How'ya doing Bernie?
I agree that hindsight is always clearer. However there were many in the DoD who - at the time - objected very strongly to the Somalia intervention on three basic points; (1) The mission was not clearly defined and the situation was particularly confused; (2) The UN command structure was considered unworkable; (3) The forces available and the rules of engagement assigned created high risks for U.S. forces with little compensating potential for benefit or advantage.
Clinton choose a retired Navy Admiral, Jonathan Howe, known mostly for his extended Washington tours with the State Department and his mimimal experience at sea or with the operating forces, as commander of the operation. The rest of the debacle is, as they say, history.
The whole point is to know how to successfully prosecute the thing, and having the balls to do it. Being wrong on three counts isn't something to hold up as an example of one's understanding of military operations, and what it takes to be successful.
MM, correct me if I'm wrong, but Clinton was asked for fighter jets to soften the area (Somalia) and make it easier for our ground troops--and he refused. This is chalked up by many to Clinton wanting to protect his PR image.
Lash wrote:You got a quote on that D'art? Last time someone made a similar accusation, it was inaccurate.
This is from Yahoo news:
"Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorising force against
Saddam Hussein," the vice president growled in a speech to the conservative Frontiers of Freedom Institute. In another clear reference to Murtha, Cheney said, "The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone -- but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history."
You can interpret what he implies however you want, but the slur is clear.
Lash wrote:The whole point is to know how to successfully prosecute the thing, and having the balls to do it. Being wrong on three counts isn't something to hold up as an example of one's understanding of military operations, and what it takes to be successful.
MM, correct me if I'm wrong, but Clinton was asked for fighter jets to soften the area (Somalia) and make it easier for our ground troops--and he refused. This is chalked up by many to Clinton wanting to protect his PR image.
I dont know about jets,but I do know that when the US ground commanders requested armor (tanks),they were refused by the white house.
Clinton said no,US troops died.
D'artagnan wrote:Lash wrote:You got a quote on that D'art? Last time someone made a similar accusation, it was inaccurate.
This is from Yahoo news:
"Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorising force against
Saddam Hussein," the vice president growled in a speech to the conservative Frontiers of Freedom Institute. In another clear reference to Murtha, Cheney said, "The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone -- but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history."
You can interpret what he implies however you want, but the slur is clear.
I'm sorry to see you buy into such an obvious partisan source, and create an accusation from a clear statement.
Code:Pick a fight with John Murtha. He's the one who mentioned Cheney's multiple deferments during the war. Of course, that was after Cheney impugned Murtha's patriotism...
Cheney is innocent of your charge.
Lash wrote:
MM, correct me if I'm wrong, but Clinton was asked for fighter jets to soften the area (Somalia) and make it easier for our ground troops--and he refused. This is chalked up by many to Clinton wanting to protect his PR image.
I believe the chief issue was armored grounf forces - as Mysteryman has already noted. They did have the helo and Harrier aircraft from the supporting LPH (a tandard part of the deployed USMC MAU) available to them. however the lack of mobile armored groiund vehicles was a much more serious - and from a military perspective - inexcusable omission. That's what you get when you have liberal pinheads attempting to plan and outsmart experienced people.
This one was bad - but fortunately not as bad as Jimmy Carter's ill-conceived and deficient-from-the-start expedition to free the U.S. hostages in our Iranian embassy in 1980.
Thanks for the clarification, both of you.
I am upset with Mysteryman. He should not have called Blatham an outright liar. You need to know something about the US military to be an outright liar. It's too bad, or perhaps, quite helpful, that Blatham does not vote in US elections.
Blatham speaks of "big and ugly" problems with no solutions. That's the same thing that the German-American Bund said before we went into World War II. What's this "Gott in Himmel" stuff?
While on the subject of Somalia, lets not forget the contribution of the plans's architect, Les Aspin. Elected to Congress in 1970 as an anti-war candidate, he served in The House for more than 2 decades, and somehow gained a reputation of sorts as a hawk. Tapped by Clinton for the post of Secretary of Defense, he advocated for and presided over the gutting of the US Military establishment; the across-the-board troop and materiel cuts implemented under his direction by themselves would have amounted to the fourth-largest and second-best-equipped fighting force on the planet had they been the military of some other nation. While achieving that, he authored the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, further endearing himself with the military.
In May of '93, Aspin oversaw the reduction of US troop strength in Somailia, cutting some 26,000 troops to about 4,000 with 400 Rangers added to the deployment in August. Aspin pledged that the US would "Stay the course", remaining in Somalia until, and with sufficient military presence to ensure, Somalia's return to peace and order, the warring clans had been disarmed, and a capable indigenous police force was able to see to domestic security.
In mid-September, facing rapidly escalating violence and increasing UN-mandated operational requirements, the US commander on the ground, Maj. Gen. William F. Garrison, formally requested armor - tanks and other armored fighting vehicles, fixed-wing air support assets - primarilly AC-130 Gunships, and increased manpower. Aspin turned down the request. On October 3, the plotline for the movie Blackhawk Down was established. Within days, Clinton abandoned the Somalia endeavor, announcing a date for total US withdrawal. The lesson of Somalia resonated with the likes of bin Laden and the rest of the Islamofacist crowd. Our noble Democrats, the folks who wrote the Somali lesson plan, are doing their very best to ensure the jihadists all the student aid they can muster.
That's a shame.
But the invasion of Iraq was still a crime- that's a bigger lesson.
georgeob1 wrote:How'ya doing Bernie?
