refuse to deal with issues like all of them have, voters and the media have nothing left to talk about except the atmospherics and obvious and irrelevant points of difference such as race and gender. Voters are crying for this discussion, but the media centric consultants who control the party and all of the candidates (Yes Josh, Obama’s as packaged as Hillary and a box of Pringles) won’t let it happen. Too risky. Too real. Any wonder why so few of us actually vote?

Comment from Sasha
Time: January 26, 2008, 11:56 am

Left, I might agree with your conclusion but not yet. Most folks don’t even know there is an election unless they have a primary this week in their state.

Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: January 26, 2008, 12:37 pm

So far, Lefty, the primaries have record turnouts. Starting to look like a trend to me.

And let’s go back to the big problem. Democrats are perceived as soft on terrorism, before that on communism. The only thing the Dumbos have done to show how tough they are on the enemy, real or imagined, is keep old man Fidel boxed in and Cuban cigars illegal. Nothing they have done in the Senate or House has changed that perception. As the saying goes, if you keep doing what you are doing you are going to continue to get what you got.

Comment from Max
Time: January 26, 2008, 12:46 pm

For America, WWII was a victory. Korea was a stalemate, but that could not be helped. Vietnam was an absolute defeat, along with Iraq. In Bosnia, things worked about as well as could be expected.

All those little adventures down in Central America never really panned out, now the region is more anti American than ever.

massive military strategy has failed miserably. OK, some of people (Democrats) DID initially support the war in Iraq. What is wrong about admitting a mistake was made, votes were cast on a set of total lies thrown out by the Bush administration?

And if Obama needs a general for VP, get Wesley Clark!

Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: January 26, 2008, 1:03 pm

Max, since you are our general, what is the best strategy on terrorism, not Iraq, but terrorism. Suggesting it be a police problem during this campaign is not a good idea. The FBI is not exactly a viable option. The CIA is part of the problem. Only the military has credibility in the public’s eye. What’s a Democrat to say?

By the way, Bush’s numbers are starting to inch up. The economy is a good cover for the war. Another Petraeus report will have the Democrats on the defensive and parsing words. And the minute the first troups start coming home, sometime in late summer, the Democrats will say…what?

Comment from Sasha
Time: January 26, 2008, 1:29 pm

I’d rather see Wes Clark as SecDef. I think the VP nominee has to be able to be the ‘attack dog.’ My preference is Russ Feingold.

Comment from Max
Time: January 26, 2008, 1:46 pm

OK Josh. As Sasha says, terrorism is primarily a police problem. However, there can be, and should be, a role for America’s Special Forces. They are highly trained, often speak the languages of target areas, they understand local cultures. And they have a lot of neat toys.

From things I have seen on the net, the FBI initially blundered after 9/11 in a mass roundup of some 5,000 Moslems, citizens and residents both, in the US, by using profiled lists. However, my guess on that is that a panicky Bush administration pushed them into it. These people were released, most of them quickly, a few took longer. In any case, the FBI then got into community outreach.

They began courting the Civil leaders in local Moslem communities. These are people who are settled in America, they are stable, and they would have a good idea who the hotheads are. And you don’t go just arresting the young hotheads, you create martyrs. Talk to them, sometimes nicely, sometimes harshly, but shift them away from doing rash things. This would take agents fluent in Arabic and understanding of Moslem culture.

Internationally, The thing would be to set up deep liaisons with the Intelligence services of other governments. it should be as big as NATO.

What this plan does NOT need is conventional military forces of any kind.

They are too big, the troopers involved are not of the same class as special forces. They will do more damage than good in a war of minds.

So what I see as needed would be an international Intelligence alliance, with the ability to use the special forces of member nations.

And the US is going to have to tell Israel to get it’s act together and do a South Africa. A huge amount of the Moslem terrorist problem stems from the actions of Israel, and America’s constant support of whatever Israel does. No more blank check.

Comment from I.B.Lever
Time: January 26, 2008, 4:18 pm

” So what I see as needed, would be an international intelligence alliance, with the ability to use the special forces of member nations.”……

The only problem with that proposal, is the attitude, that we are the boss and the rest of the alliance, will do things our way or else. Other nations are fed-up with our approach of having complete and utter indifference, when dealing with foreign anything and if we don’t step back and listen to what the world is saying, the consequences will be severe.
We surely don’t need a Veep who has the qualities of a Petraeus or any other head nodder, for that matter. 20 tons of bombs on the outskirts of Baghdad one day last week, must be doing wonders for “all the reconstruction” and the “successful surge” that’s taking place ?
Overheard a conversation recently where one party made mention of Obama choosing Oprah as a running mate, to which the other party replied, she’d much rather Hillary chose Bill. After the mention of someone like Petraeus, I’m thinking both the above party’s choices, may have been right.

