They have good reasons to be afraid of Chuck Hagel at the Pentagon as the man has a soft spot for Muslims.
by Katie Glueck
Some Jews and supporters of Israel voiced major concerns about the possible nomination of former Sen. Chuck Hagel to lead the Defense Department, taking to Twitter and the blogosphere this week to slam the Nebraska Republican.
“Send us Hagel and we will make sure every American knows he is an anti-Semite,” a senior Republican Senate aide told The Weekly Standard. The aide continued, “Hagel has made clear he believes in the existence of a nefarious Jewish lobby that secretly controls U.S. foreign policy. This is the worst kind of anti-Semitism there is.”
[........]
The English-language Israeli publication cited Hagel’s past positions on issues including the second Lebanon War in 2006 and Israel’s dealings with former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.
“Now that the election is over Barack Obama no longer has to appeal to supporters of Israel or haters of terrorism — so he is about to appoint former Senator Chuck Hagel to replace Leon Panetta as Secretary of Defense,” charged Jeff Dunetz at the blog Yid with Lid.
A top Israel advocate told The Daily Beast that “the pro-Israel community will view the nomination of Senator Chuck Hagel in an extremely negative light. His record is unique in its animus towards Israel.”
Reports Thursday indicated Hagel is a likely pick for the top Pentagon position.
The Midwesterner has come under withering fire from some corners of the conservative and Jewish communities for his previous rhetoric and positions on Israel and Iran.
“He is one of the most hostile critics of Israel that has ever been in the Senate,” Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, told the newspaper The Algemeiner.
[.......]
The piece then cited National Jewish Democratic Council talking points, which include Hagel’s refusal to “write the EU asking them to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization” in 2006; that “in October 2000, Hagel was one of only 4 Senators who refused to sign a Senate letter in support of Israel;” and that in 2005, he “refused to sign a letter to President Bush to pressure the Palestinian Authority to ban terrorist groups from participating in Palestinian legislative elections.”
“Hagel was one of the most consistently anti-Israel Sens in modern history,” tweeted conservative Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner. “Would be a great fit for Obama administration.”
Hawkish conservatives also noted support Hagel has received from some who have taken a critical approach to Israel.
“Hagel’s got Walt on board,” Jamie Weinstein of The Daily Caller tweeted, linking to a piece from Harvard professor Stephen Walt, who co-authored a controversial book on what he called the “Israel lobby.” “Now if he gets Leveretts & Michael Scheuer, he’ll score an anti-Israel all-star hat trick.”
[.......]
At the White House Hanukkah party Thursday, according to a BuzzFeed report, Jewish leaders on both sides of the aisle expressed concern over a possible Hagel nod. The BuzzFeed story cited criticism of Hagel, dating back several years, that came from the National Jewish Democratic Council and its then-executive director, Ira Forman, who more recently oversaw Jewish outreach for the Obama reelection campaign. The Republican Jewish Coalition referenced that history on Twitter on Thursday.
“Cat got your tongue, @IraForman? ‘Forman declined to comment on Hagel’s possible nomination Thursday.’ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/13/the-hagel-haters.html …” the Coalition tweeted at Forman, linking to an article in which Forman skipped commenting on Hagel.
Also at issue: Hagel’s position on issues like Iran, a country constantly at odds with Israel and the United States over its nuclear program.
Hagel “sits on the board of a bank that is under investigation for allegedly violating United States sanctions on Iran,” the conservative Washington Free Beacon wrote Thursday.
Jackson Diehl, a foreign affairs columnist for The Washington Post, tweeted a series of Hagel’s past positions on Middle East issues, some of which conservatives were quick to retweet.
“Hagel voted against Iran sanctions in 2004, 2007 and 2008. In 2009 he urged Obama to open talks with Hamas,” he offered. Another tweet read, “Chuck Hagel after meeting Hafez al Assad: ‘Peace comes through dealing with people.’ Did not vote for #Syria Accountability Act.”
Paul Mirengoff of PowerLine cheered the news that Ambassador Susan Rice is no longer in the running for the position of secretary of state — which shuffled Cabinet openings — but added, “On the other hand, if Chuck Hagel gets the nod to lead the Pentagon, we may all end up wishing that the White House had found someone other than Susan Rice to discuss Benghazi on television on that fateful Sunday.”
