Does President Obama play too much Golf?

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by slodsm

One more thing, I encourage you to look up the number of military killed in Afghanistan from 2001-2008 and then from 2009-present. You'll see the number has tripled in the last 4 years, the reason? Ridiculously restrictive ROE for our troops.

I have a Captain in the Army Reserve working for me right now.   He told me the exact same thing you just said.   The ROE are getting soldiers killed.    He told me about several instances that occurred while he was deployed which any reasonable person would have said, "Why didn't they shoot back?"  The answer was, the ROE dictated they could not.

[Mr. Desmond]

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamroper60 

I have a Captain in the Army Reserve working for me right now.   He told me the exact same thing you just said.   The ROE are getting soldiers killed.    He told me about several instances that occurred while he was deployed which any reasonable person would have said, "Why didn't they shoot back?"  The answer was, the ROE dictated they could not.    

Decide for yourself, but Obama's tendency is to allow the military to set its rules:

 

 

“The policies of this current administration and the rules of engagement are a huge factor with these casualty reports,” Hogan said in a statement. “The limited air and artillery support our men receive ... as well as the approval to return fire are hampering and adding to the danger they are in daily.”

The criticism echoes complaints from some Nebraska and Iowa troops as they return from the Afghan War. They say that they aren't allowed to fire at Afghans who they believe have just triggered roadside bombs. They say they often can't fight at night, or call in airstrikes, because of military leaders' fear of doing anything that angers the Afghan population.

But other troops and military experts argue that the rules of engagement, first tightened by Gen. Stanley McChrystal under President Barack Obama in 2010, are part of a large and comprehensive counter-insurgency strategy that has made the American effort both smarter and more effective.

Reducing civilian casualties is both the right thing to do and diplomatically crucial to keeping the Afghan populace with the coalition forces and against the Taliban, said a leading Afghan expert.

And, on the ground, Marines usually can act and react as they see fit, said a Nebraska Marine who deployed and fought in arguably the most dangerous spot in Afghanistan in 2011.

“The people fighting insurgents will always have to follow more rules than the insurgents do. That's sort of a fact of life,” said Joseph Trevithick, a defense analyst for GlobalSecurity.org, who has researched and written about military rules of engagement in Vietnam, Somalia and the post-Sept. 11 wars.

 

Hunter H.D. Hogan

 

“We knew what that person was doing ... burying an IED for sure,” said Wimer, who is now out of the Marines and enrolled in college. “But the command would say, ‘You can't be positive. They might be a farmer.' Ridiculous.”

Wimer, while frustrated by those incidents, says he also sees the other side of a strategy that repeatedly emphasizes making sure an insurgent is always actually an insurgent.

The underlying idea espoused by Marine leaders is this, he says: Kill one civilian in Sangin, and suddenly the Marines have 1,000 more enemies there.

Wimer said he couldn't speak about Hogan's specific situation in Afghanistan — Hogan deployed a year later to a different part of Helmand province — but said the rules of engagement in Sangin were often easy to interpret, because it was often easy to identify the many Taliban fighters in the area.

“The bottom line is, you gotta decide for yourself on the ground if something is going on,” Wimer said. “The No. 1 unofficial rule of engagement is, ‘Am I in danger? Are my fellow Marines in danger?'”

The bottom line for Tom Gouttierre, director of UNO's Center for Afghanistan Studies, is that the McChrystal-designed counterinsurgency strategy, which includes the stricter rules of engagement, is better than what came before.

Gouttierre, who has lived in or studied Afghanistan for 48 years, said Afghan regard for the United States, sky-high when the U.S. military swept out al-Qaida in 2002, is damaged every time Afghan civilians die during an airstrike or firefight.

McChrystal's strategy, later instituted by Gen. David Petraeus after McChrystal's ouster, paired the limiting of Afghan civilian casualties with an increased focus on Afghan history and culture. Deeply understanding Afghans — their individual motivations, and how and why they form alliances — helps American troops better navigate dangerous situations, he said.