Comment from Max
Time: January 26, 2008, 4:49 pm

I. B. Lever-san! You just hit an excellent point on the head! If we were to make an Intelligence type NATO organization, it would not work if the US were in charge. We (Americans) are just not that trusted anymore.

Now a few things. Frankly, I was at first a little taken aback at the importance attached to terrorism by the comments and replies to my post. I really do not see terrorism as such a danger. OK, what major attacks have we had post 9/11, and let’s stick with the West. London and Madrid. In both cases, they were copycat wannabe’s, not evidence of a serious Al-Qaeda organization. Several other plots were avoided, one was to have 12 suicide bombers create mass panic by blowing themselves up at Manchester United Football game in Britain. The resulting stampede was supposed to kill hundreds. That cell with that plan was penetrated by British police and intelligence.

Yes, there have been lot’s of bombings in Pakistan and Iraq, but Pakistan has always been unstable, and we created Iraq. Israel has created the rest of many Middle Eastern problems.

Immediately post 9/11, the Bin-Laden did have some assets here and there around the world. The most notable that I can think of outside Arab Moslem countries was in the Philippines. I suspect that US special forces may have a role in rolling those people up, but hey, the SF people don’t give interviews. Also, international intelligence services did an excellent job in in tracking down and rolling up AQ’s financial networks.

but I think America is too paranoid. I think that we will notice that Spain and Britain did not lock down their societies with excessive security measures after their incidents.

Also, we will simply not need so many active infantry divisions and aircraft carrier battle groups from now on. Now I know I am going to step on the toes of a lot of people who make a lot of money with this, (some of them are friends of mine) but the big units are now pretty useless.

There is no Nation on Earth that can possibly challenge the US with military forces. Even if the US forces were cut in half.

And with an Intelligence alliance, using special forces units on the occasion, there just will not be that many slots for flag rank officers. No need for generals or admirals. Really, would it be possible to trim down the US military for any president? Too many people would be out of work.

People in the US see too many threats everywhere. However, the real two main threats facing the US are climate change and peak oil. Look for oil to climb over $100 this year, and stay up there, and look for Atlanta to become a drought disaster.

There lies the danger, in our excessive consumption, not with some guy with a beard and turban. but it is much easier to look at that bearded guy and say that he is evil, rather than look into our own souls.

Comment from Sasha
Time: January 26, 2008, 5:55 pm

Max, terrorism isn’t much of a real threat. But after 7 years of the GOP, every part of the government, and Messrs. Bush and Cheney trying to scare the pants off of everybody, a legacy being carried on faithfully by the GOP presidential candidates, it is something that looms large in the mind of much of the American public. So it must be addressed as if it were serious until the public can be reeducated.

Comment from Leftcoast
Time: January 27, 2008, 10:36 am

Josh, I think the reason you’re getting such a heavy turnout for the primaries is not Obama’s charisma or the Clinton sideshow. It’s because the electorate (or a larger portion of it) finally has awakened and is getting involved to make sure that we never get Bushed again. Under all the rhetoric, Bush is the issue, everything else from from there-the war, the economy, healthcare and our stature in the world.

