Bill Clinton, Had He Done the Right Thing Back Then...

...how would history be different now?

What got me thinking about this question again and ole' Slick Willy was the way former Texas Ranger Ron Washington handled his infidelity the past couple of weeks.  And also how my Governor Mark Dayton reacted to the Adrian Peterson situation with these remarks:

"It is an awful situation. Yes, Mr. Peterson is entitled to due process and should be 'innocent until proven guilty.' However, he is a public figure, and his actions, as described, are a public embarrassment to the Vikings organization and the State of Minnesota,"

Back in 1998, I was adamant that the only proper thing for Bill Clinton to do in light of the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal was for him to resign his office in disgrace.  That was clearly the right thing for him to do.  Yet for reasons that may forever be beyond me Bill wouldn't do it and the Democrats wouldn't make him do it.  It's not like the Democrats wouldn't still hold the Presidency and I believe it's the only reason why GWB even had a shot at beating Al Gore in 2000.

Would 9/11 have happened? I think probably so and the War in Afghanistan would have gone pretty much as it has.

Would the Iraq War have happened?  I think the chances are better than 50/50 that it would have.  A little later than 2003 probably, but I believe Al Gore wanted Saddam gone.

Would Gore have gotten a 2nd term? I'm 98% positive he would have.

Would the financial collapse of 2008 happened?  Pretty much 100% sure nothing would have happened to stop that.  But I believe the nation would have been in better financial shape thanks to no Bush tax cuts for the top 2%.  Yes, I believe the Bush tax cuts were clearly a mistake.

Who wins the 2008 election?  In light of that, a Republican obviously.  I don't even know if we would know Barak Obama's name right now had Bill Clinton resigned.

Would we have gotten Osama at the exact same time we eventually did?  Pretty much.

Who wins in 2012? No idea, but what I'm sure of is we would be in a lot better shape in the "Long War" than we are now.

Why didn't that SOB Bill resign?

"If it's important enough to fight;..."

...It's important enough to win."
Rep. Jack Kingston

I am in total agreement with this statement.  I don't believe President Obama subscribes to it in wars our soldiers are fighting over sea's.  But I believe he subscribes to it 100% at it would pertain to winning against his political opponents here at home.

My Congressman Rick Nolan

In his most recent add Rick Nolan starts off by talking about how "so called nation building" is a waste of money.  I guess this is what polls well with all the folks up here in the sticks.  If he had his way we would pull our troops out of Afghanistan as we did in Iraq and were forced to do with all our people from Obama's War in Libya. Were you even aware that there are no American's left in Libya in any capacity.  Yep, not doing any nation building in Libya and giving up on it nearly cold turkey in Iraq has worked out swell.  In Afghanistan I'm sure things will turn out swell as well.  Just remember Syria had Chemical weapons, Pakistan has the ultimate Islamist prize, Nuclear Weapon's.  

He is also all for shrinking our military.  Yep sticking our head in the sand, while the world spins out of control is just the kind of leadership we need more of in Washington. smh

Afghanistan

I have been paying more attention to the war in Afghanistan lately. There has been some stupid hullabaloo made by some about how this is now "the longest war in American History." Sorry but how long has "The war on poverty" or "The war on drugs" been going on? On a more related note the Korean War was really never resolved and our troops still "occupy" Germany and Japan.

Seriously, not until 2006 did the Taliban really start making this thing into an actual war and even then what was going on was a pretty low intensity conflict. Not until the Obama escalation of 2009 did this turn into something beyond a minor conflict in my mind.

Just recently independent journalist Michael Yon wrote on Facebook:

"July 2010 likely will become the deadliest month in the entire war -- that means Iraq or Afghanistan."

Now I highly respect Michael Yon, but I'm not sure about this prediction. This just past June was the deadliest month for both NATO and the US in Afghanistan. The thing is the Taliban have a mixed record when it comes to consistently increasing casualties from month to month. The Iraq insurgency was much the same.

Michael has also recently written on Facebook:

We've been at war for over a hundred months in Afghanistan. This is the deadliest month so far. I would not be surprised to see 2011 casualties double those of 2010.

There is no room for political correctness or bullshit. This war is on a collision course for something far worse than we ever saw in Ira...q.

I think this bit of speculation is even more incredible unless he meant to say 2010 casualties will double those of 2009, which is an outcome that is likely to happen thanks to the Obama escalation.

The Taliban have taken severe poundings in the past and are I'm sure taking a severe pounding right now. How well and how long they can hold up to a severe pounding is an open question.

Some Wisdom from Michael Yon

"Some places like Afghanistan tend to blame history for their problems. And history certainly is part of the problem. But Poland could make the same excuse and does not. Poland is doing great. Germany and Japan were nearly destroyed during current memory of many living people, yet today those are great countries. Sometimes history is not the problem, but the society."

I think this is a brilliant observation that applies to a great many many countries. Haiti comes to mind.

Double Awesomes

False Memory Syndrome by The Dignified Rant. Just another example of Obama's selective history. Money Quote:
The consensus of the world? The "world" did indeed decide to confront Saddam over Kuwait, as expressed with a Security Council resolution approving war.

But somebody forgot to tell the president that his party shouted "stop the world, we want to get off!"

Follow the link for the real history.

No new troops: Germany admits, it wasn’t Bush, we just don’t do hard stuff by Free Frank Warner on Germany/Europes shameful wankerishness.

Money Quote:
"Help US"? This battle is to help Afghanistan

Two Important War Questions

How lethal can your enemy get?

How long can your enemy sustain it's highest levels of lethality?

