Very interesting long article on the administration's, I'd say failure, to close Gitmo after year. The article explains that the administration did not take into account GOP concerns or the complexities of moving the suspects inside the U.S.
It is a great account of the miscalculations that Graig and Emanuel made along the ways that finally led to the announcement a few weeks ago that KSM will be tired in Gitmo, not the U.S.
I'd also say it shows that the President is willing to shift and accept military trials, even if it ticks off his base as he has no other option.

Worth a read this Easter.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/guantanamo-bay-how-the-white-house-lost-the-fight-to-close-it/2011/04/14/AFtxR5XE_story.html

It also shows how unbelievably naive and inexperienced this group was coming to town. Something that has hurt them more on domestic policy than foreign...but that doesn't mean a foreign disaster isn't right around the corner.

I'd also say it shows that the President is willing to shift and accept military trials, even if it ticks off his base as he has no other option.

If he has no other option why give him credit for a willingness to change?

Writerbuckeye;748771 wrote:It also shows how unbelievably naive and inexperienced this group was coming to town. Something that has hurt them more on domestic policy than foreign...but that doesn't mean a foreign disaster isn't right around the corner.

On this issue, I'd agree. They thought that they could just close it and move the detainees elsewhere in the U.S. or overseas. But, once they got to see the cases firsthand, they noticed no other country really wanted these guys and no U.S. state wanted them either. Over time, they failed to see the resistance to anything other than the military trials. Still, the verdict is out whether that is a viable option. The KSM trial will lbe the benchmark.

Prescott;748782 wrote:If he has no other option why give him credit for a willingness to change?

Because, he could have said no, I am the President and will move them to trials in NY and put them in U.S. max prisons. As President he could have done that with another executive order. But, he realized that was not an option and adjusted.

This may shock some people, but more and more the Obama administration is looking more and more like the Bush administration 2007-2008, very pragmatic and calculated.

Can't change stupid and incompetency

Yeah, he's starting to look just as stupid and incompetent as Bush was, and he's done it in only 2 years. Jeez, we've got 6 more to go. If Bush could get over 5,000 of our troops killed, Obama should be able to top that.

stlouiedipalma;749100 wrote:Yeah, he's starting to look just as stupid and incompetent as Bush was, and he's done it in only 2 years. Jeez, we've got 6 more to go. If Bush could get over 5,000 of our troops killed, Obama should be able to top that.

Perhaps Obama can surpass Bush. I don't think anyone will be topping Lincoln's 620,000 anytime soon.

majorspark;749117 wrote:Perhaps Obama can surpass Bush. I don't think anyone will be topping Lincoln's 620,000 anytime soon.

Or FDR/Truman's 407,000 (WWII)
Or Woodrow Wilson's 117,000 (WWI)
Or Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon's 58,000 (Vietnam)
Or Truman's 37,000 (Korea)

Belly35;748804 wrote:Can't change stupid and incompetency

Sure you can. We'll be able to vote that out in 18 months!

believer;749224 wrote:Or FDR/Truman's 407,000 (WWII)
Or Woodrow Wilson's 117,000 (WWI)
Or Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon's 58,000 (Vietnam)
Or Truman's 37,000 (Korea)

You understood my point.

majorspark;750346 wrote:You understood my point.

yessir

In the 8 years since we entered Iraq/Afghanistan we've lost 5,000. In the 10 years we were in Vietnam we lost 58,000. In the 3 short years we were in Korea we lost 37,000. In just 4 years in WWII we lost 407,000.

By comparison our losses in the Iraq/Afghanistan wars are relatively low.

It's not that we desire to reduce the value of human lives to statistics, but it just drives me absolutely insane when I hear all the whiners howling about how "Bush has killed 5,000 American soldiers."

By the way, where are all the "Obama has killed 1,200 in 18 months" naysayers? Why aren't the anti-war leftists rioting in the streets because Obama has failed to follow through on his Iraq/Afghanistan/GITMO promises?

What have we gained in Afghanistan? Did we win? How do you define a "win"?

Did we remove Bin Laden? Nope
Did we eradicate the enemy, a/k/a the Taliban? Nope
Did we install a functioning democratic government, a/k/a nation building? Nope
Did we take over any assets...like say an oilfield or two for example? Nope
Did we acquire new land? Nope
Why are we still there in 2011?

