The Afghan Papers

User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4052
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: The Afghan Papers

Post by Kriegsspiel » Wed Sep 15, 2021 3:40 pm

Kbg wrote:
Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:52 am
Most GOs I know are good folks and try to do the right thing.
Did you know General Milley, by any chance?
There is always the cry "they should have resigned" if they didn't agree with something. I pose the metaphorical, why, if it wasn't illegal, unethical or immoral? . . . The US military is bought and paid for to execute political policy, full stop no exceptions (illegal, immoral, unethical excepted).

We as US citizens have the right to vote for someone else in the next election.
At first glance, it looks like he hits all 3 points.
You there, Ephialtes. May you live forever.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: The Afghan Papers

Post by Kbg » Wed Sep 15, 2021 6:28 pm

I don't.

Lay out the case for one of the three.

And a slight hint, stupid isn't the same as the three items mentioned.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: The Afghan Papers

Post by Kbg » Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:32 pm

With a little research, I was able to find out why Milley called his Chinese counterpart...Milley made the right call in my view. On the nuclear stuff, a bit different than the norm for sure but totally within his purview as the CJCS.

This summary article I think is neutral, accurate and it gets into the nuance of what and when something is/is not appropriate for the two items that are the latest news outrage. https://www.politifact.com/article/2021 ... ch-meetin/

Many on the board aren't good with nuance, complexity and neutrality...reading the above may be hard. You may want to stay away lest your brain explode.

Gray is hard, it really is. It's OK if you can't deal with it, not many people can these days. You are NOT alone.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The Afghan Papers

Post by vnatale » Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:47 pm

Kbg wrote:
Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:32 pm

With a little research, I was able to find out why Milley called his Chinese counterpart...Milley made the right call in my view. On the nuclear stuff, a bit different than the norm for sure but totally within his purview as the CJCS.

This summary article I think is neutral, accurate and it gets into the nuance of what and when something is/is not appropriate for the two items that are the latest news outrage. https://www.politifact.com/article/2021 ... ch-meetin/

Many on the board aren't good with nuance, complexity and neutrality...reading the above may be hard. You may want to stay away lest your brain explode.

Gray is hard, it really is. It's OK if you can't deal with it, not many people can these days. You are NOT alone.


I had on Fox News yesterday because it does offer a form of entertainment. They were calling for his head. They never deal with any nuance.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The Afghan Papers

Post by vnatale » Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:05 pm

Kbg wrote:
Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:32 pm

With a little research, I was able to find out why Milley called his Chinese counterpart...Milley made the right call in my view. On the nuclear stuff, a bit different than the norm for sure but totally within his purview as the CJCS.

This summary article I think is neutral, accurate and it gets into the nuance of what and when something is/is not appropriate for the two items that are the latest news outrage. https://www.politifact.com/article/2021 ... ch-meetin/

Many on the board aren't good with nuance, complexity and neutrality...reading the above may be hard. You may want to stay away lest your brain explode.

Gray is hard, it really is. It's OK if you can't deal with it, not many people can these days. You are NOT alone.


Just read it.

I was expecting a far longer article. It was actually a fairly short one.

It also seemed fairly straightforward in explaining the issues involved.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: The Afghan Papers

Post by glennds » Fri Sep 17, 2021 11:28 am

Kbg wrote:
Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:32 pm

This summary article I think is neutral, accurate and it gets into the nuance of what and when something is/is not appropriate for the two items that are the latest news outrage. https://www.politifact.com/article/2021 ... ch-meetin/

Many on the board aren't good with nuance, complexity and neutrality...reading the above may be hard. You may want to stay away lest your brain explode.

Gray is hard, it really is. It's OK if you can't deal with it, not many people can these days. You are NOT alone.
That was an interesting article, thank you for posting the link. Doing my very best to comprehend the nuance, it seems to me that Milley was (and is) in a difficult position.
His role is about as senior as it gets, so some demand for judgment goes along with the territory. It is not his prerogative to simply not think and follow orders.
But the article was useful to me because it dissects the nuclear protocols that exist and how they evolved to be what they are. There seems to be a complicated interplay between what's legal, what's convention, and what's smart. Further complicated is that the protocols provide protection against a rogue military, but apparently weren't built for proportional protection in the other direction, i.e. a rogue president.

