April 13, 2017

"I lost my legs because my gov't was afraid to use the tools they had and saw me as expendable. I wish I'd had this admin."

"We begged to use bombs on the minefield ghost town I lost my legs clearing. But by all means-continue your rhetorically righteous tweeting...."

45 comments:

cubanbob said...

This is what happens when enemy lives are valued more than that of one's own. Yet another reason to never vote Democrat.

Chuck said...

David French is a wonderful writer; one of so many at National Review that it's hard to count.

Of course he's had his own painful history with Trumpkinville:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441319/

Larry J said...

There are too damned many lawyers and not enough warriors in the Pentagon. If it were up to me, no lawyer would be allowed to write rules of engagement before spending at least a month walking point for an infantry squad.

AllenS said...

Fuck off, Chuck.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Chuck is a wonderful commenter, one of so many at Althouse blog that it's hard to count.

Of course he's had his own painful history of narcissistically derailing any topics on offer to discuss his feelings towards, and opinions of, our current President.

Etienne said...

General Patton always advised his soldiers to by-pass towns.

The reasons are obvious. Even after Germany surrendered, the German soldiers were still fighting in Brittany. Holed-up in the towns.

You can win the war if you invade the Capital, or the regions of their economy. If the leadership of the country is dead, you win. See Ho Chi Minh city.

If we (the west) were to invade Damascus, instead of some dirt road town called Raqqah, then Syria would have been a non-problem years ago.

The other thing he advised, is don't dig trenches. (don't build forts). If you build a fort, they will come.

You need to grab them by the nose and kick them in the balls.

Otherwise, you lose. See Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq...

Big Mike said...

Chuck is unique among lifelong Republicans. Most prefer to let the military commander on the scene decide how best to achieve the objective. We have memories of Johnson meddling in the Rules of Engagement in Vietnam and Carter postponing the Tehran rescue mission until well into sandstorm season.

LarsPorsena said...

Blogger cubanbob said...
This is what happens when enemy lives are valued more than that of one's own. Yet another reason to never vote Democrat.

4/13/17, 5:28 PM

-------------------------------------
This is what happens when every platoon has to pack a lawyer.

Etienne said...

"...Once the expenditure of effort exceeds the value of the political object, the object must be renounced." -- Karl von Clausewitz

What is the political objective in Syria?

The political objective, must be that the country will be friendly to the west.

Is this possible?

No. Not in our lifetimes. Ergo, the objective must be renounced, or efforts that exceed the value are needed.

If we go to war with Russia, Iran, and North Korea, is that an exceeded value worth living?

Yes, if in the end we can bring about Armageddon, and get it over with.

$60 Million spent on rockets,
but no money in our pockets...


Clyde said...

I have absolutely no problem with this. Obliterate our enemies, and let the survivors learn that it is a mortal mistake to mess with America. Oderint dum metuant.

I wouldn't have any problem with changing our national motto from 'In God We Trust' to 'Don't [Mess] With Us,' either. You could use the F-word instead of [Mess].

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Etienne said...If we (the west) were to invade Damascus, instead of some dirt road town called Raqqah, then Syria would have been a non-problem years ago.

I don't disagree with most of what you (and Patton!) said, Etienne, but I'm not sure this is really true. Or, I guess, it's true but misses the point--the state of Syria (as such) really isn't much of a problem for America. It's a terrible problem for the people of Syria, of course, and for people in neighboring countries. I suppose it's a problem for us if we believe in a global "responsibility to protect," but even the lot who shined their buttons while whistling that tune didn't do much about it for years, so I'll ignore that idea, too.

Anyway we could topple the current government and leadership of Syria pretty quickly using our current military force. I agree, no problem there--and if that's all we want to do, fine. But doing that doesn't really accomplish much, for us. It certainly doesn't accomplish the goal of establishing a peaceful, safe, free and liberal-by-Western standards democratic state...which I take it is the goal most people here seem to have in mind. I'm not overly critical of plans that would fail to accomplish that goal, mind you, since I can't think of any that would come close to accomplishing it, either. I just don't think that toppling the current Syrian leadership/destroying the current Syrian state, by itself, would make Syria a "non-problem" in that sense.

AReasonableMan said...

Escalating wars can have beneficial outcomes, protecting the life and limbs of enlisted personnel are rarely one of them.

traditionalguy said...

Being Cannon fodder to win a War is one thing. Doing it to create a fake news narrative to reelect crooked politicians is in the "never forgiven " category. And DJT understands this difference. That makes him a difficult man.

tim in vermont said...

Is it really an escalated if the other side can't match It? Who is going to bring in the heavier weaponry on the other side? Maybe it's merciful to finish a conflict through the application of superior firepower?

