Now let me see if I understand. We can manipulate and twist, control and legislate but when we hit turbulence we take our hands off the controls and switch off the auto pilot.
I get it.
________________
Central banks release more funds
The extra funds are aimed at easing banking sector woes
BBC
Global central banks are pumping $180bn (£99bn) of extra funds into money markets in a co-ordinated move to lift the amount of credit available.
The $180bn has been released by the US Federal Reserve to five other main central banks, who in turn are issuing the funds in their own countries.
The Bank of England is making $40bn available, while the European Central Bank is to provide $55bn.
Central banks in Switzerland, Canada and Japan are also taking part.
The Swiss National Bank is releasing up to $15bn extra, while the Bank of Japan is offering $60bn, and the Bank of Canada $10bn.
'Appropriate steps'
"These measures, together with other actions taken in the last few days by individual central banks, are designed to improve the liquidity conditions in global financial markets," said the Bank of England.
"The central banks continue to work together closely and will take appropriate steps to address the ongoing pressures."
"It does help to release some of those immediate tensions that have been building up in the money market"
Ian Stannard, currency strategist, BNP Paribas
The co-ordinated move comes after four days of almost unprecedented turmoil in the global financial industry.
Firstly, US giant Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy protection, while compatriot Merrill Lynch lost its independence in a rescue takeover by Bank of America.
The US government has also had to bail-out insurance giant AIG, while in the UK, thousands of jobs are predicted to go at banking group HBOS following its sale to rival Lloyds TSB.
Major problem
Analysts said the latest move by the central banks should help to ease immediate fears.
"Obviously it does not tackle the underlying root causes of the problem, but it does help to release some of those immediate tensions that have been building up in the money market," said Ian Stannard, senior currency strategist at BNP Paribas.
Koichi Haji, chief economist at NLI Research in Tokyo, said the co-ordinated move "shows how serious the problem has become".
"I think the root cause was letting Lehman fail," he said.
"That made investors reluctant to supply funds to their counterparts, particularly to the smaller banks."
The central banks of South Korea, India, and Australia have also released extra funds independently on Thursday.
Here's the Deal. No ones loaning a dime to anyone until we figure out who's got the Old Maid.
ReplyDeleteWhatever we've got to do to find out, we've gotta do it. But, until we do, nothing gets done.
Got it?
:)
Poor Maverick, guess he did not see the importance of Jeb workng at Lehman Bros. He seems to have thought that the non-bailout of Lehman was a GOP strategic policy, not a Bush family tactic.
ReplyDeleteSo...
He was against the AIG bailout,
before he was for it.
What flip flopper he has become.
I just watched the dumbest man on MSNBC, Joe Scarborough, interview Larry Kudlow. Scarborough, who loves to interrupt and glow to his own inanities, is a broadcaster with no eyes no lips and impaired gray matter but amazing talents to over achieve and was once a Republican congressman from Florida.
ReplyDeleteKudlow stated that the obvious source of the financial meltdown was the meddling and legislation from congress that forced banks to make loans that went beyond risk, into areas that everyone knew, except the liberals, that were guaranteed to fail.
Scarborough exceeded even my expectations in his new life quest to out-Matthews, Chris Matthews.
Kudlow stood his ground as Scarborough, as is his wont, gave up yardage with every verbal play.
Wish you all would listen to Phil Gramm, stop your whinin'.
ReplyDeleteSame Phil Gramm that gave US
the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
which j willie submited was the key cause of the current challenge
Take your losses and smile, then vote for the man that voted for the "Plan" that allowed crisis to build,
the Maverick - John McCain.
Only in this case he was no Maverick,
he voted the Republican Party Line.
The fundementals of the economy are strong
No worries, mates!
Oh wait, Maverick has flipped on that tune, already.
It's the workers are making that fundementally flopping sound, seems they may need some retraining.
A little reeducation.
Maybe he[ll set up a Camp for it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKudlow is an inane selfserving cover-up artist.
