Where liberty, choice and responsibility are subsumed by authoritarianism
Get in shape or pay a price.That’s a message more Americans could hear if health-care reform provisions passed by the Senate finance and health committees become law. By more than doubling the maximum penalties that companies can apply to employees who flunk medical evaluations, the legislation could put workers under intense financial pressure to lose weight, stop smoking or even lower their cholesterol.
The bipartisan initiative, largely eclipsed in the health-care debate, builds on a trend that is in play among some corporations and that more workers will see in the benefits packages they bring home during this fall’s open enrollment. Some employers offer lower premiums to workers who complete personal health assessments; others limit coverage for smokers.
This illustrates even more forcefully that not only should Government not be in charge of health insurance, but neither should the employer.
Of course, as in any business, incentives for consumers can take many forms. Life insurance policies have always had riders and exclusions based on risky behavior. Do you ride a motorcycle? Jump out of airplanes for fun? Well, then you are going to pay more for life insurance. It is called being responsible for your own choices.
It is called being an adult.
So why would a non-leftist object to an employer or the government mandating health practices? Aren’t they also just holding people responsible for less healthy lifestyles? In a word, no. What happens now is that since the health insurance belongs, ultimately, to the government or employer, they now have are exercising direct micromanagment of the citizen/employee’s life. And it gives them the power not only to manage your life outside of work, from what you eat for dinner and how you spend your leisure time, but to stand in the doctor’s examination room with you.
That’s what ObamaCare is really about.
Comment by sdferr on 10/20 @ 8:25 am #
Now might be a good time to run some of those NoKo or Red Chinese videos of severely regimented pre-workday calisthenics we were wont to see in the 70’s & 80’s.
Comment by Joe on 10/20 @ 8:26 am #
Getting fit and healthier is fine. But we do not need the government as our overseers to do it.
Comment by Joe on 10/20 @ 8:28 am #
What people miss is wellness programs are all well and good, they do not really save money. Well they save money only if there is no back end. Business that institute wellness plans defer medical costs that then only manifest themselves after the employee has retired. A government plan does not have that option…
well at least not yet. Can anyone say death panels?
Comment by mojo on 10/20 @ 8:33 am #
Gee, will we all have to exercise every morning in front of the telescreen?
Comment by sdferr on 10/20 @ 8:39 am #
*one finger touching nose, other finger vigorously pointing at mojo*
Comment by Kevin B on 10/20 @ 8:46 am #
Workout will make you free!
Comment by BJTexs on 10/20 @ 8:46 am #
Joe’s point is dead on but there’s another sad, sad truth about “preventative medicine” in general and wellness programs in particular.
They simply do not accomplish the cost savings that are touted.
It’s simple math. Massive screening and wellness programs cost lots and lots of up front money. Screening and controlling millions and millions of people is an expense that will not be counter balanced by reduced medical costs. You’d have to show that millions and millions of people would not have developed a disease or condition because of the massive screening. Literally hundreds of studies run through The New England Journal of Medicine have clearly showed that the initial costs far outweigh the potential savings.
Charles Krauthammer, who actually has a medical degree and worked in medical research, lays it out.
Comment by Squid on 10/20 @ 8:48 am #
I honestly can’t believe that these clowns think they’re going to get away with it. They’re going to shepherd this abomination into existence, and within two election cycles it will all be undone by those who get elected on the “Leave Me the Hell Alone” platform. Whether the “LMtHA” candidates are D or R or some third party doesn’t matter. All that really matters is that your average American really resents being pushed around. It doesn’t matter if it’s the Government or the employer that’s doing the pushing; either one can expect real pushback in short order.
Comment by Snowcone on 10/20 @ 8:51 am #
Yesterday you complained when the government says it’s going to decrease the difference between what young people and old people pay for health insurance.
Today you complain when the government says it’s going to increase the difference between what fat people and skinny people pay for health insurance.
Foolish consistency, etc.?
Comment by BJTexs on 10/20 @ 8:51 am #
Here’s the money quote from the above linked Krauthammer article: (emphasis mine)
Comment by Bob Reed on 10/20 @ 8:58 am #
All I want to know is, will liquor be rationed…For the Healthiness !?!
If so, it’s definately time for a second American revolution…Or a still!
Comment by BJTexs on 10/20 @ 9:00 am #
That right there is the basis for the complaint. The rest is irrelevant and you know it.
There are Chinese troops in your mailbox, alphie/snowcone.
Comment by BJTexs on 10/20 @ 9:01 am #
Whiskey Rebellion, Bob?
Comment by Joe on 10/20 @ 9:08 am #
The good news liquor will not be rationed.
The bad news, we will go back to using it as the primary form of anesthesia,
Comment by JD on 10/20 @ 9:13 am #
BJ – alphie/snotnose/sniffles/parsnip/Neville/monkeyboy needs government to take care of it. Everything stems from that.
Comment by Charles on 10/20 @ 9:21 am #
Get fat now. That way it will be a pre-existing condition and they’ll have to cover you.
Comment by Charles Johnson on 10/20 @ 9:23 am #
Sharmutta is fat.
Comment by Charles Johnson on 10/20 @ 9:24 am #
Wild Irish Rose is fat too.
Comment by JD on 10/20 @ 9:27 am #
Calling yourself Charles should be a felony.
Comment by BJTexs on 10/20 @ 9:30 am #
#16: Good one, Charles, and I’m counting on that.
Comment by TheGeezer on 10/20 @ 9:33 am #
She is not fat. She is non-slender.
Comment by Pablo on 10/20 @ 9:35 am #
The other option is to go broke now. Need could soon be much more useful than wealth. Wealth can be so fleeting.
Comment by Jeff Y. on 10/20 @ 9:55 am #
Let’s not forget that it was Progressives that tied insurance to employers in the first place. The history of the insurance market in America is a story of ever increasing centralization. The last successful round was led by Jimmy Carter who thought consumers had too much choice. The Progressive zombie will not die.
Comment by Bob Reed on 10/20 @ 9:56 am #
Wealth is the disease, Obama is the cure…
Unfortunately it’s one of those kill the patient kinda cures…
Comment by Bob Reed on 10/20 @ 9:59 am #
BJ,
I thought the Whiskey Rebellion occurred when a bartender took to putting rotgut into Jamesons bottles…
All the bouncers in all the “roadhouses” in the world couldn’t save his arse!
And besides, it is a medical necessity. In fact as the clock moves toward 12, I think a feel a cold coming on myself; time for medication!
Comment by JHo on 10/20 @ 10:07 am #
I resemble that remark. Under Tyrannycare, I fully expect to lose what keeps me alive when not under Tyrannycare.
Comment by Snowcone on 10/20 @ 10:14 am #
That right there is the basis for the complaint.
If Darleen had bothered to read the basis of her rant she’d see this is a lessening of government authority.
Comment by MikeT on 10/20 @ 10:19 am #
When I purchased a life insurance policy, I was weighed and measured and asked a barrage of health questions.
Darleen and the fat people of the world unite. Rights for the obese!