I don't know, but I do know that ARM is making a leap unsupported by logic due to some kind of knee-jerk reaction, it seems.

Unknown said...

Never forget that one of the Democrats proudest moments was watching the North Vietnamese butcher uncounted numbers of people who had depended on the US. The Democratic Party spit on our soldiers and called themselves the good guys. They wept tears of joy and chanted praises at their role in causing America to lose a war whilst helping genocidal commies win one.

So ARM pretending concern for soldiers is ridiculous of course.

-- Vance

buwaya said...

"What is the political objective in Syria?"

I don't think anyone has a good answer at this point, not Turkey or Iran or Russia or the Saudis. Best case I think is the war stops, more or less, with ISIS exterminated and Syria chopped up into enclaves like Lebanon.

One big winner, not mentioned, is Israel, as Syria, Assads rump state, no longer has any conventional or WMD power to annoy them. Its not like 1982 or even 2007. And Hezbollah has taken heavy casualties and is apparently war-weary.

John said...

HR McMaster is President Trump's National Security Adviser. He is also the author of Dereliction of Duty which is about JFK and LBJ lied us into Vietnam, basically for shits and giggles.

I'd read it a few years ago and was impressed. I figured that now that he is calling the shots, I should reread it. Just as good as I remembered.

It doesn't guarantee that he won't make the same mistakes given the opportunity. It does show that he at least knows what the mistakes were and hopefully will at least raise objections if he sees them starting to be made again.

The way we fought Vietnam was a crime against the American people. Especially against our troops, the majority of whom were volunteers. They deserved better than what JFK and especially LBJ did to them.

So did the Vietnamese people. And then in 1974, what the Demmies did to them. Don't get me started on that.

John Henry

John said...

BTW: Kindle or Paper Dereliction of Duty is available through Ann's Amazon portal.

Show her some love and learn something interesting.

John Henry

Hagar said...

Obama and his people think that just because Iran on one hand, and fundamentalist Islam on the other, are at war with us does not mean that we have to be at war with them.

Chuck said...

Big Mike said...
Chuck is unique among lifelong Republicans. Most prefer to let the military commander on the scene decide how best to achieve the objective. We have memories of Johnson meddling in the Rules of Engagement in Vietnam and Carter postponing the Tehran rescue mission until well into sandstorm season.

What are you even talking about? I'm trying to figure out if I am supposed to disagree with anything in your quote above. I can't think of what it would be.

David French is the author of the piece that Althouse linked to. French is a great and very independent-minded conservative. I love this piece of his, which I presume that most (but maybe not all) Trump supporters agree with. (Some Trump supporters, I think, exist in a more extremist/American isolationist space.)

But in any event; to those who love the linked column -- I'm with you. And I am here to remind you that it comes from somebody who knows what its like to be threatened by extremist Trump supporters.

David Baker said...

"What is the political objective in Syria?"

1. Win

JPS said...

Unknown / Vance:

"Never forget that one of the Democrats proudest moments was watching the North Vietnamese butcher uncounted numbers of people who had depended on the US."

I think this manages to be unfair to them while letting them off the hook too easily.

Were they actually proud of what the North Vietnamese did to the allies we abandoned? Not generally. The hardcore left, some of them, sure.

They just didn't care. They didn't see it as their problem. Or they simply refused to make the connection. They just said Yaaay, we stopped the war! And if a bunch of people got murdered as a result, well - the ostentatiously compassionate are quite willing to say Shit Happens once they get their way.

See also Candidate Obama, of whom the AP wrote in 2008:

"Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there."

Chuck said...

Larry J said...
There are too damned many lawyers and not enough warriors in the Pentagon. If it were up to me, no lawyer would be allowed to write rules of engagement before spending at least a month walking point for an infantry squad.

I can't say for sure, but that sure sounds like a good idea to me!

In the best interest of the troops in harm's way, I'd want them to have the benefit of the best military lawyers, the best OIC lawyers, the best CIA lawyers, the best DoJ lawyers all working hard with the interests of those troops uppermost.

I want the best strategists, the best troops, the best weapons, the best equipment, the best intel... and the best lawyers.

I don't get the attacks on me here. I LIKE this column. I LIKE the point that David French and his subject, Marine Sgt. Joey Jones, have made. I DON'T LIKE IT, that Sgt. Jones was wounded in this fashion and I'd be ashamed if I were a lawyer who needlessly put him in harm's way. (I have no idea what the political affiliation of any lawyers might have been, who were involved in any policy that put Sgt. Jones in that position. He was wounded in 2010; it could have been an Obama-era policy, or leftover Bush-era policy. I don't know, and I don't like it either way. And this; do we know for sure that it was "lawyers"? Or, was it State Dept. officials? Or, excessively cautious commanders? David French didn't say; indeed he seemed to criticize the systems approach that could lead to the result without anyone's clearly taking responsibility.)

