[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-15, 18:26, said:

Hm. When was Ike "rotated out" of Europe, or MacArthur of the southwestern Pacific?

For MacArthur, "rotated out" is probably not the best description.

[kenberg]

This makes no sense to me. "is almost complete" and "will have to be rotated out at some point" seem to be completely incompatible statements. No doubt someone will explain how this is all perfectly natural.

[Winstonm]

I would hope this is a substantive demonstration that Obama has had quite enough of the Pentagon acting as if they were in charge. If it coincides with later troop reductions, it may well be just that.

[cloa513]

PassedOut, on 2010-July-03, 10:16, said:

I agree that we in the US need to stop invading and occupying other countries. We can't afford it and we can't supply enough troops to do it successfully even if we could afford it. Unilateral nation-building is a fool's errand, whether it is authorized by democrats, republicans, or neo-cons. We should do nothing to support oppressive regimes of any kind, and it is utterly stupid to rely on such regimes to maintain military bases to support nation-building occupations.

I do believe in maintaining a lean but powerful defense, plus the ability to retaliate against attacks, terrorist or otherwise. But I certainly oppose all the useless "military spending" that consists of nothing but jobs programs for workers in the districts of long-time legislators.

In my view, we can contribute mightily to our own defense simply by being the best nation we can be. Killing folks around the world simply increases the number of maddened individuals desperate for revenge.

Given that, I think we do need to extricate ourselves from the present situation in an orderly and humane manner, taking care of those in Iraq and Afghanistan who have put their own lives on the line to assist the US. That will probably mean bringing in quite a few immigrants who would not survive the US withdrawal. But that immigration will cost a lot less than perpetual war.

Insofar as there are humanitarian needs in the world that demand outside action, I think that the US should work within the UN to advocate and participate in solutions to those problems. Yes, I understand that can be frustrating, indirect, and messy, but it beats unilateral nation-building hands down.

What I don't see is the path to get from where we are now to where we should be. Our education standards have fallen so drastically that many folks in the US lack the intellectual tools to identify and reject even the most simplistic propaganda. Only when the chickens come home to roost as they did toward the end of the last Bush administration can some of those folks see past the propaganda, and that vision is quickly obscured by the non-stop propaganda machine in the US media today.

Not true that America couldn't have done a great job of taking over another country without a massive of money and time and bloodshed
- its takes setting no particular limits - using all human resources and lots of brains instead of what they always done have the pathetic defence forces (army,air, navy) (they have to have 1/3 of defence expenditure each to prevent squabbling) and idiotic political and intelligence (oxymoron) people sent a half thought out plan that fails to consider all the aspects of taking a country- artistic, cultural, religious, logistical etc.

Take Iraq- they failed to protect the national antiquities muesem so naturally it was looted that was not only an artistic loss but big cultural hit- Iraqies generally valued that soAmericans were the bad guys.They should have kept the country running as "normal" keeping troops in their barrack for a pittance rather than letting crazy killers loose, shouldn't have made it crime to be part of the Bath Party (just Russia being part of the ruling party is survival instinct).

A forced complete revolution results in a country which is so much harder to fix, slow revolution is easier to manage- fix one part at a time. When are Americans going to get sick of the incompetence and childish behaviour and sheer waste of having so many defence, intelligence agencies.

[y66]

cloa513, on 2011-February-16, 02:38, said:

When are Americans going to get sick of the incompetence and childish behaviour and sheer waste of having so many defence, intelligence agencies.

Good question.

Part of the problem is that most Americans have no idea how much we spend on defense.

Another part is that a lot of us like the idea that even if we can't manage our economy, teach our kids, provide decent, affordable health care for all, or even find the guy who kicked our ass 9 years ago, at least we can still blow up more stuff than anybody else on earth.

Politicians and corporations understand this. And they are driving the bus.

[kenberg]

A later report:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e_hold_for.html

Quote

But the big news quickly shrank in later editions of the papers, after Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell issued a strong statement, saying Gen Petraeus would eventually leave his command of the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) but there were no firm plans yet:

"Despite some sensational speculation by one of the London papers, I can assure you Gen Petraeus is not quitting as Isaf commander, but nor does he plan to stay in Afghanistan forever."

But then came what we call a non-denial denial.

"Obviously he will rotate out at some point, but that point has not yet been determined and it will not occur any time soon. Until then, he will continue to ably lead our coalition forces in Afghanistan."

The earlier version made little sense. This sounds sane.

[Winstonm]

In a conversation with by brother, a retired U.S. Army Chaplain (Major), he made the statement that he agreed that military force could not effectively fight terrorists, but it could prevent states from sponsoring terrorism.

I think that is wishful thinking, myself. Anyone else have a view on that claim?

[blackshoe]

PassedOut, on 2011-February-15, 20:02, said:

For MacArthur, "rotated out" is probably not the best description.

If you're referring to Truman's "firing" him, that was Korea, not WWII (it didn't happen in, and MacArthur was not located in, the southwestern Pacific, as he was in WWII).

If you're referring to his retreat from the Philippines, he did say he would return, and he did so before the war ended. Okay, Petraeus has not retreated in the Middle East, but that's not the point. The point, since it seems I have to be explicit, is that this Pentagon-speak about "rotating out" is simply putting spin on a political move to get Petraeus out of there. At least, that's my take, not having seen any signs that he's tired of doing what he's doing, or screwing it up.