Ya know, while we're on the subject..........Isn't this admin doing basically the same ****ed up thing as the Johnson admin?
Aren't they tellin' the military which targets, who or what to shoot, tying the hands behind the back of our soldiers and dictating to airmen who or what they can target, in order to appease the left wing lunatics?
The admin is so afraid of pissin' off the left, they are willing to sacrifice our warriors in order to not piss off the anti-war left!
Johnson and McNamara did the same damn thing! They made Hanoi off limits to bombing raids even though they had anti aircraft missiles lining the streets!
The situations are similar, but unlike each other in a number of ways.....
First, LBJ was a sublimely STUPID man, he was simply not capable of involving himself in military strategy, McNamara was an academic and a theoretician, also not equipped for the job, as he later admitted. Johnson would have done well to let his military leaders lead, and leave them alone......but his ego, and lack of native intelligence would not allow that.
Second, the war was a "conventional" one, to an extent, and although the enemy tactics were different, they were well within the purview and capability of the American military at the time......as demonstrated by the fact that we never actually "lost" a major campaign there, nor did we lose the war......we simply gave up, and left it to collapse. This is the eventual result that I fear the most about the campaign in Afghanistan.
For all of his foibles, Obama is not stupid......he has intelligence, however, his every move is motivated by "politics", and not the art of war. He is much more concerned with how HE will look politically, than how his ultimate actions effect the eventual outcome of the war. This war is an "unconventional" conflict, where there are NO national players, and it is simply an unending series of small-unit insurgencies, with combatants that hide among, and are supported by members of the native population.
War is all about "killing people, and breaking things", and short of the niceties of the Geneva Convention, the manner in which wars need to be conducted, is largely without restraint. In Obama's world, war can only be fought if nobody inadvertently gets hurt, and no actions are taken that result in uncomfortable political ramifications for HIM, and his party. To that degree, the two are similar, but there is where the similarity ends.
Not even the best military leaders can win a war with their hands tied behind their backs,, and I fear that this is Obama's style.......he views his image as far more important than getting the job done......
doc