After 9 years of lobbing bombs, flying drones, chasing Bin Laden from cave to cave, making nice with the enemy, and getting more body bags flown home, what have we gained? I was gung-ho for wiping the planet of this Islamofascist scum on 9-11-01, but we just don't have the will nor political courage to get the job done. The old saying goes, "to the winners go the spoils". We have nothing to show for our "win", therefore we need to come home and admit defeat....again.

BGFalcons82;750486 wrote:What have we gained in Afghanistan? Did we win? How do you define a "win"?

Did we remove Bin Laden? Nope
Did we eradicate the enemy, a/k/a the Taliban? Nope
Did we install a functioning democratic government, a/k/a nation building? Nope
Did we take over any assets...like say an oilfield or two for example? Nope
Did we acquire new land? Nope
Why are we still there in 2011?

After 9 years of lobbing bombs, flying drones, chasing Bin Laden from cave to cave, making nice with the enemy, and getting more body bags flown home, what have we gained? I was gung-ho for wiping the planet of this Islamofascist scum on 9-11-01, but we just don't have the will nor political courage to get the job done. The old saying goes, "to the winners go the spoils". We have nothing to show for our "win", therefore we need to come home and admit defeat....again.

Well, the Taliban no longer have complete run of the country and aren't terrifying citizens at-will. Other than that...

I think if you look at this "war" in a conventional sense, then you can only accept defeat. But it's not a conventional war and we have to stop thinking of it as such. This has evolved into a long-term operation involving intelligence, black ops and drones, and is likely to be more of a defensive posture that reaches out when necessary to strike at the enemy.

I have no problem with this war evolving into such an operation, and bringing home the troops if/when it's felt Afghanistan can at least maintain as much control as there is today. Staying indefinitely won't win anything because, again, it's not a conventional war.

The most difficult part of this will be keeping the homeland as safe as possible from attacks, and making in-roads where we can using less conventional weapons and tactics. I think if it's explained that way to people, they'll have no problem with a long (if not indefinite) commitment.

Fair enough, writer. I understand the arguments from the "let's stay and keep America safe" side. I suppose, ultimately, it might be the correct posture. Maybe.

Having written that, there must also be a risk/reward analysis along with a cost-curve discussion. Much like Obama's "saved jobs", how do we define "saved lives"? It's nebulous and more of a gut-feel, but it must be asked. Much like cops save lives, but we'll never know how many as the future can't be foretold. How much money do we have to borrow from foreigners or steal from the unborn to support this effort? I believe there is a tipping point and I've changed my stance on the whole "war". Who says people don't change their minds, eh? LOL

In the end, I just don't see how this whole entanglement ends, what we'll gain from our occupying their country, and how does it benefit the USA in the next 5, 10 and 50 years from now. It's been 9 years and we've gained very little for the total cost, the dismemberments, and deaths. At what point is enough....well....enough?

believer;750357 wrote:yessir

In the 8 years since we entered Iraq/Afghanistan we've lost 5,000. In the 10 years we were in Vietnam we lost 58,000. In the 3 short years we were in Korea we lost 37,000. In just 4 years in WWII we lost 407,000.

By comparison our losses in the Iraq/Afghanistan wars are relatively low.

It's not that we desire to reduce the value of human lives to statistics, but it just drives me absolutely insane when I hear all the whiners howling about how "Bush has killed 5,000 American soldiers."

By the way, where are all the "Obama has killed 1,200 in 18 months" naysayers? Why aren't the anti-war leftists rioting in the streets because Obama has failed to follow through on his Iraq/Afghanistan/GITMO promises?

Yeah but the Civil War, WWI, and WWII actually made sense to be in.

And you're crazy if you don't think us still being in Iraq, Afghanistan, GITMO, and now our involvement in Libya is disconcerting to the people who had objections to the wars under Bush.

Edit: And seriously http://costofwar.com/en/. What the hell?

BGFalcons82;750486 wrote:What have we gained in Afghanistan? Did we win? How do you define a "win"?

