Rob,
Well said.
OK did you read these words and think about what is being said here?
Yes, I actually did - not only that, more importantly I actually "got it" - and
understood what Obama was trying to say (which Rob covered to some extent)
And even further, I have an inkling of why he might have said what he did.
(Part of having a successful communication from one party to another, is that on the receiving end you have to have a willingness and a desire on the part of the recipient to receive and
understand what the originator
actually intended - not substituting one own preconceived notions, political bias, or whatever you "think" in place of what was actually intended)
The point is simply this: Any "victory" over there isn't going to look at all like any of the victories that we have seen in traditional (and some untraditional) conflicts before - because the situation is entirely different. It's unique - it's largely a non-conventional, guerilla war - the enemy looks like most of the civil population. You have warlords with competing interests, who themselves may be fighting against one another. Small factions. Not to mention any typical criminal elements.
Therefore a "victory" that we might achieve may not be familiar to many people in a traditional sense - they will have victory defined otherwise - "Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur", a formal cessation of hostilities, "Mission Accomplished", etc.
Let me just take a moment here to point out that "Mission Accomplished" by Bush has to be one of the
biggest PR blunders of recent memory, in the political realm. Why you ask ?
Well, because it became readily apparent to one and all, in very short order, that the mission
wasn't accomplished. Just utterly retarded.
Heheheh .... and Layout you want to say Obama is unqualified because he doesn't "have experience" .... tell ya what, seems to me he is at least smart enough to avoid stepping in that pile of cow dung like Bush did - because he is actively positioning to lower expectations. (It's always a good bet to try and lower expectations on the front end .... and then exceed them on the back end - by delivering more than what was expected .... makes ya look like a hero .... or a genius ...)
The above (traditional victory) will
never, ever happen in this conflict. The best that can be hoped for at this point is for the elimination of the real bad actors which still remain thru small engagements, S&D, good intel, while constantly restoring enough peace and tranquility to allow the gradual development of an actual civilization.
And then co-opting those on the margin with the upsides of what actually being able to live in a civilized society would mean (better to be able to live in a peaceful environment with others, where you are free to prosper from your own efforts and achieve some degree of "success", whatever that means to any given individual - as opposed to trying to survive in only the basest manner, watching friends and family be injured or killed, all while you are being hunted down like a rat ....)
And to that end, the quicker the foreign military forces can be reduced and/or pulled out - without jeopardizing the security of the civilian population and the fragile state of government/society - the better off everyone will be.
Layout and Rob both have it correct tho' - this isn't short-term project - it will take years and years. Forces are, and will be, necessary - at least to some extent - for a long time to come.
So to avoid all sorts of hand rubbing and gnashing of the teeth, the guy (Obama) is avoiding setting up a scenario where the media and the pundits, are able to define "victory" as something other than what
exactly it is that we trying to do, and/or achieve.
My guess is it simply a matter of PR and political positioning - eliminate the erroneous concept that there is some "victory" ala MacArthur - otherwise you constantly have the media and opposition constantly trying to
position you as having failed, as a consequence of not achieving something
that isn't even remotely possible, due the nature of the situation.
What does the Japanese surrender have to do with this?
Nothing at all really, it just happened to be a handy analogy to illustrate a point.
The Japanese attacked us, they were provoked which I will give them that but nevertheless the idea that they were humiliated into subjugation is rather a stretch.
Huh ?
The above (quoted) has nothing whatsoever to do with it - it's so far off track, it's just .... well, I dunno what to say .... I'm speechless ....
When did the Taliban become a non-statist entity?
At the moment they were no longer in control of the country.
This is all to apease the small group of hate Bush crowd within the Democrat party.
That's not it at all. Read what I wrote above, then after you have read it, read it again.
Dropping the word victory, which it is properly used in this case, is demeening to the people fighting there.
Taken out of context of what he actually said, possibly - please understand: what Obama actually said (as quoted in the article - I didn't see the interview)
and how Fox characterized it are two completely different things .... not necessarily even close ..... but taken in context, no - it is not demeaning.
The word has a big meaning that is used to prop up moral and support for the operation.
Then have the commanders on the ground talk "victory" in pep rallies or something.
Personally I don't think that our armed forces are such a bunch of sissies that the CIC's comments (or a
characterization of them by the MSM - which is really what we are talking about here), in the context that they were used above, are gonna have the rank and file all seeking counseling because their fragile emotions were damaged - you may think otherwise however.
I'm sure that those in the higher ranks "get" exactly what the scene is over there - and are perfectly capable of reminding the troops on regular basis, so that they too have an understanding of the complexities of the mission and the circumstances and environment that it has to be executed in - which includes political complexities, as well as the military ones.
Too bad the leader doesn't support the troops.
I'm surprised that you would say this - so let me if I understand what you are saying correctly:
Because Obama is cautious in his use of language, and is avoiding being put in a position of letting others define "victory" as something which is unachievable .... then that means he doesn't "support the troops" ?
Is that it ?
I guess this part of article certainly proves it:
"The Obama administration this year stepped up U.S. military operations in the country as the U.S. military presence begins to wind down in Iraq."
and this is probably the real clincher:
"The United States, which runs the NATO-led force, has about 59,000 troops in Afghanistan -- nearly double the number a year ago -- and thousands more are on the way."
Honestly Greg, I really expected better from you, of all people.
Fact is, from a political/philosophical perspective, I'm not a fan of Obama - one thing I do recognize however: the guy is no dummy .... not even close.
He is very politically savy ... but he certainly ain't perfect either ....