On the subject of the China communication, the article was silent on whether the communication was originally initiated by Secretary of Defense Esper.
I'm still researching the events, but according to Axios, the backchannel communication was initiated by Esper based on intel that the Chinese could act on bad information and mis-perception. Their story suggests Esper was worried about the escalation of a conflict based on misunderstanding.
https://www.axios.com/mark-milley-woodw ... 6ef7f.html

With regard to Milley, does it change the analysis (at least of the Oct 30 call) if he was acting in accordance with the Secretary of Defense?

This all reminds me of the movie Crimson Tide but on a bigger scale.

P.S. another way I like to look at things like this is motive. If Milley was really going rogue in his communications, what would be his motive? Why is doing so a win for him? Does he stand to gain personally in some way?
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: The Afghan Papers

Post by Kbg » Fri Sep 17, 2021 10:56 pm

glennds wrote:
Fri Sep 17, 2021 11:28 am
With regard to Milley, does it change the analysis (at least of the Oct 30 call) if he was acting in accordance with the Secretary of Defense?

P.S. another way I like to look at things like this is motive. If Milley was really going rogue in his communications, what would be his motive? Why is doing so a win for him? Does he stand to gain personally in some way?
This is pure Trump bull hockey.

On the first, if he did, then the "outrage" is completely fabricated for political and to sell news purposes. However, Miller the SecDef at the time, said he didn't authorize the call. Remember though, Trump fired his predecessor Esper six days after he lost the election and replaced him with Miller. Esper was fired because he pushed back on sending troops into the streets to counter BLM protests. Miller was a Trump hack job whose sole purpose in life was to try and stack all the Defense Boards with Trump loyalists and work on other assorted end runs.

Gosh, now those last questions are some really interesting questions. Wonder why no one is asking them?

Bottom line: He's still the Chairman and has Biden's backing, and that's all he needs.

If you think the above is outrageous, read up on Grant and Andrew Johnson. History finds Grant getting better with time and confederate generals getting worse. In my view, Grant was absolutely right in his decision to oppose Johnson every way he could legally. Both men knew Grant was bullet proof and Johnson was a temp which made for an interesting dynamic. It's a great story but too detailed to get into it here.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: The Afghan Papers

Post by glennds » Sat Sep 18, 2021 8:53 am

Kbg wrote:
Fri Sep 17, 2021 10:56 pm


If you think the above is outrageous, read up on Grant and Andrew Johnson. History finds Grant getting better with time and confederate generals getting worse. In my view, Grant was absolutely right in his decision to oppose Johnson every way he could legally. Both men knew Grant was bullet proof and Johnson was a temp which made for an interesting dynamic. It's a great story but too detailed to get into it here.
It is also worth remembering that it is impossible for us to evaluate the Johnson/Grant dynamic in any way other than with 20/20 hindsight privilege and full knowledge of how history has ultimately judged both men. In 1869 at the time the tension was going on, people had no choice but to choose their sides based on only what they knew or thought they knew.

Similarly it will be more than interesting to see how history looks back on Trump and the people who supported or opposed him (for this conversation Milley, Esper, but in the broader context many others). Right now our view of these events is clouded and biased in countless ways. One day, all those influences will be gone, and the story will be distilled by scholars and historians, whichever way it goes.
Last edited by glennds on Sat Sep 18, 2021 10:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4052
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: The Afghan Papers

Post by Kriegsspiel » Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:36 pm

Kbg wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 6:28 pm
I don't.

Lay out the case for one of the three.

And a slight hint, stupid isn't the same as the three items mentioned.
It looks like I jumped the gun on all three. I would still argue that it's immoral to tell an adversary that you'll warn them of an attack, and then tell a reporter that you did it. And to do it behind the president's back? It erodes the trust of your subordinates.
You there, Ephialtes. May you live forever.
User avatar
Mark Leavy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:20 pm
Location: US Citizen, Permanent Traveler

Re: The Afghan Papers

Post by Mark Leavy » Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:38 pm

Honestly, until you have fired an RPG from a rubber ducky, you really haven't lived.

Bamyan Province.

Floaties.jpeg
Floaties.jpeg (218.31 KiB) Viewed 4665 times
Yellow Floatie.jpeg
Yellow Floatie.jpeg (74.46 KiB) Viewed 4665 times
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: The Afghan Papers

Post by Kbg » Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:51 am

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:36 pm
Kbg wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 6:28 pm
I don't.

Lay out the case for one of the three.

And a slight hint, stupid isn't the same as the three items mentioned.
It looks like I jumped the gun on all three. I would still argue that it's immoral to tell an adversary that you'll warn them of an attack, and then tell a reporter that you did it. And to do it behind the president's back? It erodes the trust of your subordinates.
Do you think either side really meant or received the message "I'll call you before we attack you literally?" C'mon, apply some common sense here.

