Trump setting up Generals as Fall Guy (?)

LA Slimes ^ | June 29, 2017 | Bacevich

[vooch]

The Defense secretary’s response was both forthright and evasive. “We are not winning in Afghanistan right now,” he conceded, while promising that “we will correct this as soon as possible.” Mattis then unleashed a cloud of blather, promising “a change in our approach” so as “to do things differently” and devise “a more regional strategy” involving “across-the-board whole of government” collaboration. He offered no specifics.

The fact is that every couple of years since 2001, policymakers in Washington and commanders in the field (including McChrystal) have trotted out plans “to do things differently” in Afghanistan. Those plans have come in a multitude of colors and a variety of sizes. None have come anywhere close to “winning.”

Trump surely knows this. We cannot say for certain why the president has chosen to distance himself from this war that he inherited. But one possibility is this: Having learned through painful experience to recognize a losing proposition, he has no intention of being left holding the bag for this one.

The savvy Mattis must suspect that he is the designated fall guy. If not, he will discover it next year or the year after when Trump relieves himself of responsibility for a still unwon war and looks to pin the blame on someone else.

[i_robot73]

>
“I see no hard thinking to determine what the goal of our presence in Afghanistan is.”

Nathan, you are exactly right. In order to win in Afghanistan, we have to first determine what “winning” is. In other words, we need to have an overall goal and then develop a strategy and measure our progress towards the goal against that.
>

I believe all are looking at it from the wrong perspective. This is yet another ‘Policemen of the World’ endeavor.

This is not a *war*. It’s def. not a ‘war’ that was started to be *WON*. Wars are won by ‘salting the Earth’, not some sortie of ‘shock & aw’, not by allowing a mile long train of trucks to roll down the highway.

We’re not ANYWHERE near a ‘winning’ mind-set, and haven’t been since ~WWII.

[wastoute]

I think you are dead on about everything there but perhaps “reducing the consumption”. Perhaps eventually as the addicts die off. Certainly reduce the illegal profit. Could turn Afghanistan into our 51st state...

[buffaloguy]

Two new MSM memes recently:

Trump would be responsible for any violence against the press. Why? Because they don’t like him.

Generals are his fall guys. Why? Because the MSM doesn’t like him.

Watch for these memes to be amplified in the coming weeks.

[silverleaf]

Trumps hands off approach to the military will only be well served if he has good apolitical generals advising him

Given the mess they are creating for him in Syria and Afghanistan - i dont see any genius here

These are the guys, after all, who came up to star rank under obama by embracing progressive socialist policies and globalism - all of them are tied to deep state thinking. I would bet they are ALL CFR flunkies

The only one who called out islamism as the true enemy ideology was Flynn and they got rid of him real fast

Just more obama / NEOCON policy with looser ROE
If Trump wants to annhilate ISIS why isnt he working WITH Assad Russia and even Iran to take care of business?
Answer: Because it’s still not our top priority .. We’re still serving Saudi Arabia and cold warring with Russia and treating China like a developing country

The 1980’s called and asked how much longer we need their policies?

[jjotto]

Consider that Obama put Mattis in charge of Afghanistan for two years. Likely Mattis sees this as a chance to prove himself right after having previously gotten no results there due to Obama’s restrictions.

Of course Mattis is likely to fail, as there is no way to ‘win’ that is politically realistic. Mattis will deserve the failure, as he could be proclaiming that Afghanistan is pointless.

[silverleaf]

Here! Here!
Former USAF and spot on!
In joint service for 10 years
Not that every service doesn’t have their share of a-——— but

No service more obssessed woth date of rank and maneuvering on the job to impress the chain of command than the Army

And dont get me started on the Navy where i swear they lobotomized their 0-5’s

Give me the Marines anyday!

[wastoute]

It must just go with the terrain in the “loftier ranks”. I have known 0-6s and 0-7s that were good folks but when push turned into shove they either give or get. And don’t even get me started on trying to introduce an 0-6 to the ARs.

[wastoute]

Let’s just say that when an 06 thinks he has a better solution than the one in the ARs everybody is in for a world of hurt.

[mad_as_he$$]

Cede Afcrapistan to the Chi-coms. They want it any way for copper etc. Or break it up into fiefdoms with warlords. It actually works that way in reality.

[silverleaf]

I Still remember a busload of us going to a ballgame while on an exercise deployment

An army 0-5 leaped to his feet and went forward to check every officer’s date of rank to figure out if he was “ the bus officer” - lol!

