By Hanlon, on June 23rd, 2010 at 09:56 AM
 For about six of the past eight years, we were blessed with a flood of outcry against any minor criticism of the president, of the military, of the United States, calling even the most minor deviations from the stated objectives “treasonous”. What then to think of General McChrystal’s almost baffling statements against the administration?
Full of choice quotes (“Biden? Who’s that?”), it’s the kind of thing that is so far out of line for a military leader, especially in what we’re repeatedly told is a “war time”, that it’s amazing he still had a job ten minutes after the article came out. Yet he’s still around, somehow, not fired. Personally, I echo the sentiments from a WaPo editorial on the subject:
Here is a man who talks about “honor.” He has dishonored the presidency and his own profession. There are those who suggest it would be better to leave him in the job so as not to compromise the “mission.” The mission has already been compromised. McChrystal has broken the most sacred rule in the military. Without the respect and the obedience and duty of command, you will indeed have “Chaos-istan.” The example McChrystal has given to his subordinates all over the world, be they generals or privates, is that it’s okay to disrespect your commanders. That and that alone is enough to fire him. Some people have suggested that a firing would hurt troop morale. Rather, that morale would be destroyed if the troops understood that the person who commanded them did not believe in his mission or that of the United States.
I often defend the military to liberal-minded colleagues and friends by pointing out that for the security of the nation at large, they shouldn’t be picking and choosing when they agree with their commanders. “My country, right or wrong” is a bad sentiment for a citizen, but it’s the only way to fly as a soldier. To have the goddamn general saying it’s perfectly all right to piss in the mouths of the administration just tells absolutely everyone along the power structure that there’s no reason to respect anyone above you.
When I started writing this, I was actually prepared to hop in and find some right-wing articles praising McChrystal for giving Obama the finger. Reality? Not so much, which only shows how serious of a line this guy crossed. Although, I admit, the way it was done in the Weekly Standard was pretty douche-tastic, in that the whole thesis was that he should be fired because Obama’s strategy actually is bad and they need someone better than McChrystal to make it happen.
But I’ll say this much: imagine if this had happened during the Bush years. Yikes.
By Hanlon, on May 25th, 2010 at 10:35 PM
By Hanlon, on February 5th, 2010 at 10:37 PM
Admiral Mullen says let ‘em in:
“No matter how I look at the issue,” Mullen said, “I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.”
Oliver North says no:
“Now, here’s what’s next. NAMBLA members, same-sex marriages,” North said, referring to the North American Man-Boy Love Association, a group that advocates for pedophilia. “Are chaplains in the US military going to be required to perform those kinds of rituals? Do they [pedophiles and homosexuals] get government housing?”
The Pentagon seems to want to move forward:
Defense officials declined to reveal details about the Pentagon’s preferred approach for allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces. But they said that the military would prefer to phase in a new policy over time and that they would leave the details to Congress.
Saxby Chambliss had this to say:
Examples include alcohol use, adultery, fraternization and body art. If we change this rule of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” what are we going to do with these other issues?
For those keeping score, that’s the top military and defense bodies of the nation saying we should repeal it, with a convict and a draft-dodger saying we shouldn’t.
By Hanlon, on January 31st, 2010 at 11:13 PM
 I slag on Obama a lot, but he truly has done far better than McCain would have and in a lot of ways he’s a great president. That said, in a few key areas he’s been… less than inspiring. One of the worst has been his conduct in the “war on terror”. We expected de-escalation, we expected scaling back, and what we got was hardly different from Bush.
In 2011 alone, the revised numbers are triple what the president included in his spending plan a year ago. And the strain shows itself in new deficit projections, already hobbled by lagging revenues due to the weak economy.
The administration appears to be projecting a deficit of near $1.6 trillion for the current year and $1.3 trillion in 2011. That is even more pessimistic than Congressional Budget Office estimates last week, and it’s only in 2012 that the projections drop to the range of $800 billion to $700 billion.
Pair that with the news of the spending freeze. We kill domestic spending and jack up military spending? Where’s the logic?
It’s all a part of that whole “internalize right-wing talking points” thing which states that defense and military spending must perpetually increase or it means the president isn’t serious about our country’s defenses. And it’s going to leave us with a deficit that doesn’t even start dropping until Obama’s (potential) last year in office.
This isn’t World War 2, I’m pretty sure there is a lot of unnecessary spending going on in camo right now, and that there seems to be no discussion of cutting it really bothers me.