Other conservatives, however, did come to the defense of Hagel, a longtime Republican despite endorsing President Barack Obama in 2008.
“Chuck Hagel will be an outstanding SecDef,” tweeted John Weaver, a veteran of GOP campaigns including Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential bid. “The country will be fortunate if this is so.”
At The American Conservative, a publication that tends to oppose intervention, Daniel Larison offered a mixed assessment of Hagel, but one more positive than other conservatives did.
“The advantages are that Hagel has been less enthusiastic about using force overseas than many other Republicans that he served with in Congress, and as a veteran he has never been one to minimize or ignore the costs of armed conflict,” he wrote. “The disadvantages are that he did not oppose new foreign wars while he was in the Senate.”
Joshua Keating, an associate editor at Foreign Policy magazine, also argued that Hagel’s position on Iran is in line with that of the Obama administration.
“Hagel called for direct talks with Iran during the closing years of the Bush administration — as did Obama,” he wrote. “He now says Iran’s nukes pose a serious threat but that the GOP isn’t fully considering the consequences of military action — as do Obama and Panetta. If there’s a ‘signal’ being sent, it’s that the administration is sticking with the plan on Iran.”
Read the rest - Some Jews, Israel-backers fear Chuck Hagel
Tags: Chuck Hagel, Katie Glueck
Israel supporters have reason to be alarmed at Barack Obama getting a second term, period, but that didn’t stop Jews from voting overwhelmingly for him. What this signifies is that there is no longer any electoral down-side for Democrats to take off the mask and oppose Israel openly. The strongest demographic that supports Israel is Evangelical Christians, and the Democrats already lose them overwhelmingly. If they aren’t going to lose the Jewish vote ofver Obama’s overt anti-Semitism, then they simply aren’t going to lose the Jewish vote. And, unfortuantely, anti-Semitism will sell to blacks, Muslims, and other Leftist members of the Democrat coalition.
@ Iron Fist:
mornin IF
momcat would say hi but she is still in bed asleep
I had to get up to get the girl ready and take her to school
and I’m on vacation
(funny how that works huh)
@ rain of lead:
You have to let the Lady of the House sleep. Elswise, she becomes the Grand Bitch of the House, and that is unplesant! At least that’s the way it works around my house. I am always up before my Old Lady.
@ Iron Fist:
yup
the phrase “if momma ain’t happy then no one is happy”
is true for a reason
@ rain of lead:
Happy Wife, happy life! Wow, it’s a slow morning around here, and I am fixing to leave for a doctor’s appointment. Talk to y’all later.
I wish Susan Rice were nominated for Sec. of State.
On the Poltico comments -- check out the anti-Semitism.
With all due respect, I don’t care about Israel or Jews, American or otherwise, on this one. AMERICA has deep reason to fear ANYBODY Obama would nominate for SecDef. Or State. Or to be the Anti-French Fry “czar”, for that matter.
And thanks to MikeA for the ammo… I’ve got enough Marlin fodder to refight the Battle of the Little Bighorn now.
Chuck Hagel is a Buchananite.
@ Speranza:
Why? I know that you thought that she was gorgeous, but did you really believe she earned the honor of Secretary of state.
@ Rodan:
A Buchananite? Prove it Rodan
@ theoutsider:
Why do you like Hagel so much? Did you know he’s a social con? I thought you do not like Social Cons?
@ Rodan:
Chuck Hagel is a realist. He is the opposite of Miss Lindsey, Walnuts McCain, and Vinegar Joe Lieberman.
@ Speranza:
It would have been interesting to watch her testify on Benghazi, but I doubt you could have gotten the truth out of her oath or no oath.
@ Rodan:
He doesn’t believe in that Social BS. Did you ever think he subscribed to that crap?
theoutsider wrote:
He’s not a realist. He’s a Pro-Islamist.
theoutsider wrote:
How do you know he doesn’t? Funny to see you support a Social Con after claiming that’s why you left the GOP.
