[mike777]

helene_t, on Oct 21 2009, 02:02 PM, said:

kenberg, on Oct 19 2009, 09:14 PM, said:

We are a superpower in the sense that we can nuke the bejesus out of whomever we might choose, but that's not really where the action is. [....]  So we need to work with our friends, Europe of course, and Australia, South America,  and Asia.

I think USA is a superpower. Your military can't control the whole World but they have been able to achieve some significant goals in Panama, Grenada, Kosova, even to some extent in a big country like Colombia. And there was this American captain that was freed from Somali pirates. I am not being sarcastic, I really think it requires powerful military and the political will to make us of it to achieve such aims, and although some other countries have occasionally done similar things (the Falkland war), I think it is largely an American thing.

As for Europe, don't count on it. OK some European countries are willing to send peace keeping forces once peace has been obtained. But since the disgusting non-involvement policy of Europe during the Bosnian war I have zero belief in Europe's will to take military action.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that US has been over-active in many cases. Sometimes it is easy to be wise in retrospect: I was in favor of involvement in Afghanistan for some time, and I am not sure what I would have thought about Vietnam if I had been older. But the latest Iraq never seemed to have any merits.

Helene, I am not sure what you or many in Europe wish the USA to do?


Send the middle east troops home today or other?

Pull all our troops out of Europe today or other?

[Winstonm]

Let me try to address some posts without doing too much cutting and pasting.

Ken,

I appreciate what you said and perhaps I have to take a lion's share of the blame for choosing the quotes to paste - many times it takes a reading of the entire article to get the total point but I try to pick a short part in order to emphasize the message and not have you guys having to go back and forth all day reading articles to which I refer. That could be my bad.

Sometimes, as in the case of Glenn Greenwald, it requires a continuous reading to know his intent - the case he makes against the troop increase in Afghanistan is countered by his encouragement of prosecuting terrorists and adhering to the rule of law. He is not pacifist so much as against military involvement when no military goal seems attainable.

I am quite surprised by your position on Andrew Bacevich - if you have ever heard him speak I believe you would find him one of the least pretentious persons you have ever heard, quite contemplative and non-confrontational.

Blackshoe,

I believe you are confusing tactics with strategy. Strategy encompasses the goals and politics to accomplish those goals. Tactics are more like battle plans. It often helps if you can get the opposing civilians to agree with your strategic goals - and you wouldn't want the enemy to know your battle tactics in advance.

Others,

Obama certainly has a difficult decision - but it is not entirely of his own making. There was not a real problem until McChrystal started his PR campaign in favor of his troop increase - and now the NYT is jumping on the bandwagon - it is almost a replay of the buildup to Iraq.

Gates, Mullen, Patraeus, Odierno, McChystal - these are all holdovers from the Bush-Cheney administration. Is it any surprise that these men and their publicists are promoting a continuation of the endless war over which the Neocon salivated so?

[Winstonm]

Quote

Escalation is the answer?

QUOTE
Glenn Greenwald:
"In the last ten years, the U.S. and Israel collectively have bombed at least six Muslim countries (including Gaza).  Despite that, 40% of Americans want to attack yet another one, and 1/3 want to invade.  Those are the same people who, if there is another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, will be walking around, eyebrows earnestly raised, innocent, self-righteous and confused, and asking:  'why do they hate us??'  And their friends and neighbors and leaders will assure them:  'they hate us for our freedoms.'"

Isn't Greenwald discussing Iran in this quote?

Yes, but the quote is from a larger piece talking about increasing the size of the troop disbursement in Afghanistan - and how American forces in Muslim lands cause increased terrorism to occur.

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on Oct 21 2009, 06:57 PM, said:

I believe you are confusing tactics with strategy.

Of course. I only spent half my adult life in the military. How could I possibly know the difference?

[mike777]

I dont get all the critics of General M. He was hired by the President to do a mission. He asked for resources to do the President's Mission....not one the General is forcing on the USA.