 

http://www.omaha.com/article/20120707/NEWS/707079924

[x129]

If I had to guess, sending in almost 4x as many troops is the main reason that casualties went up.  Any time you increase the number of engagements you should expect casualties to rise.

The any reasonable person argument often breaks down when it turns out reasonable people don't agree on a lot of things once all the details are out.  For example how many civilians  are you willing to kill to save 1 american life? I might say 10 is ok and you might go 100 and a third person says we are both crazy and you can never kill noncombatants (and lets not debate what one of those is). Which one of us is reasonable? We started off with ROE that were probably too agressive and then shifted to too passive and are now back seeking a middle ground.  Which ones are "right" depends on what your goals are. Minimize US casualities short term? Minimize US casualities long term? Get us out with ASAP? Establish a stable government?  Those are all reasonable goes but each one will lead to different ROEs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamroper60

I have a Captain in the Army Reserve working for me right now.   He told me the exact same thing you just said.   The ROE are getting soldiers killed.    He told me about several instances that occurred while he was deployed which any reasonable person would have said, "Why didn't they shoot back?"  The answer was, the ROE dictated they could not.

[teamroper60]

According to the guy who works for me, insurgents fired mortars at them in their compound on a regular basis and yet under the ROE, they were not allowed to shoot back.  According to him, he lost several soldiers (killed and wounded) to those attacks.    You can argue about what set of rules are too aggressive and what set is too passive all you want but ANY set of rules that says you can't shoot at those who are shooting at you is wrong and the number of soldiers in theater or which set of goals you are trying to achieve is irrelevant at that point.   Here at home, we have the right to defend ourselves from attack.   Regardless of the goal, I cannot think of one single circumstance where our soldiers should not be afforded that same right.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

According to the guy who works for me, insurgents fired mortars at them in their compound on a regular basis and yet under the ROE, they were not allowed to shoot back.  According to him, he lost several soldiers (killed and wounded) to those attacks.    You can argue about what set of rules are too aggressive and what set is too passive all you want but ANY set of rules that says you can't shoot at those who are shooting at you is wrong and the number of soldiers in theater or which set of goals you are trying to achieve is irrelevant at that point.   Here at home, we have the right to defend ourselves from attack.   Regardless of the goal, I cannot think of one single circumstance where our soldiers should not be afforded that same right.

Well, I guess it's a good thing you're not in command of an active combat theater.  We like our commanders to think of all kinds of different circumstances, evaluate them, and make smart decisions.

One of the fundamental principles of COIN strategy is that if you kill 50 bad guys and 2 civilians, you've lost.  Every civilian casualty hurts the mission much worse than failing to kill the bad guy.  Jury is still out on whether our modern COIN strategy works, but it was invented by GEN Petraeus, brought to Afghanistan by McChrystal, and then solidified in Afghanistan by none other than Petraeus.  And GEN Allen is one of the smartest commanders we've had in the long war--possibly better even than Petraeus.

Another fundamental of COIN is to get the troops off of the big, protected bases and into small FOBs out in the terrain.  That's inherently more dangerous, but necessary to win the human terrain.

Finally, more than tripling the number of troops in theater makes for more fighting, and more targets for the bad guys.  That also tends to bring the casualty numbers up.  We lost a whole lot of boys in Iraq in 2007, but then things got better.  A lot better.  (If you want to judge by US casualty numbers alone, we're having the best year in Iraq since 2002.)

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

According to the guy who works for me, insurgents fired mortars at them in their compound on a regular basis and yet under the ROE, they were not allowed to shoot back.  According to him, he lost several soldiers (killed and wounded) to those attacks.    You can argue about what set of rules are too aggressive and what set is too passive all you want but ANY set of rules that says you can't shoot at those who are shooting at you is wrong and the number of soldiers in theater or which set of goals you are trying to achieve is irrelevant at that point.   Here at home, we have the right to defend ourselves from attack.   Regardless of the goal, I cannot think of one single circumstance where our soldiers should not be afforded that same right.

Yes, let's ignore the military professionals who are on the ground on a daily basis managing the Afghan war and advising the President ... yes, that's the answer.

