Democracy Arsenal

« They Don't Call COIN the "Graduate Level of War" for Nothing | Main | Leverage, of the Ground-Level Governance and Geostrategic Kind »

December 04, 2009

Distortion Peddling
Posted by Patrick Barry

Generally speaking, there are two types of people involved in the debate on Afghanistan and Pakistan.  One type, which exists on both sides of the issue, is for the most part thoughtful, sober, and meticulous with its analysis. Exactly what you would want in a debate over a country's war strategy.  The other type is none of those things. Where do you think Mitt Romney fits in?

And President Bush took action to make sure they wouldn't attack us and at the same time he pointed out through the surge that he carried out, President Bush did that that work. I'm glad that President Obama has adopted the surge strategy for Afghanistan. He has made a number of miscalculations, however. His idea that this is going to be solved in 18 months is hopeful but probably not likely. His plan calls for fewer troops in the general. If generals said we're in a real tough situation. We need at a minimum 40,000 troops from the U.S. to solve this problem. I wouldn't be saying to them, okay, I can cut you down to 30,000. Can I give you 45,000?

First of all, this is wrong. McChrystal's original strategic review never included 40,000 as a minimum.  Instead it discussed a range of options for the President, with one as low as 10,000.  But it's also the case that the 'generals' Romney likes to talk about all seem pretty comfortable with the President's strategy:

Gen. McChrystal: "The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the President has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task.  The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the President’s address are critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security.  

Gen. Petraeus: "...we're quite satisfied, frankly, with the outcome of this and with, also, the contribution that's going to come from the civilian and in the funding realm as well."

Mitt Romney should really know better.  This sort of nonsense does absolutely nothing to help the U.S. or Afghanistan.  It's a distraction that only serves to cheapen the debate and advance Mitt Romney's political prospects. Nothing more.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Distortion Peddling:


What exactly are you trying to say? That Romney's analysis that the General on the ground (McChrystal) knows what is needed to win better than the President who had not talked to his General on the ground more than once in 90 days?

If McChrystal or Petraeus are satisfied, it is because they know they are lucky to get ANYTHING out of the poorest excuse for a Commander in Chief the US has ever known.

If I were still a soldier, I would be proud to have Romney leading, a stark contrast to Obama's simple lack of leadership.

Was it not a Democrat under Obama's "leadership" that called West Point "the enemy?"

"That Romney's analysis that the General on the ground (McChrystal) knows what is needed to win better than the President who had not talked to his General on the ground more than once in 90 days?"

Incomplete thought. What I mean is, are you saying his hardly unreasonable analysis is wrong?

Obama's "plan" shows he is more interested in political calculations than military victory or the safety and peace of Afghanistan.

"That Romney's analysis that the General on the ground (McChrystal) knows what is needed to win better than the President who had not talked to his General on the ground more than once in 90 days?"

Let me get my stories in the proper order. The night that President Obama went before the American people while speaking before the young men and women at West Point some of whom will be assigned to combat operations after they graduate in a few months, he said;After this surge we can look to a planned withdrawal in the summer of 2011. The the very next day his spokesperson(s) said NO wait-that date was a nudge for the Afghanistan Gov't to look to taking over their own security. Now a few days go by and yesterday (4 Dec) the Secretary of Defense says while testifying before a senate panel that the date (summer 2011) cannot be reached for a planned withdrawal ! That we may well be looking at another 5 years at least. Does anyone wonder why our allies think that this President is lacking in both leadership and experience.Capitol hill is in an up roar while the President worries about a health care plan that we do not need nor can we afford. meanwhile the war(s) go on and on .....

thanks admin
information is the most beautiful treasures

thanks for all admin
Are you really cool

Obama has already backed out of the $1,000 tax cut. He's saying sometime in the next couple of years. So you better hope he keeps his other promises because so far besides the tax cut he's backed out of a couple of other promises too

Thank you for your sharing.! seslichat seslisohbet

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

Great comments! You are so nice, man! You never know how much i like'em!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Sign-up to receive a weekly digest of the latest posts from Democracy Arsenal.
Powered by TypePad


The opinions voiced on Democracy Arsenal are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.
Read Terms of Use