Comment from timr
Time: January 27, 2008, 11:53 am

Max, to add to your point about the US Army. It is a field force army, which means that its training is to meet other armies on a field of battle and defeat them. IOW, they are trained to kill people and break things. period. They are not trained in counter insurgency type warfare, and are, as a rule, not very good at it-they tend to use a sledge hammer to swat a fly(so to speak) and in doing so they get the general population totally on the side of the insurgent.(See the Vietnam war as an example) As you say, the best(only) type of units that should be used in this type of warfare(counterinsurgency) are indeed the Spec Ops types-they are currently being used in over 80 countries worldwide-I get this from many sources, public and private- The Philippines,Indonesia, Thailand, Africa, and several mid east countries, as well as the Indian sub continent and South and Central America just to name a few places. The point is that the American field armies are the wrong people in the wrong place at the wrong time. You are also correct in saying that while the number of Army Divisions need to be reduced, the numbers of people in Spec Ops(Army SF, Navy SEALS, Marine Force Recon, and Air Force Commandos) need to be increased-as they were during Vietnam-and as they are in fact being increased at this time. This is a slow process, it takes 4-6 years of training and operations to make a really good spec ops operator(note that while in Vietnam, the Teams suffered few KIA in relation to the number their operations). There are also many regular Army/Navy units which are used strictly in support of Spec Ops.(Special Operations even has a major command now at MacDill AFB in Fl) So, what is needed is to replace the current numbers of Army in Iraq with Spec Ops and Civil Affairs Teams. Will it happen? Doubtful. Why? Because of the fact that the majority of Army Generals are conventional military types, and they DO NOT LIKE Spec Ops at all-look at what they did to Spec Ops operating in Afghanistan as a very bad example(the operators like to blend into a population by both living with and looking like locals, so the operators let their hair grow , wore beards, and did not follow the battle dress codes of the more conventional forces) The powers that were(general officers) in charge saw some SEALS-who have always been more grungy than SF-and ordered all of them to shave, get haircuts, and get into uniform. This order, when it was carried out, not only made the spec ops people stand out, but also pretty much ruined thir effectiveness with the tribes. This order was rescinded when that general left, but the Teams have not yet been able to regain the ground lost by one idiot generals order.( the son of a long time friend is a Navy LPO(E6) SEAL Team 2 member and has been a SEAL for over 10 years now and he told me this story as an example of misuse of the Teams) See also Stormin Norman of GFI fame. He refused to let any Spec Ops into his Area of responsibilty, and in fact refused to be briefed by the spec ops person on his staff. Until the deadwood at the pentagon is cleared out-the perfumed princes as the non fighting officers who get combat tours, but do a piss poor job, and spend most of their careers in staff positions are called-and warfighters take over, we will continue as we are now(the politicial generals know how to brown nose the political people(apointees) while the warfighters are usually pretty bad at it.

Comment from Max
Time: January 27, 2008, 5:22 pm

Tim,

You hit it exactly. Our forces are presently designed and configured to fight the Warsaw pact in Central Europe. A fight I am sure we would have won actually, primarily due to the high training of US Non Commissioned Officers. Electronic jamming would have broken large scale communications on both sides, but our troops had much better small unit training than the Soviets did. The Soviets relied on masses of troops to break through, we relied on mobility and flexibility at a small unit level.

But in a such a conflict, and enemy trooper wears a uniform. Enemy civilians are on the other side of a border. Guidelines for dealing with them are clear.

However, in a guerrilla war, who is a civilian and who is a combatant is never clear. And who is an enemy and who is a friend is never clear. So it does take an exceptionally intelligent and highly trained trooper to deal with this.

As far as your comments about some flag rank officers and their treatment of special forces, my own military experience was similar.

I came to Japan as a US Marine just at the end of the Vietnam war. I quickly fell in love with Japan. I was assigned as a Headquarters clerk. There was a network of American Communist agents throughout Japan at that time. They maintained cells outside US bases here. They had several goals. One was to encourage desertion, and they had a route to smuggle deserters through the Soviet Union to Sweden. They encouraged US troops to commit espionage, information went to the Soviets. And they were looking for proof of nuclear weapons on a US installation in Japan. As nuclear weapons are forbidden in Japan this would have created severe strains in the Japanese/American alliance, and opportunity for the Soviets.

Now in hindsight, I can say that the Vietnam war was a mistake. However, when you are in the military, you have a different set of legal obligations than civilian. Desertion, or passing information to hostile entities is a crime.

In any case, I became not simply a regular Marine, but also an undercover Intelligence asset for the US Naval Intelligence. the Red Americans made an effort to recruit me, because my learning Japanese would create problems in the Marines, and I was in a Headquarters. I never had access to classified information, but a lot of interesting stuff did cross my desk.

I was shocked a the amount of harassment and trouble I received from my immediate Marine superiors. My Sergeant was particularly incensed that I was immune from mess duty, as it interfered with my intelligence mission. I had to always watch my back, as some Americans were out to get me, while I was risking my life for America.

And needless to say, speaking Japanese and understanding the local culture was one of the big unwritten no-no’s.

So I have some experience of what Timr is writing in his comment.

Comment from ronaldo allyson
Time: February 25, 2008, 6:21 pm

NÓS ESTAMOS A MERCÊ DE DÉSPOTAS E TANTOS OUTROS SEM COMPROMISSO COM A VIDA. FIZ A CÓPIA PRO MEU BLOG E TENHO CERTEZA QUE NÃO ESTAMOS SOZINHOS NA LUTA EM FAVOR DA VIDA