Big Mike said...

@Chuck, once in a while you're more successful at masquerading as a Republican. This many be one of those times. But from where I sit you are a Lefty trying to pass yourself as a country club Republican, but you don't really know any country club Republicans so you're making a hash of it.

The reason why you don't know any country club Republicans is because there are so few of them that haven't morphed into limousine liberals in the past couple decades.

Jack Wayne said...

Considering that in my lifetime I have had 4 really bad war Presidents (Truman, Johnson, Bush, Obama) and one incomplete war President (Nixon left office before we could reasonably say that his strategy worked), I am not ready to trust any President to be a good war President. I'll look at the results in 2 years. Then it will be obvious.

Chuck said...

Big Mike said...
@Chuck, once in a while you're more successful at masquerading as a Republican. This many be one of those times. But from where I sit you are a Lefty trying to pass yourself as a country club Republican, but you don't really know any country club Republicans so you're making a hash of it.

The reason why you don't know any country club Republicans is because there are so few of them that haven't morphed into limousine liberals in the past couple decades.

So just to be clear; you're not satisfied with disagreeing with me. You're not even satisfied with disagreeing with what you think I stand for. You're weighing in on who I know, and who I don't know, and what they stand for.

I'd be embarrassed, if I got called out on something like that.

Paul said...

If you go back to WW II, and the British Grand Slam bombs (A.K.A. Ten ton Tess.) It weighed 22,000 lb with 9,135 lb of Torpex high explosive. You will see the direct correlation between the Grand Slam and MOAB. The MOAB weighs 22,600 lb and has 18,700 lb of HS6 explosive

And just like this man asking way they did not use the MOABs earlier, one must ask why in such places like Iwo Jima and Okinawa, they did not use Grand Slams and save so many GI and Marine lives by blowing up all those Japanese bunkers and caves.

Oh yea, cost. Guess all those Marines and GIs were not worth the cost.

Achilles said...

David Baker said...
"What is the political objective in Syria?"

1. Win


Win what?

Big Mike said...

@Chuck, I've gone over your "tells" time and again. Unlike you I really have been a lifelong Republican, and active enough to have been named as a country vice-chairman for a presidential campaign. I've known a lot of Republicans, liberal Republicans in the Mac Mathias mold (indeed, I was active in the Maryland GOP during the time Mac Mathias was a senator), I've known pro-choice Republicans, I've known conservative Republicans, I've known Republicans of every shading from evangelical ("are you saved, brother?") Republicans to mansion-dwelling country club Republicans. You are not like any Republican I've ever met, though you do vaguely resemble a Lyndon LaRouche follower trying to pass as a country club Republican, but your attitudes here and there are just a little off. I think most people are on to you; I call you out just in case there is someone reading this thread who might be taken in by your charade.

Achilles said...

Chuck said...

But in any event; to those who love the linked column -- I'm with you. And I am here to remind you that it comes from somebody who knows what its like to be threatened by extremist Trump supporters.

The number of Trump supporters violently assaulted is thousands of times larger than the number of people assaulted by Trump supporters.

You are still a giant douchebag.

Chuck said...

Big Mike; I just think it's beyond strange, that you presume to know whether or not I am a lifelong Republican (I say I am; you don't know me and have never known me, but you claim with weird self-confidence that you know better), and that I represent something that is completely beyond the realm of other, real, true lifelong Republicans.

George Will says he wouldn't vote for Trump; I did. Lindsey Graham says he voted for Evan McMullin. John Kasich wrote in the name of John McCain. Is it your contention that those gentlemen are not lifelong Republicans? I mean, you can disagree with them on the issue of Trump. Or any other issue. But that doesn't make them something other than perfectly credible self-professed lifelong Democrats. I consider myself much like them, apart from the fact that I voted for Trump.

Condi Rice; George Schultz; Jeb Bush; George Herbert Walker Bush; 8 or 10 sitting Republican governors; at least 10 sitting Republican U.S. Senators; about 30 Republican members of the House; they all expressed some level of horror and indignation that Trump might win the Republican nomination. If they voted for Trump -- some did, and I expect that some didn't -- they surely did as I did; holding their respective noses.

The things I've written about Trump are not much different from Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal; or Charlie Sykes; or Bill Kristol; or Max Boot; or Charles Krauthammer; or Jonah Goldberg; or Steve Hayes; or Brent Bozell; or Charles Murray.

That's a pretty goddamned long list of lifelong Republicans.