We all care about rights, it’s called being an adult (unless you’re a pregnant women or a gay of course).
BTW, the public option is now favored by a clear majority.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451_pf.html
Comment by JD on 10/20 @ 10:20 am #
How did you keep your head from asspolding when you typed that, alphie?
Comment by Pablo on 10/20 @ 10:27 am #
Oh, totally clear. Yup.
Mmm mmm mmm….
That’s the Baucus plan, right? Or maybe HR 3200? Tell us, MikeT, for we are starved for the enlightenment you bring.
Comment by Pablo on 10/20 @ 10:31 am #
Huh. That seems like a clear majority disapprove of the reforms being proposed. Why won’t the Democrats give the people what a clear majority of them want?
Comment by sdferr on 10/20 @ 10:34 am #
Jules too, attempts to drain the boggy swamp that is the polling landscape today. Quagmire.
Comment by JD on 10/20 @ 10:36 am #
I had a feeling that MikeT was gleeening the contents of that link.
Comment by Charles on 10/20 @ 10:55 am #
Who cares what “the majority of American’s” want? Well, I suppose a politician who has to get reelected might care, but an individual shouldn’t care. It’s just laziness to not have the intellectual curiosity to ask, “What’s in this for me?”
For me, I have health insurance I’m happy with. I pay a lot so that it doesn’t have a lifetime or annual max. No one in my family has a preexisting condition that made it hard to get covered. Now, forcing a bunch of young healthy people into the insurance pool to subsidize my insurance may have a net benefit on my pocketbook, but raising my taxes because I earn too much income will have a negative effect. Since the status quo is plenty good enough, and the proposed changes are likely to have more down-side than up-side, I’m against the legislation. Throw in a little of my personal dogma that smaller government is better government, and it becomes and easy choice.
Now, MikeT, and snowcone, is this a net benefit for you? Are you without insurance? Do you make less than 4x the federal poverty level? Do you have difficulty getting insurance because of pre-existing conditions? Do you think big-government is better government? If so, I’d fully expect you to support it. In fact, I’d go so far as to say you should support it.
We all let our representatives know what we want, in mundane or creative ways, and then the tyranny of the majority (actually, the tyranny of needing to get reelected and keep the cushy job) does it’s thing.
In short, what the fuck difference does a poll make in whether any individual should get behind or in front of this thing?
Comment by DarthRove on 10/20 @ 11:03 am #
So, everybody needs health insurance because it’s a basic unalienable human right. Unless you’re a disgusting sub-human fatso using an unfair share of cardiac care resources.
Or a disgusting sub-human smoker using an unfair share of oncology resources.
Or a disgusting sub-human non-aborting non-contracepting godbothering baby factory using an unfair share of obstetric resources.
Or a disgusting sub-human sugared soda drinker
Or a disgusting sub-human trans-fat eater
Or a disgusting sub-human non-human fellow creature eater
.
.
.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/20 @ 11:05 am #
First they came for my trans-fats and I said nothing…..
[yeah, I know, it's cheap. Sue me]
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/20 @ 11:07 am #
“Throw in a little of my personal dogma that
smaller governmentisolationist government that’s unable to defend itself is better government,…”TFTFY
Comment by Snowcone on 10/20 @ 11:15 am #
Rights for the obese!
If you saw any pictures of the teabaggers you’d know why the Right wants to prevent obese people having to pay extra for health insurance.
Comment by sdferr on 10/20 @ 11:22 am #
“…the Right wants to prevent obese people having to pay extra for health insurance.”
Do they? I don’t think so, but another clumsy assertion monkey lie propounded —- to what end, when it’s so transparently false? Another breath wasting exercise, kinda like government regimented calisthenics, I suppose ……..
Comment by Charles on 10/20 @ 11:28 am #
When did you develop such a low opinion of the military, that by giving it 2x or 3x what any other military gets you don’t think it can beat those lower funded advisories? Are you saying other military’s can do more with less?
Comment by Charles Johnson on 10/20 @ 11:28 am #
I denounce you all as fatists.
Comment by DarthRove on 10/20 @ 11:32 am #
I learned it from reading you, Dad! I learned it from reading you!
Comment by SarahW on 10/20 @ 11:33 am #
Slavery. That’s what it is. I guess some people like that better.
Comment by Eben on 10/20 @ 11:40 am #
Snotcone still thinks the feds care about his health, how cute!
They’ll pass this monstrosity and very quickly after that it will end up in court and not even the notoriously abused Commerce Clause will be able to save it. Mandating that I spend money on something isn’t even remotely Constitutional. In fact, it’s rather tyrannical.
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 10/20 @ 11:42 am #
Of course they do, SarahW. You think morons such as alphie and rd have any chance, without the coercive power of the state? Hell, they’ll trade liberty in for security any day of the week. It’s easier by far.
Comment by JD on 10/20 @ 11:42 am #
“When did you develop such a low opinion of our military” is a fundamentally dishonest assertion, Chuckles.
Comment by SDN on 10/20 @ 11:49 am #
Copperheads have always liked slavery better.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/20 @ 11:54 am #
“When did you develop such a low opinion of the military, that by giving it 2x or 3x what any other military gets you don’t think it can beat those lower funded advisories? Are you saying other military’s can do more with less?”
Did your Mom drop you on your head repeatedly when you were a baby?
Comment by Charles on 10/20 @ 12:00 pm #
#46 – Is it? Since you’re such a label troll, why don’t you go back and look at #37.
I’m asserting that a military that outspends our rivals by 2x or 3x would be able to provide a more than adequate defense. I’m asserting that if we spend 2x-3x our nearest rival, and our military is “unable to defend”, as #37 asserts, that’s a low opinion of our military.
Comment by Salt Lick on 10/20 @ 12:01 pm #
The Hill newspaper notes that the biography also examines [Bawney] Frank’s battles with his weight and insatiable appetite. “The day I die, I will either be fat or hungry,” Frank says in the book.
No more cupcakes for you, Cupcake!
Comment by Charles on 10/20 @ 12:03 pm #
#48 – I notice you didn’t answer the question.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/20 @ 12:05 pm #
“Comment by Charles on 10/20 @ 12:03 pm #
#48 – I notice you didn’t answer the question.”
What a coincidence!
I noticed your a moron.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/20 @ 12:06 pm #
Or You’re a moron….
As the case may be.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/20 @ 12:07 pm #
“I’m asserting that a military that outspends our rivals by 2x or 3x would be able to provide a more than adequate defense.”
Considering we are fighting WW IV against the islamofascists, that assertion is…..moronic.
Comment by JD on 10/20 @ 12:09 pm #
How does a troll get to be so arrogant and pompous that it can create terms like “label trolls” for people that have commented here since as far back as 2002? I read your drivel, Chuckles, and do not accept the asspulls it is based on.
Comment by sdferr on 10/20 @ 12:10 pm #
“I notice you didn’t answer the question.”
Ironies abound, don’t they?
Comment by Charles Johnson on 10/20 @ 12:12 pm #
My alterego Charles may be lesser than me, but he is still greater than you all. I invented blogging. I am the greatest blogger. I am the alpha and omega.
