Comments on: Examining Obama’s Afghan Plan, Part III: Growing the Domestic Security Force.

By: ss396

ss396 — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 04:19:37 +0000

This White Paper should be an embarrassment to the Administration. The stated objectives include the nation-building elements of establishing a capable central government, and enhancing civilian control (ala the USA model of a subordinate military). Aren’t these a display of the American arrogance that Obama is campaigning against?

The entire White Paper is written in the passive tense. Most of it is also written in the third person. Somehow, it reads, all this nifty stuff is just going to sort of happen by itself. I was hard-pressed to find a declarative statement; I could not find a statement of commitment. There are goals, there are requests, there are desires. There is no examination of the risks, there is no mention of alternatives if Plan A doesn’t develop. I did not expect an entire execution strategy in the document, but I really did expect more than a regurgitation of bromides.

Under “Asking Assistance from Allies…” this paper claims to be a “new” approach. There was no policy element in the White Paper that I could find that had not already been implemented under the Bush Administration. There was nothing new in it at all. As Mr. Emanuel stated in his first piece, the whole thing is a collection of platitudes.

There is no depth to the piece. It reads very much like a college Junior’s theme paper in a some 300-level course on International Relations. If that’s what this White Paper is supposed to be, it’s not a bad paper. As an overview policy statement expressed on behalf of the Administration, it is a puerile embarrassment.

This cannot be the campaigning position paper that it appears to be; blood will be shed over it during it’s implementation. People will die because of it. Couldn’t the Administration have had the grace to have undertaken this study seriously? It alludes to the meetings, conferences, and consultations that went into its development. But it reads like something whipped together over the weekend.

By: icbm

icbm — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:44:40 +0000

You’d think – especially after the first time or two – all police trainees or recent graduates would be armed and ordered to fight to the death if stopped by gunmen.

By: E Pluribus Unum

E Pluribus Unum — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:57:26 +0000

My goodness, that’s either full-blown panic, or just such a casual disregard for one’s fellow soldiers as to be ‘every man for himself. Don’t know which.

But what scares me more are the infiltrators. I remember stories of busloads of unarmed guys fresh out of trainee school or basic training. Stopped and murdered, en masse, because infiltrators told the terrorists the when and where.

By: Jeff Emanuel

Jeff Emanuel — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:52:39 +0000

….”death blossom” — so named for the fact that, when engaged by enemy, every man would fire his AK-47 on full auto in a 360.

When that happened, US troops would hit the deck until they’d run out of ammo or killed each other, then went about engaging the enemy in a much more orderly fashion.

By: E Pluribus Unum

E Pluribus Unum — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:31:23 +0000

Yep, exactly the same scenario as Iraq. It was infiltrated with terrorists who did terrible damage.

Good gracious, how infantile is this administration? They have no clue what they are proposing.

By: icbm

icbm — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:52:30 +0000

This is what we get for electing a president who has no experience whatsoever with defense matters, and who thinks that smiling at and bowing to our enemies will make them our allies.