Did we remove Bin Laden? Nope
Did we eradicate the enemy, a/k/a the Taliban? Nope
Did we install a functioning democratic government, a/k/a nation building? Nope
Did we take over any assets...like say an oilfield or two for example? Nope
Did we acquire new land? Nope
Why are we still there in 2011?

After 9 years of lobbing bombs, flying drones, chasing Bin Laden from cave to cave, making nice with the enemy, and getting more body bags flown home, what have we gained? I was gung-ho for wiping the planet of this Islamofascist scum on 9-11-01, but we just don't have the will nor political courage to get the job done. The old saying goes, "to the winners go the spoils". We have nothing to show for our "win", therefore we need to come home and admit defeat....again.

Exactly. I SMH at the "well, we only lost 5,000 soldiers." Are they kidding me? We are still fighting in Iraq too...no matter how Barry sugarcoats it. Bin Ladin had no idea that he could bankrupt us on 9-11. He laughs his ass off at us each and every day.

We've blown over 1 trillion dollars fighting this bullshot GWOT. We have roughly 40,000 troops maimed and will need long term care. Who's gonna pay for that? We never pass the hat around to pay for unnecessary wars....just kick the can on down the road.

But hey....only 5000 of our finest died.

believer;750357 wrote:yessir

In the 8 years since we entered Iraq/Afghanistan we've lost 5,000. In the 10 years we were in Vietnam we lost 58,000. In the 3 short years we were in Korea we lost 37,000. In just 4 years in WWII we lost 407,000.

By comparison our losses in the Iraq/Afghanistan wars are relatively low.

It's not that we desire to reduce the value of human lives to statistics, but it just drives me absolutely insane when I hear all the whiners howling about how "Bush has killed 5,000 American soldiers."

By the way, where are all the "Obama has killed 1,200 in 18 months" naysayers? Why aren't the anti-war leftists rioting in the streets because Obama has failed to follow through on his Iraq/Afghanistan/GITMO promises?

Believe me (no pun intended), I'm pissed about staying in either Iraq or Afghanistan. I think we need to get out and get out now. If the day comes where we have to go to war to keep shipping lanes open or to keep oil flowing to the free world I would be able to support it, but not these fuck-ups.

As for Gitmo, I thought he would have a hard time fulfilling that pledge because there is too much support for Gitmo in Congress. The reality is that he cannot do anything about it.

Footwedge;750711 wrote:But hey....only 5000 of our finest died.

Actually the day after 9/11 I anticipated alot more than 5,000 of our finest would have died in the next couple of years making war on those responisble and those nations that harbored or supported them. Our fear of casualties was part of what prevented us from getting Bin Laden when he was in Tora Bora. I would have had the 10th mountain division, special forces, and scores of US troops crawling that mountain range like ants on ant hill. We would have lost a lot of good men. Also no Taliban/al qaeda would have found it safe in Waziristan. I would have pursued them in full force.

We had the political capital to go into Afghanistan and get the job done right. Our leaders lacked the testicular fortitude even then. We had the power when this war started to have every Afghan, Taliban and those in Waziristan, pissing down their legs and begging for mercy inside of a few years. It would have been ugly for a few years but it would be over.

Instead we tinker around trying to make nice war on our enemies. We have a dickless set of ROE. Our enemies exploit them. We have allowed a corrupt government to replace the one we deposed. One the locals despise. We have had nearly ten years. Its not working. We are not going to shift strategy so we may as well get out before we bleed dry.

I don't think even a "shoot anyone who lives in the country" ROE like you want would change anything at all. Just kill more people on all sides. These wars are stupid beyond belief.

majorspark;750753 wrote:Actually the day after 9/11 I anticipated alot more than 5,000 of our finest would have died in the next couple of years making war on those responisble and those nations that harbored or supported them. Our fear of casualties was part of what prevented us from getting Bin Laden when he was in Tora Bora. I would have had the 10th mountain division, special forces, and scores of US troops crawling that mountain range like ants on ant hill. We would have lost a lot of good men. Also no Taliban/al qaeda would have found it safe in Waziristan. I would have pursued them in full force.

We had the political capital to go into Afghanistan and get the job done right. Our leaders lacked the testicular fortitude even then. We had the power when this war started to have every Afghan, Taliban and those in Waziristan, pissing down their legs and begging for mercy inside of a few years. It would have been ugly for a few years but it would be over.