Lucianne is reporting that Nikki Haley has picked Tim Scott to replace Jim DeMint. No word on whether Dianne Feinstein will burn a cross on the Senate floor…
I wouldn’t trust Obama to appoint a competent crossing guard in front of the local high school. The president is nettled to his cabinet, lest there be highly compelling evidence to block the nomination. That said, anyone who believes that a nomination of Hagel is a bipartisan reach across the aisle is dangerously gullible. It’s not. Obama doesn’t have a bipartisan bone in his body.
@ Rodan:
Hagel is Pro Islamist, and a social conservative. Lay out the case for it.
@ MacDuff:
nettled=entitled. dammit!
@ MacDuff:
Hagel was always a RINO. This is no different than the appointment of Kerry. I expect Hagel to sail through the Senate, but anyone who thinks this is bipartisan is naive .
Iron Fist wrote:
As is the NYT. Governorships matter.
Wasn’t it Hagel that cried over Bush’s appointment of Bolton to the UN? Can’t have a pro-American uN Ambassador. It isn’t fair.
@ MacDuff:
An excellent choice. Now all we need is Joe Wilson to run against Graham and primary him out in 2014.
@ theoutsider:
I already linked to his Social stances. As for his Pro-Islamic stances, here you go!
Here’s more:
Iron Fist wrote:
She lied for Clinton and would do so for O.
Iron Fist wrote:
Expect racist attacks on Tim Scott. Charles Johnson has called for his burning.
@ Rodan:
Remember when it was only HINTED that he might be the pick? WonKKKette went into full racist overload, as they all do when a Black conservative is involved. But if you or I say “Chicago…” DOGWHISTLE! Over here! Move the goalposts!
@ Guggi:
Absolutely. There is no penalty for lying in a confirmation hearing. Sonia Sontomayor lied about her views on the Second Amendment and nothing happened to her. The Democrats lie more often than not.
@ Guggi:
And didn’t Hillary get a rather convenient excuse to not testify now?
@ Carolina Girl:
Expect to Charles Johnson in overtime attack mode.
@ Rodan:
Oh, that is certain. The Left are all a bunch of racists. They think skin color is all a man is. That you should be able to judge a man by his skin color.
Carolina Girl wrote:
Yep, the sad thing is, that the Petraeus scandal removed Benghazi from the public. No one cares about Benghazi anymore. Not even the Republicans. Like with f&f it disappeared into Nirwana.
Iran endorses Chuck Hagel.
No word from the Muslim Brotherhood yet.
Carolina Girl wrote:
Indeed. Alas, entrenched Senators are difficult to unseat without losing the seat altogether, as is the case here with McConnell. Particularly at this pivotal moment in history, as much as I dislike McConnell, I dislike his seat being taken over by a Democrat even more. Six years is a long time.
Iron Fist wrote:
There ya go. Progressives have got this all figured out.
Conservatives support people like Herman Cain and Tim Scott
to hide their racism.
That Is the Charles Johnson argument, and it is like saying
that fish swim to disguise the fact that they are really
birds.
@ Guggi:
Oh, I imagine considering they’re about to embark on their gun control crusade, the last thing they want anyone thinking about is Fast and Furious.
@ Iron Fist:
They have a caste system. Tim Scott does not fit the caste, so he must be destroyed.
@ Rodan:
Hagel is unamiously appointed
@ MacDuff:
After he Akins and Murdoch fiascoes, I am leery of challenging Graham.
@ RIX:
Charlie doesn’t have an argument -- he has positions appropriated from people with actual grey matter. He himself is a complete idiot. Hey Chuck -- how’s the throbbing memo? The Fauxtography scandal?
theoutsider wrote:
Moving the goal post I see. You are very anti-Social Con, yet because Obama appoints one now you are OK with them. Make up your mind.
@ Rodan:
He doesn’t have to make up his mind. Obama does that for him.
Iron Fist wrote:
It’s the concept of “identity-politics” which is nothing else as the old racism in new skins.
Carolina Girl wrote:
Charles is only competent at cutting and pasting.
His analysis of pretty much anything is an insult to
critical thinking.
He may be hiding an inferiority complex, & there is so
much for him to feel inferior about.