Comment by Charles Johnson on 10/20 @ 12:14 pm #
I am the zip in zippity doo dah. I am the snap in snap, crackel, pop. And you are all vaccine heratics and crypto nazi-racists.
Comment by JD on 10/20 @ 12:17 pm #
Charles, Charles Johnson, Chucky Adkins – I am sensing a pattern ….
Comment by Charles on 10/20 @ 12:20 pm #
And the annual budget of the islamofascists is maybe $500 million. I would think that by outspending them 2000:1, for a decade, we’d have this thing in the bag by now. Kinda makes me question our approach.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/20 @ 12:22 pm #
“I would think that by outspending them 2000:1, for a decade, we’d have this thing in the bag by now”
That’s what you didn’t do: think.
Comment by DarthRove on 10/20 @ 12:23 pm #
Charles, just say “Carpetbomb the muthafuckers” and be done with it.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/20 @ 12:24 pm #
Naw, he’d prefer to use nukes.
Comment by President Mop on 10/20 @ 12:34 pm #
Ever hear of asymmetric warfare, chas? You need real effort to appear this retarded!
Comment by DarthRove on 10/20 @ 12:39 pm #
Anagram engine:
Little Green Footballs = Troll-befallen Egotist
Heh.
Comment by Squid on 10/20 @ 12:55 pm #
Charles understands that using comparative military expenditures is an unfair metric. He understands that asymmetric warfare is different from traditional warfare. He understands that U.S. expenditures have protected our allies and the sea lanes for generations, allowing the other nations of the world to free-ride to the extent that they throw the imbalance off even further.
He knows that the best way to restore balance to comparative military expenditures is to insist that the Europeans maintain proper, modern armed forces. He knows that a stay-at-home military is no defense against piracy at sea or terrorist infiltration.
He knows all of these things, but he doesn’t care, because he’s trying to make a point, and the complexities of the real world don’t fit on a bumper sticker.
Here’s a bit of advice, Charles: we’re not children, and we’re not stupid. You can play your little games with us all you like, but we’re on to you, and we respond to you only because it serves to enlighten the lurkers as to the hollowness of your arguments. You may wish to ask yourself whether your continuing participation is counterproductive to your cause.
Comment by Charles Johnson on 10/20 @ 1:01 pm #
I hope there is a mental health component to this wellness program.
Comment by Pablo on 10/20 @ 1:21 pm #
Or, Negotiable Troll Fest. Heh.
Comment by Roman Polanski on 10/20 @ 1:25 pm #
My back up plan:
Comment by DrSteve on 10/20 @ 1:27 pm #
Comment by Snowcone on 10/20 @ 8:51 am #
Aging isn’t a behavior, stupid.
Comment by Snowcone's Asshole on 10/20 @ 1:39 pm #
Dr.Steve can you help me? I want to be amputated from Snowcone and donanted to someone who needs a new asshole. I have power of attorney over Snowcone, so it is all good.
Comment by Snowcone's Asshole on 10/20 @ 1:41 pm #
Dr. Steve, I can also sign a DNR for Snowcone just in case [wink wink] there is an accident during the procedure. Just harvest me out of there first.
Comment by SporkLift Driver on 10/20 @ 2:16 pm #
The problem is diminishing returns, the first ounce of prevention may very well be worth a pound of cure but the 64th ounce almost certainly won’t be. Eventually a pound of prevention is worth an ounce of cure, lots of people are at that point already.
Who costs the system more? The person who neglects their health and doesn’t see a doctor and dies suddenly of a heart attack at 65 or the person who gets regular checkups, takes up running and the gym at 25 and becomes a regular customer at their doctors office?
I’m not quite proposing the first but perhaps their are better uses for my time and money than becoming a gym rat and runner and seeing the doctor on a regular basis for the resulting wear and tear and injuries.
“Prevention” is just a way to shift the expense where it’s not publicly visible. Spend the time to prepare healthy meals or hit the gym? Or hit the gym and then spend lots of money to have someone else prepare the healthy food?
Spend all my time trying to live to a hundred or enjoy the time I have with family, friends, and hobbies?
It seems to me there are lots of benefits to letting people decide for themselves what they want from life.
Comment by Snowcone's Asshole on 10/20 @ 2:37 pm #
The first pound of dope can keep you pretty happy though. We can probably craft a health care that is cheap by legalized med marijuana. Toke up and enjoy things till you die.
I learned how to smoke in Bangkok, but that is a long story.
Comment by Barrack Milhouse Obama on 10/20 @ 2:54 pm #
Hey do any of you guys know what Nixonia smells like?
Comment by Bob Reed on 10/20 @ 3:00 pm #
Check out the latest issue of Charles Johnson, Race Detective at Vanderleun’s site:
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/enemies_foreign_domestic/charles_johnson_gets_his.php
It’s pretty darn good, in an old school kind of way…
Comment by Charles on 10/20 @ 3:05 pm #
I do get that, and I question whether the expensive occupation of two countries is the best strategy to combat a global terrorism network.
You get what you incent for, and right now, there’s little incentive for Europe to maintain a proper military. I think our continued exorbitant military expenditures, and willingness to maintain bases across Europe contribute to this.
The recent problem of piracy at sea seems to be more of a problem of political will, than military capability.
I also don’t think I’m treating anyone like children by asking what, as a nation, do we require of our military? What funding level is needed to ensure the military can fulfill those requirements? I also don’t think it’s in any way unreasonable to point out that a percentage of military expenditure is currently happening to keep bases open to support a local community, or keep factory jobs in place producing aircraft that are above and beyond even the Pentagon’s wish list, and to point out that (to me anyways) that doesn’t seem an appropriate us of tax dollars or military budget.
Finally, it’s apparent that, to many here, the military is simply a sacred cow, and not a subject to which any critical thinking is allowed to be applied.
Comment by sdferr on 10/20 @ 3:11 pm #
You flatter only yourself if you think that what you’ve offered here on the subject of the proper American military disposition has been of the nature of critical thinking. It isn’t.
Comment by Abe Froman on 10/20 @ 3:11 pm #
Finally, it’s apparent that, to many here, the military is simply a sacred cow, and not a subject to which any critical thinking is allowed to be applied.
I think it has more to do with a visceral aversion to people who come here with singular obsessions. Especially when, in your case, you communicate in generalities and show no evidence of having much grasp of the subject you’re obsessed with.
Comment by JD on 10/20 @ 3:32 pm #
I wanna be an isolationist anarcho-libertarian.
Comment by Charles on 10/20 @ 3:41 pm #
#78 – say’s sdferr, who’s offered so much food for though on the subject. Really, looking through the thread, I don’t find a single substantive comment by you.
#79 – generalities?
The military consuming $1 trillion per year, and near 5% of GDP is a generality?
The fact that the US spends 5 times as much on the military as any other country, and almost as much on the military as the rest of the world combined – is a generality?
That we keep a military force of almost 3 million active and reserve – is a generality?