ReplyDeleteThe Federals, bless their hearts, did not "Force" the banks to repackage loans they were "pushed" into making as AAA risk
Especially if they, as Kudlow says, KNEW they were not AAA.
That's private fraud, not Federal mismanagement.
For that fraud, the Freddie and Fannie folk, amongst others, were well rewarded.
As went patrolling the southern frontier, so went Federal policing of Wall Street.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to have been very little policing.
Martha Stewart, that is Team43's claim to fame, in that regard.
You reckon Obama and everyone he will bring to the picnic is the better of the two?
ReplyDeleteIf he could bring Rubin back, sure.
ReplyDeleteCain't be no worse, Deuce.
ReplyDeleteWorldwide run on the bank/dollar taking place. It's all a little "fuzzy" right now. Investors have bid the thirty day to, if I heard this correctly, essentially, zero interest.
The GOP has streeeched the military, left US almost a trillion bucks in the hole because of Iraq and setup the Regulartory enviorment that allowed this economic travesty to happen.
ReplyDeleteMcCain and the Meltdown
McCain's former economic adviser is ex-Texas Sen. Phil Gramm. On Dec. 15, 2000, hours before Congress was to leave for Christmas recess, Gramm had a 262-page amendment slipped into the appropriations bill. It forbade federal agencies to regulate the financial derivatives that greased the skids for passing along risky mortgage-backed securities to investors
...
Last February, Fortune Magazine called Gramm "McCain's Econ Brain." Gramm lost the official title of economic adviser for making an impolitic remark about this being "a nation of whiners." But Gramm's belief in letting speculators do as they please was never an issue. And even after he left the campaign, Gramm had been mentioned as a possible treasury secretary in a McCain administration.
Another Gramm contribution was the "Enron loophole," which prevented federal oversight of Enron's electronic energy trading. Such favors proved very expensive to consumers but profitable to the Gramms. Enron CEO Ken Lay chaired Gramm's 1992 re-election campaign, and wife Wendy Gramm spent years on the Enron board, earning as much as $1.8 million, according to Public Citizen, a consumer advocate.
That GOP posse, it's riding in the wrong directioon.
Rev Wright did not cost me $100 grand
ReplyDeleteThe Fed's shipping money out the door by the Train-load.
ReplyDeleteThe Stock Market Futures are looking to open "UP." They're over my pay grade, here.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid know what to do when the going gets tough--get the hell out of town--
ReplyDeleteDemocratic Congress May Adjourn, Leave Crisis to Fed, Treasury
By Kristin Jensen
Sept. 18 (Bloomberg) -- The Democratic-controlled Congress, acknowledging that it isn't equipped to lead the way to a solution for the financial crisis and can't agree on a path to follow, is likely to just get out of the way.
Lawmakers say they are unlikely to take action before, or to delay, their planned adjournments -- Sept. 26 for the House of Representatives, a week later for the Senate. While they haven't ruled out returning after the Nov. 4 elections, they would rather wait until next year unless Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, who are leading efforts to contain the crisis, call for help.
One reason, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday, is that ``no one knows what to do'' at the moment.
Yessiree we need Obama, and 35 year veteran Biden, to fix this mess.
ReplyDeleteObama, Ayers, Wright etc.
Anybody who thinks Obama, Pelois, Reid and Company would be better at fixing this is out of their mind.
Democratic Congress probably is wise to just get out of town. Just make things worse.
I think it's time to buy some Washington Mutual.
ZOne reason, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday, is that ``no one knows what to do'' at the moment.
ReplyDeleteHarry wants to get back to Vegas. Lead the way out of town.
Way to go, Harry, least you've said something honest.
And if Harry doesn't know what to do, you know Grandmother Pelosi doesn't.