Iron Fist wrote:
Yeah it’s funny how the Outsider claims Social Cons are why he left the GOP. Yet now he likes one because his mangod Obama wants to appoint one.
The Left really are amazing in how they ditch views when convenient.
@ RIX:
Nah, I just think he’s a stupid gasbag with no real thought and analysis process that profited off the work of others for 7 years and now that the intelligentsia has left LGF, he’s exposed for the stupid, opportunistic jerk he always was.
@ Guggi:
Yep. You are your demographic. Independent thought is not allowed. They don’t know how to deal with individuals. Sadly, they have sold the public on identity politics. At least enough to re- elect Obama.
@ Rodan:
Or don’t back them up. You know, with links and things. Like you did.
What’s Hagel’s history? Family history?
@ Rodan:
They have no principles and precious little individuality. They get how to think emailed to them every morning by the Central Committee, and if they don’t tell them how to think on an issue they have no opinion on it. Look at how the Outsider ducks my questions on the debt. Obama hasn’t told him what they are going to do about it, so he has no answer.
Carolina Girl wrote:
They now blame Reagan and the Republicans for all the insane/metally ill persons not in an asylum committing those shootings.
Iron Fist wrote:
identity and diversity (which is the old sexism in new skins).
Rodan wrote:
We should consider the “primary” weapon very carefully unless we’re doing so with a strong, viable, candidate. I see no reason in trading a RINO for a Democrat.
Hagel actually is a classic paleocon.
@ Guggi:
Yep, even though they had eight years of Clinton and four years of Obama to change it if they wanted to. Tough really that is more of a state issue. States need to lock up those who are a threat to themselves or others. They don’t do this because of so-called advocates for mental health.
@ Guggi:
They did the same thing in California -- blamed Reagan and the GOP for the crazies running free, when it was as a result of lawsuits filed by the ACLU.
If they’re blaming Reagan the President, then I’m a bit confused -- I’m not aware of any federal mental institutions -- other than the San Rayburn Building.
theoutsider wrote:
I think she would basically be an Obot, Kerry however is a dangerous fellow with a history of being wrong on foreign policy -- he claimed that the road to peace lies with Bashaar Assad. I did tot say Rice was gorgeous, only that she was good looking but thanks for asking.
@ Iron Fist:
They do not answer until t@ MacDuff:
I agree.
Carolina Girl wrote:
Good one!
Iron Fist wrote:
No that was George Voinovich of Ohio.
@ Speranza:
Speranza -- could you define “paleocon” for me? I’m not being flip -- I’ve seen it used a hundred different ways and I’ve never read a cogent definition and I know you research and read with zeal and thought. Thanks, doll.
@ MacDuff:
I don’t know about that. All a RINO does is allow them to call Leftist legislation “bipartisan”. We don’t get much out of the RINOs, and they demand a lot for it. Look at Arlen Specter. I’d have rather had a Democrat than had him chairing Judiciary.
@ MacDuff:
SAM Rayburn building.
These days, I suppose you could also include the West Wing of the White House.
Iron Fist wrote:
That is the problem! Time after time before these massacres there are signs. Yet there is no intervention mechanism to deal with these disturbed people.
Outsider, outsider where are are you???????????
From 2008 Chuck Hagel on the issues
Outsider come out and plaaaaaay
@ Speranza:
Oh. I wasn’t sure I recalled that correctly. Still, what I recall of Hagel isn’t good. But nobody Obama would be willing to appoint would be good for the United States.
@ Iron Fist:
They tried during the Clinton years but Republicans refused.
Carolina Girl wrote:
Isolationist, anti-Semtic, nativist Charles Lindbergh is their idol. Pat Buchann is a Paleocon as is the wrongly named magazine “The American Conservative” which was founded by Taki, Buchanan, and Scott McConnell. Another example of paleoconism is check out (if you can stomach it the blog VDARE.
@ Speranza:
Hagel is anti-abortion and anti-Gay Marriage. Yet Outsider loves the guy because his god-king will appoint him.
@ Speranza:
Justin Raimondo is their ally.