The continued occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq when it’s believed that anyone of importance in Al-Qaeda have moved to Pakistan (or Somalia, or elsewhere) is a generality?
The insistence by Congress that more F-22s be purchased – against the wishes of the Pentagon – is a generality?
The well-known congressional resistance to base closing is a generality?
I think I’ve offered more specifics than anyone on this subject, but I’m sure you’ll reply with a highly intelligent, “No you didn’t. I win.”
Comment by JD on 10/20 @ 3:45 pm #
We get it, Chuckles, you don’t like the military. We figured that out about 8935 comments ago. Repeating those 8935 comments is rather unnecessary, and a bit redundant.
Comment by sdferr on 10/20 @ 3:45 pm #
You needn’t set out to prove that you don’t know what critical thinking looks like Charles, you only need to continue on in the same vein in which you’ve already been tracking. Ah, but you do. Very good.
Comment by JD on 10/20 @ 3:50 pm #
So far, Chuckles has gone after Squid and sdferr, two of the more thoughtful and reasonable commenters one could encounter. Chuckles, lashing out at people who are more than willing to give you a full hearing is not a recipe for any type of discussion. Feel free to start your own blog about how evil the military is. I am sure you could draw quite the audience denigrating the fine men and women of our Armed Services.
Comment by Abe Froman on 10/20 @ 3:56 pm #
There’s an old saying in marketing, Charles: Half the money is wasted, the problem is knowing which half. And so when I say you speak in generalities it is that you offer little in the way of compelling or even interesting big picture arguments. Any chimpanzee with access to the internet can bore us with accounts of wasteful spending. The problem in your case is that the only strong part of your argument amounts to a litany of things we’d probably all agree about.
Pingback by Pain Relief Fast TMJ/TMD Back Neck Head Sciatica Scoliosis | Lumbar Back Pain? Finally Get Relief Blog on 10/20 @ 4:02 pm #
[...] Wellness programs – who is in charge? [Darleen Click] Posted in Lower Back Pain Treatments | Tags: alternative, Analysis, asthma, back, Brain, Carpal, chrons, curve, digestion, disc, disease, Dysautonomia, energetic, Fast, foot, Head, healing, health, hip, hump, IBS, injury, knee, Kyphosis, Lordosis, low, LUMBAR, matrix, neck, NER, Neuro, pain, Postural, POTS, PTSD, quantum, release, RELIEF, Rib, rotated, rotation, ruptured, sciatica, Scoliosis, secondary, Shift, spine, symptoms, therapy, thoracic, TMD, tmj, torque, Treatment, Tunnel, wellness « KT Tape: Lower Back Pain [...]
Comment by B Moe on 10/20 @ 4:05 pm #
We get that. So far all I have seen you suggest is either ignoring them or nuking them. I think you lose.
Comment by A simple mind on 10/20 @ 4:27 pm #
Charles: What,(and who), is between Iraq and Afghanistan? You’re welcome.
You want it done cheaper? Maybe you should do it. Don’t want to field and supply an army on the other side of the Globe? Then, by all means, invite them to come and fight here. Or, more pecisely, to your neighborhood, so you can fight them more economically. Somethings in life cost what they cost, when you need them and usually there are no bargains to be had. You also did not mention the 3,oo people that died on 9/11. Or the Trillions of dollars hit the economy took on that same day. Why is that?
Comment by Pablo on 10/20 @ 4:41 pm #
I question whether you think that the strategy consists of occupying two countries.
Comment by Charles on 10/20 @ 4:48 pm #
Well, you kind of made my point. Just because we’re spending money doesn’t mean it’s effective. It doesn’t mean that spending less, better focused, wouldn’t achieve a greater result. You just pointed out that the trillion per year we were spending before 9/11 didn’t prevent the attack (or the previous trade center bombing, or the Cole attack, or the embassy bombings, or…) And the trillion we’ve spent since hasn’t killed or captured the perpetrators. The conventional military is only a small part of an effective anti-terrorism effort. This shouldn’t be news to you.
It’s my biggest problem with the Republican party – they’re willing to spend horrific sums of money to not solve the problem. Border wall, anyone?
And since you mention the space between Iraq and Afghanistan, I’d love to hear your plan for dealing with that.
Comment by B Moe on 10/20 @ 4:54 pm #
You can’t know or prove that.
I can prove it has prevented another attack.
Comment by Pablo on 10/20 @ 4:56 pm #
Is there something that does mean that? How does spending less, better focused, achieve a better result? And how do you determine what a better focus is?
Comment by A simple mind on 10/20 @ 5:01 pm #
“You just pointed out that the trillion per year we were spending before 9/11 didn’t prevent the attack (or the previous trade center bombing, or the Cole attack, or the embassy bombings,” No I did not. Atitude got the U.S attacked, amoung other issues. You have to decide if you want a free and open society, Whether that is a desirable and defensable goal.
Comment by Snowcone on 10/20 @ 5:11 pm #
Aging isn’t a behavior, stupid.
So, the Silly Right has no problem with insurance companies discriminating against people based on something they can do nothing about.
But allowing insurance companies to charge fat people more than skinny people causes you to wee wee yourselves?
Comment by Charles on 10/20 @ 5:12 pm #
Funny, when I hear about an attack being foiled, it seems to be some cell outside of Iraq or Afghanistan that was raided. In fact, I can’t think of the last time I heard of our military in Iraq or Afghanistan disrupting any active planning.
I agree we’ve been kept safe. I don’t think it’s accurate to attribute that to our current occupations.
Comment by B Moe on 10/20 @ 5:17 pm #
What they hell do you think they are doing over there, Charles? Holding quilting bees?
I don’t know about you, but I can’t help but think getting my ass blowed up would be pretty disruptive as far as planning goes.
Comment by Pablo on 10/20 @ 5:22 pm #
So, we could have stayed out of Afghanistan altogether, and we’d have had about the same outcome? Is that what you’re saying, Charles?
Comment by JD on 10/20 @ 5:24 pm #
The number of attacks that have been disrupted is likely significantly grater than what you have heard in the media. But, it is all about Charley.
Note how in 2 threads, he is preaching to “Republicans” about defense issues, in an apparent effort to not actually talk about the topics. He is good. Verbose, but good.
Yellowsnow is just an idiot.
Comment by sdferr on 10/20 @ 5:30 pm #
“…hasn’t killed or captured the perpetrators.”
Who is Khalid Sheik Mohammed? Who Ramsi bin al Shib? Who are the rest of these guys? Oh sure OBL and Zawahiri are still at large, but nearly every one of their senior lieutenants in 2001 has since taken it in the neck. Yeah, they were replaced, and those guys have largely been killed too, so now they’re on the third cohort. And we’re still killing them.
Comment by geoffb on 10/20 @ 6:09 pm #
The basic formula is this.
Charles is to the US military as Barrett is to the Roman Catholic Church and evangelical Christians.
It is the itch they have to scratch in public. Scratching and picking at various scabs on the visible surface. That surface layer is how far their knowledge of those entities seems to go.