Keep in mind all these speeches, 60 minutes tv show are cleared by his bosses (more than one).


Now the President has said he may or may not change the mission. We are awaiting his decision.



"... and how American forces in Muslim lands cause increased terrorism to occur....." this could be its own thread.


--------------------

[kenberg]

With regard to Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Bacevich, let me borrow from Will Rogers: I only know what I read in the forum. I get along fine with (most) mathematicians. Getting along with a a gay constitutional lawyer and civil rights litigator, and a conservative catholic military man, would be a piece of cake.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Oct 21 2009, 06:49 PM, said:

I dont get all the critics of General M.




--------------------

Maybe it's because of statements such as this:

Quote

Gen. Stanley McChrystal set out a clear marker for what he considers “success” in Afghanistan:

    American success in Afghanistan should be measured by “the number of Afghans shielded from violence,” not the number of enemy fighters killed, he said.

[helene_t]

mike777, on Oct 21 2009, 10:37 PM, said:

Helene, I am not sure what you  or many in Europe wish the USA to do?

Send the middle east troops home today or other?

Pull all our troops out of Europe today or other?

Obviously the vast majority of Western Europeans are very happy with Obama, although the picture is more diverted in Eastern (Central?) Europe.

Personally I would say that the USA is doing fine in international matters. I like the US position better than the European one on most issues, but maybe it would be a good idea to spend more money on humanitarian and development aid and less on military aid.

I never understood why international politics is so important to USA. USA is much less vulnerable to external security and trade issues than are Europe and Japan, so it would be perfectly understandable if you decided to focus on cleaning up your domestic mess (health care, education, crime, CO2 emissions, lawyer mafia etc) and leave the rest of the World to its own devices. Maybe the fact that most Americans have roots on other continents make you more concerned about global security issues? Here in England nobody gives a damn about what happens in Scotland let alone Europe (to say nothing about other continents) although we are much more dependent on them than you are.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Oct 22 2009, 04:21 AM, said:

I never understood why international politics is so important to USA. USA is much less vulnerable to external security and trade issues than are Europe and Japan, so it would be perfectly understandable if you decided to focus on cleaning up your domestic mess (health care, education, crime, CO2 emissions, lawyer mafia etc) and leave the rest of the World to its own devices. Maybe the fact that most Americans have roots on other continents make you more concerned about global security issues? Here in England nobody gives a damn about what happens in Scotland let alone Europe (to say nothing about other continents) although we are much more dependent on them than you are.

absolutely right, helene... yet another thing i'd do as dictator is (almost) totally withdraw from the rest of the world until i got my own house in order

[Winstonm]

Quote

Every military counter-insurgency strategy hits up against the probability that it will, in time, create more enemies than it kills. So you blow up a suspected Taliban site and kill two of their commanders – but you also kill 98 women and children, whose families are from that day determined to kill your men and drive them out of their country. Those aren't hypothetical numbers. They come from Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, who was General Petraeus' counter-insurgency advisor in Iraq. He says that US aerial attacks on the Afghan-Pakistan border have killed 14 al-Qa'ida leaders, at the expense of more than 700 civilian lives. He says: "That's a hit rate of 2 per cent on 98 per cent collateral. It's not moral." It explains the apparent paradox that broke the US in Vietnam: the more "bad guys" you kill, the more you have to kill.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/comme...an-1806191.html

Quote

US aerial attacks on the Afghan-Pakistan border have killed 14 al-Qa'ida leaders, at the expense of more than 700 civilian lives

They hate us for our freedom.

[cherdanno]

helene_t, on Oct 22 2009, 04:21 AM, said:

mike777, on Oct 21 2009, 10:37 PM, said:

Helene, I am not sure what you  or many in Europe wish the USA to do?

Send the middle east troops home today or other?

Pull all our troops out of Europe today or other?

Obviously the vast majority of Western Europeans are very happy with Obama, although the picture is more diverted in Eastern (Central?) Europe.