Iron Fist wrote:
He is a very nasty, nasty fellow. Reminds me of a Senate version of Jim Moran.
Carolina Girl wrote:
As far as I understood it was about the money for mentally ill which Reagan cut and some laws which Reagan signed (1981 ?)
@ Rodan:
Where has theoutisder gone? I want him to come out and plaaaaaay (channeling The Warrirors movie).
Rodan wrote:
Another vile pussbag.
Like we did not see this coming.
Scarborough Questions ‘Long-Held’ Beliefs After Newtown: ‘Ideologies Of My Past Career’ No Longer ‘Relevant’
Speranza wrote:
He is awaiting talking points.
@ Speranza:
He’s allies with people who hate his guts because he’s gay.
Nominating Hagel is a calculated move to ensure that no matter what Obama does to Israel, American Jews stay on the Democrat plantation.
If/when the Republicans attack his nomination, Obama & Co. will say, with wide-eyed innocence, “You see? I tried to be bipartisan and reach across the aisle, and the current Republican leadership won’t do that! They won’t accept my gesture! They’re extremists!”
Hagel’s antisemitism will come out—and the Democrats will happily drop him, saying, “Oh, that’s so terrible! You see, the Republicans are all antisemites and anti-Israel! (Too many American Jews already believe this; it will be an easy sell) And the Republican leadership rejected our bipartisan gesture in nominating one of their own! Sorry, Chuck—we’ll have to go with someone else.”
Rodan wrote:
I “owned” him on that issue. heh heh (and I hate that term “owned” but I had to throw it back to him.)
Rodan wrote:
He goes effortlessly back and forth from left wing politics to extreme right wing politics.
Speranza wrote:
Long time passing?
Where has theoutsider gone
Long time ago….?
@ buzzsawmonkey:
American Jews (the stupidest intelligent people on the planet) would stay loyal to the Democrats if Heinrich Himmler was given a cabinet position in Obama’s administration.
@ Rodan:
Scarborough’s long held beliefs? Oh please, is this clown still trying to paint himself as a conservative? He better be careful -- he is of no use to the White House Propaganda Channel as a liberal. They have enough of those already.
@ Rodan:
That guy ought to just change his ID to Liberal Democrat and take Colin Powell with him.
Carolina Girl wrote:
On his show, Mika is often more conservative then he is.
@ Speranza:
I would add David Frum to that list as well.
Speranza wrote:
Hagel if you click that link is a hard core social con.
@ Carolina Girl:
Scarborough is a useful idiot. He’s a concern troll.
Speranza wrote:
It’s sad because it’s true.
Rodan wrote:
Definitley. He was in classic douchebag mode after the Newtown masacre.
@ Speranza:
Yes he is. It’s funny seeing he Left always bitching about Social Cons, now embracing one.
@ Rodan:
Or, as I refer to him on Twitter, David Scum.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
I know American liberal Jews who would not vote for Abraham Lincoln if he were running again. No wonder Obama rightfully holds them in utter contempt.
Rodan wrote:
I guess anti-Semitism trumps all.
Rodan wrote:
I am noticing more and more “concern trolls” on the the alleged “Right” every week.
Rodan wrote:
The Left is extremely socially conservative—just about different things, and in different ways.
I forget who it was who said that “The Left doesn’t care what you do—as long as it’s compulsory.”
@ Speranza:
Yup, because Hagel is very anti-abortion.
Rodan wrote:
He will gut the Petnagon if he gets in. The fact that he is a Vietnam Vet will give him some fake credibility.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
All you needed to know about the left was their absolute horror when they learned Sarah Palin didn’t abort her “disabled” baby.
Obama will appoint two embittered Vietnam Vets to high positions although Kerry was there for only a few months.
@ Speranza:
So is Kerry. Didn’t you hear?
Kerry’s in for some fun, though -- the Swiftboat Veterans are gearing up for him. Let’s home the GOP gives them a voice at the confirmation hearing.
@ Speranza:
But dayum, Speranza -- he’s a war hero! Three purple hearts in six months! He’s the Vietnam War’s Audie Murphy!
Tim Scott will make an excellent Senator.