Lots of historical references but little knowledge of the enemy they fight. So they slay the straw-men the imagine their enemies to be. Amusing in less serious times.
Comment by sdferr on 10/20 @ 6:15 pm #
Notice geoffb, how critical thinking has become “conclusions first, reason later”?
Comment by B Moe on 10/20 @ 6:22 pm #
That same comparison occurred to me, geoff, but in fairness to Charles he does seem quite a bit more reasonable than BB.
Comment by Bob Reed on 10/20 @ 6:22 pm #
Charles,
In general your arguments are pointing towards an unrealistic isolationist national posture very much like those in the 1920’s and 1930’s; the same kind of arguments that had us ill prepared for the outbreak of WWII to the extent that we played catch-up, technologically and in terms of ordinance and manpower, for the first couple years of that struggle. And to some extent the same is true for Islamo-fascism as a whole; it was ignored during the Clinton admnistration, and when attended to treated as a law enforcement issue-the same way Obama pledges to approach it. Believe me that the residual saftey and culmination of long operations lately have been as much due to agency inertia as to any hope-n-change…
“The military consuming $1 trillion per year, and near 5% of GDP is a generality?”
Your figure is misleading because it includes the total cost of the war effort, the war in Iraq has cost less than one trillion dollars
The fact that the US spends 5 times as much on the military as any other country, and almost as much on the military as the rest of the world combined – is a generality?
We can’t count on the rest of the world or the mincing indecision of the UN to deal with our security issues. A lot of folks are jealous and hate us around the world; we have a lot to lose, and so a lot to protect. Perhaps you recall the quote from the early 1800’s, “Millions for defense, but not one penny in tribute”; I contend that it still applies today.
That we keep a military force of almost 3 million active and reserve – is a generality?
Most of that force is reserve, thank you; out of a population of over 300 million-1%. And the Chinese have nearly as many men under arms as we have in total population. Again, a lot to lose means a lot to protect. Why do you have a problem with that number of personell?
The continued occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq when it’s believed that anyone of importance in Al-Qaeda have moved to Pakistan (or Somalia, or elsewhere) is a generality?
We need to be there to keep the nation stabilized and prevent the resurgence of the Taliban; contrary to the latest spin being provided as cover for Obama’s dithering, there are no moderate Taliban-a fact had on good autority by members of this commentrariat. What you statists never grasp is that the power of governance arises from the people; a truly grassroots phenomena. We need to stay there until a legitimate government of the people can be established. Plus there are the added benefits of being able to provide assured operational security for special forces acting against the Taliban and AQ in the badlands of north-western pakistan, and keep the Iranians in check, militarily and strategically. Why don’t you want the Afghanis to enjoy freedom and for us to live up to our obligations as stated repeatedly by Obama in the campaign, and in March and August of this year?”
The insistence by Congress that more F-22s be purchased – against the wishes of the Pentagon – is a generality?
What do you know of military aircraft? While they are obviously trying to save money desperately, I won’t even discuss this subject with an adversary who doesn’t know enough, outside of google-fu, to argue with intellectual honesty.
The well-known congressional resistance to base closing is a generality?
It’s a non factor in this argument, and a red herring at best
I sense a Ron Paul dedicated Isolationist, or just another Obamite trying to agitate the PW commentariat…
Comment by Charles on 10/20 @ 6:36 pm #
If you’re planning an attack on the US, and you get your ass blowed up, you ass was probably in Pakistan. Why would you sit in Afghanistan, when you could be a hell of a lot safer right across the border? In Pakistan, you have to worry about drones. In Afghanistan, you have to worry about drones, bombers, and Marines. Where would you hang out? And I hear Somalia’s the new Afghanistan anyways.
What do I think we’re doing over there? Delaying guilt, mainly. When we leave, the Taliban will probably take back over, (and the Karzi government is completely corrupt anyway.) When that happens, the country will go back to being a pretty horrible place for the citizens. Oh, we’ll need to make sure we have them infiltrated, and we’ll have to bomb training camps, or drop in some special forces for operations like the one we pulled off in September in Somalia, but the days of little afghan girls going to school are over. I think that’s the main reason we’re still there. We’ve gone beyond killing terrorists, and now we don’t want the guilt of a brutal failed state.
Going in was fine (we were attacked from there). The handling of Tora Bora seems to have been quite a cockup. 2003 was probably the right time to get out. When’s the last time we got anyone of real significance in Afghanistan?
Comment by LTC John on 10/20 @ 6:43 pm #
Bob, you are a better man than I to patiently address these things… I am awful damned tired right now.
Comment by sdferr on 10/20 @ 6:50 pm #
Latest? Well lessee, there’s this guy, article on Oct 14th, then there’s this guy, article on Oct. 9th and then these three, article on Oct. 6th. I also heard that the leader of the attack on COP Keating was taken down that weekend as well, but I’d have to dig for confirmation if you want it.
Comment by B Moe on 10/20 @ 6:50 pm #
Bit slow on the uptake, this one.
Comment by sdferr on 10/20 @ 7:14 pm #
Just an aside, for a good source for the “what’s what” goings on in the Pak offensive in S. Waziristan, check in here from time to time. Today’s map of events here.
Comment by JD on 10/20 @ 7:31 pm #
Bob and LtC John – You don’t really expect this asshat to listen to someone with actual experience, do you? As someone noted above, this is Barrett Douchenozzle Brown just with the military.
Comment by geoffb on 10/20 @ 7:34 pm #
B Moe.
They both have their favorite hobby horses to ride. Any discussion will eventually be brought around to them. Even the ones that start out reasonable sounding. Political OCD. Which is fine if something new is brought to the discussion.
So far I haven’t heard anything that wasn’t similarly talked about in late 60’s left, late night dorm room talks. Names and places change but the ideas are the same, and still bunk.
Comment by Rusty on 10/20 @ 8:15 pm #
When’s the last time we got anyone of real significance in Afghanistan?
Said Charles
Every fucking day.
Nation building is costly, but it works.
Comment by Darleen on 10/20 @ 8:15 pm #
What Charles seems to not understand is that intentional external threats are almost impossible to prevent. From micro to macro, someone who intends an evil act will find a way to do it. At best we need to develop ways to delay, distract or mitigate the act — including how we react to it.
In times of “peace” (pauses between hostilities) Americans pretty much forget lessons and pooh-pooh people who point out risk.
THEN they like to do 20-20 hindsight when disaster strikes.
Look up and read the history of Rick Rescorla.
Comment by sdferr on 10/20 @ 8:25 pm #
“…we need to develop ways…”
To pay attention when fellows like OBL declare war on the United States, as he did in 1996, take them seriously and act accordingly.
Comment by Pablo on 10/20 @ 8:39 pm #
You sure about that, Charles?
Comment by sdferr on 10/20 @ 8:44 pm #
I just realized that the Obami have timed their attack on FoxNews to fall during Megyn’s maternity leave. Coincidence? I think not.