Now you can disagree with them; you can hate them for whatever sins against the Party you might think they've committed. But if you want to contend that they are not in fact "lifelong Republicans," then you are out of your tiny fucking mind and I'm finished with this interaction.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

JPS said...Were they actually proud of what the North Vietnamese did to the allies we abandoned? Not generally. The hardcore left, some of them, sure.

Well: Leftist Millennial Protestors Flip Off Victims of Communism memorial

These guys are happy to judge the non-Left by the most extreme bad behavior of any non-Leftist they can find, so, you know, turnabout.

Known Unknown said...

How we have forgotten the simple lesson taught by William Tecumseh Sherman.

"War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."

Known Unknown said...

I have strange, almost-haunted feeling that I need to apologize to any Cambodian over a certain age I come across.

David Baker said...

Achilles,

1. Win the peace (war).

Big Mike said...

@Chuck, we're talking about you and not them.

Lost My Cookies said...

I don't think this had anything to do with North Korea. I think it's much more probable that the enemy made a mistake in massing forces. These enemy are obviously less experienced and more emboldened that the usuals and believed all the BS they read on the internet. Probably because most of them were infants or very young children during Tora Bora, but Mattis is still with us.

exhelodrvr1 said...

The objective is to keep Syria contained to Syria, if possible while limiting the internal casualties. Unfortunately, once ISIS was allowed to grow, both of those became drastically more difficult.

Freder Frederson said...

one must ask why in such places like Iwo Jima and Okinawa, they did not use Grand Slams and save so many GI and Marine lives by blowing up all those Japanese bunkers and caves.

Because dummy, we didn't have a bomb like that or the delivery method. British night bombers (especially the Lancaster) were able to carry much heavier payloads (at the expense of lighter armor and defensive weapons) than our bombers (the B17 and B24 each had a standard load of 5000 lbs or so)

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Lifelong Republican Chuck immediately attempts to change the subject of a soldier who had his life destroyed back to his own lifelong republican obession with bashing President Trump.

Go fuck yourself, you worthless sniveling cunt.

Livermoron said...

Freder, watch who you call a dummy. The US had the B-29 available for both Iwo Jima and Okinawa and was capable of carrying 20,000lbs. A modified Lancaster could carry another 2k lbs, it is true. But similar alterations to a B-29 would have enabled it to carry even more.

I think the truth of the matter is that MOABs work if you know where the tunnels are. Our intelligence in WW2 was not up to the task of mapping out tunnel locations on Japanese-held islands. Lack of a guidance system back then is a major issue as well.

Oso Negro said...

If we are going to stay in Afghanistan, it is necessary that we kill a lot more people.

Larry J said...

Chuck said...
Larry J said...
There are too damned many lawyers and not enough warriors in the Pentagon. If it were up to me, no lawyer would be allowed to write rules of engagement before spending at least a month walking point for an infantry squad.

I can't say for sure, but that sure sounds like a good idea to me!

In the best interest of the troops in harm's way, I'd want them to have the benefit of the best military lawyers, the best OIC lawyers, the best CIA lawyers, the best DoJ lawyers all working hard with the interests of those troops uppermost.


The best lawyers would be ones that didn't write such restrictive rules of engagement that cost us so many casualties. They'd be the ones that understood the value of preemptive action when you see someone getting ready to attack you instead of having to wait until they fired first. Fuck that noise.

James Graham said...

If it were up to me, no lawyer would be allowed to serve as President.


Imagine a Trump-like president's reaction to the 1993 attack on the WTC. He invites our war-fighting departments to propose solutions to the attempt to knock down two skyscrapers in NYC. They propose appropriate military action and Al-Qaida is destroyed.

Instead our Lawyer-Boy President consulted his Lawyer-Girl wife and treated it as a law enforcement problem

If you think Clinton was right let's discuss it over dinner. My treat. But it must be at Windows on the World restaurant.

Rusty said...

Paul said...
"If you go back to WW II, and the British Grand Slam bombs (A.K.A. Ten ton Tess.) It weighed 22,000 lb with 9,135 lb of Torpex high explosive. You will see the direct correlation between the Grand Slam and MOAB. The MOAB weighs 22,600 lb and has 18,700 lb of HS6 explosive

And just like this man asking way they did not use the MOABs earlier, one must ask why in such places like Iwo Jima and Okinawa, they did not use Grand Slams and save so many GI and Marine lives by blowing up all those Japanese bunkers and caves.

Oh yea, cost. Guess all those Marines and GIs were not worth the cost."

1) materials There just wasn't enough materials to make many of them.
2) Logistics. The bombs were made one off in Great Britain and there just wasn't a fast , reliable way to get them to the Pacific theater.