And the bigger question...who in the United States actually thinks it's a good idea to start a war with China offensively? That's some kinda stupid.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: The Afghan Papers

Post by glennds » Mon Sep 20, 2021 10:15 am

Kbg wrote:
Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:51 am
Kriegsspiel wrote:
Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:36 pm
Kbg wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 6:28 pm
I don't.

Lay out the case for one of the three.

And a slight hint, stupid isn't the same as the three items mentioned.
It looks like I jumped the gun on all three. I would still argue that it's immoral to tell an adversary that you'll warn them of an attack, and then tell a reporter that you did it. And to do it behind the president's back? It erodes the trust of your subordinates.
Do you think either side really meant or received the message "I'll call you before we attack you literally?" C'mon, apply some common sense here.

And the bigger question...who in the United States actually thinks it's a good idea to start a war with China offensively? That's some kinda stupid.
A certain kind of warped mind might see a political advantage or a profit motive in it.
But for the mentally healthy, yes, that would be some kinda stupid.
pp4me
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1190
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:12 pm

Re: The Afghan Papers

Post by pp4me » Mon Sep 20, 2021 4:34 pm

Does Woodward's book say anything about how the Chinese responded to Milley's call?

If they took it serious and raised the DEFCON level, or whatever the Chinese equivalent is, then that doesn't sound like a trivial thing to me.

I think Woodward is somewhat of a fabulist, as is the rest of the press, so I suspect he might be exaggerating the whole thing. If Milley really did warn his Chinese counterpart that the POTUS was unstable and might attack that sounds like a pretty bad thing to me.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: The Afghan Papers

Post by glennds » Mon Sep 20, 2021 6:42 pm

pp4me wrote:
Mon Sep 20, 2021 4:34 pm
Does Woodward's book say anything about how the Chinese responded to Milley's call?

If they took it serious and raised the DEFCON level, or whatever the Chinese equivalent is, then that doesn't sound like a trivial thing to me.

I think Woodward is somewhat of a fabulist, as is the rest of the press, so I suspect he might be exaggerating the whole thing. If Milley really did warn his Chinese counterpart that the POTUS was unstable and might attack that sounds like a pretty bad thing to me.
The book isn't available to the public yet, it is scheduled for release tomorrow. At some point, maybe Milley will be interviewed over the affair. I could see someone like 60 Minutes landing his interview.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The Afghan Papers

Post by vnatale » Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:29 pm

Kbg wrote:
Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:52 am

7

Most GOs I know are good folks and try to do the right thing. One notable exception is if they were promoted multiple years early and are in over their heads. I don't think people realize at the very senior levels where civilians are the ones giving the orders the same dynamic exists as between a Sergeant and a Private. "Thank you for your input, shut up and color. Am I clear?" Said more eloquently of course but the bottom line is the same. There is always the cry "they should have resigned" if they didn't agree with something. I pose the metaphorical, why, if it wasn't illegal, unethical or immoral? Biden was/is clearly within his prerogative/constitutional power as the President to wrap up any conflict he feels like. The US military is bought and paid for to execute political policy, full stop no exceptions (illegal, immoral, unethical excepted).

We as US citizens have the right to vote for someone else in the next election.


Is the "illegal, unethical, immoral" something that is drilled into all military personnel? I remembered you using that phrase here when I just read Milley being quoted using the same phrase twice in Woodard's newest book.

Vinny

Unexpectedly, Milley’s executive officer came into the office and passed him a handwritten note: “Speaker Pelosi would like to speak to you ASAP. Topic: Succession. Twenty-fifth amendment.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, was second in line to succeed the president after the vice president and received detailed briefings on the command and control of U.S. nuclear weapons. The 34-year House veteran was steeped in all national security, military and intelligence matters.

Milley picked up the Pelosi call on his personal cell phone, an unclassified line, and put it on speakerphone so one of his advisers could also listen.

What follows is a transcript of the call obtained by the authors.

“What precautions are available,” Pelosi asked, “to prevent an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or from accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike?

“This situation of this unhinged president could not be more dangerous. We must do everything that we can to protect the American people from his unbalanced assault on our country and our democracy.”

Pelosi said she was calling Milley as the senior military officer because Christopher Miller, recently installed by Trump as acting secretary of defense, had not been confirmed by the Senate.

