Hey Fred

8 Responses to Hey Fred

1. Rivrdog says:

   November 20, 2009 at 8:34 am

   Let me give it to you straight, guys: this Administration has ZERO desire for what we could call a “win” in the ‘Stan.

   Let’s look at the evidence.

   In 2001, facing a much more entrenched Taliban, ONE division, the Tenth Mountain, was sent in, and in short order, AND with no help from the central government, had the Taliban on the run. How did we do that back then and can’t budge the Taliban with four times the troops now?

   Several easy answers. First, there were almost no “rules of engagement”. We killed Taliban wherever we found them, and by whatever means we had at hand. We used B-1s, B-52s, Warthogs and plenty of good old ground-pounding firepower.

   Now, our guys can’t fire in a village, even when fired upon, less they put any non-hostiles at risk. We can’t use artillery or drop a bomb unless there is at least a 50 meter clear space beyond the “kill radius” of the shell/bomb. We’re supposed to try to “arrest” all Taliban, even those trying to kill us.

   The military is fighting with BOTH hands tied behind their backs.

   Then there’s Karzai, who makes either of the crooked dictators we fought alongside of in ‘Nam look like saints. We cannot win this war with Karzai at the helm, because he and his people enable the Taliban at every turn.

   Now we get to the political realities back here. The reality is that if Obama doesn’t end this war before 2012, a lot of people in his own party won’t vote for him for a second term. The left wing of his party is highly anti-war, and has been for generations.

   But wait, you say, isn’t Afghanistan the “good war”?

   Yeah, Obama did say that once, but don’t think for a moment that he meant it or would stick to it.

   Nope, Fred Thompson is saying what we all must face, that this Administration intends to end the war without any sort of victory. That translates to losing the war.

   We should be supporting people like Fred, not trashing him. He just happens to have more foresight than most of us.

   Folks, what’s OUR excuse for not putting two and two together on this one and seeing that Obama wants to get out of the war without a successful conclusion?

   Until we can face OUR lack of vision, let’s not trash those who actually HAVE that vision.
2. Davidwhitewolf says:

   November 20, 2009 at 10:10 am

   Ever since I figured out that Fred was phoning it in in his as a classic conservative stalking horse for his buddy McCain (to thwart Romney taking those voters and running with ’em) I’ve stopped paying attention to what the man says.
3. Phil says:

   November 20, 2009 at 10:47 am

   What publication of Thompson’s words are you reading, RD? The man isn’t speaking of “what could be”. He is declaring “the now”.

   When Harry Reid did this to our men & women in Iraq, you and I and everyone else with two brain cells to rub together shit on him.

   I am for just one standard. Not a pair of them.

   Will the Obama Administration lose Afghanistan for us? I absolutely believe they will if they keep going the way they’re going.

   But for him to declare this week the fight in Afghanistan lost is as chickenshit now as it was for Reid in April of 2007 and Cronkite in February of 1968.

   You sound as though you are just being automatically contrary. That will no more help honorable Americans win wars than it will help the Repubs in 2010.
4. Rivrdog says:

   November 20, 2009 at 9:18 pm

   You bet I’m being contrary. In my 66 years so far, I’ve seen damn few cases where the quiet men won the day.

   That said, I think we’re arguing what the definition of “is” is. We can’t win the war in the ‘Stan if we keep going with these insane ROEs. The fact is that MacChrystal wouldn’t have to ask for more men except for the ROEs, which limit the usefulness of soldiers to the extent that they practically have to link arms across the country to have any impact at all.

   If the ROEs aren’t rescinded, we can’t win with double the men we have there now, and it doesn’t take much reading between the lines of the commanders over there to see THAT.

   What Fred said is that he doesn’t see Obama getting into a winning mode. That means he’s in a losing mode.

   I can see that from where I sit, can’t you?

   David, you are likely right about Thompson’s performance in the last campaign, but for the early part of that campaign, he was the best hope we had of turning back the RINO tide.

   It didn’t work, and it probably wiped out any conservative future for Fred. We’ll find another standard bearer, David, but while we’re looking for one, let’s not drink the kool-aid ourselves: without rolling back the ROEs, we’re not going to win this war.
5. Mom says:

   November 21, 2009 at 9:45 am

   Again, just beccause the CiC is a ninompoop doesn’t mean the Generals and the men and women on the ground can’t hold out until better leadership arrives or win it outright.

   Thompson was out of line and should STFU because all he is doing is emboldening those on the opposite side of the political aisle and discouraging the folks in uniform further.
6. Fred says:

   November 21, 2009 at 10:52 am

   The CIC-what an ugly thought-and his henchmen set the tone of the war. The troops on the ground will do their best as always but they can not prevail without support from the top and the American people. Little o has no desire to win this war. Remember when he said he is uncomfortable with the word victory used in conjunction with Afghanistan? Some of us old timers remember how Vietnam ended and this is smelling the same. I want to see victory every time the US Military is committed to battle; unforgivably the politicians don’t care.
7. stan says:

   November 22, 2009 at 5:26 am

   Look back to LBJ in Vietnam, bombers could not attack prime targets in Hanoe, the railroads, docks in the harbor, etc. It wasn’t till Nixon started “Rolling Thunder”, that all targets were on the table. Now with that history are we going to force GI’s to have their hands tied, not engage the enemy and be targets till the next administration, when we can began to engage a enemy that now believes it can defeat us and with civilians allowed to be terrorized during Obama’s term and afraid to support us in case it happens again.
8. Phil says:

   November 22, 2009 at 7:40 am

   “Some of us old timers remember how Vietnam ended and this is smelling the same.”

   Actually having lost and seeming are two entirely separate and different things.

   Thompson said “is lost”, not “will be lost”.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.