Makes me wonder who is the “ bus officer” driving us over the cliff in Syria

[Vermont Lt]

I’ve been involved in several failing efforts in business—most of them brought about by the economic cycle or changes in government spending that impacted a wide economic zone (specifically, the closing of a large Air Force Base in New Hampshire.)

In each case there was not move by senior management to let someone else own it. We did what we could, cut our losses, and adjusted.

Any manager who dumps his failures off on someone else would not have lasted long in any company I have ever worked in.

[LS]

Bacevich is a perennial Iraq critic & Dem who always is smarter than any general we have.

He’afraid Trump will in fact let the generals win.

[Night Hides Not]

You can’t trust an Army Officer over the rank of Major.

In general, I concur, no pun intended.

I was fortunate that there were a couple of LTC's and a bird Colonel whom I knew had my back. Almost forgot an incident where the DCG of 32nd AADCOM completely obliterated a team chief's finding in a Nuclear Surety Inspection.

It's a story interesting only to me...lol. Reader's Digest version: one of my extra duties was an Augmentation Reserve Force commander for a nearby Nike Hercules site. We had 4 hours to assemble a 40 man platoon, issue weapons and live ammo, and respond to their site in case they were attacked by terrorists.

The team chief was miffed that we arrived in 3 1/2 hours, because we were only 5-6 miles away. I told him I held them back for small unit tactical training, as we were air defense artillery, not infantry.

At the outbriefing, the team chief, in front of the entire chain of command for our sister battery, up through battalion to group to 32nd AADCOM, that he "advised me" to respond more rapidly in the even of a real situation.

When the team left, the DCG went to the podium to offer his congratulatory remarks. First thing he did was point his finger at me, and said, "LT NHN, I'll take that hit for you. Anytime you want to give your soldiers extra training, you have my permission."

One of the highlights of an otherwise undistinguished military career (lol) is no one was ever injured or discharged their weapon during the six ARFs I commanded.

[Night Hides Not]

Any change in tactics without removing the restrictive rules of engagement will be doomed to failure. IMO, that’s where it starts. You can’t go after the enemy with your hands tied behind your back, and that’s what the current ROE does.

[vooch]

thanks for the insight into Bacevich’s stellar military background.

[blueunicorn6]

I saw him give an AAR to his subordinates when he was a Squadron Commander.

One of the best things I ever saw in the Army.

You could see the respect and care between him and his subordinates.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"This is yet another ‘Policemen of the World’ endeavor"

I disagree. Let us not forget, this is where the planning took place for 9/11. It is in America's national interests for Afghanistan to not go into some semi tribal, weak to non existent lawless state where another Al Qada or ISIS or the next thing can reside and plan on how to strike America.

It's not a coincidence that these organizations thrive in lawless areas (Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Mindinao, etc..). We don't have to have a heavy military influence in all of those places, but we have to have plans in place to rectify all of these. Part of the arms deal with Saudi recently I believe has to do with Yemen. We need to encourage our Sunni Allies like Saudi to take control of that situation and restore the Yemeni government back.

[abclily]

‘cloud of blather’
‘offered no specifics’
‘trotted out plans’
‘chosen to distance himself’
‘designated fall guy’

All personal speculation on the part of the writer. This tripe does not even come up to the standard of an informed editorial.

[nathanbedford]

When Obama came into power in 2009 we had already been in Afghanistan for, what, six years? So Obama, perhaps the worst president in American history, took a quagmire and turned it into a black hole.

Why did George Bush put us there? Because the Taliban had provided training camps for terrorists and would not give up the practice or the terrorists? Because somehow the administration adopted the implausible notion that waging war in Afghanistan would somehow prevent another 19 Muslims of mixed Middle Eastern dissent (but mostly Saudi Arabian) from another airborne attack? Why were we there when Obama came into office in 2009? Because of mission creep?

I am sure that Osama bin Laden could not believe his success in precipitating America into squandering trillions of dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq in pointless wars.

Speaking of Osama bin Laden, Obama seized upon the search for this man and his ultimate decapitation as a metaphor for victory in Afghanistan and Iraq and so diverted public attention to a shiny object. This is an object lesson in the need for rigor and clarity in pursuing foreign policy, especially foreign military adventures. It also speaks to the national necessity to have a commander-in-chief with the political and moral courage to hold himself to the standard of clarity and rigor.

Over and over Obama showed himself to be a moral coward if not a working enemy of the country. What do we do now remains the question.

[enumerated]

Fake news.
Trump loves Mattis.

Trump doesn’t want to set public expectations too high with over-optimistic reports about how things are going.

This is why he sometimes says “I inherited a mess”.

Nothing to see here.