By Hanlon, on January 23rd, 2010 at 01:15 PM
By Hanlon, on November 25th, 2009 at 11:16 PM
 The war in Afghanistan has been plagued by two huge problems: a lack of force and a lack of an achievable goal. The slow bleed of troops that have been sent to the real home to the “war on terror”, and the stated desire to “defeat the terrorists” is just a wee bit unlikely to happen. Obama has thus been saddled with a monumental task, and Leslie Gelb of the Daily Beast has the insider scoop.
The strategy to govern the employment of these forces, Mr. Obama is expected to say, will be much like the counterinsurgency approach he originally approved back in March—the approach McChrystal reaffirmed in his recent “secret” leaked report. That means clearing areas and holding them with military force, followed by civilian and economic programs. He will also underline the anti-terrorist component of this strategy—namely the focus on attacking al Qaeda itself, a point stressed relentlessly by Vice President Joe Biden during the nearly two-month policy review.
But there are two additional elements to the strategy. U.S. forces will expedite the long-neglected training of Afghan military and police forces. And the new 30,000-plus surge of U.S. troops will be used to beat up on the Taliban enough to make it easier for the Afghans themselves to manage down the road.
Bush’s foreign policy vis a vis war has always been described as “cowboy”, although maybe “Hollywood” would be more accurate. In the Bush mindset, American soldiers railroad all the bad guys in dramatic Saving Private Ryan style sequences that end with heroic, dirtied faces holding a fallen comrade and screaming “damn you bastards!!” while shooting the last few villains who widowed his best friend’s wife. The main point is “strength” and “courage”. Hence the strategies he employed tended to be “let’s shoot some troops at ‘em!”
Now on the surface you might say “Well Hanlon, that sounds an awful lot like this.” Close, but not quite. The Obama troop increase is in order to facilitate a more civilian-supported strategy. It’s using American troops to clear a path for the Afghan people to take over, rather than simply trying to kill more of a largely ethereal enemy. Let’s hope it works, too, because we’re actually getting to a point where kids who were born after the war started are in school reading about it.
By Hanlon, on November 6th, 2009 at 07:19 PM
 As soon as the name of the shooter in Fort Hood was released, my first thought was that it would start a veritable witch hunt for Muslims in the military. During one of the live broadcasts, a soldier on the scene was quoted as saying it’s a shame “his last name wasn’t Smith.” Even as I said it, though, part of me wondered if I wasn’t being unfair. After all, the military isn’t calling this a terrorist act, and his actions certainly do appear more like someone who snapped from personal strain rather than a calculated act against the military.
Apparently, I was giving people too much credit.
“Do you think it’s time for the military to have special debriefings of Muslim Army officers, anybody enlisted? Because if I’m gonna be deployed in a foxhole, if I’m gonna be sitting in an outpost, I gotta know the guy next to me is not gonna wanna kill me,” [FOX's Brian] Kilmeade said.
Geraldo Rivera commendably pointed out that there are several million Muslims in America, and that many serve in the military and are highly valued. Another host, Gretchen Carlson, interrupted in order to point the blame at “political correctness.”
“Could it be that the military was also exercising political correctness, even though he had a poor performance report and even though he spoke openly about being a radical Muslim and had those supposed postings online?” she asked.
Allow me to an extend a rather fine “fuck you” to not only these two individuals, but everyone who follows their line of thought.
This is no doubt only a sample of the reaction, a free preview, as we’re at 6:11pm EST as I write this and the full sphere hasn’t had the chance to whip itself into a frenzy. I won’t be surprised if calls for outright banning of Muslims in the military isn’t endorsed by some from the truly crazy quarters.
I bring all this up because it’s going to become the next phase of the “9/12″ crusade, proving that these animals can’t be trusted and what have you. A rational person might point out that these are the same people who didn’t seem to think that the maniac who shot cops for fear of Obama taking his guns or the woman who was strapped with AK’s outside a FEMA camp were in any way evidence of a larger problem with right-wing radicals, but I think we all know what good that would do.
What will be the true test will be how Obama and Congress respond. If they pass new legislation, we’re in trouble. If they don’t, maybe there’s hope after all.
By Hanlon, on October 1st, 2009 at 06:02 PM
 On some level, it’s profoundly sad that in the 2009 United States we’re still arguing about whether or not gays can serve in the military without it somehow making the entire structure collapse. But here we are, and at least we can take comfort in the notion that it’s the military itself that’s starting to force progress on the issue.
The article, which was first reported Wednesday by The Boston Globe, also says the law has been costly — about 12,500 gay men and lesbians have been discharged from the service as a result of “don’t ask, don’t tell” since it took effect in 1993 — and argues that it undermines the unit cohesion it has sought to protect.