Instead we tinker around trying to make nice war on our enemies. We have a dickless set of ROE. Our enemies exploit them. We have allowed a corrupt government to replace the one we deposed. One the locals despise. We have had nearly ten years. Its not working. We are not going to shift strategy so we may as well get out before we bleed dry.

Bingo, major.

IWP - War is hell, except when fought by men more interested in saving face and making new friends. I believe the enemy knows of our lack of will power and their waiting game/hunkering down is an excellent strategy for the long haul. Short term...not so much, but they knew we didn't know how to finish them off, so they sat and waited their turn.

I Wear Pants;750775 wrote:I don't think even a "shoot anyone who lives in the country" ROE like you want would change anything at all. Just kill more people on all sides. These wars are stupid beyond belief.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I'll take ROE that allows the troops on the ground to use their common sense and moral judgement. Not some bureaucratic pansy's that is sitting behind a desk, who will put troops lives at geater risk so we can make nice with the world. Have you seen some of the ROE troops have been subjected to in Afghanistan?

I was animating it past what was likely for the sake of my point, not for it's accuracy related to your actual opinion of a good ROE. My point was that I don't think any ROE would have resulted in a situation that's much better than we have.

BGFalcons82;750795 wrote:Bingo, major.

IWP - War is hell, except when fought by men more interested in saving face and making new friends. I believe the enemy knows of our lack of will power and their waiting game/hunkering down is an excellent strategy for the long haul. Short term...not so much, but they knew we didn't know how to finish them off, so they sat and waited their turn.

You cannot "finish them off" in any sense of the phrase. It will never happen. The GWOT is something that will never and can never be won just like the war on drugs. However, the GWOT does have better reasoning to exist so it has that going for it.

I Wear Pants;750819 wrote:You cannot "finish them off" in any sense of the phrase. It will never happen. The GWOT is something that will never and can never be won just like the war on drugs. However, the GWOT does have better reasoning to exist so it has that going for it.

We can agree to disagree and neither one of us will ever know if true annihilation of the enemy would have worked better or not. Fear and intimidation go a long ways farther than our war strategy from day one wherein we gave our gonads to the Afghans in hopes that they'd know how to use their aura. Turns out, they really didn't want us there that much, unless we could have somehow made the number of members of the Taliban club = 0. Like that was ever in our battle plans. We acted more like parents disciplining the evil Taliban children hoping for some sort of divine correction instead of removing them from the house altogether. When we defeated the Nazi's, did we let them hang around, "negotiate" with them, and make them swear they wouldn't do their evil deeds ever again? We removed them from the equation. We aren't anywhere close to doing that to the Taliban/Al Queda/Bin Laden, so what's the point of staying?

I Wear Pants;750553 wrote:Yeah but the Civil War, WWI, and WWII actually made sense to be in.

I never once made any suggestion or allusion to the reasoning or justification for any of these wars. I'm simply pointing out that the "Bush lied and people died" bullshit is getting old. Obama said he'd have us out in 18 months and close GITMO too. He's also expanded military action to Libya. Where are all the "Obama lied and people died" folks?

And I've said this on many occasions: I never completely bought-off on the reasoning for invading Iraq but I was perfectly fine with the Afghanistan action. Writerbuckeye has valid arguments for our still being there but I'm of the opinion that financially and politically it's time to get out...NOW.

stlouiedipalma;750722 wrote:Believe me (no pun intended), I'm pissed about staying in either Iraq or Afghanistan. I think we need to get out and get out now. If the day comes where we have to go to war to keep shipping lanes open or to keep oil flowing to the free world I would be able to support it, but not these fuck-ups.

On this we can agree.

stlouiedipalma;750722 wrote:As for Gitmo, I thought he would have a hard time fulfilling that pledge because there is too much support for Gitmo in Congress. The reality is that he cannot do anything about it.

Still where's the uproar from the anti-war left and the media on Obama's big fail? Rhetorical question of course.

I just meant that the "only 5000" comparison was useless. Believer, there are plenty of folks upset with Obama over those issues. You can be upset at both Bush for getting us into these wars and Obama for continuing them. It is possible.