Carolina Girl wrote:
Kerry actually brought a home camera to Vietnam to record his “exploits” in anticipation of a political career.
Speranza wrote:
Anyone who Obama appoints is going to do that, since they’ll be carrying out his plans.
It’s not like he’s going to appoint someone who will challenge him.
Carolina Girl wrote:
Anyone who called Bashaar Assad a “reformer” should never be allowed to hlod high office and that includes Hillary Clinton.
WTF does the phrase “unanimously appointed” mean?
@ Speranza:
I’m still wondering how he weaseled out of that “Nixon sent me to Cambodia during Christmas of 1968″ (seared into his memory BTW) remark. Or has he ever walked it back and admitted he lied about the whole thing. You know, like the atrocities he never witnessed?
Carolina Girl wrote:
I think that’s “Audio-Visual Murphy…”
Mike C. wrote:
It means the person using it is an illiterate boob.
lobo91 wrote:
Robert Gates who he kept on from the previous administration tried to but gave up on it.
@ Mike C.:
I was, of course, not referring to you in my #112.
Speranza wrote:
The only reason Gates was kept was Obama had no one in his circle who had so much as a clue about defense. Four years later, he still doesn’t.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
I know…
Speranza wrote:
Gutting the Pentagon is one of Obama’s priorities. We’ve already retired an aircraft carrier without a replacement in the pipeline, haven’t we? That is very bad news. We didn’t really have enough carrier battlegroups anyway, and now we have one less.
@ Iron Fist:
The Ford is Enterprise’s replacement, but won’t be on line until 2015.
Mike C. wrote:
You are welcome sir. I will use that money to obtain a few more “things” myself.
@ lobo91:
So we have two years that we are down a battle group. Who thought that was a good idea? But Obama is gutting the Navy more than just by that. By the end of Obama’s second term, I reckon we are scheduled to have a Navy that is smaller than it has been since before World War I. Obama wants America’s ability to project power limited, and he is doing everything in his power to restrict that.
@ lobo91:
Great foresight! I mean, what could happen in three years?
Carolina Girl wrote:
I can get behind that.
@ MikeA:
Well I certainly hope so!
This was a comment left at Weasel Zippers. Sums it up:
Dear God, Why do you allow such violence in our schools?
signed, a concerned student.
Dear Concerned Student, I am not allowed in schools, but I still love you, God.
@ Iron Fist:
That also assumes that Ford is operational on schedule, which isn’t a given. They’re putting a lot of new technology into the design, including the first electromagnetic catapults for launching planes.
@ Speranza:
Gates was far more sympatico with the current administration than he ever was with Bush.
Yeah, I didn’t account for the time it takes to shake down a new ship and get it really on-line. Lovely. And as I understand it, the British have done the same thing with all their aircraft carriers. ANd the Chinese are bringing their first one on line this year. Great strategic planners we have running the show. That’s why we’ve done so well in our war to date.
@ bluliner10:
Yeah our great strategic objective is increasing Muslim self-esteem. What a winner! I guess Sherman should have tried that rather than burning down Georgia and South Carolina. Does anyone at the Pentagon remember how to win wars any more? ‘Cause I’m not seeing it, if they do.
Iron Fist wrote:
Winning wars is so last century.
@ Iron Fist:
No, it seems we are content with Honorary Mention and participation awards. Gates fired Peter Pace for his comment regarding Catholic teaching vis a vis homosexuality. Gates is the one who cut 1/2 a trillion of unnecessary defense funds and Gates is the one who got us the monstrocity known as Mine Resistance Armored Protection vehicles. While I admit they have saved some lives, they are probably as responsible for a large number of traumatic brain injuries. I also end up with 50 ton monster vehicles that I cannot deploy on standard amphibious shipping, vehicles which I can put two on our largest AF strategic lift…it was a huge waste of money and effort to get these things when better counteractivity would have been more productive to the Counter IED fight.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
Our country is being run by the same people who don’t believe kids should keep score in sports, after all.