I agree that hindsight is always clearer. However there were many in the DoD who - at the time - objected very strongly to the Somalia intervention on three basic points; (1) The mission was not clearly defined and the situation was particularly confused; (2) The UN command structure was considered unworkable; (3) The forces available and the rules of engagement assigned created high risks for U.S. forces with little compensating potential for benefit or advantage.
Clinton choose a retired Navy Admiral, Jonathan Howe, known mostly for his extended Washington tours with the State Department and his mimimal experience at sea or with the operating forces, as commander of the operation. The rest of the debacle is, as they say, history.
george
In Canada some years back, the Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney chose a new minister of defence, a younger fellow. In promoting the choice, the PM claimed it a fine thing that his appointee had never had anything to do with war. He would come to the topic with a fresh mind.
I suppose there might be a plus in that. Imagine blatham appointed to run the military...pollution limits on tank exhausts, replacement of all Special Forces units with concerned jewish mothers - "Come out of that filthy cave and eat some soup. You were thinking maybe I had all day? And when you get back from the Madras I want you to do your homework and clean the donkey properly for once."
This could really put a rip into the fabric of the modern conservative movement's power structure. If these people (Scanlon, Abramoff, DeLay, Norquist, Reed and others) are guilty of much in the way of corruption (and things are fairly far down the road towards probability a bunch of them are) then the consequences could be significant. And the more of them who find it more legally convenient to spill their guts (as Scanlon is apparently proceding to do, and perhaps Ney as well) the more likely the truth of things will be advanced. It's certainly not clear at this point whether some Dems might be in trouble, but the brunt of things appears to be striking the Repub machine. I reallllly love to see corrupt people harvest their sins.
The Ney (Ohio) element seems likely to have significant electoral consequence.
Quote: DeLay Ex-Aide to Plead Guilty in Lobby Case
By ANNE E. KORNBLUT
Published: November 19, 2005
WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 - Michael Scanlon, a former top official for Representative Tom DeLay and onetime partner of the lobbyist Jack Abramoff, has agreed to plead guilty in a deal with federal prosecutors, according to his lawyer. The deal reveals a broadening corruption investigation involving top members of Congress.
Criminal papers filed in federal court outlined a conspiracy that not only named Mr. Scanlon but also mentioned a congressman, identified only as Representative No. 1, as part of the exchange of favors from clients funneled to lobbyists and officials.
This was the first time that a member of Congress, identified by lawyers in the case as Representative Bob Ney, Republican of Ohio, has been implicated in criminal papers as part of the inquiry, which has sprawled from Indian casinos to the lucrative lobbying firms of Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Scanlon and then reached to the Republican leadership.
full story here
For those interested, a helpful graphic on the Abramoff matter...
GRAPHIC
Blatham is now a legal scholar?
He will be quite surprised when Mr. Libby is found by the jury, after, of course, operating under the American Law System's admonition, to fund one guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
If Blatham thinks that the Woodward revelations do not muddy the waters in the Libby case, he knows nothing about the legal system in the USA.
Perhaps the Canadian system is different.
Blatham may be suffering under the delusion that the case against Tom Delay will fly. He may be unaware that the partisan Democratic prosecutor, Mr. Earle has had to suffer under a change of venue and now, it looks increasingly likely that the senile Earle will suffer a defeat in his attempt to convict DeLay of a bogus charge. I am not certain that Blatham realizes that Earle also attempted to denigrate Sen. Hutchinson.
His attempt failed miserably.
I don't think Blatham knows a great deal about the legal system in the USA. If he did, he would be aware that there is no closure UNTIL a guilty verdict is delivered.
There are some good books on the American Legal System available.
I would suggest that Blatham begin with Judge Richard Posner's tome--"Overcoming Law". There he would find a blend of pragmatist philosophy, economic methodology and Millian liberalism.
One of Posner's recurring themes is that the determination of juries is very frequently opposite the rantings of either liberal or conservative media.
We are having a discussion and debate among friends. I relish a spirited argument about the ideas and views under consideration, but don't think that personalizing the dispute adds anything to the content or even stylistic value of the conversation.
Timber --
An excellent recap of Les Aspin's role in the Somalia affair. The very model of the ineffectual pinhead on the make.
Aspin gained his reputation as a "defense expert" while a junior congressman from Wisconsin - a state with very little defense-related employment. His specialty was touting "wasteful spending" and his most memorable find was the supposed $500 dollar toilet seat for P-3 patrol aircraft. Actually the part in question was the complete molded WC assembly much like the facilities in airliners. That fact, however, didn't figure in his press releases.
I was once detailed to be his escort during a three day visit to the John F. Kennedy, then at sea in the Med. I asked him about the toilet seat bit and if he knew the truth of the story he made so much of. He replied that though the reported details were mostly wrong, the underlying point was valid, and that this was appropriate political speech.
Thanks for the kudos, georgeob1 - you really oughtta hear Bill Garrison summarize and critigue the event, its precurors, and aftermath - in a private home, among freinds, and he's sure there are no presstitutes within earshot. His account is a bit less restrained and respectful.
A sidenote - I agree with your commentary concerning the style and quality of interaction on these boards. Some folks never learn, committing the same offenses again and again despite repeated very pointed enjoinder. Trolls are an interesting lot; they entertain - and fool - only themselves ... time after time. Until their time comes, as always it does, more often sooner than later.
I join with george and Timber's comments regarding the level of discourse. Getting personal adds nothing but rancor.