Personally I would say that the USA is doing fine in international matters. I like the US position better than the European one on most issues, but maybe it would be a good idea to spend more money on humanitarian and development aid and less on military aid.

I never understood why international politics is so important to USA. USA is much less vulnerable to external security and trade issues than are Europe and Japan, so it would be perfectly understandable if you decided to focus on cleaning up your domestic mess (health care, education, crime, CO2 emissions, lawyer mafia etc) and leave the rest of the World to its own devices. Maybe the fact that most Americans have roots on other continents make you more concerned about global security issues? Here in England nobody gives a damn about what happens in Scotland let alone Europe (to say nothing about other continents) although we are much more dependent on them than you are.

I am not sure what you are saying here. Foreign policy is a more important topic in Germany than in the USA - except that it isn't discussed much as there is a fairly big consensus on most foreign policy issues in Germany.

The American economy is arguably more dependent on the world economy than Europe - with the big trade deficit the American economy is dependent on investments from China and petro-dollars continuing to come in.

Most of the American foreign policy discussion is driven by perceived threats to the USA (nuclear bomb in Iran and Al Quaeda), and by the special relation with Israel.

[Winstonm]

Quote

The American economy is arguably more dependent on the world economy than Europe - with the big trade deficit the American economy is dependent on investments from China and petro-dollars continuing to come in.

Most of the American foreign policy discussion is driven by perceived threats to the USA (nuclear bomb in Iran and Al Quaeda), and by the special relation with Israel

That is a wonderfully succinct (and accurate) description of the U.S. The only question I would ask is which do you believe came first - the Military-Industrial Complex's dependence on warring for existence or the perceived threats and special relationship with Israel?

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Oct 22 2009, 08:35 PM, said:

Quote

The American economy is arguably more dependent on the world economy than Europe - with the big trade deficit the American economy is dependent on investments from China and petro-dollars continuing to come in.

Most of the American foreign policy discussion is driven by perceived threats to the USA (nuclear bomb in Iran and Al Quaeda), and by the special relation with Israel

That is a wonderfully succinct (and accurate) description of the U.S. The only question I would ask is which do you believe came first - the Military-Industrial Complex's dependence on warring for existence or the perceived threats and special relationship with Israel?

threats to israel are only perceived? by them or us?

[helene_t]

I think the implicit brackets are

(perceived threat [to the US]) and special relation to Israel

rather than

perceived (threat and special relation) to Israel

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Oct 23 2009, 04:47 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 22 2009, 08:35 PM, said:

Quote

The American economy is arguably more dependent on the world economy than Europe - with the big trade deficit the American economy is dependent on investments from China and petro-dollars continuing to come in.

Most of the American foreign policy discussion is driven by perceived threats to the USA (nuclear bomb in Iran and Al Quaeda), and by the special relation with Israel

That is a wonderfully succinct (and accurate) description of the U.S. The only question I would ask is which do you believe came first - the Military-Industrial Complex's dependence on warring for existence or the perceived threats and special relationship with Israel?

threats to israel are only perceived? by them or us?

Quote

perceived threats to the USA (nuclear bomb in Iran and Al Quaeda),

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on Oct 21 2009, 06:47 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 21 2009, 06:57 PM, said:

I believe you are confusing tactics with strategy.

Of course. I only spent half my adult life in the military. How could I possibly know the difference?

Sorry, my fault. The impression you gave was one of misunderstanding.

[blackshoe]

Oh, very good, Winston!

Tell you what - since you're obviously so much smarter than I am, why don't I just blindly accept everything you say. Will that work better for you?

[Winstonm]

You are right. Sorry, Cheap shot. Erased and edited.

[luke warm]

blackshoe, on Oct 24 2009, 01:14 AM, said:

Oh, very good, Winston!

Tell you what - since you're obviously so much smarter than I am, why don't I just blindly accept everything you say. Will that work better for you?

there are those on this board for whom that particular bell does toll