Thanks to Obama’s great recovery, looks like America is no longer one of the top 10 prosperous countries:
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/12/17/hope-and-change-america-falls-out-of-top-10-most-prosperous-countries-for-first-time/#disqus_thread
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Yes, apparently when we are looking for generals to lead our military, we don’t look for those who have proven that they know how to win wars. Just those that have proven they kno whow to be sensitive to the feelings of the enemy. Oh, yeah, we’re not supposed to call them names like “enemy” any more, are we?
@ bluliner10:
It is like I’ve been alluding to: strategic planning seems absent from our side of the battlefield, especially in Afghanistan. OUr original mission parameters seemed straight-forward enough: deny Afghanistan as a base for al Qaeda and related terrorists. We removed the Taliban from power, but we never really followed up on that. We let them flee to Pakistan, and if we know anything about Pakistan, it is that it was very fertile ground for the Taliban to wind up in. Worse, when Obama came in the mission changed, but I don’t believe anyone articulated anything like a strategy to win this ne war. Certainly Obama said that he didn’t include “victory” in his Afghan vocabulary at all. Since them we’ve had a few thousand troops killed, and for what? Obama has already said he’s going to turn Afghanistan back over to the Taliban in 2014.
I would argue that the military still knows how to win wars but that they are not allowed to use their full power to do so. It’s all about COIN and here I’m in full agreement with Rodan and IF: COIN is crap.
Guggi wrote:
COIN can work if applied correctly. The problem is that it’s never been done right in Afghanistan. It was the same problem with its application in Vietnam.
You have to apply its principles over the entire country for it to work, and you have to deny the enemy a safe haven next door.
@ lobo91:
Threre were some fine programs in Vietnam with the Montandards but the programs were destroyed by the S-Vietnamese government. Same in Afghanistan. If you have to deal with a reluctant government (S-Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) the whole concept of COIN is crap. Additional: as in S-Vietnam if you have no skilled people to administrate the state you’re lost.
In A. with a population with 90+ percent illiterate and the old officials out of the country or to old no one is left to do the job. To build schools doesn’t help if you donÄt have the teachers to teach the students.
One of the main differences between Malaya and S-Vietnam was that the British let them govern themselfes but the French had sent their executives to their colonies (ten thousands of them). Even the last clerk was French while in the entire British colonies in Asia (India, Malaya, todays Bangladesh and Pakistan) only 1,000 British executives had worked. When France left S-Vietnam no skilled clerk/executive was left to do the administration in S-Vietnam and this with a illiteracy of about 90 percent (like in A. today).
COIN may be useful in a country like Germany after WWII but not in Iraq or Afghanistan. You can’t adapt it.
What was Hagel’s dad like? Same as Mel Gibson’s dad?
@ lobo91:
We’ve not even been able to deny the enemy safe-haven in-country. The Taliban are financed by heroin money from the Afghan poppy fields. I don’t know if we’ve tried and failed or failed to try, but we definately haven’t cut into their heroin money.
Iron Fist wrote:
We’ve never tried. Look at what happened with Obama’s “surge.” All the Marines were sent to one province, which only has 4% of the country’s population.
There was never any intention of actually increasing security there. It was just a show to make Obama look like he was doing something.
@ lobo91:
But Helmand was and remains the most dangerous Province in Afghanistan. Helmand is also a leading Province for the Opium poppies.
bluliner10 wrote:
But if you ignore the rest of the country, all the bad guys do is move someplace quiet until you leave, then they come back.
@ lobo91:
Which is how Helmand became as bad as it did. It is the backwater, far from Bagram and Kabul. When Washir and Khandahar Provinces became more stable, they needed someplace else to go that facilitated movement in and out of Pakistan, a lot of opium grows because of the Sangin River, and it was relatively lawless to begin with.
@ bluliner10:
The point is, you have to be everywhere simultaneously, which obviously requires a lot of troops. Otherwise, it’s just like squeezing a balloon.
waldensianspirit wrote:
Hagel comes across like like Hutton Gibson.
Rodan wrote:
He’s worse. Hagel is a Serb-hater from waaaaay back. Buchanan, for all his faults, supports the Serbs.
Carolina Girl wrote:
Assuming you’re not as old as I am, you’ll live to see the US falling out of the top 100 prosperous countries. Expect it to happen within one generation.