ReplyDeleteHaving put up a phony drilling bill, it's time to get the hell out of town. Done all they can this session.
hehehe, Frddie and Fannie Don't Mind The Democrats
ReplyDeleteKudlow stated that the obvious source of the financial meltdown was the meddling and legislation from congress that forced banks to make loans that went beyond risk, into areas that everyone knew, except the liberals, that were guaranteed to fail.
ReplyDelete==
Is this true?
Were the banks really forced into this? Was there no recourse? If so, why aren't the banks suing the Federal government?
Fannie and the Black Congressional Caucus--Who Are Leaving Town Along With Pelosi and Reid
ReplyDeleteWhere's Jesse Jackson? Operation Extort?
ReplyDeleteNot To Be Outdone, Hillary Runs Away From Sarah
ReplyDeleteHeads for the doors, along with Pelosi and Reid.
Charlie Rangel Will Be Glad To Get Out Of Town For Awhile
ReplyDeleteIf I performed my job as they do, I would be fired. what a bunch of ass-holes.
ReplyDeleteLeast George is staying in town, not going back to Texas--
ReplyDeleteBy BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer
3 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President Bush says he shares the American people's concern about the situation in U.S. financial markets and the economy.
Bush says the markets are adjusting to "extraordinary measures" the government has taken to stabilize the economy.
The president delivered a statement to the America people from just outside the Oval Office. He said that he and his advisers are working to promote stability in the markets. But Bush did not announce any new policy moves.
The president scrapped an out-of-town trip to monitor the situation and will meet later Thursday with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson
no Mat, it isn't true. It's a canard that this mess stemmed from the government forcing banks to lend to the risky.
ReplyDeleteIn short: the origin of the subprime mess came from the decoupling of the lender from the lendee - folks went out and sold people on mortgages, collected their fee, and passed the mortgage on to another entity/entities. There was no incentive to make sure the mortgage would be paid back (and no one worried because house prices always go up, right?). The mortgages got sliced and diced and repackaged and sold as securities with everyone making money along the way.
Guess what, once you own a security, its an asset and you can use that asset as collateral for a loan - leverage. Bear Stearns was leveraged 30-1. Tons of money mavens were trading tons of stuff using leverage (why earn 3% on 5 bucks when you can earn 3% on 150 and pay back a small portion of that in interest?).
Once things start heading south though it all falls apart. The leverage juice works the opposite way. In general we are witnessing a whole load of folk 'de=leveraging' - selling whatever they can to make good on the debt they owe.
an older broker joke:
ReplyDelete"Who's this margin that keeps calling?"
BTW, at 30-1 leverage you can get 'underwater' awfully quickly - but hey, once the bonus is paid, who gives a sh*t?
ReplyDeleteDid you see David Wurmser in the JPost, ash?
ReplyDeleteno trish. What are you referring to? I did a search using his name at JPost but didn't see anything that seemed applicable.
ReplyDeletean older broker joke:
ReplyDelete"Who's this margin that keeps calling?"
:)
The boys over at Coast to Coast, well, some of 'em, think this is all planned--you know, the nefarious shadow gov'mint, and world wide illuminati, bringin' it on, bringing in the new 'one world governement'.
no Mat, it isn't true. It's a canard that this mess stemmed from the government forcing banks to lend to the risky.
ReplyDeleteThe standards were pushed south. Making loans only the gift fairy would approve.
'Hey, Frank, don't answer if incoming is 1-800-MARGIN-CALL'
Sept. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Morgan Stanley, the second-biggest independent U.S. securities firm, may sell a larger stake to China Investment Corp. and is in talks about a possible merger with Wachovia Corp., a person familiar with the matter said.
ReplyDeleteChina's state-controlled fund may buy as much as 49 percent of the New York-based investment bank, said the person, who declined to be identified because the talks aren't public and may end in no agreement. Morgan Stanley resumed its decline on the New York Stock Exchange, falling as much as 22 percent.
It's nuts. We'd be selling our stuff to the Chinese Army.
It's no longer the world I grew up in.
Rat, how does Costa Rica in the winter, Alaska in the summer sound?
