Article

2009-09-01 Home Front: Politix

National Security Advisor Gen Jones: "Obama More Successful on Terrorism"

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Sherry 2009-09-01 12:34|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 Playing politics with our national security to make your boss look good is nothing short of sedition there General Jones. You have seem to forgotten your oath.

Posted by 49 Pan 2009-09-01 12:45|| 2009-09-01 12:45|| Front Page Top

#2 The United States is having more success fighting terrorism under President Barack Obama partly because of his "radically different" approach to foreign policy, National security adviser Jim Jones said on Monday.

Would that be the same "radically different" approach that achieved VICTORY in Iraq and kept the nation SAFE from ATTACK for eight years?

Report to the 'Boot Lick' deck General. Just follow Mullen or any of those other Admirals, he'll take you right to it.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-09-01 13:20|| 2009-09-01 13:20|| Front Page Top

#3 Jones said Obama's efforts to reach out to world leaders and improve relations with law enforcement agencies had made it easier to track and kill terrorists than during the Bush administration.

It makes one wonder if anyone with even a casual understanding of international terrorism swallows this load of hogwash. For instance, specifically which world leaders have tangibly reciprocated to Obamas reach out? Oh sure, he apologized to the Muslim World. (Whatever the fuck that is.) But, thus far, in return all he has received is the same ole duplicitous claptrap weve seen for decades. Ferchrisakes he couldnt even persuade the NATO countries to step it up. BTW, was it the release of classified documents and photos or was it the threat of prosecution that has improved relations with law enforcement agencies? Then again maybe hes duplicating one of those reverse psychology illusion thingies again. You knowthe way he campaigned and got elected.

Posted by DepotGuy 2009-09-01 14:37|| 2009-09-01 14:37|| Front Page Top

#4 There was an awful lot of information collected since we started paying attention post 9/11, and with each capture the amount increases. So it wouldn't be surprising that the graph of captures/kills shows a strong upward trend over time. The key question is, will this continue or taper off, now that the President Obama's team are working so hard to castrate the CIA, retreat from Iraq, and make things very difficult for our guys in Afghanistan.

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2009-09-01 15:14|| 2009-09-01 15:14|| Front Page Top

#5 "radically different" approach that achieved VICTORY in Iraq

It was a radically different approach that achieved (a qualified, as yet uncertain) victory in Iraq. The Petraeus-Kagan-McCain-Gates approach, as opposed to the Rumsfeld-Cheney approach. Both of course, were "bush approaches"

What neither the right nor left seems willing to admit is that there was a radical change in policy - in 2006. A real commitment to counter insurgency, a turn away from unilateralist rhetoric, etc. The Obama difference with the Bush-Rummy-Cheney are dramatic. The Obama differences with Bush-Gates-Petraeus not so much. Its frustrating for Obamas PR.

TW - I don't see the Obama team trying to castrate the CIA. They certainly arent ending harsh interrogation techniques - those techniques were ended several years ago. They are debating how far to go in investigating what happened. Panetta on one side, Holder on the other. Thats a debate thats inevitable. Certainly there are many voices who would go much further on that.

So far their retreat from Iraq is merely fulfilling the US-Iraqi pact which was signed by the Bush admin. We certainly can't stay there over the objections of the legitimate govt of Iraq, and it does not seem that that govt thinks the pace of withdrawl is too fast.

The Obama admin is INCREASING the number of troops and the overall resouce commitment to Afghanistan, and is putting in place the kinds of approaches that worked in Iraq. Now the attacks on that policy from the left and the uncertainty of how the admin will respond to those attacks are troubling, as well as whether they will put in as many troops as McCrystal asks for. But to say they are making it difficult for our guys in Afghanistan, as opposed to what the previous admin, did, strikes as thoroughly misguided.

Posted by liberal hawk 2009-09-01 17:41|| 2009-09-01 17:41|| Front Page Top

#6 "For instance, specifically which "world leaders" have tangibly reciprocated to Obama's reach out?"

I would certainly agree that we are getting too little out of the change in likeability from our NATO allies. Esp on Afghanistan, and to some extent on Gitmo. Iran we will see in the coming months.

But to be fair, Jones is talking abour LE. Would it be better to have him list in public every LE effort? I hope there are things going on behind the scenes - the same hope that was often expressed here (and that I agreed with) under the previous administration.

Posted by liberal hawk 2009-09-01 17:45|| 2009-09-01 17:45|| Front Page Top

#7 TW - I don't see the Obama team trying to castrate the CIA. They certainly arent ending harsh interrogation techniques - those techniques were ended several years ago. They are debating how far to go in investigating what happened. Panetta on one side, Holder on the other. Thats a debate thats inevitable. Certainly there are many voices who would go much further on that.

liberal hawk, it's quite possible they do not intend to castrate the CIA as such. However, the fact is that Attorney General Holder is threatening to prosecute individual CIA interrogators for doing that which the Justice Department had previously approved as legal. The attorney general is also threatening to prosecute those lawyers who wrote the approvals, and possibly also the line of management. Intentional or no, the result for the next several presidential terms will be CIA interrogators, lawyers, and quite probably others will be very, very careful not to do anything that might annoy the other political party, later. If that's not castration, it's a very reasonable facsimile.

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2009-09-01 20:50|| 2009-09-01 20:50|| Front Page Top

#8 it's quite possible they do not intend to castrate the CIA as such.

Once again, F-O-L-L-O-W the money! Putting the CIA in the ditch is "Job One." Closely behind is Job Two, our military. Hundreds of billions can be harvested by downsizing these organizations and redirecting those funds to Barry's midnight basketball, giveaway programs.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-09-01 20:56|| 2009-09-01 20:56|| Front Page Top

#9 The Obama difference with the Bush-Rummy-Cheney are dramatic.

You're not on familiar-enough terms to call him "Rummy".

Posted by Pappy 2009-09-01 21:16|| 2009-09-01 21:16|| Front Page Top

23:40 Anguper Hupomosing9418
23:34 Anguper Hupomosing9418
23:23 Grunter
23:22 Silentbrick
23:18 Cornsilk Blondie
23:01 Jumbo Slinerong5015
22:40 gorb
22:38 Omiting the Younger9947
22:35 Iblis
22:32 Iblis
22:32 Frank G
22:24 gorb
22:12 Iblis
22:07 Frank G
22:06 gorb
22:05 Skidmark
22:02 trailing wife
21:58 gorb
21:55 gorb
21:54 abu do you love
21:54 DMFD
21:46 Skunky Glins 5***
21:38 Barbara Skolaut
21:32 Skunky Glins 5***