Comment by Charles on 10/20 @ 11:58 pm #
Our extravagant military spending is a disincentive for our allies to adequately fund their own military. I also think we have to consider what we’re defending against. I have little fear of a proto superpower invading, as our nuclear arsenal is a strong deterrent. Against tin-horn dictators, our current military is overkill.
Again, what do we need our military to do? If it’s to go toe to toe with the Chinese, well, I have a feeling a full-out conflict wouldn’t stay conventional. Are we staffing up to fight another round of proxy wars? Or is it really to take down nations that attack us?
Well, in only another decade (or so) of occupation, we might have some idea of the feasibility of that idea. Hopefully we don’t go through a Russia-style economic collapse before then.
You say this like – look, my naive little one, these invasions require occupations to follow, and these occupations last decades. To expect anything else is silly. Tsk, tsk.
Although many of us silly (so-called) isolationists predicted that this was not going to be short, or easy, the American people were being sold a bill of goods. The disingenuous politicians (redundant) never uttered the notion of a decade’s long occupation. Granted, any educated American should know these military escapades never look so hot the second they’ve left the show room floor, and the propaganda disco ball stops spinning.
It’s a good thing to consider as we stare at Iran, consider the size of the population, and the square-mile area of the country, and ask ourselves what an occupation of a third, much larger country would look like.
That’s the only rational argument one can really make for staying.
LOL. In-check, are they?
I don’t know, why don’t you want every child in the world to have a puppy? This is your inner Democrat thinking you get to confiscate my earnings because you want to help people, and you know best, right?
And do you really think Obama’s campaign promises hold a lot of water, at this point?
These were offered as evidence that congress often views the military more as a way to bring jobs and money to their district, rather than through the lens of what the nation requires for defense. Maybe that’s a good use of tax dollars in your book?
Comment by Darleen on 10/21 @ 12:21 am #
Although many of us silly (so-called) isolationists
America First!
Comment by B Moe on 10/21 @ 4:29 am #
I am still waiting on some kind of coherent alternative plan, Charles. I am well aware of the deficiencies in what we are doing now, any idiot can point out the obvious flaws that exist in every course of action. What I want to know is how you propose we approach the problem of terrorism and the Middle East?
Comment by alppuccino on 10/21 @ 4:45 am #
I am still waiting on some kind of coherent alternative plan
Nuke D.C., Give everyone a computer with WiFi. Vote once on each issue via the internet. Must pass a common sense based IQ test in order to have a vote. Issues may not exceed 10 pages. Must be a citizen in order to vote and drive. Give any soldier who wants it 5 acres on each border fully paid, tax free. All they have to do is pick of illegals who try to sneak through their yard.
Any proof of negligence by a doctor, all medical bills paid and cap punitive @ 500k. Doctor loses license and is publicly shamed, or put in the pillory. (too far maybe)
Dress all humans in full body suits with gloves and hoods so that no skin color ever shows again. No more speaking, only texting so that urban or hick accents won’t give away ethnicity.
Flyover Country secedes from the Union and takes Alaska. Then Drill Drill Drill.
And for those of us who wish to be left alone, leave us alone.
Trackback by Maggie's Farm on 10/21 @ 5:16 am #
Weds morning links…
Outlawing manhood. Human Events
Hurricanes? Global warming. No hurricanes? Global warming.
DOJ: Blacks will only vote for party labels. Unbelievable.
The No Insurance Club. One annual fee to your doc.
Is it paranoid to imagine that Obamacare is ab…
Comment by class factotum on 10/21 @ 7:54 am #
My dad was 62 when he died of cancer. He didn’t smoke. He didn’t drink much. He was not overweight. He ran. Indeed, the first indication he had cancer was when he had abdominal pain that he thought was a result of a pulled muscle from a 10K.
The cancer showed up three months after he’d had a full pre-employment physical.
Moral of the story: you can do everything right and still get sick and die.
Comment by JD on 10/21 @ 8:11 am #
THE MILTARY IS WINGNUT WELFARE !!!!!
Comment by Charles on 10/21 @ 10:37 am #
Well, Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t “an approach for the problem of terrorism and the Middle East.” So let’s split a couple of things out:
Just to get it out of the way up from, there’s what people call “peace in the middle east” between Israel and the Palestinians. You can’t really have peace with a partner that wants to, as a God given right, lob missiles into Israel whenever it feels like it. No lasting peace is possible here any time soon, and if it is possible, it needs to originate with the Palestinians. This isn’t an area I’d be making a big investment in.
As for dealing with terrorism, there’s no silver bullet. There’s no one country you can camp out in and deal with it. You just have to find and capture or kill one terrorist at a time. You have to disrupt their financing. You have to shame the Saudis (and you have to get off foreign oil). You have to drop bombs, do hits, do snatch and grab operations, and even do limited invasions with the purpose of getting specific individuals or destroying specified facilities – and then get out.
This is going to sound, on the surface, a bit crazy, but Somalia is an example of how bad a country can get if you don’t invade and occupy. And comparing Somalia to Afghanistan, Somalia’s a better buy.
In 1993, Clinton sent forces into Somalia, and left under withering criticism from Republicans and plummeting public support. From 1993 – 2000, “nation building” was an absolutely abhorrent phrase to Republicans (as it should be, it’s shocking how far the Republican party has drifted on this issue). Today, Somalia’s a boil on the ass of the world. Al-Qaeda is present there, and it threatens international shipping.
But what hasn’t Somalia been?
If Iraq and Afghanistan are any guide, then if we’d gone big in ‘93, we’d probably still be there, and in significant numbers.
These things seem to run about 5 billion/month in direct costs (not counting the way the military over-all swells up during these occupations, and not counting the interest that we pay on the war, as the war’s not funded to begin with)
So 5bn/month * 16 years = about 1 trillion that we haven’t spent.
Afghanistan has average about 175 casualties/year. If Somalia were the same level of conflict and resistance, that’s 2,800 soldiers we didn’t lose in Somalia.
What’s the ratio of wounded soldiers to casualties? 10:1? 12:1? So that’s 30,000 soldiers who haven’t been wounded in Somalia.
Then you can add on all the squishy stuff these wars cost. The cost to businesses and the economy of deploying reservists, higher divorce rates, higher recruiting and reenlistment bonuses, etc., etc. Maybe the CBO could calculate the TCO (Total Cost of Occupation), but I’m confident it would be shockingly high.
So Somalia’s a real problem, it threatens shipping and harbors Al-Qaeda. Can we mitigate those problems with less than a $1 trillion spend, 3000 lives, 30000 wounded, which is all just the visible tip of the total cost of occupation iceberg? Yeah, I think we can.
Let’s say we spend 1bn per year, a fraction of an occupation cost, we infiltrate the country with spies, we escort ships, we bait the pirates and blow them out of the water, and we hit Al-Qaeda wherever we find them. We could do that for 1,000 years before we’re up to the cost of an occupation.
And then there’s Iran…
Comment by JD on 10/21 @ 10:58 am #
I would not trust Chuckles to provide the common defense for my daughter’s dollhouse.
Comment by JD on 10/21 @ 11:11 am #
Your caricature of the Clinton/Somalia situation only tangetially touches on reality. The criticism was not that Clinton fought in Somalia, but that he didn’t.
