Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
What i am saying is this general say's it was tactical not political ... but giving him the green light was political and strategic for the white house home and abroad ..
You are admitting that the green light for the White House (whatever the green light was) WAS strategic (which includes tactics). Which runs counter to what you have been saying (e.g. "nothing but a operational field test of a weapon and another PR stunt").
Then you throw in that it was also political. Of course. All decisions by politicians are political. And they certainly will be painted that way by the opposition if it's to their advantage to do so. Which is a damn good reason for politicians to consider the politics when they make decisions.
the military doesn't set policy they carry it out ..
That is precisely what I said about this in the previous posts. But setting policy usually does not cover all the details of carrying it out. The President doesn't micromanage war. He directs overall policy for the war, the details must be carried out by military experts, not politicians. This would be especially true of Trump's style. He has his overall vision (the elimination of ISIS) and he depends on his military experts to carry out that policy. If the generals occasionally ask him about using a specific weapon, how the hell is he supposed to know better than them whether to use it or not. MOAB is not nuclear or chemical, so is not against international treaties. It was not directed at civilians. There was a difficult to destroy cave system to be demolished (for which MOAB was eminently designed to do). And it was inhabited by several key ISIS leaders and planners. Sending in troops would have unnecessarily resulted in the death or injury of some or many of our troops. There would be little political fallout (except from folks like you who seem to know better what to do than the generals). The cave system would be more difficult to permanently destroy without the bomb. The blanket use of the weapon was already granted by a previous administration.
So why would he not, or should he not, say OK?
and keeping a tight leash on your generals is not micromanaging nor is giving them a blank check a responsible choice.. Trumps Commanders intent is clear.. I feel he see's delegating authority removes him from responsibility and his administration has no plan for the next move .
This statement just seems to be opinion based on feeling. I can't make any sense of it.
Actually yes you send it troops who says they need to be ours .. send in the afgans like the Iraqis it their country ..
Does Trump have the authority to send in Afghan troops? Wouldn't the Afghan government/military have to do that? And why would they? Going into the caves puts the entrenched and ready ISIS fighters at an advantage. Heavy losses would be incurred attacking the enemy on its advantageous ground.
but thats the Problem and thats my issue with how fox and friends framed the attack it cool and bad ass and patriotic to watch it on TV just as long as the blood isn't our own.. thats not how it war works .. its risk VS reward the military is always running risk assessment I just dont see the White house doing the same thing
|
Usually, I don't watch Fox, nor the other channels. So how they portrayed it is of no interest to me. I am more interested in your comments, which are not at all persuasive.
I don't know how war is supposed to "work." It seems that war "works" if you win it. Especially if you have total victory in which the opposition is completely destroyed. Even better, if it is completely eradicated. You may well know better than the current generals how to work the current war. But saying "dropping big bombs is not what freedom looks like" looks, to me, like a non-sequitur. It sounds more like talking about something other than war. Something like an aftermath to war, or a reason for war.
If dropping big bombs leads to freedom as an aftermath, or if seeking freedom is aided by dropping big bombs, what it "looks" like is that the big bombs were well used.
But your commenting on what freedom doesn't look like reminds me, once again, that your admiration for judges who do not rule on law, but rather do so on personal whim, does not look like freedom. And your agreement with centralized unlimited government aided by those judges and by unelected regulatory agencies which have plenary power to rule and regulate the citizens doesn't look like freedom either.