I got a loan once from an old banker in Troy, Idaho for a semester of college. Didn't even have to sign anything. Wasn't much, few hundred dollars.
ReplyDeletePaid it back.
Better Place and Hawaii to partner on electric car project
ReplyDeleteAccording to an announcement by Hawaii's Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism (DBEDT), the state will partner with Better Place to evaluate "the integration of electric vehicle storage into the electrical grid to maximize renewable energy use."
bobal wrote:
ReplyDelete"The boys over at Coast to Coast, well, some of 'em, think this is all planned--you know, the nefarious shadow gov'mint, and world wide illuminati, bringin' it on, bringing in the new 'one world governement'."
The fact that there are so many Goldman Alumni in places of power throws gas on that fire. I wonder if Paulson will install only Goldman people at AIG, Fannie and Freddie ect.?
Wisconsinners undecided--
ReplyDeleteObama 48%, McCain 46% as Race Tightens in Wisconsin
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Email a Friend Email to a Friend
The presidential race continues to tighten in Wisconsin, where Barack Obama now leads John McCain by just two percentage points, 48% to 46%, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of voters in the state.
Last month, it was a four-point race. A month earlier, in the first poll in the state since Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama had an 11-point lead over McCain 50% to 39%.
Indicative of the new closeness of the race here are the nearly identical favorables and unfavorables for the two presidential candidates—58% favorable for McCain, 55% for Obama.
-----
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Thursday, September 18, 2008
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Barack Obama gaining ground on John McCain for the third time in four days. The race for the White House is now tied with both candidates attracting 48% of the vote. Just a few days ago, McCain enjoyed a three-percentage point lead (see trends). Results are released every day at 9:30 a.m. Eastern and a FREE daily e-mail update is available.
The closeness of the race is confirmed by new state polling from Wisconsin and Oregon. While the ugliness of campaigns is always annoying to voters, just 23% believe that Election 2008 is more negative than most.
As the financial sector meltdown continues, consumer confidence has plummeted, falling 8% overnight. Forty-seven percent (47%) of voters now rate the economy as the top issue of Election 2008. That’s up from 41% this past Saturday morning. The number saying the country is heading in the right direction fell from 23% on Saturday to 18% now.
The financial crunch provides both opportunity and risk for the candidates. Voters are closely following the story but only one-in-four believe that either Obama or McCain is Very Likely to bring about the changes that are needed on Wall Street. Adding to the complexity for politicians everywhere is the fact that 49% worry that the federal government will do too much while just 36% are more worried that it won’t do enough.
As for the political implications, polling conducted last night shows that 47% trust McCain more than Obama on economic issues while 45% trust Obama.
Don't know, Ash.
ReplyDeleteTruth is, I have an, er, less than perfect grasp of what is going on.
Ex-Cheney aide: Bush won't hit Iran
ReplyDeleteSep. 17, 2008
HERB KEINON Jerusalem Post correspondent , THE JERUSALEM POST
US President George W. Bush will not attack Iran to halt its nuclear weapons program before his term ends in January, David Wurmser, a key national security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney up until last year, has told The Jerusalem Post.
"No, Bush won't go," Wurmser said when asked whether he thought the US president would want to take military action before he left office.
Wurmser's comments came after a day-long roundtable this week in Brussels on nuclear nonproliferation sponsored by the European Jewish Congress.
"Two things have to be in place for there to be an attack," Wurmser said. "That time has run out, and that diplomacy has run out. The feeling to a large extent now is that diplomacy is working, that there is a trend in the regime toward moderation, that pressure is building on the regime."
[...]
Saw that article Trish.
ReplyDeleteThe Russians are selling the Iranians missiles to defend the sites, news says today.
Sanctions are a farce. So says
Ahmadinajad.
thanks trish. It makes sense. Lets hope Bush also acts rationally. Then there is the Israelis...