And, other than you, I see nobody expressing the desire or the willingness to conduct a ground war against Iran.
Comment by sdferr on 10/21 @ 11:14 am #
“…I see nobody expressing the desire or the willingness to conduct a ground war against Iran.”
Well, except for a large number of Iranians out there in Iran, JD, most folks here probably don’t, as you say. :-0
Comment by B Moe on 10/21 @ 1:35 pm #
We should have invaded Somalia because it was a better deal? Did he really just say that?
Can any of you serious military dudes maybe recommend a couple
Intro toRemedial Military Strategy books for Charles to study up on?Comment by Charles on 10/21 @ 2:36 pm #
#126 – I argue against wanton invasions and occupations, and you claim I want to invade Iran? Reading comprehension, my man.
#127 – Seriously, if you’re going to comment on it, read the whole thing. I’m contrasting what we’ve spent with an occupation strategy (Afghanistan) with how much better off we are when we don’t don’t invade and occupy ever trouble spot on the planet (Somalia).
Comment by sdferr on 10/21 @ 2:41 pm #
“…you claim I want to invade Iran?”
Not on your life do I make such a claim. Of course you don’t and I wouldn’t ever say you would. What ever gave you that idea? And who is it needs to re-consider their reading comprehension again?
Comment by Charles on 10/21 @ 2:44 pm #
#129 – sorry sdferr, i meant to cite JD in #125, not you in #126.
I can read, I just apparently can’t write.
Comment by sdferr on 10/21 @ 2:46 pm #
Ah, very good, typo the enemy still, he’s attacked me thousands upon thousands of times.
Comment by JD on 10/21 @ 2:52 pm #
I did not claim you want to invade Iran, I stated that you are the only one here talking about it. Nobody here has advocated for same. You are arguing against a caricature in your head.
Comment by Charles on 10/21 @ 3:05 pm #
What’s your plan for Iran, JD?
Comment by JD on 10/21 @ 3:10 pm #
I do not have one, Chuckles. Nor do you. But more importantly, neither does Barcky.
I can assure you that despite the idea that we somehow advocate a ground war, that is not amongst my options. I have no problem whatsoever with using our arsenal and power, or that of our Israeli allies, in taking out their nuclear program.
Comment by sdferr on 10/21 @ 3:24 pm #
“…neither does Barcky”
I don’t know about that JD. It looks to me as though he’s going to support the Mullahs come hell or high water, whichever comes first.
Comment by sdferr on 10/21 @ 3:25 pm #
Gotta make amends for Mossadegh, y’know?
Comment by Danger on 10/21 @ 3:40 pm #
Can any of you serious military dudes maybe recommend a couple Intro to Remedial Military Strategy books for Charles to study up on?
BMoe,
I would start with the book Blackhawk Down.(The movie will do for the ADHD afflicted) As JD stated Clinton not only deserves blame quiting the fight but more importantly for forcing our guys to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.
Comment by sdferr on 10/21 @ 3:42 pm #
No matter how many dead Sudanese’s bodies he has to step on to get to where he wants to go. He’s a doer, that Baracky.
Comment by Danger on 10/21 @ 3:45 pm #
Charles,
Two questions:
1. How do we do an occupation of Somalia with the military force structure you support.
2. If you had to choose between too much defense spending and too little what would you do!
and 2b. What qualifies you to decide on what is too much spending?
Comment by Danger on 10/21 @ 3:48 pm #
“I don’t think it’s accurate to attribute that to our current occupations.’
Charles, Charles, Charles, What security clearance do you have?
Comment by Charles on 10/21 @ 4:17 pm #
We don’t. That’s my point. I think foreign leaders are worried that we’ll come in and take them out. I don’t think they’re so concerned that we’ll stick around for a decade or two after they’ve been killed or captured.
Well, if we cut our military spending from 5x our nearest advisary, to 3x, it’s still probably too much. I’m not sure how one could worry that it’s too little.
If you had to choose between too much taxes, and too little, which would you choose?
It’s not magic money, it comes from somewhere. Something else gets less money because the military gets too much. A smoke’n hot economy and lifestyle that makes everyone long to be an American – that’s not too bad for security either.
Comment by Danger on 10/21 @ 4:28 pm #
“If you had to choose between too much taxes, and too little, which would you choose?”
Thanks for the Straw…Man.
Still waiting on your qualification and security clearance info.
Comment by JD on 10/21 @ 4:41 pm #
Charley has this little rhetorical trick that he likes to try where he compares our military spending to oue allies, regardless of whether or not the comparison is apt. He also approaches the entire discussion from the assumption/assertion that we spend too much. He offers nothing that is practical in the given environment, and has a skewed, at best, view of our military. Bob and Danger and LtC John have made direct, and not the least bit confrontational points to him, which he has studiously ignored.
Comment by Danger on 10/21 @ 4:48 pm #
Hey JD,
I met Michael Ramirez today and got a characature drawing from him. He was here along with a number of other comic artists.
Though I had to apply all of the self-control I could muster to avoid firing some volleys at Gary Trudeau;^)
Comment by Abe Froman on 10/21 @ 5:00 pm #
It’s not magic money, it comes from somewhere. Something else gets less money because the military gets too much. A smoke’n hot economy and lifestyle that makes everyone long to be an American – that’s not too bad for security either.
I haven’t had a Slurpee in ages but I just had what felt like brain freeze when reading that. Damn you and your malevolent silliness.
Comment by Charles on 10/21 @ 5:02 pm #
#142 – Ridiculous questions. I’d be just as justified to ask you to recuse yourself from the conversation because of the obvious conflict of interest.
And to your initial question, “If you had to choose between too much defense spending and too little what would you do!” This isn’t even logically consistent. Why not double military spending, and then double it again. It seems the only correct course of action, following that logic.
#143 – JD, you and the people you cite approach it from the assumption that we don’t spend to much. We’re discussing an issue here, you get to enter a discussion with a point of view. And since you call it a rhetorical trick, and imply that it’s not apt, do explain why, lest you be labeled an assertion monkey.
Comment by Rusty on 10/21 @ 5:11 pm #
#123
Name one war, one conflict, one insurection that has been won without boots on the ground.
BTW Can you tell me why Cubans were in Grenada building the longest runway outside of Groom Lake?
Comment by Danger on 10/21 @ 5:16 pm #
Charles, (one more before bed)
I’d be just as justified to ask you to recuse yourself from the conversation because of the obvious lack of qualification to make those assertions. FTFY
I study the very topic you claim expertise in. I possess the security clearance and access to the info about our current activities you claim are not making a difference.
Who should be disqualified in this discussion?
Comment by sdferr on 10/21 @ 5:19 pm #
Danger, read. Here’s a bit:
Comment by JD on 10/21 @ 5:22 pm #
You can kabel me whatever you wish, Chuckles, but that will not make it so. I noted your little rhetorical trick was that you use your multiplier formulation in comparison to other countries. I noted it is a disengenuous construct, due to a variety of factors, and also noted that your base assumption is we spend waaaaaaaaaaaay too much. I do not necessarily think we need to spend more, but think we could do it more wisely within the current system. You maintain that our standing army, including reserves, is bloated, yet it compromises less than 1% of our population. What is the exact force level you recommend, exacÞ spending levels, and the experience you bring to the table that allows you to make your asspulls?