[x129]

From this reasonable persons point of view, it is clear that the new ROE's reduced casualities by ~25%. You put in 4x as many soldiers but only 3x were killed instead of 4x. Seems like the ROE worked. See how easy it is to mess around with stats?

I am glad you would be ok with destroying a school and killing 300 kids to get 1 insurgent but a lot of people disagree with that approach.  Asymmetrical warfare sucks and the stronger powers have always complained about ROE since at least the American Revolution.

Originally Posted by teamroper60

According to the guy who works for me, insurgents fired mortars at them in their compound on a regular basis and yet under the ROE, they were not allowed to shoot back.  According to him, he lost several soldiers (killed and wounded) to those attacks.    You can argue about what set of rules are too aggressive and what set is too passive all you want but ANY set of rules that says you can't shoot at those who are shooting at you is wrong and the number of soldiers in theater or which set of goals you are trying to achieve is irrelevant at that point.   Here at home, we have the right to defend ourselves from attack.   Regardless of the goal, I cannot think of one single circumstance where our soldiers should not be afforded that same right.

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by x129

From this reasonable persons point of view, it is clear that the new ROE's reduced casualities by ~25%. You put in 4x as many soldiers but only 3x were killed instead of 4x. Seems like the ROE worked. See how easy it is to mess around with stats?

I am glad you would be ok with destroying a school and killing 300 kids to get 1 insurgent but a lot of people disagree with that approach.  Asymmetrical warfare sucks and the stronger powers have always complained about ROE since at least the American Revolution.

Reduced caualties?   Tell that to the families of the soldiers dying over there.   My guy's command was decimated by the inability to respond to an enemy they could clearly see but could not engage.

Look, I am not in favor of blowing up kids, leveling mosques, etc..   Nor am I advocating a "total war" doctrine.  But when you can see the enemy, see them shooting at you, see your fellow soldiers getting wounded and killed all around you and are not permitted to shoot back, I think it is time to re-evaluate that aspect of your plan.

With regard to the American Revolution, obviously a different time and different technology in play but standing around, conducting a war by "gentleman's rules" didn't really work so well for the British, now did it?

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

Just who is putting the spin on now?

You start off by saying "When you decide to compare unemployment rates among President's and don't consider the economic realities when they entered office then you are making a fair comparison."      This is exactly what I did.   In addition to Obama, I listed Bush, Clinton and, even though I did not list them by name, I also listed numbers for FDR and Reagan (the three other times the unemployment rate has been at or above 9.6%).  All without discussing economics.

I posted straightforward, factual numbers in response to incorrect data.  You chose to put a spin on them.   Tell me again who is being disingenuous?

I mistyped. It should have been an unfair comparison.

[x129]

Yep reduced causality rate.  You can decide if relative or absolute numbers matter more to you. You can also decide if escalating the war was worth it. Personally I think any time you have been fighting for 10+ years, you are doing something wrong.

Why couldn't they engage? What part of the ROE prevented them? If I had to guess it is the one that stated that you don't engage when it will result in civilian deaths. As I said you can decide where on the fence you sit with regard to that. And as I said, it leads to sucky no win situations.  Other than avoiding these wars, there isn't much you can do about it.

Being relatively nice didn't work for the british but alternatives don't work a lot better. Vietnam wasn't a smashing success.  On the other hand being brutual worked pretty well for the Romans. I am guessing though that not many of  us have the heart to  kill every male over 12 in a village that attacks us though.

Quote:

Reduced caualties?   Tell that to the families of the soldiers dying over there.   My guy's command was decimated by the inability to respond to an enemy they could clearly see but could not engage.

Look, I am not in favor of blowing up kids, leveling mosques, etc..   Nor am I advocating a "total war" doctrine.  But when you can see the enemy, see them shooting at you, see your fellow soldiers getting wounded and killed all around you and are not permitted to shoot back, I think it is time to re-evaluate that aspect of your plan.