ReplyDeleteAll it all it seems to be a pretty tumultuous time to be going and starting another war - or another front in the war if you prefer that way of speaking.
Folks, after the last few days, you'll be forgiven if you come up for a gasp of fresh air with--
ReplyDeleteThu 09.18 >>
Inter-Tribal Medicine Man Red Elk discusses such topics as Native American prophecy, lizard people and Inner Earth.
C2C tonite
(no relation to Black Elk)
Headin' to the fair to get that Palin/McCain bumper sticker....
Porter (he of antiwar.com) engages in some egregious editorializing here - and there's enough that goes mercifully unmentioned - but I can vouch for the general progression of events and the long uphill climb to this point.
ReplyDeleteIt's important because it accurately demonstrates that among the contending parties, there is no advocacy for what we might call the Hitchens Plan. Is this likely to change under the new administration? I can think of one scenario in which that would happen: Another major attack in the US. When would that happen? Whenever AQ felt it could safely sacrifice Pakistan.
September 18, 2008
Vested Interests Drove New Pakistan Policy
by Gareth Porter
The George W. Bush administration's decision to launch commando raids and step up missiles strikes against Taliban and al-Qaeda figures in the tribal areas of Pakistan followed what appears to have been the most contentious policy process over the use of force in Bush's eight-year presidency.
That decision has stirred such strong opposition from the Pakistani military and government that it is now being revisited. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, arrived in Pakistan Tuesday for the second time in three weeks, and US officials and sources just told Reuters that any future raids would be approved on a mission-by-mission basis by a top US administration official.
The policy was the result of strong pressure from the US command in Afghanistan and lobbying by the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the CIA's operations directorate (DO), both of which had direct institutional interests in operations that coincided with their mandate.
State Department and some Pentagon officials had managed to delay the proposed military escalation in Pakistan for a year by arguing that it would be based on nearly nonexistent intelligence and would only increase support for the Islamic extremists in that country.
But officials of SOCOM and the CIA prevailed in the end, apparently because Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney believed they could not afford to be seen as doing nothing about bin Laden and al-Qaeda in the administration's final months.
SOCOM had a strong institutional interest in a major new operation in Pakistan.
The Army's Delta Force and Navy SEALS had been allowed by the Pakistani military to accompany its forces on raids in the tribal area in 2002 and 2003 but not to operate on their own. And even that extremely limited role was ended by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in 2003, which frustrated SOCOM officials.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, whose antagonism toward the CIA was legendary, had wanted SOCOM to take over the hunt for bin Laden. And in 2006, SOCOM's Joint Special Operations Command branch in Afghanistan pressed Rumsfeld to approve a commando operation in Pakistan aimed at capturing a high-ranking al-Qaeda operative.
SOCOM had the support of the US command in Afghanistan, which was arguing that the war in Afghanistan could not be won as long as the Taliban had a safe haven in Pakistan from which to launch attacks. The top US commander, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, worked with SOCOM and DO officers in Afghanistan to assemble the evidence of Pakistan's cooperation with the Taliban. .
Despite concerns that such an operation could cause a massive reaction in Pakistan against the US war on al-Qaeda, Rumsfeld gave in to the pressure in early November 2006 and approved the operation, according to an account in the New York Times Jun. 30. But within days, Rumsfeld was out as defense secretary, and the operation was put on hold.
Nevertheless Bush and Cheney, who had been repeating that Musharraf had things under control in the frontier area, soon realized that they would be politically vulnerable to charges that they weren't doing anything about bin Laden.
The July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was the signal for the CIA's DO to step up its own lobbying for control over a Pakistan operation, based on the Afghan model – CIA officers training and arming a local militia while identifying targets for strikes from the air.
In a Washington Post column only two weeks after the NIE's conclusions were made public, David Ignatius quoted former CIA official Hank Crumpton, who had run the CIA operation in Afghanistan after the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks, on the proposed DO operation: "We either do it now, or we do it after the next attack."
