Skip to main content

Time for Admiral Mullen to go...

Last week the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff discovered that our air raids were killing large numbers of civilians in Afghanistan to the point where those deaths could compromise our ability to win the war, but he couldn't think of anything better to do...

This week, the venerable Admiral has twigged onto the fact that our operations in Afghanistan are de-stabilizing Pakistan, and once again--predictably--he can't think of anything better to do:

Speaking before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen insisted that the United States has “a clear national security interest” in taking on the Taliban in Afghanistan and that the 21,000 additional troops coming in the surge is “about right.” At the same time, Adm. Mullen cautioned that the attempt to reverse the Taliban’s gains in Afghanistan could have dire consequences for neighboring Pakistan.

“We can’t deny that our success in that regard may only push them deeper into Pakistan,” Mullen conceded, adding that “we may end up further destabilizing Pakistan without providing substantial lasting improvements in Afghanistan.”
The Admiral’s only answer to this seemingly enormous problem was to call for more military and economic aid to Pakistan.


In other words: we're not wining the war, our tactics are alienating the people supposed to be on our side, and our strategy may drive a nuclear armed nation over the brink into become a failed, radical Islamist state....

But Admiral Mullen's only response is to keep doing what we've been doing.

Now would be a very good time for some change I could believe in, at the top of the Joint Chiefs.

Comments

Anonymous said…
More and more soliders are speaking out about what they really did in Iraq and Afganistan as a result of these sadistic generals. One soldier claims he was told to "break down the doors, smash windows, destroy the kitchen, plumbng and the house.

The reason Obama now refuses to show the photos is because they have pictures of young children being sodomized in front of their parents. Those photos must come out is there is ever going to be an end to torture. Obama is continuing torture, as Jeremy Scahill reports. The Thug Squad at Gitmo are still torturing, and the CIA is still torturing in black sites around the world. Stop believing the Obama hype, its all bullshit. Obama is surrounded by generals who were a major reason why the torturing started in the first place. And the democrats, screw them too. They knew. Biden, Pelosi, Reed, Rockefeller, Clinton et al. They knew and they sat quiet for political reasons. Drag them all before a Nuremberg styled court.
Townie 76 said…
Anonymous you are full of crap. Clearly you do not know anything about the American military other than the bull pushed around on the anti-war blogs. I have spent 33 years in the military, I am proud card carrying liberal and democrat, and in my time in Iraq and Afghanistan I never once hear any Senior Officer order his men to do anything that was illegal or immoral. Our General's are some of the smartest people and have a genuine concern about the safety and well being of their soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen. Unless you can name names and cite specific incidents then all you are doing is spreading malicious crap. If you can cite specific individuals and incidents I will assist you in getting it the right people so they can be investigated. Clearly you are not aware that the military has dealt harshly with those who have been charged with misconduct--I know of several Senior Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers whose promising careers have ended because of what they did in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

I can tell you that most of the General's have been the ones who have most objected to the harsh interrogation techniques used by the CIA. General's understand that torturing the enemy in the ends gains you nothing in the end.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...