“I can tell you that we have a lot of checks in the system,” Milley said. “And I can guarantee you, you can take it to the bank, that there’ll be, that the nuclear triggers are secure and we’re not going to do—we’re not going to allow anything crazy, illegal, immoral or unethical to happen.”

“And how are you going to do that? Going to take the football away from him or whatever it is?” she asked.

She well knew that the football is the briefcase carried by a senior military aide to the president containing the sealed authentication launch codes for using nuclear weapons and a so-called black book that lists attack and target options.

“Well,” Milley said, “we have procedures. There are launch codes and procedures that are required to do that. And I can assure you, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I can assure you that will not happen.”

“So if you had some concern that it could, what would be the step you would take?”

“If I thought even for a nanosecond that—I have no direct authority,” he said, “but I have a lot of ability to prevent bad things from happening in my own little…”

Pelosi interrupted, “The American people need some reassurance on this, General. What are you prepared to say publicly about this?”

“I don’t, candidly, Madam Speaker. Publicly, I don’t think I should say anything right now. I think that anything that I would say as an individual, I think would be misconstrued in ten different ways.”

“Well, let’s just talk about it objectively and not about any particular president,” Pelosi said. “With all the power that is invested into the president to have that power—to use the word twice—what are the precautions here?”

“The precautions are procedures that we have in place,” he said, “which require authentication, certification, and any instructions have to come from a competent authority and they have to be legal. And there has to be a logical rationale for any kind of use of nuclear weapon. Not just nuclear weapons, use of force.

“So I can assure you that we have rock solid systems in place. That there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell this president, or any president can launch nuclear weapons illegally, immorally, unethically without proper certification from…”

“And you said not only nuclear, but also use of force?” she asked.

“Absolutely,” Milley said. “A lot of people are concerned about, and rightly so, concerned about a potential incident in say Iran. I’m watching that as close as a hawk. Every single hour watching things overseas. The same thing domestically, with things like martial law stuff, the Insurrection Act.

“This is one of those moments, Madam Speaker, where you’re going to have to trust me on this. I guarantee it. I’m giving you my word. I can’t say any of this publicly because I really don’t have the authorities and it would be misconstrued in 50 different directions, but I can assure you that the United States military is steady as a rock and we’re not going to do anything illegal, immoral or unethical with the use of force. We will not do it.”

Pelosi interjected. “But he just did something illegal, immoral and unethical and nobody stopped him. Nobody. Nobody at the White House. This escalated in the way it did because of the intent of the president. The president incited it and nobody in the White House did anything about it. Nobody in the White House did anything to stop him.”

“I’m not going to disagree with you,” Milley replied.

“So you’re saying you’re going to make sure it doesn’t happen?” the speaker asked. “It already did happen. An assault on our democracy happened and nobody said, you can’t do that. Nobody.”

“Well, Madam Speaker, the launching of nuclear weapons and the incitement of a riot…”

“I know they’re different. Thank you very much. What I’m saying to you is that if they couldn’t even stop him from an assault on the Capitol, who even knows what else he may do? And is there anybody in charge at the White House who was doing anything but kissing his fat butt all over this?”

She continued, “Is there any reason to think that somebody, some voice of reason, could have weighed in with him? So for this, we are very, very affected by this. This is not an accident. This is not something that you go, well, now that’s done, let’s go from there. Let’s move on. It ain’t that. This is deep what he did. He traumatized the staff. He assaulted the Capitol and the rest of that. And he’s not going to get away with it. He’s not going to be empowered to do more.”

Pelosi brought up President Richard Nixon, who had been forced to resign in 1974 because of the Watergate scandal.

“Nixon did far less and the Republicans said to him, ‘You have to go.’ Not even in the same league of things. ‘You have to go.’ The Republicans are all enablers of this behavior and I just wonder does anybody have any sanity at the White House? Say don’t go there.

“They put up this fraudulent—this uh—‘he says he doesn’t have anything to do with it’ video yesterday because they know they’re in trouble. This is bad, but who knows what he might do. He’s crazy. You know he’s crazy. He’s been crazy for a long time. So don’t say you don’t know what his state of mind is. He’s crazy and what he did yesterday is further evidence of his craziness. But anyway, I appreciate what you said.”

“Madam Speaker,” Milley said. “I agree with you on everything.”

“What can I tell my colleagues who are demanding answers about what is happening to deter him from engaging in launching any kind of initiation of hostilities in any way, in any way, and including taking his hand off that power?