That either-or logic and the sense of political vulnerability in the White House was the key advantage of the advocates of a new war in Pakistan. Last November, the New York Times reported that the Defense Department had drafted an order based on the SOCOM proposal for training of local tribal forces and for new authority for "covert" commando operations in Pakistan's frontier provinces.
But the previous experience with missile strikes against al-Qaeda targets using predator drones and the facts on the ground provided plenty of ammunition to those who opposed the escalation. It showed that the proposed actions would have little or no impact on either the Taliban or al-Qaeda in Pakistan, and would bring destabilizing political blowback.
In January 2006, the CIA had launched a missile strike on a residential compound in Damadola, near the Afghan border, on the basis of erroneous intelligence that Ayman al-Zawahiri would be there. The destruction killed as many 25 people, according to local residents interviewed by The Telegraph, including 14 members of one family.
Some 8,000 tribesmen in the Damadola area protested the killing, and in Karachi tens of thousands more rallied against the United States, shouting "Death to America!"
Musharraf later claimed that the dead included four high-ranking al-Qaeda officials, including al-Zawahiri's son-in-law. The Washington Post's Craig Whitlock reported last week, however, that US and Pakistani officials now admit that only local villagers were killed in the strike.
It was well known within the counterterrorism community that the US search for al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan was severely limited by the absence of actionable intelligence. For years, the US military had depended almost entirely on Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, despite its well-established ties with the Taliban and even al-Qaeda.
One of the counterterrorism officials without a direct organizational stake in the issue, State Department counterterrorism chief Gen. Dell L. Dailey, bluntly summed up the situation to reporters last January. "We don't have enough information about what's going on there," he said. "Not on al-Qaeda, not on foreign fighters, not on the Taliban."
A senior US official quoted by the Post last February was even more scathing on that subject, saying "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then."
Meanwhile, the Pakistani military, reacting to the US aim of a more aggressive US military role in the tribal areas, repeatedly rejected the US military proposal for training Frontier Corps units.
The US command in Afghanistan and SOCOM increased the pressure for escalation early last summer by enlisting visiting members of Congress in support of the plan. Texas Republican Congressmen Michael McCaul, who had visited Afghanistan and Pakistan, declared on his return that was "imperative that US forces be allowed to pursue the Taliban and al-Qaeda in tribal areas inside Pakistan."
In late July, according to the Times of London, Bush signed a secret national security presidential directive (NSPD) which authorized operations by special operations forces without the permission of Pakistan.
The Bush decision ignored the disconnect between the aims of the new war and the realities on the ground in Pakistan. Commando raids and missile strikes against mid-level or low-level Taliban or al-Qaeda operatives, carried out in a sea of angry Pashtuns, will not stem the flow of fighters from Pakistan into Afghanistan or weaken al-Qaeda. But they will certainly provoke reactions from the tribal population that can tilt the affected areas even further toward the Islamic radicals.
At least some military leaders without an institutional interest in the outcome understood that the proposed escalation was likely to backfire. One senior military officer told the Los Angeles Times last month that he had been forced by the "fragility of the current government in Islamabad," to ask whether "you do more long-term harm if you act very, very aggressively militarily."
I was letting the whole Illuminati angle go, bob.
ReplyDeleteEnough rabble rousing to say that it was the Republicans, let alone the internationalist one world conspiracy aided and abetted by the Rockefellers et al.
Only Time Will Tell
Maybe duece can find us a low rent beach chalet, bob.
One step up from a hut.
"Lets hope Bush also acts rationally."
ReplyDeleteMmmmmm, that's exactly what Wurmser was indicating. Even if in spite of himself. But we've been on this track for four years now, and some people are just late to the party.
So the increased "whack a muslim" activity was politcally motivated, as Team43 felt the General President had things well in hand, in 2006.
ReplyDeleteThose few strikes, knowingly of little military signifigence, would pacify the US public in their relish to "get" Osama "Dead or Alive".