I think these two questions are important to consider when thinking about the wars which we are waging. To be successful in waging a war you have to be able to take the best shot your enemy can give for as long as they can give it without a collapse of will on your sides part. When asking these these questions you are trying to figure out just how much sacrifice in "blood" a conflict will require. It is the most cold calculation of war and I think trying to answer it objectively is an important moral dimension if one is to support a war effort. Obviously during the various stages of the conflict seeking the answers is conjecture and only in retrospect can you know the awful truth.

In the Iraq War it now seems pretty clear that our enemies maximum level of lethality was to kill about 1000 US soldiers in a 12 month period and for 5 years they could sustain a level of lethality towards US soldiers that would take a toll of around 700 soldiers per year. In the 6th and 7th year of the Iraq conflict US soldier fatalities have plumeted and for our part it would appear that a military victory has been achieved at a very modest to low cost when the historty and scope of modern conflicts are considered. The damage done to Iraqi patriots and civilians has been much more considerable, but the blame for this lies squarely at the feet of insurgents who's strategy for victory was to cause as much murder and mayhem as they possibly could in order to sour US politicians in the hope that the politicians would call for retreat.

In regards to the War in Afghanistan it does not appear that we have yet seen how lethal the Taliban can be. Since 2005 the Taliban have progressively been showing more lethality each year with a significant jump in Coalition fatalities this year. With the additional escalation of Coalition forces planned for 2010 it would seem we will get a indication sooner rather than later about just how lethal the Taliban can be. Right now the conventional wisdom says that Coalition fatalities will continue to spike in 2010 with the "surge" and on the surface that makes sense as more boots on the ground means more targets of opportunity.

However, I have my doubts about just how strong the Taliban is and can be. The insurgents in Iraq proved they could bring a consistant level of resistance 24/7/365. The Taliban has no such capability with the Afghan terrain and weather being what they are. Also I think a big reason the Taliban has been able to show increasing lethality over the last few years is because the baselines have been kind of low to begin with each year until now.

I do think the Taliban may be able to maintain current to slightly higher levels of lethality for at least the next couple of years but I'm hoping that won't be enough to convince us to bug out.

Update: Now that the January 2010 Coalition fatality numbers are in. I have to admit I am on the surprised side on just how many casualties the Taliban were able to inflict this past month. However, I did hear a report that it has been a rather mild winter and that along with the increased troop pressence now in country explain the hike in fatalities in Jan..

Obama's Escalation Speech

It seems to me that he is not sending all the right messages with such a quick timetable for surge and withdrawal. On the one hand it does send the message to our Afghan allies that they must get their act together sooner rather than later, but What? about the messages this sends to the more neutral or negatively lined against us. I think it would have been much wiser to sketch a 5 to 6 year commitment verses one that for practical purposes lasts a year to a year in a half. If the Taliban are smart they will use the next year to do a lot of intimidation and not very much fighting.

Update: I've thought about it some more and think publicly announcing a date for deescalation is messed up, and just plain stupid. If you are going to put a timetable on this surge it would be far wiser to keep that information top secret and only share it with a small number of the most important Afghan officials. That way they get the message, but the Taliban and the neutrals don't. I think Obama took a huge and unnecessary risk by his public comments committing to a timetable for withdrawal.

Update: This is What? I regard as the best part of the speech:
Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions – from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank – that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades – a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for – and what we continue to fight for – is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.

This said I think there was too many gratuitous moments and I find Obama's self reverential personal regard obnoxious.

The speech could have been a whole lot better, I give it a C.

? Didn't write this but wish I did.

I don't agree with the idea of easing up in Afghanistan. This asymmetrical war is not about crushing the enemy and signing a peace treaty. It's about eroding the enemy's support among the populace and his will to fight.

These comments were made by Original MikeS at JustOneMinute Blog

It may seem counter intuitive to many that we should basically engage in a war of attrition with the Taliban; After all isn't that pretty much the Taliban strategy to beat us? War is expensive and blood is certainly not cheap but the same pretty much holds true for both sides relatively speaking (although to be honest blood is a lot cheaper to them than it is to us.) I may be wrong on this, but I do believe a big part of winning the the Iraq war was about attrition through a collapse of insurgent leadership and finance. Although it will be a bit more difficult I think the same basic path to victory can work in Afghanistan provided that this countries leadership commits itself to the task.

Unfortunately I am not sure Obama is up to this.

Here is a bit more from the same JustOneMinute blog comment section:

So - given the character of our leadership I would follow Tom Friedman, focus on transforming Iraq, and let Afghanistan slide.

TM

Your lack of confidence in Obama is totally justified but with the greatest respect what reason is there to think that al Qaeda and the Taliban will stop at Afghanistan with Pakistan and its nukes next door? John Bolton doesn't think they will settle for Afghanistan and I agree with him.

It sucks when your enemy is prepared to fight for a hundred years.

Afghanistan is going to be extremely difficult to pacify but IMHO the choice here is between bad and infinitely worse


I third the notion that the fight in Afghanistan isn't so much about Afghanistan as it is about Pakistan and their nukes at this point. Pressure on the Taliban in Afghanistan is pressure on the Taliban in Pakistan who are waging a war in that country as well. At this point I firmly believe that keeping the Taliban occupied in Afghanistan keeps the most dedicated anti-western Sunni Jihadists focused on defending that Muslim land instead of on doing terrorism in the West or going for WMD's in Pakistan. Thankfully I think a debilitating weakness in the Jihadist worldview is that defending Muslim territory from the infidel seems to take precedence over pretty much everything else. I feel like the Jihadists are suckers for our military hard target and they just screw themselves when they take out their frustrations of not being able to expel the infidel out on fellow Muslims.