With regard to the American Revolution, obviously a different time and different technology in play but standing around, conducting a war by "gentleman's rules" didn't really work so well for the British, now did it?

[phan52]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Really? They couldn't stop him from pushing Obamacare through, despite its unpopularity.

I'd like some explanation about its "unpopularity", outside of the repeated nonsense from the right-wing echo chamber.

My son and daughter can stay on my plan until they get a stable job that helps pay for their healthcare. I have a pre-existing condition that would otherwise pose a problem without Obamacare. But yeah, let's repeal it and let the insurance companies decide. Good luck with that.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

According to the guy who works for me, insurgents fired mortars at them in their compound on a regular basis and yet under the ROE, they were not allowed to shoot back.  According to him, he lost several soldiers (killed and wounded) to those attacks.    You can argue about what set of rules are too aggressive and what set is too passive all you want but ANY set of rules that says you can't shoot at those who are shooting at you is wrong and the number of soldiers in theater or which set of goals you are trying to achieve is irrelevant at that point.   Here at home, we have the right to defend ourselves from attack.   Regardless of the goal, I cannot think of one single circumstance where our soldiers should not be afforded that same right.

You act like this stuff happens in a vacuum. ROE are put in place because of ongoing events on the ground. But go ahead, let your imagination run wild and just assume that Obama is micromanaging ROE as well.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by MSchott

I mistyped. It should have been an unfair comparison.

I think you were correct. His statements were misleading.

Facts must be placed in context of surrounding events. He did not do so.

Hey, it's a right wing specialty. After being given "pants on fire" ratings, fact checked as a lie, and being called out last night on his "apology tour" comments, Romney released a commercial today touting Obama's so-called apology tour in 2008. No such apology took place. But that doesn't stop the disgraceful lying from continuing. Hey, anything to win Romney. Shape shifting himself on issues, the message comes out that he can't be trusted. But no matter, this is a anti-Obama election, not a pro-Romney election for the right. They've even gone so far as to spin the "we're leading and going to win, we've got the momentum, we're winners!" while polls show a dead even popular vote with the President leading in the Electoral College.

And last night, Mitt says America's prestige is declining just as a poll was released yesterday showing that in all categories, people in other countries think more highly of us than they did in 2008.

So Mitt is wrong ... again.

Is there no penalty in this country for being wrong?

When Mitt opens his mouth, he typically says something that is factually incorrect. (And dont' get me wrong, Obama slants it his way, it's just that Mitt hits it out of the ballpark wrong). Mitt has been wrong on foreign policy, wrong on Egypt, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

He moved to the President's views.

Still, the spin cycle continues.

Mitt is a BOSS, an unprincipled boss that has a "bully" in him, but has empathy for people he knows, and not for people he doesn't know. He is intellectually curious, and is coldly efficient. He bumbles .... a lot. He does not appear to be his own man. He lacks knowledge ... lots of it - last night showed it.

While I do not like Obama's style of leadership and his lack of embrace for business or reforming government - we are getting out of two wars and he will be rational about defense spending. Now we need him to embrace government and entitlement reform.

I just can't take an unprincipled bumbler. Mitt may be more, but he has not shown it.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

One more thing, I encourage you to remember that Bush gave up the war in Afghanistan after the CIA led Afghani coalition toppled the Taliban. Bush had better things to do, like fire the entire 500,000 man Iraqi Army who were armed, allowing them to engage in a 5 year insurgency where we experienced the needless loss of lives of Americans and Iraqis, and thousands more wounded. Think of the deficit the war in Iraq created - at least $1T in direct costs, and future dollar and emotional costs of all our wounded -  for what? Iraq? C'mon.

And tonight - look at Romney, he changed all of his positions to agree with the President. I guess Obama is doing a great job on foreign policy.

I thought Romney was interviewing to become Obama's Secretary of State.

[sacm3bill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Really? They couldn't stop him from pushing Obamacare through, despite its unpopularity.

I'd like some explanation about its "unpopularity", outside of the repeated nonsense from the right-wing echo chamber.

