Tuesday, June 21, 2011

QotD: Operation Just Because Edition.

Every now and again that PDB guy remembers that he has a blog, and when he does, the results are usually worth reading:
This is what happens when you let hippies run a war, folks.
As predicted, the U.S. offer to "support" NATO's efforts in Libya has worked out something like Gulliver "supporting" the Lilliputian armed forces against Blefuscu: Supporting them on our back while we do the heavy lifting.

I haven't seen such a ham-handed, comic-opera, charlie foxtrot of a time-limited, scope-limited overseas kinetic military action since... well, since the last time that a bunch of hippies in the Executive Branch formed a manly drum circle with their Euro brethren and tried to eliminate a dictator from 30,000 feet...


perlhaqr said...

One gets a vision of the pampered, high society lady of the late 1800's, standing on a chair, screaming, trying to eliminate a mouse by throwing her shoes at it.

McVee said...

Just more material for "OH!" Admin's wikipedia entry.
By the time Barry's finished all that will be needed is some Ralph Steadman illustrations.

Lewis said...

Damn hippies, amirite? Personally I much prefer the ham-handed, comic-opera, charlie foxtrot of time-limited, scope-limited overseas kinetic military actions run by Republicans. The clearly articulated end state we're seeking, the gimlet-eyed calculations as to the national interest involved, and the careful strategerizing as to allies, manpower and materiel: these are things you just don't see in your hippie wars.

Why, as soon as Mullah Omar is no longer Mayor of Kabul, and as soon as we can insure that the Iraqi government is not clandestinely pursuing weapons programs in contravention of UN principles and declarations, why . . .

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

Well, he had to earn that Nobel Peace Prize somehow.

Boat Guy said...

Having been involved in the previous "comic opera", I can say the only respect in this one MIGHT be even more Charlie Foxtrot would be to involve Weasely Clark... the only thing I'm very happy about with regard to this one is that I don't have to participate.
And yes, Lewis I'll take my wars run by the evil triumverate of BushChenyRumsfeld ANY FREAKIN DAY, eapecially compared to either preceding or succeeding administrations.
The drum-circle quote is priceless, Tam, I'll use it frequently and with attribution to other colleagues simliarly scarred...

GuardDuck said...

I got to love the new terminology though.

I proclaim the next revolution to be a kinetic voting operation.

Tam said...


Way to miss the point.

Could A'stan have been conducted better? Sure. Was Iraq probably the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time? Sure.

But in both cases the evil Neocons went through all the boring, dull Congressional motions, and at least laid out their main goals. (Regime Change, in case you've forgotten.)

In the current goat rope, we have a war that isn't happening (go read my DoD.gov link: We handed over all combat ops to NATO back on 4/11... except we didn't. The media would be absolutely excoriating W. Rumscheney for this same gaffe, yet we've got nothing but crickets from MSNBCNNBCBS...)

At least the warmongers put boots on the ground in support of their nefarious goals, rather than lobbing in regime change from 30,00 feet and piously standing about pretending there wasn't a war going on...

Lewis said...

Oooh, singled out for disciplinary snark! Spank!

Missing the point is what I specialize in.

However, maybe I did. Here's what I based my response on: I read your post and I read the linked post. Descriptors kept leaping out at me. PDB wrote phrases like "no clear political goals" and "dependent allies" that are "comically unable" to maintain optempo, with the faction we back "increasingly revealed to be unsavory."

Silly old man didn't realize it was really all about Barry failing to ask "Mother may I?" before he launched.

One question. Why do you write "Could Afghanistan have been conducted better?" You mean, we're done? We're out? Damn those anti-Obama MSM guys for not saying!

As far as Regime Change being the stated reason, that was stated for Afghanistan, sure, and rightly so. WMD was the stalking horse for Iraq. Of course, we did have a regime change plan for Iraq . . . signed into law by Billy Jeff Hippybilly.

So the evil neocons (a term I heartily applaud!) went through all the boring, dull congressional motions, eh? Where's my Declaration of War? (Eh, maybe not "all" of the boring, dull Congressional motions, eh?)

At least, you write, the warmongers put boots on the ground in support of their nefarious goals. Yeah boy howdy. When my buddy was working the fifth floor at Bethesda, that ward was pretty much all double-amp Marines. If we're going to have an ineffective, no-end-state, time-unlimited kinetic action that isn't really, you know, aimed at accomplishing anything, why not do it from 30,000 feet? (And I hate the Air Force!)

Penultimate note: a war that isn't happening? Like, umm, Pakistan?

Ultimate note: In the absence of a declared, required change in our enemy’s political condition, war is obscene, pointless murder and the futile risk of our servicemen and equipment. What's that declared, required change in the Pashtuns again? Stop being Pashtun? Hold Kandahar Gay Pride parades? Institute affirmative action for the Hazara?

wv: elatedei "God is delighted"?

global village idiot said...

And now under "Lines, Reading Between," note the following story:


The story itself is utterly unsurprising. Where the story came from is shocking. The editors must be furious with Obama if they'll allow something like that to get published in the Old Grey Lady.

If the Former Junior Senator from Illinois has lost the New York Times, he's lost America.