Now, in retrospect, doug and I were prophets.
Pakistan is and was the signifigent player in the War on Terror, it was decided, at the highest levels, it's just that it's to dangerous for US to deal with effectively.
So the increased "whack a muslim" activity was politcally motivated, as Team43 felt the General President had things well in hand, in 2006.
ReplyDeleteThose few strikes, knowingly of little military signifigence, would pacify the US public in their relish to "get" Osama "Dead or Alive".
- Rat
That's the egregious editorializing.
Paying tribute does not always work, either, we could have asked the Romans about the Hun.
ReplyDeleteColonel Gian Gentile, a Berkeley graduate with a doctorate in history from Stanford, who currently teaches at West Point. Gentile has two tours in Iraq under his belt. During the second, just before the Petraeus era, he commanded a battalion in Baghdad.
Writing in the journal World Affairs, Gentile dismisses as “a self-serving fiction” the notion that Abrams in 1968 put the United States on the road to victory in Vietnam; the war, he says, was unwinnable, given the “perseverance, cohesion, indigenous support, and sheer determination of the other side, coupled with the absence of any of those things on the American side.” Furthermore, according to Gentile, the post-Vietnam officer corps did not turn its back on that war in a fit of pique; it correctly assessed that the mechanized formations of the Warsaw Pact deserved greater attention than pajama-clad guerrillas in Southeast Asia.
Gentile also takes issue with the triumphal depiction of the Petraeus era, attributing security improvements achieved during Petraeus’s tenure less to new techniques than to a “cash-for-cooperation” policy that put “nearly 100,000 Sunnis, many of them former insurgents, … on the U.S. government payroll.” According to Gentile, in Iraq as in Vietnam, tactics alone cannot explain the overall course of events.
All of this forms a backdrop to Gentile’s core concern: that an infatuation with stability operations will lead the Army to reinvent itself as “a constabulary,” adept perhaps at nation-building but shorn of adequate capacity for conventional war-fighting.
Interesting story, start to finish
Are we taking exception to the surge in OIF troops today, or rather paying former enemies?
ReplyDeleteNot at all, trish.
ReplyDeleteBush and Cheney, who had been repeating that Musharraf had things under control in the frontier area, soon realized that they would be politically vulnerable to charges that they weren't doing anything about bin Laden.
...
Gen. Dell L. Dailey, bluntly summed up the situation to reporters last January. "We don't have enough information about what's going on there," he said. "Not on al-Qaeda, not on foreign fighters, not on the Taliban."
...
That either-or logic and the sense of political vulnerability in the White House was the key advantage of the advocates of a new war in Pakistan. ...
... previous experience with missile strikes against al-Qaeda targets using predator drones and the facts on the ground provided plenty of ammunition to those who opposed the escalation.
It showed that the proposed actions would have little or no impact on either the Taliban or al-Qaeda in Pakistan, and would bring destabilizing political blowback.
All that said succiently with:
So the increased "whack a muslim" activity was politcally motivated, as Team43 felt the General President had things well in hand, in 2006.
Those few strikes, knowingly of little military signifigence, would pacify the US public in their relish to "get" Osama "Dead or Alive".
Gen. Dell L. Dailey, bluntly summed up the situation to reporters last January. "We don't have enough information about what's going on there," he said. "Not on al-Qaeda, not on foreign fighters, not on the Taliban."
ReplyDelete...
In a sense he's absolutely right. Increased dwell times on the UAVs would be a magnificent help. But the fundamental question is, Enough information to do what exactly?
As far back as early '06 we were engaging in herding. Which is just what we're doing now.
"No military significance" is a view not shared by the US command in Afghanistan, SOCOM/JSOC, CIA, nor, I might add, by the Afghans that'd been waiting years to take that ride.
So we will continue to "whack a muslim." We did it again yesterday. Neither granting the foolish desire for all-out war, nor quite fully satisfying anyone's paranoia.
That's a nifty trick if ever there was.