Who will vote for Bush who didn't before?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Ousting the Taliban wasn’t the point of the operation in Afghanistan. Catching or preferrably killing bin Laden was. This point is illustrated by the fact that we attempted to negotiate with the Taliban leaders for them to kick up bin Laden before we went in there. I think my liberal views are fairly established here, and I was one who took heart at the words of John McCain, who said (paraphrasing): “We’re coming for you. May God have mercy on your soulds, because we certainly will not.” I would have been pleased as punch to have a boot to the neck of bin Laden and a pistol in my hand. Imagine my surprise when we pussied around trying to capture a man with bombs. We may have started the operation in a timely fashion, but we didn’t have men on the ground for far too long. Even then, when we knew where he was, we paid Afghan militia to go in to get him, only to watch him run right out the back door. If there was a more cowardly way to conduct a more necessary operation, I’m not sure what it would be.

The idea that there was significant opposition within the US to this action, and that Gore or Kerry would have delayed, is pure fiction, dreamt up to distract others from the failures of Bush. He promised that he wouldn’t fire a missile into a tent an hit a camel in the butt. Instead he dropped daisycutters on the tent and hit nothing.

Bush supporters are committed to Bush. The rest of us are committed to getting the job done and actually protecting our safety.

[jshore]

@Brutus

As for cites, what, my post is not my cite? Oh, fine:

From Airman:

This cite doesn’t really address the point about whether we are maxed out in our capabilities though. Let’s say we took 1/4 of the money/resources in Iraq and dedicated them to Afghanistan. Where would this put us?

[mangeorge]

Hell, as in WW2, we can build more war material a dime a…
Oh, that’s right. Our manufacturing base is gone overseas. And the few skilled laborers who are left are working in Starbucks.

[Ms2001]

@MLS

There is no “other than 9/11.” We were attacked. We were at war from that moment onward. Period. I think Clinton et. al. would have taken the same tactic that was taken after the first WTC bombing.

Now, I was under the impression that six of the folks behind the first WTC bombing were convicted in 1997 and are in prison today. Is that not correct?

I don’t know if you remember the Iranian hostage situation during Carter’s administration. The US was pretty much impotent. It was IMHO a factor in Reagan’s election. The running line was “What’s flat and glowing? Tehran the day after Reagan’s sworn in.” The hostage-takers knew that Reagan might not be nice and warm and moral and whatnot, like Carter. He might just be a flaming nutcase. Better let them go, just in case.

I was also under the impression that those people let the hostages go on Reagan’s inauguration day because of this, not because of any cowboy grandstanding.

[MLS]

@Mr2001

Now, I was under the impression that six of the folks behind the first WTC bombing were convicted in 1997 and are in prison today. Is that not correct?
I was also under the impression that those people let the hostages go on Reagan’s inauguration day because of this, not because of any cowboy grandstanding.

I won’t dispute your count and agree that some of those are now in prison. Putting just those few in jail didn’t stop further attacks, did it?

On the second point, do you think that if Reagan had NOT won the election, that the hostages would have been released? No one knows for sure, of course, given the absence of an alternative-reality generator, but IMHO had Carter remained in office the hostages would have remained in captivity. Reagan was certainly seen as less cerebral and passive.

[jshore]

@MLS

I won’t dispute your count and agree that some of those are now in prison. Putting just those few in jail didn’t stop further attacks, did it?

What exactly does that prove? We have been told that future attacks here are a virtual certainty (with the terror alert just raised to orange in certain areas today) and this is despite the attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq. (Well, I would say that the attack on Iraq actually made such terrorism more likely, but…)

Please let me know when we have won the “war on terror” so I can go out and celebrate.

On the second point, do you think that if Reagan had NOT won the election, that the hostages would have been released? No one knows for sure, of course, given the absence of an alternative-reality generator, but IMHO had Carter remained in office the hostages would have remained in captivity. Reagan was certainly seen as less cerebral and passive.

Actually, besides the “October Surprise” theory, it is generally known that the Iranians had no love for Carter…simply because he was the President at the time of the Iranian revolution and thus the head of the government who was considered largely responsible for the Shah and his rule. They didn’t have a particular beef against Reagan. So, it may have had more to do with that than any fear of what Reagan might do. Clearly, their exact timing of delaying the release until just after Reagan had been sworn in showed their spite for Carter.

(For what it’s worth [and personally, I’m agnostic on the whole thing], some Russians such as former Prime Minister Sergei Stepashin have confirmed certain aspects of the “October Surprise” claim.)

[jshore]

Oh yeah…And, Carter’s attempt to launch a military rescue, even though spectacularly unsuccessful, no doubt did not endear him to the Iranians either.

[Brutus]

@jshore

This cite doesn’t really address the point about whether we are maxed out in our capabilities though.

