Gates Hammers 0s "Leadership Duty"

#51
#51
lawgator1 said:
I guess it was only a matter of time before you'd take the points of this book and make it seem like that. Even though the book actually says otherwise.

I guess I just don't see what the hubbub is about. A military adviser to the president wanted the president to be more aggressive with the use of the military. The president, who ran in large part on not going in that direction, stuck to his guns on that platform and lo and behold the military adviser retires and says he thinks that the president was a wuss and didn't use the military more because that was against his politics.

Honestly, why is anyone surprised by that?

As I've said, the stylistic stuff is legit and I hope Obama pays attention to it. He probably won't, but I hope he does. Its just on the substantive decisions it seems to me this kind of break in philosophy was pretty much inevitable.
Click to expand...

The military advisor told him that the "surge" as Obama wanted it would not work, it would fail. But for political reasons he (Obama) went against his military advisor (expert).

It failed and cost American lives!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#54
#54
lawgator1 said:
I accept his criticisms and find them an interesting insight. Hopefully, it will lead to a healthy dialogue and the administration will take them into account moving forward.
Click to expand...

Man, this right here sounds something Jay Carney would say. You didn't lift these sentences from him did you? Btw, looks like Carney has finally hit puberty w/that beard he has grown out.
 
#55
#55
VolsNSkinsFan said:
You make decision on what is best for your country, not your political party. Im looking at you 0bama, Hilary and Christie
Click to expand...

What about the Congressional military porkbarrelers?

Gates says he was “was more or less continuously outraged” by lawmakers’ intense focus on Pentagon dollars flowing to their home districts or states. “Any defense facility or contract in their district or state, no matter how superfluous or wasteful, was sacrosanct,” he writes. “I was constantly amazed and infuriated at the hypocrisy of those who most stridently attacked the Defense Department as inefficient and wasteful but fought tooth and nail to prevent any reduction in defense activities in their home state or district.”

Read more: Robert Gates: Book Shows More Anger At Congress Than At Barack Obama | TIME.com Robert Gates: Book Shows More Anger At Congress Than At Barack Obama | TIME.com
Click to expand...
 
#60
#60
Velo Vol said:
What about the Congressional military porkbarrelers?
Click to expand...

Agreed, it is rampant on both sides of the isle and honestly I have no idea how it could be fixed outside of term limits. Not so sure that would even work.
 
#62
#62
volinbham said:
Funny how you rewrite and interpret the book.

Gates wasn't calling him a wuss. He was directly criticizing how he made decisions.

If you read the article you'll see Gates wasn't a guy who was for more use of the military. In fact he explicitly states that the past couple guys have been too eager to use the military.
Click to expand...


I got the impression it was a bit of both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#63
#63
volinbham said:
I never said they don't - I'm saying it is not to be lauded and in the case under discussion here it appears to be pretty rampant.
Click to expand...


WTF? What is "too rampant"?

If the test is that you should never consider political consequences of military action then every president has violated that. If the test is "the right amount," not surprisingly you say Obama did it too much but maybe some of his GOP predecessors, like the three bears, got it "just right."

Please. This is just as political as the thing he criticizes as too political. Yawn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#64
#64
lawgator1 said:
WTF? What is "too rampant"?

If the test is that you should never consider political consequences of military action then every president has violated that. If the test is "the right amount," not surprisingly you say Obama did it too much but maybe some of his GOP predecessors, like the three bears, got it "just right."

Please. This is just as political as the thing he criticizes as too political. Yawn.
Click to expand...

I don't condone it in any circumstances. I see quite a bit of it in the current POTUS. He should be called on it and not excused because "others do it to". When others do it they too should be called on it.

Given he campaigned on being above politics and how he routinely accuses his opponents of acting out of pure political motivation (something he indicates is clearly wrong) you'd think he might abide by his own guidelines...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#65
#65
volinbham said:
I don't condone it in any circumstances. I see quite a bit of it in the current POTUS. He should be called on it and not excused because "others do it to". When others do it they too should be called on it.

Given he campaigned on being above politics and how he routinely accuses his opponents of acting out of pure political motivation (something he indicates is clearly wrong) you'd think he might abide by his own guidelines...
Click to expand...


I'm not excusing anything. I'm simply saying that I hardly think it news that a military adviser is calling out a guy who ran on a platform of reducing military involvement for, you know, reducing military involvement.