“In an attempt to allow homosexual service members to serve quietly, a law was created that forces a compromise in integrity, conflicts with the American creed of ‘equality for all,’ places commanders in difficult moral dilemmas and is ultimately more damaging to the unit cohesion its stated purpose is to preserve,” Colonel Prakash writes.
The article says that in countries where bans on homosexuals’ serving openly in the military were lifted, including Australia, Canada and Britain, there was no “mass exodus” of heterosexual service members and no impact on military performance.
Of course there was no mass exodus.
This may come as a total shock to most, but our men and women in uniform do what they do because they want to serve and protect the United States. Even their potential homophobia won’t usurp their devotion to the country they call home. To be sure, a lot of them will be unhappy surrounded by openly gay members, but to think that they’ll up and quit the service is a pretty insulting statement.
To paraphrase George Carlin, maybe a lot of those guys are unhappy because it means the gay guys will treat them the way they’ve been treating the female service members all these years.
By Hanlon, on July 25th, 2009 at 11:29 AM
I gotta level with you guys. I’m not really sure I want to see how deep the rabbit hole goes any more. The further we delve, the more obvious it is that for eight years we were led by a group of terrified cowards who jumped at shadows and were willing to set the house on fire if it meant killing a spider or two.
Today’s episode of “No Fucking Way” is entitled Dick Cheney wanted to use the military on US soil and arrest American citizens as enemy combatants… back in 2002. However, there’s an odd type of silver lining to the story: Bush is the one that shot it down.
The Fourth Amendment bans “unreasonable” searches and seizures without probable cause. And the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prohibits the military from acting in a law enforcement capacity.
In the discussions, Mr. Cheney and others cited an Oct. 23, 2001, memorandum from the Justice Department that, using a broad interpretation of presidential authority, argued that the domestic use of the military against Al Qaeda would be legal because it served a national security, rather than a law enforcement, purpose.
“The president has ample constitutional and statutory authority to deploy the military against international or foreign terrorists operating within the United States,” the memorandum said.
In this case, explain what the difference is between “national security” and “law enforcement” in this case. National security implies a solidified effort to take on the nation. That’s not a handful of morons with dynamite-lined jackets.
Keep in mind who the target was in this case. We’re talking about the famed Lackawanna Six, a bunch of Yemeni Americans, all American born citizens, who were arrested for giving materials to Al Qaeda. They were arrested, found guilty, and provided useful information. All without having their balls connected to a car battery or hung upside-down by their toes for days at a time. Bush made the decision to use the FBI, who had already been watching these guys, and it all worked out fine.
Here’s the lynchpin of the story, though:
Former officials said the 2002 debate arose partly from Justice Department concerns that there might not be enough evidence to arrest and successfully prosecute the suspects in Lackawanna. Mr. Cheney, the officials said, had argued that the administration would need a lower threshold of evidence to declare them enemy combatants and keep them in military custody.
That guy was second in command for eight years, folks. He’s a wobbly-kneed coward, another in the line of “24 is totally true to life” crew that thinks a lack of evidence is no reason not to start sending the military after people. It shows a phenomenal lack of respect for the rule of law and justice itself. So pretend cowboys like Dickie think they can just do whatever they want to catch the bad guys. No evidence? No problem!
By Hanlon, on June 29th, 2009 at 08:13 PM
 …except it’s to celebrate the fact that we’re leaving.
Iraqi soldiers paraded through the streets in their American-made vehicles draped with Iraqi flags and flowers, chanting, dancing and calling the pullout a “victory.”
One drove a motorcycle with party streamers on it; another, a Humvee with a garland of plastic roses on the grill.
…
“The American forces’ withdrawal is something awaited by every Iraqi: male, female, young and old. I consider June 30 to be like a wedding,” said Ahmed Hameed, 38, near an ice cream bar in Baghdad’s upmarket Karrada district.
Crucial quote here:
“It is a big joy to see them leaving,” said Abu Hassan, 60, a shop owner. “There might be some more attacks because of struggles between the different parties, but Iraqis are controlling security now. It’s up to our forces now.”
Even if attacks go up a tad, Iraqis themselves are happy because they themselves are the ones in charge of securing it. They’d rather some more violence than another day of American occupation.
I think what’s comically… curious about the above statement is that we have an Iraqi shop owner better embodying Ben Franklin’s famous statement than the American conservative movement. Remember this one? “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The Iraqis are eager to live by this motto, living a life that’s not quite so secure but one run by their own, and over here we still have politicians squealing about bombing half the country and placing surveillance on every bit of data in the name of “security”.
We’re at a point where we can draw inspiration from the Iraqis and Iranians, folks.
|
|
|
