Who are "The Deciders" on Afghanistan...great article by David Sirota

[Jennicut]

Since General Stanley McChrystal released a report demanding a massive military escalation in Afghanistan, two things have happened: The Obama administration has taken time to review all its options, and the rest of Washington has collectively freaked out at the prospect of a president doing anything other than rubber-stamping military demands. The latter reaction betrays a disturbing -- yet predictable -- authoritarianism inside the Beltway, a kind of authoritarianism, as I show in my latest newspaper column, that insults the Constitution.

The Founders were pretty damn clear that the president and the Congress -- not generals -- are "the deciders" when it comes to military policy. That was for a reason: specifically, to avoid America becoming Napoleon's France or Stalin's Russia or modern-day Burma -- that is, to avoid America becoming the kind of military junta that arises when civilian elected leadership is not vested with final military decision-making authority.

The fact that the Beltway media and Republican politicians either don't know this -- or worse, know it and don't care -- is not a surprise. Since the Vietnam War, the mantra in D.C. is that a commander-in-chief essentially serves at the pleasure of generals, not the other way around. That ideology was a way for the military-industrial-political complex to fight the so-called Vietnam Syndrome -- and the ideology obviously survives today.

Frankly, I'm disturbed that Gen. McChrystal is giving public speeches that seem aimed at trying to pressure his bosses -- the commander-in-chief and America's elected civilian leadership -- to bow to his demands.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/who-are-the-deciders-on-a_b_307591.html

The media is pissing me off, as is McChrystal. It is Obama's decision as he is the President. The military controlling policy skeeves me out and had a free ride with Bush/Cheney.

[ShortnFiery]

1. Who wants to place bets?

I hope he brings the troops OUT of those occupied countries. Many can remain at the periphery in "friendly" states. But a complete withdraw of combat troops is what would be LEAST damage with regard to lives lost.

I fear they will ramp up the troop strength.

One thing's for certain: President Obama must make a decision within the next few weeks one way or the other. :(

[Jennicut]

2. Yes, he must make the decision and I hope it is the right one.

And the media and military-industrial complex will not sit by and let him make that decision.
McCrystal essentially slammed a position held by the VP overseas. Its preposterous but clear what they want. I was not against this war until recently. I am a moderate left voter. But this war is un-winnable.

[Clio the Leo]

3. So what do we do with Pakistan's nukes?

Just based on some of the responses I read here (not yours) the notion seems to be that we could simply bring all of our men and women home from that region and everything would be fine. If that were the case, we wouldn't be there now. The problem is not so much the Taliban in Afghanistan, but Al Qaeda so close to Pakistan's nukes. If Pakistan were to fall to Al Qaeda ... or if Al Qaeda were to otherwise gain access to their nuclear bases, that whole region would be screwed.

(I listed some articles that address this here...)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8668027#8668113

The Vice President (because sexy people are also level headed lol) is apparently suggesting that the mission be refocused to more direct protection of Pakistan, but that still requires our armed forces.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/world/asia/23policy.html?_r=1&ref=world

I know two things ..... the answer is not as simple as we sometimes make it and .... it's extremely sad that an increase in troop level in Afghanistan that HASNT happened seems to be getting more attention than a CLEAR change in how we're dealing with Iran and North Korea (heres the article on North Korea for those who had not heard about it http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/world/asia/23policy.html?_r=1&ref=world )

.... again, that's not directed at you Jenni.

[ShortnFiery]

4. Pakistan is a SOVEREIGN nation. We can pull out to the periphery and be at the ready. eom

[Clio the Leo]

7. And exactly where is periphery ..........

...... I think we can safely eliminate the sea. :)

[Jennicut]

6. Yes, that is an issue. I know Joe wants to focus more on Pakistan.

I don't think a huge counter insurgency in Afghanistan will work but do think we need a low level presence in that area just for that reason.

[jeanpalmer]

9. Pakistan has had nukes for a long time

They have a professional military of about 700,000 active duty personnel. It's impossible that a ragtag group like al Qaeda, or the Taliban, could ever take over Pakistan or get access to its nukes. Any time the Pakistani military wants to quash al Qaeda, it can do it overnight with little effort. Any time the Army has seriously taken on the Taliban, as it did in the Swat, it has routed them easily. The only reason al Qaeda exists in Pakistan is because the military allows them to exist. The military in the past has found al Qaeda and the Taliban useful for its own purposes, and that's why it tolerates them. Al Qaeda taking over Pakistan is just a canard created by US militarists and would be world dominators to justify the endless spending of our tax dollars on war. There's a greater chance of a UFO landing in your front yard than there is of al Qaeda taking over Pakistan.

[Clio the Leo]

10. So Pakistan can quash al Qaeda but we cant?

(not trying to argue, I'm really trying to understand.)

And the positions taken here by international strategists are incorrect? (again, NOT arguing, just trying to understand...)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/6011668/Pakistans-nuclear-bases-targeted-by-al-Qaeda.html#

http://www.watoday.com.au/world/west-warned-on-nuclear-terrorist-threat-from-pakistan-20090413-a4ac.html

http://www.smh.com.au/world/pakistan-nuclear-bases-attacked-by-alqaeda-20090812-eieg.html


And what Mr. Holbroke said about al Aqaeda gaining nuclear secrets from a (as you said) cooperative Pakistan?
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/alqaeda-seeking-nuclear-secrets-from-pakistan-holbrooke/517843#

[shraby]

5. The upper echelon of the military likes to have war....

that way they get promoted upward faster. For them it's a win-win. The Generals will move up the ranks eventually without a war, but war speeds that process up. I say, take away their war and let them read books for a good long time.

[OHdem10]

8. Right on. We have a Civilian Secretary of Defense and the President

is Commander and Chief. No one has higher regard for the Military
than I do. However, It is beginning to look as if McChrystol
is confused and thinks We are ruled by the Military. Not good.

[spaten]

11. this is very important

Obama MUST fire McChrystal.
This is a serious breach of the chain of command and I hope someone is advising the president just how serious this is.
Its not even a choice, this must happen or the consequences are not reversible.

[Jennicut]

13. Welcome to DU.

Not sure if that would not create a bigger crap storm. Just go around his recommendations...all the generals left are bad news in my opinion.

[polichick]

12. The MIC is trying to bully the prez - imo he should remove McChrystal from his position...

And abandon this war of choice.