“And the only way to do that is to get rid of him because there’s nobody around with any courage to stop him from storming the Capitol and inflaming, inciting an insurrection. And there he is, the president of the United States in there. And you’ve answered my question. Thank you, General. Thank you.”

Pelosi paused and asked, “Is that fool at the Department of Defense, the acting Secretary, does he have any power in this regard? Is it worth any second even to call him?”

“I agree 100 percent with everything you’ve said,” Milley replied. “The one thing I can guarantee is that as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I want you to know that—I want you to know this in your heart of hearts, I can guarantee you 110 percent that the military, use of military power, whether it’s nuclear or a strike in a foreign country of any kind, we’re not going to do anything illegal or crazy. We’re not going to do…”

“Well,” Pelosi asked, “what do you mean, illegal or crazy? Illegal by whose judgments of illegal? He already did and nobody did anything about it.”

“So I’m talking about the use of the U.S. military,” Milley said. “I’m talking about us striking out, lashing out militarily. U.S. military power domestically and/or internationally.”

“I’m not going to say that I’m assured by that,” she said, “but I’m going to say that I asked you about it—just so you know. Because…”

“I can give you my word,” Milley said. “The best I can do is give you my word and I’m going to prevent anything like that in the United States military.”

“Well,” she said, “I hope you can prevail in the insane snake pit of the Oval Office and the crazy family as well. You’d think there’d been an intervention by now. The Republicans have blood on their hands and everybody who enables him to do what he does has blood on their hands and the traumatic effect for our country.

“And our young people who are idealistic and who work here, I will tell you the people on both sides of the aisle have been traumatized to the nth degree because this man is a nut and everybody knows it and nobody will act upon it. So we’ll just keep pushing for the 25th Amendment and for some Republican leadership to replace the president.

“But it is a sad state of affairs for our country that we’ve been taken over by a dictator who used force against another branch of government. And he’s still sitting there. He should have been arrested. He should have been arrested on the spot. He had a coup d’état against us so he can stay in office. There should be some way to remove him. But anyway, it’s no use wasting your time on this. I appreciate that. Thank you, General. Thank you.”

“Madam Speaker, you have to take my word for it. I know the system and we’re okay. The president alone can order the use of nuclear weapons. But he doesn’t make the decision alone. One person can order it, several people have to launch it.

“Thank you, Madam Speaker.”
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: The Afghan Papers

Post by Kbg » Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:19 pm

If that's accurate, it's an amazing conversation...and should give none of us much to be happy about. It's sad reflection on the state of American politics.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: The Afghan Papers

Post by Kbg » Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:04 am

Peggy Noonan has an opinion piece on in the WSJ. Milley doesn’t fare well for a reason I hadn’t really thought about…image polishing with Woodward.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The Afghan Papers

Post by vnatale » Fri Sep 24, 2021 1:30 pm

Kbg wrote:
Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:04 am

Peggy Noonan has an opinion piece on in the WSJ. Milley doesn’t fare well for a reason I hadn’t really thought about…image polishing with Woodward.


What I quoted from the book was 2% into the book. I am now 60% through the book.

I detected a pro-Biden bias in it. Fair towards Trump.

But I'd never be swayed by anything Peggy Noonan writes. She is an extreme partisan, only budging from that position when Trump came on the scene.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: The Afghan Papers

Post by Xan » Fri Sep 24, 2021 1:42 pm

https://www.wsj.com/articles/general-ma ... 1632430817
I’ve read the books on the 2020 election and the end of the Trump administration, and Gen. Milley appears to have provided major information in almost all of them. With the caliber of reporters he was dealing with, this would have taken major time—gathering and providing information data, documents and readouts of conversations to substantiate and corroborate his account; interviews, follow-ups, transcripts. The portraits of such a cooperative source would inevitably be driven in a positive direction.

In “I Alone Can Fix It,” by the Washington Post’s Carol D. Leonnig and Philip Rucker, Gen. Milley is decrying systemic racism one day, telling aides that listening to Mr. Trump is like reading Orwell’s “1984” on another. In “Frankly, We Did Win This Election” by the Journal’s Michael C. Bender, Gen. Milley is a street-wise Ivy Leaguer well versed in the Constitution. He instructs Mr. Trump on the nature of the George Floyd protests. “That guy had an insurrection,” he says, pointing to a picture of Lincoln. “What we have, Mr. President, is a protest.” In “Peril,” Gen. Milley constantly saves the republic. He is “burly and ramrod straight,” his shoulders broad, his persona outgoing. Yet there’s a cerebral edge. “One large bookcase in his hallway at Quarters 6 held hundreds of thick books just on China.”