Comment by Charles on 10/21 @ 6:15 pm #
We’re not arguing the same thing. I’m not saying “no boots”. I’m saying after the invasion objective is completed sticking around for a long occupation is likely not in our interests.
Just for trivia, has a conflict been won without ground troops? Kosovo is as close as I can think of. I guess the Japanese surrendered before the homeland was invaded, but there were obviously lots of ground troops involved in the Pacific theater. But again, I’m not against ground troops.
And the size, role, and duties of the US military are determined by the civilian leadership.
If you want to educate me on the history of occupations, or what we’re doing differently that make these more likely to leave a functioning state behind, I’m all ears. If you want to lay out an analysis of the economic and security considerations (pluses and minuses) of leaving a Somalia behind, vs. investing in Afghanistan, I’m all ears. If you’d especially like to provide an estimate on how long Americans should expect an occupation to last, the next time they hear the word “invasion”, that would be great.
I’m happy to have a discussion, and you likely have real insights to offer.
Comment by Rusty on 10/21 @ 7:39 pm #
I’m saying after the invasion objective is completed sticking around for a long occupation is likely not in our interests.
You mean like in Germany and Japan? We Occupied both countries for decades. They’ve hardly bothered us since.
Kosovo? We had troops in Kosovo until last year.
If you want to educate me on the history of occupations, or what we’re doing differently that make these more likely to leave a functioning state behind, I’m all ears.
Germany and Japan and S Korea while we’re at it.Jeesh.
If you’d especially like to provide an estimate on how long Americans should expect an occupation to last, the next time they hear the word “invasion”, that would be great.
Are you familiar with the term COIN? You were warned early on that this struggle might take decades.
You are either ignorant of history or taking a piss.
Comment by Charles on 10/21 @ 9:53 pm #
And since you have all the answers, do let us know, how’s this really going to turn out?
Is crushing the Taliban and Al-Qaeda between the vice of US and Pakistani forces going to work?
Is Pakistan really going to go all-in against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda? Is their heart really in it? Are their intelligence services really going to turn their backs on their Taliban proxies?
And if the Pakistani effort turns out to be, how you say, insufficient, do we have a great Plan B? Or is the plan to just indefinitely squish the ants that come across the border and end up on the kitchen counter, but never take out the hive?
And since, you know, you study this (tsk tsk this) and have the clearances (tsk tsk that), maybe you have some insight into why we seem to be re-fighting this war. Was a Taliban resurgence just part of the grand plan all along?
And while you seem an honest enough guy, I’m just a little skeptical of military assurances (and political assurances) considering the whoppers of your great, great grandboss regarding Iraq:
“Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the budget office had come up with “a number that’s something under $50 billion.”"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/
So was he an epic liar, or was the best assessment wildly wrong?
Look, I get that you volunteered to serve your country, you’re in harms way on behalf of this nation, and you and others are making the best decision you can with the information that’s available. And I get that you have access to information that I don’t. But you don’t know how this is going to turn out, and I don’t either. In business and politics, I have never, ever, even once, seen a 5 year plan that bears any resemblance what-so-ever to reality.
So if your intelligence is showing you great news, well, that’s great to hear, but I question if the whole epic endeavor was the right call. Not the initial toppling of the government and hunting down of Al-Qaeda, but staying around to put humpty-dumpty back together again.
Comment by Charles on 10/21 @ 10:13 pm #
And how long did those occupations last? (I know, you’re going to say Japan, Germany, and S. Korea are still occupied nations)
Comment by Charles on 10/22 @ 12:25 am #
My bad, I just discovered Plan B (or maybe Plan A)
“Officials are looking at programs that will provide jobs and training so insurgents have a reason to leave the battlefield.”
I get it. We’re hanging out in Afghanistan, to create a secure environment for (wait for it) job training, because unemployed Afghani’s are far more important THAN UNEMPLOYED AMERICANS.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-10-21-switch-sides-afghan_N.htm
aaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“From the president on down there is a belief that this is an essential part of succeeding in Afghanistan,” said Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The Michigan Democrat has played an influential role in the ongoing strategy debate.”
AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Even if we set aside the whole “how big is MyMilitary.com” argument, is the situation really winnable with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban on one side of the border, and the fucking Democrats on the other? Christ. What’s next?
“US Soldiers have been ordered to let Afghani’s use their hand-grenades and rifles because the Afghani’s seem enamored with our military equipment. Says Carl Levin, “They really light up when you put an M16 in their hands. On my tour of Afghanistan I’ve found that if there’s one thing they complain about it’s the AK-47. They tell me, ‘I shoot, i shoot, i shoot, and I hit nothing. You have no time, you shoot and run, shoot and run, and then the big boom happens. If you can’t hit, it no good.’ The first batch of 1 million nickle plated Carl Levin monogrammed M-16 “Liberators” aren’t schedule to arrive for 2 years. In the mean time, the US infantry has been ordered to loan the Afghani’s their weapons.”
Comment by Стили мебели on 10/22 @ 2:48 am #
Спасиб .было оч интересно.
Comment by Danger on 10/22 @ 9:15 am #
“So if your intelligence is showing you great news, well, that’s great to hear, but I question if the whole epic endeavor was the right call. Not the initial toppling of the government and hunting down of Al-Qaeda, but staying around to put humpty-dumpty back together again.”
Charles,
Vice President Cheney addressed this topic:
“It’s worth recalling that we were engaged in Afghanistan in the 1980’s, supporting the Mujahadeen against the Soviets. That was a successful policy, but then we pretty much put Afghanistan out of our minds. While no one was watching, what followed was a civil war, the takeover by the Taliban, and the rise of bin Laden and al-Qaeda. All of that set in motion the events of 9/11. When we deployed forces eight years ago this month, it was to make sure Afghanistan would never again be a training ground for the killing of Americans. Saving untold thousands of lives is still the business at hand in this fight. And the success of our mission in Afghanistan is not only essential, it is entirely achievable with enough troops and enough political courage.”
And how long did those occupations last? (I know, you’re going to say Japan, Germany, and S. Korea are still occupied nations)
We have over 100,000 service members currently serving in those three Countrys (Approx 50,000 in Germany and 30,000 each in Japan and Korea). By August of next year we will be down to 35K-50K service members in Iraq. So tell me Charles, what is your definition of “occupation”?
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/upload/97650_1.gif
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea-orbat-usfj.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea-orbat.htm
Comment by Danger on 10/22 @ 9:19 am #
Sorry,
I missed the link for VP Cheney’s speech:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/10/cheneys_speech_tonight_1.asp
Comment by Rusty on 10/22 @ 5:54 pm #
#154
I said decades dumbass. Now quit pissing on my leg ang go get a job.