SpongeBob*24
Verified Military
Dedication....
The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter AWP
- Start date
- Status
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
Interesting ruling from the 9th Circuit which will rule on the Trump Administration EO: Appeals Court Rejects Immigrants’ Right to a Lawyer in Expedited Cases
In the aftermath of the botched raid in Yemen, the country has withdrawn permission to conduct counterterror ground missions
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/...nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0
Well, here's your first tangible foreign policy fuckup. It only took two weeks.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/...nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0
Well, here's your first tangible foreign policy fuckup. It only took two weeks.
Arguably hanging up on the Aussie PM would be the first.
Right, that was a poor move, but so far we haven't seen any real-world effects. Yemen shutting down CT operations is something that you can point to and say "Look, here's where your decisions had significant implications."
That's fair.
Had SNL been cast with anything other than a bunch of choad licking, toady fucking cowards, the opportunity for jokes just based on that would've been endless. Had it been anyone other than Obama, the mockery would've flowed like lava from Kilauea, and rightfully so. As such, the observation that there was not the first fucking joke to be written by the so-called big time, prime time players could easily lead to the assumption that these fuck heads were so scared of being called a racist that they forgot what their balls looked like on stage. They were in the tank, and that's it.
SNL played softball with Obama. Their satires of him never really hit too hard and usually had Joe Biden or some other notable as the real target
of the skit, often one of BHO's opponents.
This is also true. Darryl Hammond's portrayals of Clinton were hilarious.
But as the nation has become more polarized into opposing camps, SNL has become more stridently liberal.
of the skit, often one of BHO's opponents.
This is also true. Darryl Hammond's portrayals of Clinton were hilarious.
But as the nation has become more polarized into opposing camps, SNL has become more stridently liberal.
I don't watch SNL regularly, but I thought their "I'm only a bill" skit (parody of Pres. Obama) was hilarious. "Oh no they didn't go there."
How is this a foreign policy fuckup? Trump wasn't behind the trigger. He approved a raid and it went south. He doesn't control the actions on the objective.
I'm not sure I agree this is the President's fuckup. I'm as skeptical as anyone that the Trump administration is prepared to make high-level national security decisions but in this case the administration made a policy change already being contemplated by the previous administration (escalating from drone strikes to cordon/search and lowering the administrative approval level for quicker decisions) - then a raid went bad on the ground.
I think it's very tricky to try and hold an administration accountable for tactical success/failure at such a low level. I think it's more useful to hold them accountable for broad strategic decisions - then those decisions' consequences.
In this specific case I think the broad decision is a good one - though certainly fraught with danger. The problem - in my view - with drone strikes is despite their deterrent effect through killing and disrupting C2 networks they inevitably allowed the enemy to get stronger while we get weaker. If only through attrition the enemy is able to learn the proper countermeasures to avoid being targeted - while we still suffer the diplomatic and public relations blowback of the operations (even when behind the scenes the host governments are enthusiastic supporters of the program).
By shifting to ground operations to capture/kill HVTs we do increase the risk of that blowback - as we're seeing in Yemen. But, we now have the ability to gain valuable intelligence into the networks themselves, and increase the disruption and countermeasures organizations have to take when they are forced to consider what a detainee might be giving up during interrogation - something they did not have to consider when the person was in little pieces from a hellfire.
I think this is one of those situations where it's easy to hold the administration to a different standard than you would another.
Devildoc
Verified Military
I hear you. Sometimes I feel like the kid with divorcing parents, each side accusing the other of atrocities. I am not sure who to believe. But I saw these quotes from a Senate hearing transcript. I mean, seriously, if there is this much dissention I would think it's not 100% nailed down as fact:
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # #
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
I didn't know we had permission...and it's not like it matters, as you know, ask forgiveness not permission.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,885
Last edited:
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
I've got a bridge to sell you if you think every operation we've ever done has been with permission of the host nation.Right, because international borders and sovreignty are dated concepts.
Only knowing the location based on what is available via the google, the raid location appears to be in rebel held territory. So when it comes to permission, not sure we were going to ask for it anyways.
There are lots of grey in the world. Your absoluteness is not typical of that.
You're both right - in purely rational foreign policy, all blame would go to the planners and on-scene commander who messed up the intel, logistics, and actions on the objective. That's definitely how it SHOULD work, but as the guy who signed off on the raid, blame is assigned to the guy who signed off on the mission. The host country doesn't see LTCDR Sealguy who ordered the Osprey right on top of a strongly-defended position. They see President Trump, the guy who okay-ed the raid that not only failed to get their target, but resulted in a bunch of dead civilians. That's not how it should work, but that's how it works.
There's also an unsubstantiated rumor from our good friend "Unnamed source" (he really gets around these days, doesn't he?) that says Trump was convinced to sign off on the raid because the planners told him that Obama wouldn't do it. I think that there's probably some truth to this, but not in the way the article characterizes it.
For me personally, this is the strongest anti-climate change post I've seen on the board. Definitely affects my thinking on the issue.
I get that this is how blame gets assigned a lot of times - but I think it's a really bad way to do it. This to me in a general sense is how organizations become risk-averse. The idea becomes you need to have so many checks in place that nothing can possibly go wrong - or at least be reported to go wrong. You end up stifling any ability to be creative - and/or you create the conditions that encourage leaders at every level to lie/put the best face on everything they do - which again impedes learning. My opinion is this is one of the worst through-lines of our COIN efforts in IZ and AF - CDRs constantly talking about how well we're doing with constantly shifting metrics 'we're winning by spending more money - we're winning by spending less money; we're winning by all the TICs we're getting into - we're winning because TICs have gone down; SIGACTS are going up/down/sideways/etc. - we're doing an awesome job.'
I think holding the administration to a standard like that is not only unfair - it's counterproductive. Hopefully one thing that unites people on any side of the spectrum is the desire for a successful foreign policy and terrorists that can't strike in the US.
As far as anonymous sources about how President Trump is manipulated into decisions by his advisors. I think psychoanalysis is tough when done in person by a trained professional - doing it at a distance through sources with varying degrees of credibility is an impossible task.
Last edited:
I agree. I don't know anything more about this situation that what has been discussed online, but generally speaking the President green lights the mission when the unit requests a "go." If that happened in this case, then it is likely not a Presidential failure, not an intel failure, but an operational failure.
-OR-
It's warfare, and sometimes things like this happen. The American people have gotten so used to perfection from its military, especially SOF, that whenever the slightest bit of Clauswitzian "friction" gets involved they start losing their minds.
- Status