It is neither a surprise that Obama did so, nor is it a surprise that a military man would think it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#66
#66
lawgator1 said:
I'm not excusing anything. I'm simply saying that I hardly think it news that a military adviser is calling out a guy who ran on a platform of reducing military involvement for, you know, reducing military involvement.

It is neither a surprise that Obama did so, nor is it a surprise that a military man would think it.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't see that as Gates' criticism here
 
#68
#68
lawgator1 said:
I guess I just don't see what the hubbub is about. A military adviser to the president wanted the president to be more aggressive with the use of the military. The president, who ran in large part on not going in that direction, stuck to his guns on that platform and lo and behold the military adviser retires and says he thinks that the president was a wuss and didn't use the military more because that was against his politics.

Honestly, why is anyone surprised by that?.
Click to expand...

There's a reason why we have civilians and not the military directing foreign policy, I think.
 
#69
#69
volinbham said:
Again, I don't see that as Gates' criticism here
Click to expand...


From what I've seen that is the subtext for all of it. That Obama did not "commit" to any sort of winning strategy and that it was more or less maintenance of the stalemate in Afghanistan and Iraq.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#70
#70
lawgator1 said:
From what I've seen that is the subtext for all of it. That Obama did not "commit" to any sort of winning strategy and that it was more or less maintenance of the stalemate in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Click to expand...

No, Obama wanted to give the appearance of strength and decisiveness by ordering the so called "surge" with it's FUBAR ROE, against the advice of his military advisors.
 
#71
#71
volinbham said:
I don't condone it in any circumstances. I see quite a bit of it in the current POTUS. He should be called on it and not excused because "others do it to". When others do it they too should be called on it.

Given he campaigned on being above politics and how he routinely accuses his opponents of acting out of pure political motivation (something he indicates is clearly wrong) you'd think he might abide by his own guidelines...
Click to expand...


Yea I remember how Obama was gonna create jobs, reduce the deficit, "clean up" Washington, fix healthcare & be the most transparent administration ever. LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#72
#72
lawgator1 said:
From what I've seen that is the subtext for all of it. That Obama did not "commit" to any sort of winning strategy and that it was more or less maintenance of the stalemate in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Click to expand...

He says directly Obama didn't believe in his own (Obama's) strategy; thought it would fail - a strategy that was committing additional troops.


I'd say Gates would be singing a different tune if Obama didn't believe in the military strategy and accordingly didn't proceed with it. Instead Obama ramped up in Afghanistan even though he didn't believe it would work and wasn't committed to making it work.

If he just wanted out he should have passed on the ramp up and explained to the public why. Instead he went on and on about the "good war" and executed a surge he didn't believe in.

That is the big complaint here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#73
#73
volinbham said:
He says directly Obama didn't believe in his own (Obama's) strategy; thought it would fail - a strategy that was committing additional troops.


I'd say Gates would be singing a different tune if Obama didn't believe in the military strategy and accordingly didn't proceed with it. Instead Obama ramped up in Afghanistan even though he didn't believe it would work and wasn't committed to making it work.

If he just wanted out he should have passed on the ramp up and explained to the public why. Instead he went on and on about the "good war" and executed a surge he didn't believe in.

That is the big complaint here.
Click to expand...

Seems like a common theme.
 
#74
#74
volinbham said:
He says directly Obama didn't believe in his own (Obama's) strategy; thought it would fail - a strategy that was committing additional troops.


I'd say Gates would be singing a different tune if Obama didn't believe in the military strategy and accordingly didn't proceed with it. Instead Obama ramped up in Afghanistan even though he didn't believe it would work and wasn't committed to making it work.

If he just wanted out he should have passed on the ramp up and explained to the public why. Instead he went on and on about the "good war" and executed a surge he didn't believe in.

That is the big complaint here.
Click to expand...


Ok, I've got no problem with that criticism. From what I've seen there is a lot to be said for that complaint. That is the part I'd say let's pay closer attention to for future reference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#75
#75
lawgator1 said:
Ok, I've got no problem with that criticism. From what I've seen there is a lot to be said for that complaint. That is the part I'd say let's pay closer attention to for future reference.
Click to expand...

For future reference? He committed troops to die for a strategy he thought would fail but gain him political capital!

That is nothing short of incompetence and indifference. LBJ with Vietnam and maybe Truman with Korea would be the only comparisons I can think of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top