I'm sure anything I say that contradicts your chosen world-view will be categorized as "right wing echo chamber", but the fact is polls have always shown the majority of Americans opposing it.

Quote:

My son and daughter can stay on my plan until they get a stable job that helps pay for their healthcare. I have a pre-existing condition that would otherwise pose a problem without Obamacare. But yeah, let's repeal it and let the insurance companies decide. Good luck with that.

That's what I love about the left vs right debates in this country - everything can be boiled down so simply, can't it?

Based on every study I've seen, health care in the U.S. (before Obamacare, at least) is far better in almost every respect than health care in countries with nationalized programs. I'm talking cancer survival rates, access to preventive screening, overall health of low-income persons, wait times in the ER, or to see a specialist - you name it, it's better here. The problem has never been the quality of care as much as the cost of that quality. And the cost of that quality can only go up once its managed by an entity as inefficient and wasteful as our government has proven to be in every other enterprise it's been involved with. The effects of Obamacare are just now kicking in - my doctor told me recently that patients are now more often being denied treatment based on new, stricter Medicare admittance criteria. Good luck with *that*.

The solution is not a government health care system, it's reform of the insurance company system.  Did you know that most medical tests, treatments and supplies have a much higher cost if they are billed to the insurance company than if the same tests, treatments and supplies are billed directly to the patient? That's one of the many ridiculous aspects of our current system, which Obamacare does nothing to reform as far as I can tell from reading the bill.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

I'm sure anything I say that contradicts your chosen world-view will be categorized as "right wing echo chamber", but the fact is polls have always shown the majority of Americans opposing it.

That's what I love about the left vs right debates in this country - everything can be boiled down so simply, can't it?

Based on every study I've seen, health care in the U.S. (before Obamacare, at least) is far better in almost every respect than health care in countries with nationalized programs. I'm talking cancer survival rates, access to preventive screening, overall health of low-income persons, wait times in the ER, or to see a specialist - you name it, it's better here. The problem has never been the quality of care as much as the cost of that quality. And the cost of that quality can only go up once its managed by an entity as inefficient and wasteful as our government has proven to be in every other enterprise it's been involved with. The effects of Obamacare are just now kicking in - my doctor told me recently that patients are now more often being denied treatment based on new, stricter Medicare admittance criteria. Good luck with *that*.

The solution is not a government health care system, it's reform of the insurance company system.  Did you know that most medical tests, treatments and supplies have a much higher cost if they are billed to the insurance company than if the same tests, treatments and supplies are billed directly to the patient? That's one of the many ridiculous aspects of our current system, which Obamacare does nothing to reform as far as I can tell from reading the bill.

And there is the biggest canard of all. The idea that Obamacare is a "government healthcare system". That's the "echo chamber" at work right there. Or as Jon Stewart accurately calls it, "Bulls**t Mountain". Repeat it and repeat it again until it becomes fact.

You may not live on Bulls**t Mountain but, when it rains, you may get caught in the mudslide.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

I'm sure anything I say that contradicts your chosen world-view will be categorized as "right wing echo chamber", but the fact is polls have always shown the majority of Americans opposing it.

That's what I love about the left vs right debates in this country - everything can be boiled down so simply, can't it?

Based on every study I've seen, health care in the U.S. (before Obamacare, at least) is far better in almost every respect than health care in countries with nationalized programs. I'm talking cancer survival rates, access to preventive screening, overall health of low-income persons, wait times in the ER, or to see a specialist - you name it, it's better here. The problem has never been the quality of care as much as the cost of that quality. And the cost of that quality can only go up once its managed by an entity as inefficient and wasteful as our government has proven to be in every other enterprise it's been involved with. The effects of Obamacare are just now kicking in - my doctor told me recently that patients are now more often being denied treatment based on new, stricter Medicare admittance criteria. Good luck with *that*.

The solution is not a government health care system, it's reform of the insurance company system.  Did you know that most medical tests, treatments and supplies have a much higher cost if they are billed to the insurance company than if the same tests, treatments and supplies are billed directly to the patient? That's one of the many ridiculous aspects of our current system, which Obamacare does nothing to reform as far as I can tell from reading the bill.