All of it comes across as believable, factually accurate. But one detects a highly enthusiastic primary source.

This is what I thought as I read: Gen. Milley seems to have spent large parts of the past year building the reputation of Mark Milley.
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4052
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: The Afghan Papers

Post by Kriegsspiel » Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:08 pm

Looks like the gang rapes have already started.
"We can confirm a female service member supporting Operation Allies Welcome reported being assaulted on Sept. 19 by a small group of male evacuees at the Doña Ana Complex in New Mexico," the 1st Armored Division and Fort Bliss Public Affairs said in an emailed statement. "We take the allegation seriously and appropriately referred the matter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The safety and well-being of our service members, as well as all of those on our installations, is paramount."
Blatantly false. If the safety and well-being of Americans were paramount, no Afghans would have been brought here.
The alleged attack comes on the heels of two Afghan refugees housed at Wisconsin’s Fort McCoy being indicted for federal crimes including sexual assault on a minor and domestic assault.
link
You there, Ephialtes. May you live forever.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: The Afghan Papers

Post by Kbg » Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:55 am

In hearings today...under oath

SecDef: Afghan army collapse "took us all by surprise"

Centcom & Afghanistan US Commanders told Biden to keep ~2500 troops there

Sounds right to me
pp4me
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1190
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:12 pm

Re: The Afghan Papers

Post by pp4me » Wed Sep 29, 2021 12:18 pm

Interesting idea by Nick Turse, author of the book "Kill anything that moves" about Vietnam.

How about a monument on the Washington D.C. mall in honor of civilians killed in wars?

https://tomdispatch.com/the-names-youll-never-know/
Names Remembered and Names Forgotten

Over the last 20 years, the United States has conducted more than 93,300 air strikes — in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen — that killed between 22,679 and 48,308 civilians, according to figures recently released by Airwars, a U.K.-based airstrike monitoring group. The total number of civilians who have died from direct violence in America’s wars since 9/11 tops out at 364,000 to 387,000, according to Brown University’s Costs of War Project.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The Afghan Papers

Post by vnatale » Fri Jul 07, 2023 8:40 am

Listening to this now.

Outstanding!

https://www.c-span.org/video/?529096-5/ ... rawal&live

JULY 7, 2023 | PART OF WASHINGTON JOURNAL 07/07/2023
Washington Journal
Jonathan Landay on State Department Report on Afghanistan Withdrawal
Jonathan Landay talked about a State Department review of the Biden administration’s 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan, as well as the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: The Afghan Papers

Post by Mountaineer » Fri Jul 07, 2023 2:51 pm

vnatale wrote:
Fri Jul 07, 2023 8:40 am
Listening to this now.

Outstanding!

https://www.c-span.org/video/?529096-5/ ... rawal&live

JULY 7, 2023 | PART OF WASHINGTON JOURNAL 07/07/2023
Washington Journal
Jonathan Landay on State Department Report on Afghanistan Withdrawal
Jonathan Landay talked about a State Department review of the Biden administration’s 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan, as well as the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Didn’t listen. What was his conclusion?
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The Afghan Papers

Post by vnatale » Fri Jul 07, 2023 3:17 pm

Mountaineer wrote:
Fri Jul 07, 2023 2:51 pm

vnatale wrote:
Fri Jul 07, 2023 8:40 am

Listening to this now.

Outstanding!

https://www.c-span.org/video/?529096-5/ ... rawal&live

JULY 7, 2023 | PART OF WASHINGTON JOURNAL 07/07/2023
Washington Journal
Jonathan Landay on State Department Report on Afghanistan Withdrawal
Jonathan Landay talked about a State Department review of the Biden administration’s 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan, as well as the Russia-Ukraine conflict.


Didn’t listen. What was his conclusion?


The only time I give my full attention to something on TV is either when I am watching a movie or a TV series. Otherwise everything else is listened to while doing something else ... in the case above while exercising and doing things at these keyboards during exercise rest breaks.

But I did hear enough snippets to judge that he was putting out a lot of solid, substantive information.

The main I gathered was that the report makes clear that both the Trump and Biden administrations were responsible for the results of the withdrawal from Afghanistan.

If you want any more details than that and did not want to listen at the above URL there is a full transcript there for you to scan.

But if this is a topic of significant interest to anyone .... this Washington Journal goes a long way to providing useful information to you.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Post Reply