We sure are. (Or close to it, more accurately.)

Let’s say we took 1/4 of the money/resources in Iraq and dedicated them to Afghanistan. Where would this put us?

Why stop at a mere 1/4? Other than emergency medical airlift, you probably could get all of the transport aircraft out of Iraq. There would be massive ripples in the supply chain there, since priority items would have to wait for the next ship over, but you could do it. Heck, dumber things have been tried in throughout the colorful history of warfare.

The question, of course, is why would you want to? The call by armchair generals of a certain political persuasion to ‘send in more troops’ to Afghanistan doesn’t make sense. Sure, we (including ISAF) will surge in some more to deal with the coming elections, but they won’t be staying long. As Sam has pointed out, it’s not like our troops are just sort of wandering through the wilderness looking for OBL. Finding him is a matter of Intel work and luck. Look at how long it took to find Eric Rudolph, and he was a few hours from DC; Afghanistan is a bit further away and its infrastructure is probably not as good. And once he is found, it’s not like it will take the 1st Armored Division to take care of him. That will be a job for light forces and air forces, already in theater.

[jshore]

You seem to be missing the forest through the trees here, Brutus. Your cite addresses how Iraq has put strains on our capabilities. We don’t doubt that which is why we are saying what we are saying: It was foolhardy to go into Iraq on flimsy justifications and get involved in something that really had nothing to do with the war on terror (except to make sure the other side got lots more recruits) when we should have been concentrating our energies on making sure things worked out as best they could in Afghanistan.

And your cite only supports this argument that indeed Iraq has strained our capabilities that could otherwise have been concentrated in Afghanistan.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

The Democratic image problem in this millieu stems directly to the Carter/Reagan dichotomy. Prior to Carter, I do not recall Johnson or Kennedy or Truman or Roosevelt as being considered generally to be “soft on defense” or irresolute in the face of crisis (at least not after their terms in office). But Carter’s impotence in the face of Iran, coupled with the extreme militarism of Reagan’s campaigning (in office, he was far less hawkish, actually, and those who pine for his leadership in the face of terrorist assault might do well to remember the lessons of Beirut. 9/11 was different, of course. But it was also different than the Iranian embassy occupation.)

The Carter trend was image was further stamped into the American psyche by teh campaigns of Mondale and Dukakis. That Clinton exercised an aggressive international military policy that drew strident criticism from teh Republicans of his day, including our current President (“I will not engage in nation-building”) seems to have been lost beneath the haze of personal issues that colored Clinton’s second term. Whatever the reasons, Republicans now enjoy an almost overwhelming perception among the electoral gestalt that they are strong enough to face a military crisis while the Democrats are weak and concilliatory. I think those trying to focus on a hypothetical “individual difference” between Bush and Gore/“anyone else” are missing the point. Bush gets points for “strong against terrorists” because he is a Republican President. Period. Nothing else is required.

Now, I do not mean this to imply that any individual posting to this thread, or even reading it, is making their political judgments based upon so casual an analysis. Undoubtedly there are many deep thinkers on several sides of this debate (surely we don’t imagine that there are only 2). However, as a matter of elctoral trends and population polling, I think that this issue is framed overwhelmingly by party identity and hardly at all by individual politics.

Should any of you choose to ask for a cite, allow me to admit up front that I have none. This post represents nothing more than my personal ignorance masquerading as an informed insight into political behaviors. It is anecdotal, unreliable, and defended by nothing more than my own subjective observations. Take it for what it is worth.

But I am right.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

I forgot to mention: the idea that it is not possible to sustain many more than 20,000 troops in a landlocked country over which we exercise absolute air supremacy seems to fly in the face of history. While the logistical challenges are different, we managed way back in 1948 to sustain an airlift for more than a year that ferried more than 2,000,000 tons of supplies to West Berlin.

Are folks seriously prepared to argue that our current army and air force are not capable of sustaining an airlift (that can, in fact, be supplemented by ground transport as Berlin could not) sufficient to support more than 20,000 men for any significant length of time? That, truly, is a defeatist attitude and an insult to the ingenuity and perseverance of our armed forces.

[rjung]

@Spiritus Mundi

Are folks seriously prepared to argue that our current army and air force are not capable of sustaining an airlift (that can, in fact, be supplemented by ground transport as Berlin could not) sufficient to support more than 20,000 men for any significant length of time?

Sure, but that’s because any large force deployment requires lots of oil – when we’re talking about invading a country with lots of the stuff on tap, there’s no limit to how many troops we can put in the field…

[Brutus]

Jshore, explain your logic to me:

A) I realize that the current talking point on your side is ‘we need more troops in Afghanistan’. Why not demonstrate the need for more troops in Afghanistan? What would they be doing? Doing a massive line-search across the whole of Afghanistan? How many more would you be sending?

