OT: Frontline / "A Counter-insurgency War?"


FRONTLINE/World
http://www.pbs.org/frontline /
Look for "A Counter-insurgency War?"
This Week: Special Preview of 'Obama's War'
-----------------------
I'm writing to let you know about the film that FRONTLINE is finalizing for our season premiere. It's called "Obama's War" and will air October 13th. But because of its extraordinary power and timeliness, we have decided to pre-release the first 24 minutes of it today on our web site.
The film is the latest from veteran producers Martin Smith and Marcela Gaviria (Return of the Taliban, The War Briefing)--an intense, on-the- ground view of the U.S. counter-insurgency struggle in Afghanistan, the future of which is the subject of increasingly heated debate among the President's "war council" this week.
The film begins with the harrowing account of a company of Marines under fire for several days this summer in Helmand province--a sequence that ends with the wounding of a young Marine who dies as the members of his company rally around to save his life. It is extremely sensitive material, but critical to grounding the complicated policy debate in the tough realities of a fight that's puzzling the most senior members of the military and government.
This may be one of the strongest pieces of war reportage FRONTLINE has produced in more than twenty-five years on the air. It's equally strong on analysis of the administration's evolving counterinsurgency strategy, as Smith interviews many senior members of the Obama team, including General Stanley McChrystal, whose leaked request for more troops in Afghanistan is at the center of the current questions in Washington.
We hope you'll watch these first 24 minutes of "Obama's War" online and let us know what you think.
Ken Dornstein Senior Editor
--------------------------
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 16:33:30 -0700 (PDT), informer

We refer all the counter stuff to Robotoy.
The hamster and duct tape stuff goes to Jackstein.
Regards,
Tom Watson http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Watson wrote:

And I defer to you for the counter-insouciancy ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 02:29:06 -0500, Tim Daneliuk

You have won a copy of Ms. Palin's new tome:
Going Rouge.
Regards,
Tom Watson http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
informer wrote:

Shit!
We've had Obama's Stimulus Plan, Obama's Health Care Plan, Obama's Energy Plan, Obama's group of community organizers, Obama's first picks for Secretary of HHS and Treasury, Obama's Clunkers, and Obama's push for the Olympics.
As long as it was Bush's war, success still was possible.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:
SNIP

Please define "success", and please clarify to which of "Bush's war" you are referring since he started two, one "pre-emptive" (Iraq) and one not.
charlile b
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"charlieb"
>> As long as it was Bush's war, success still was possible.

Seccess is when you have your aircraft carrier get as close to American as it safely can; them have it wait while somebody dress you up in a piolet's uniform and flies you to it. You strut around like a fat duck and have a big sign say, "Mission Accoplished." Then go back to the safety of your office and send the carrier off and start another war you can't finish.
Jerry 'n Vegas
- Don't hit me, Mr. Moderator... I'll go back on topic... I swear!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

Really? How many more years do you figure it would have taken him to get Bin Laden if not for the Presidential term limit? That was the reason for going into Afghanistan, wasn't it, to get Bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Pity they let him escape from Tora Bora like that, oh well. Or maybe that was all part of the plan, or something.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DGDevin wrote:

Nope. From October 1, 2001 onward, capturing or killing OBL was never the policy of the United States. The avowed policy of the U.S. was to prevent another attack on the U.S. or U.S. interests abroad. To achieve this goal, several strategies were employed to disrupt the terrorist training, communication, financing, weapons acquisition, recruitment, and movement. And kill as many as possible in the effort.
Invading Afghanistan was part of the plan to remove training grounds and state-sponsorship. Capturing or killing OBL was NEVER given as a reason for the invasion.
In the decade before 9-11, there was, on average, one or more attacks on U.S. interests: The first WTC bombing, the USS Cole, bombs at U.S. embassies, kidnapping of U.S. diplomats, and so on. In the eight years since 9-11 - and the implementation of the aforementioned strategies - not a single civilian target of the U.S. has been messed with.
Don't get me wrong, if during the tactics to achieve these strategies, OBL had been killed or captured, that would have been a plus, but it was never a goal.
The Democrats have, since day one, have complained that the administration never killed or captured OBL. I think many liberals are forever trapped in a "law enforcement" mindset: take the perp into custody, have a trial, exhaust the appeals, and commute the death sentence. Then, for the next thirty years, until OBL dies of (presumably) old age, anguish over repeated demands that he be released or the current crop of hostages will be killed.
Liberals are good at anguishing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote: More of his right wing nut job bullshit.
Why don't you save it for one of the fifteen political newsgroups that you mouth off on.
Regards,
Tom Watson http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Obama is a war president.
--
~ Seth Jackson

MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

And just yesterday in Denmark, we got, "No We Can't!"

I'm not sure I know what "success" means any more. I used to think it meant neutering AQ - which has happened to a significant degree. That mission WAS largely accomplished but needs to be renewed periodically.
Then some State Department wonk convinced W that it also entailed nation building - hard to do in a place that's essentially not had any rule of law except at the point of a gun.
Now Dear Leader seems to be leaning toward a definition of "success" that translates to mostly walking away (shocking, I know), or at the very least, simply maintaining the status quo. Those of us who witnessed the LBJ insanity during Vietnam can attest that such a policy does not end well. Half a fight is worse than a real fight.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
and which "Bush's war" that you meant in your statement "As long as it was Bush's war, success still was possible."
And please quantify what would be required to make it "possible" - especially given the current economic conditions and the international relationships that need some mending as a result of the previous administrations policies during their 8 years in power.
"Possible" is a wide open term. Theoretically, ANYTHING is POSSIBLE. Perhaps providing some quantitative, objective probabilities for what I believe is the method of achieving the success you believe was possible. Please be as specific as possible and include time lines, cost in dollars and in lives - ours and "theirs" - and troop levels and deployment. Might want to start with a clear statement of the objectives and then perhaps the strategies for attaining them. Oh - and if you have any historical examples of the successful use of these strategies that would be nice to include.
We live in a world more like chess than checkers. Most of the rest of the world understands that, but some of us are certain that all we need is a checkers master as president - despite the fact that we just tried that - and we've already lost two rooks and a bishop, along with most of our pawns. There ain't no King ME! in the game in which we are involved - heavily involved.
Think four or five steps ahead and remember - the goal is to win - in the long run. And winning doesn't mean I WON - and - YOU LOST! - the keystone of thinking in terms of a Zero Sum Game.
The other thing is to remember that revenge can take a while to attain. It took Mossad a LONG time to find and kill the 1972 Munich Olympics Terrorists. Didn't stop terrorism - but they did kill them all - that were still alive to kill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wrath_of_God
Wonder where we'd be today if Reagan hadn't Cut and Run in Beirut after the bombing of the marine barracks back in 1983
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RE: Subject
Why waste time?
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.