See, another individual who doesn't know the facts!

And the polls? Seriously?

Here is one and it's recent:

Bloomberg National Poll conducted by Selzer & Company. Sept. 21-24, 2012. N=1,007 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.1.
"Turning to the health care law passed in 2010, what is your opinion of the law? It should be repealed. It may need small modifications, but we should see how it works. It should be left alone."
		Should be repealed	See how it works	Should be left alone	Unsure
		%	%	%	%
	9/21-24/12	34	40	19	7

59-34 - see how it works or leave it alone.

Other polls show the votes evenly distributed over the years.

ObamaCare is NOT a government health care system. It is in fact, a private system backed by the GOP until Obama endorsed it. It is a  private system overseen by the government requiring people to have health insurance in return for the insurance companies accepting people with pre-existing conditions. If you have insurance, nothing changes.

If you can't obtain insurance, you have private insurance companies competing for your business in Health Care Exchanges that each State establishes. If you can afford insurance and don't obtain it, you will be taxed. The idea is to get the free loaders into the system who can afford insurance but don't get it - and then go to a hospital when they need it and get it for free. Until ObamaCare, we had a more socialized system - if you wanted something free and could wait - you could get it at a hospital, get billed for services, and not pay. ObamaCare does away with that to a great extent (I assume).

So Obama gets labeled as a socialist even when he tries to sets up a private system that takes the social out of the medicine. The guy can't win - because people like you get bad information and won't search for a kernel of truth.

Does ObamaCare need changing? You bet! We need ways to cut costs. But it is a start to get people medical care that we should have within a private system.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

See, another individual who doesn't know the facts!

And the polls? Seriously?

Here is one and it's recent:

Bloomberg National Poll conducted by Selzer & Company. Sept. 21-24, 2012. N=1,007 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.1.

"Turning to the health care law passed in 2010, what is your opinion of the law? It should be repealed. It may need small modifications, but we should see how it works. It should be left alone."

Should be

repealed

See how

it works

Should be

left alone

Unsure

%

%

%

%

9/21-24/12

34

40

19

7

59-34 - see how it works or leave it alone.

Other polls show the votes evenly distributed over the years.

ObamaCare is NOT a government health care system. It is in fact, a private system backed by the GOP until Obama endorsed it. It is a  private system overseen by the government requiring people to have health insurance in return for the insurance companies accepting people with pre-existing conditions. If you have insurance, nothing changes.

If you can't obtain insurance, you have private insurance companies competing for your business in Health Care Exchanges that each State establishes. If you can afford insurance and don't obtain it, you will be taxed. The idea is to get the free loaders into the system who can afford insurance but don't get it - and then go to a hospital when they need it and get it for free. Until ObamaCare, we had a more socialized system - if you wanted something free and could wait - you could get it at a hospital, get billed for services, and not pay. ObamaCare does away with that to a great extent (I assume).

So Obama gets labeled as a socialist even when he tries to sets up a private system that takes the social out of the medicine. The guy can't win - because people like you get bad information and won't search for a kernel of truth.

Does ObamaCare need changing? You bet! We need ways to cut costs. But it is a start to get people medical care that we should have within a private system.

Everytime I hear about Obamacare being a socialist giveaway I am stunned by the irony. It relies on market systems every bit as much as healthcare ever has in this country. Obama haters sell it like the world of healthcare didn't start until January of 2009, but our healthcare costs have been going up exponentially for years. Healthcare is not a commodity but market systems treat it as such. We need a one-payer system in this country to cut out the profit motive related to healthcare because the high cost of premiums for both employers and employees has stagnated earnings for working people for the last 30 years. The only people who should be making money on healthcare are doctors, hospitals and entrepreneurs who develop cures and treatment.

Of course, Romney's recently stated solution for the 50 million or so Americans without healthcare is to go to the emergency room, the least efficient and most expensive option available. At least Obamacare is trying to address the two biggest issues, making people pay who can afford it and covering working people who can't.