B) Show me that the current regional infrastructure would indeed allow for more US troops to be deployed and supplied there. The number of regional airports that can accommodate large airliners is limited, I believe. Perhaps you know otherwise? Just how many more sorties per day can we fit into the region? How about the road network; How much more supplies can we push in along the roads Problematic, I know, since we have to fly in the trucks and fuel to move supplies along the roads, but that is more efficient than performing in-theater resupply via C-130s and helicopters, no?

Hey, I am a enthusiatic armchair general. I follow this sort of thing. If your contention is that A) We need more troops in-country, and B) We can effectively keep more troops supplied, then heck, I’m listening. Throw some information my way, and you’ll have a ready convert. Until then, I am forced to believe that you are just parroting the latest party line.

[Brutus]

@Spiritus Mundi

I forgot to mention: the idea that it is not possible to sustain many more than 20,000 troops in a landlocked country over which we exercise absolute air supremacy seems to fly in the face of history. While the logistical challenges are different, we managed way back in 1948 to sustain an airlift for more than a year that ferried more than 2,000,000 tons of supplies to West Berlin.

Distance from Hannover to Berlin: 250km.

Distance from Berlin to Kabul: 3000km.

Not to mention the availability of runways and whatnot at either end.

Are folks seriously prepared to argue that our current army and air force are not capable of sustaining an airlift (that can, in fact, be supplemented by ground transport as Berlin could not)…

Ground transport into Afghanistan? Tell me, Oh! Vizier of Logistics, how?

…sufficient to support more than 20,000 men for any significant length of time? That, truly, is a defeatist attitude and an insult to the ingenuity and perseverance of our armed forces.

‘Defeatist’ attitude? No, ‘realistic’ is more like it. ‘Senseless’ and and ‘Stupid’ would accurately describe the drive to turn the American presence in Aghanistan into another Soviet-style occupation, though.

Do any of you actually know where Afghanistan is? It is a miracle that we can project as much combat power over there as we already have. (Not that I really expect you to realize that; When CNN is your source of information on warfare, it is no suprise that a warped view will result.)

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Distance from Hannover to Berlin . . . [irrelevant details snipped]

Yes, yes, that is of course why I declared that the logistical challenges were exactly identical, you know, what with the requirement to feed and fuel a major metroplis for more than a year and all.

More distance (though nobody argued we would have to airlift all the way from Berlin), smaller scale, better planes, worse runways. In your world, this mix of factors equals IT CAN’T POSSIBLY BE DONE.

And you broil at the description “defeatist”. Truth. Hurt. Be the cliche.

Brutus: Ground transport into Afghanistan? Tell me, Oh! Vizier of Logistics, how?

Brutus (all of 1 page ago): You can only move so much supplies from the -stans by road, you know. (Shitty roads.)

Tell me, Oh! Vizier of Hypocricy, how did those shitty but still existing roads vanish between one hyperbolic pronouncement and the next.

You do remember the roads, right? The ones referenced in that handy cite from Airman. There’s some overland resupply. Some bases get part of their fuel by truck. The Army and Air Force Exchange Service also trucks supplies from the north. But overland resupply barely puts a dent in the demand." Hmmm, now who was it that originally posted that cite? Oh, yes, it was Brutus.

I wonder if he bothered toread it first.

‘Defeatist’ attitude? No, ‘realistic’ is more like it.

I see far more of the first than the second in your posts. I think I will let my initial descrition stand.

‘Senseless’ and and ‘Stupid’ would accurately describe the drive to turn the American presence in Aghanistan into another Soviet-style occupation, though.

I agree. If I happen to run across anyone arguing that position perhaps I can turn to you for assistance in articulating my opposition. I do wonder, though, why you decided to bring up the point in this thread.

It is a miracle that we can project as much combat power over there as we already have. (Not that I really expect you to realize that; When CNN is your source of information on warfare, it is no suprise that a warped view will result.)

Amazing. Do you generally find yourself comfortable making such bald assertions about the geographic and military ignorance of a stranger based upon a simple disagreement over the logistical limitations of the US Military?

Wow – that looks like a fun (if potentially embarrassing) game. Let me try one:

Knowing nothing about you but your poster name and your obvious preference for fervor over reflection, I find myself prepared to assert that:
a) You have spent fewer hours riding in military transport planes than myself.
b) You have never spoken to anyone involved in the design, implementation, or maintenance of the JTAV system.
c) You have never set foor on MacDill AFB, not have you ever even said “hi” to a senior officer asigned to Centcom.
d) You bear a deep-seeded grudge against Ted Turner for sleeping with Jane Fonda and despoiling your adolescent “Barbarella” fantasy.

How’d I do?

[Sam_Stone]

Spiritus Mundi said:

The Democratic image problem in this millieu stems directly to the Carter/Reagan dichotomy. Prior to Carter, I do not recall Johnson or Kennedy or Truman or Roosevelt as being considered generally to be “soft on defense” or irresolute in the face of crisis (at least not after their terms in office). But Carter’s impotence in the face of Iran, coupled with the extreme militarism of Reagan’s campaigning (in office, he was far less hawkish, actually, and those who pine for his leadership in the face of terrorist assault might do well to remember the lessons of Beirut. 9/11 was different, of course. But it was also different than the Iranian embassy occupation.)

I disagree. The real split came from the rise of the anti-Vietnam protests of the late 60’s and early 70’s. The candidacy of George McGovern is what really marks the change. Carter in fact was increasingly military spending quite substantially.

But the Democratic party was changed dramatically by the fact that the formative years of the baby boomers were spent in opposition to the U.S. military, the draft, and the Vietnam war. That carried over into the anti-nuclear protests of the 1980’s and the ‘nuclear freeze’ movement.

When Bill Clinton was elected, he tried to move past that, and there was much commentary about the ‘spectre of Vietnam’ hovering over the Democrats and their approach to foreign affairs.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

I don’t think so, Sam.

You are correct, of course, that McGovern represents the most extreme “dove” candidate put forth by the Democratic party in our lifetimes. But I do not think that he made a big enough splash to continue to color the electorate’s perceptions 30 years later. In fact, I think a depressingly large percentage of the electorate wouldn’t be able to tell me who he was, much less describe his military policy (though I still recall that effective “toy soldiers” commercial of Nixon’s.) As to the association with the anti-war movement. Again, your statement is accurate (post Chicago, at least) but I don’t think the “hippie” association actually holds in the American electoral gestalt.

In my experience, the overwhelming association that I see/hear associated with the Democratic Party is one of concilliation/hesitancy/impotence. Not one of pacifism. Polls don’t show a lack of faith (on this issue) in Democrats because folks think a Dem would “turn the other cheek” or “keep the military at home”; the concern seems to be that a Dem will “wait for the UN” or “not see the job through”.

Again, I think this has very little to do with the historical record of any President in recent times. I think it has everything to do with the overriding metaphor of the Reagan-Carter (and to a lesser extent Reagan-Mondale) campaigns. Again, just one man’s opinion.

[Brutus]

@Spiritus Mundi

Knowing nothing about you but your poster name and your obvious preference for fervor over reflection, I find myself prepared to assert that:
a) You have spent fewer hours riding in military transport planes than myself.

Damn, you got me there, Clausewitz. The extent of my experience flying in military aircraft is: One flight in a B-17, one flight in a Mil-8, and one flight in a C-130.

  b) You have never spoken to anyone involved in the design, implementation, or maintenance of the JTAV system.

No. Is this your suble way of claiming to have worked on said project?

 c) You have never set foor on MacDill AFB, not have you ever even said "hi" to a senior officer asigned to Centcom.

I have, actually. I did some DMS implementation work a while back at MacDill. And Aviano.

 d) You bear a deep-seeded grudge against Ted Turner for sleeping with Jane Fonda and despoiling your adolescent "Barbarella" fantasy.

If you are going to try to take petty shots in GD, at least try to be funny. You certainly aren’t being relevant.
Now you answer these:

A) I realize that the current talking point on your side is ‘we need more troops in Afghanistan’. Why not demonstrate the need for more troops in Afghanistan? What would they be doing? Doing a massive line-search across the whole of Afghanistan? How many more would you be sending?

B) Show me that the current regional infrastructure would indeed allow for more US troops to be deployed and supplied there. The number of regional airports that can accommodate large airliners is limited, I believe. Perhaps you know otherwise? Just how many more sorties per day can we fit into the region? How about the road network; How much more supplies can we push in along the roads Problematic, I know, since we have to fly in the trucks and fuel to move supplies along the roads, but that is more efficient than performing in-theater resupply via C-130s and helicopters, no?

So far, all I have seen from you people is hand-waving, vague mutterings, and borderline ad hominem attacks. How about some substance? You spent a long post saying nothing, now answer with some specifics.

[zoo]

[ Why not demonstrate the need for more troops in Afghanistan? What would they be doing? Doing a massive line-search across the whole of Afghanistan?

How about doing somthing about the opium production in Afghanistan? I have heard it has been doing a lot more business lately.

[rjung]

@Brutus

A) I realize that the current talking point on your side is ‘we need more troops in Afghanistan’. Why not demonstrate the need for more troops in Afghanistan? What would they be doing? Doing a massive line-search across the whole of Afghanistan?

“Capturing Osama Bin Laden” seems like a good goal to me. Imagine who we could’ve found already if we had 150,000 troops in Afghanistan instead of Iraq…