"He knew what he signed up for"

[iuwclurker1]

What exactly do you mean by air support? The bin Laden mission only had helicopter transport, right?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

What exactly do you mean by air support? The bin Laden mission only had helicopter transport, right?

The OBL mission was different, it was a precision raid. These men were spending a much longer time on the ground in what may be enemy territory. We were not likely to call airstrikes into a Pakistani city. We are likely to call air strikes into a jungle.

 

[iuwclurker1]

The OBL mission was different, it was a precision raid. These men were spending a much longer time on the ground in what may be enemy territory. We were not likely to call airstrikes into a Pakistani city. We are likely to call air strikes into a jungle.

In other words, by air support you mean air strikes. That's all I was asking.

Based on your response, though, I can understand Niger not wanting our "air support." SO to answer your first question, we shouldn't be there.

Question is, what's wrong with our political system that we were there anyway?

 

[zeke4ahs]

Here is where the real policy discussion should be, why are we operating in Niger without air support. The story is that Niger refuses to allow American jets to fly over its territory, but they allow French jets. When the attack happened, air cover was called for and French Mirages responded.

Well, responded as much as they could. They flew low level runs over the enemy, simulating attacks. Niger's rules of operations do not allow the French aircraft to use weaponry.

Now I have no idea if Trump or Obama agreed to this, but Trump IS there now so the buck stops with him. We should never agree to those restrictions. I cannot believe this part has not blown up bigly.

We know why it hasn't, since the GOP is in control. I still think it's going to eventually.

 

[iuwclurker1]

We know why it hasn't, since the GOP is in control. I still think it's going to eventually.

Hey Zeke! How do you like your thread?

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Backacha. Your topic is ideology, mine is pragmatism. You see yourself engaging in different topics, I see you engaging in all ideology, all the time.

You want a different topic? Let's talk about poiitical division. I'll start it, you take it from there: Ideology divides, pragmatism unites.

Edit: As for your use of "infecting," you really have nothing to stand on, because you haven't said rational word one why every political discussion shouldn't be about pragmatism. Don't forget, this is the 21st century and you are alive now. Just because Trump and other troglodytes want to live in the past doesn't mean you have to.

Name one solution you have for lessening political divisiveness that doesn't include inanities like saying we need a secular state.

Re: you and “pragmatism”

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Then let me repeat my friendly advice: follow the conventions of the board, and you'll be more successful at improving society in this small way. You rub people the wrong way, even people who agree with you. This has been going on since you first started posting under this handle.

What was the old handle?

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

What exactly do you mean by air support? The bin Laden mission only had helicopter transport, right?

Air support means guns, big ones. Spectre gunships, fighter jets, or weaponized drones. If there is a legitimate threat to our troops in an area of operations, not granting air support for mission planning is a sure way to increase the chance of casualties.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Air support means guns, big ones. Spectre gunships, fighter jets, or weaponized drones. If there is a legitimate threat to our troops in an area of operations, not granting air support for mission planning is a sure way to increase the chance of casualties.

There would not be issues with French support, would there? I would think their pilots are English trained.

Still, they were prevented from engaging.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

There would not be issues with French support, would there? I would think their pilots are English trained.

Still, they were prevented from engaging.

I could be oversimplifying my perspective on this, but we should not allow our troops to operate in combat if we can’t go weapons free during a Troops in Contact (TIC) event.

Regardless of the RoE, if I’m the combatant commander, I’m dropping bombs on ISIS’ heads during a friendly TIC. Forgiveness, not permission.

Edit: I’m still very interested in why a mechanic and a CBRN specialist were on that patrol. My cynicism tells me complacency was setting in and they just wanted to get off the base and SF took them along as strap hangers. But I’m completely guessing.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Re: you and “pragmatism”

You don't need to think, just read below. Lee Hamilton knows exactly how I'm using it and what it means. Decide for yourself. Are you one of "most voters [who] want to see things get resolved in a manner that responds to the needs of the country" or are you one of the left and right partisan ideologues creating a situation where "we find ourselves incapable of moving"?

This help?

My experience is that apart from the ideologically committed, most Americans don’t worry a lot about whether a given policy is “liberal” or “conservative.” They worry about whether or not it works. And so as any given issue gets debated, the ideologues take stands that hew to their beliefs and only reluctantly yield on their views, while most voters want to see things get resolved in a manner that responds to the needs of the country. Taken together, the results of these debates set the country’s direction and the speed at which it heads there.

When ideology trumps pragmatism, we find ourselves incapable of moving. Yet these ideological battles are engrained [sic] in the dialogue of our democracy. The argument between a smaller and a greater role for government has been with us since the very beginning of our nation; in some ways it defines our political history.

Our challenge today, as it has always been, is to balance the passions of those who find themselves firmly on one side or the other against the common sense of the great mass of Americans, who are most concerned about making progress on the problems that beset them. As the common phrase has it, they want not big government or small government, but smart government. They want our political leaders to set ideological purity aside, and just get things done.​

This explains plenty to me, in particular, why most people here at the WC aren't interested in pragmatism ("the ideologues take stands that hew to their beliefs and only reluctantly yield on their views"), that my hunch appears to be right that the preponderance of Americans are pragmatic ("they want not big government or small government, but smart government"), and that pragmatism, sincerely adopted by either party, would dominate the political scene ("most Americans don’t worry a lot about whether a given policy is “liberal” or “conservative.”").

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

You don't need to think, just read below. Lee Hamilton knows exactly how I'm using it and what it means. Decide for yourself. Are you one of "most voters [who] want to see things get resolved in a manner that responds to the needs of the country" or are you one of the left and right partisan ideologues creating a situation where "we find ourselves incapable of moving"?

It’s like talking to a child. I said good day.

 

[MrBing]

It's obvious to me he's a friend to you. He's a truth teller, albeit a provocative one.

The usual liberal crowd here is hurting any cause you might advocate more than anyone else with all their straitjacketed, 17th-century, political-ideology-centric compulsions. That's a case of your "friends" living in glass houses if there ever was one.

Pragmatism is the only sensible way to disenfranchise the conservative powers-that-be.

He's a terrible spokesman for liberals and Democrats so he's no friend of ours.

 

[sglowrider]

Widow Of U.S. Soldier Killed In Niger: Trump’s Call ‘Made Me Cry Even Worse’
Myeshia Johnson confirmed the president told her that her husband “knew what he signed up for.”
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...c7ce4b00f08619fcb04?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

If this story holds up, Trump has made a colossal fool of himself:

If only that mattered. He spent months and months doing that and it got him the republican nomination for president and current occupancy of the WH.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Oooohhhhh, that had to sting a little.

That even made me feel a little uncomfortable. That ain’t easy.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Hey Zeke! How do you like your thread?

Fine, thanks.

 

[iuwclurker1]

He's a terrible spokesman for liberals and Democrats so he's no friend of ours.

I'll take your word for it. I've since noted he has one of the worst characteristics of ideologues -- makes enemies out of his presumed opponents. He takes it one step farther, makes enemies out of everyone.* His schtick rapidly got old with me so I disabused myself of his clutter.

* Ironic, isn't it, that he has that one trait in common with Trump?

 

[sglowrider]

Spoiler: From the Times of London

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The US/Trump added Chad to the travel ban. Chad is upset and withdraws hundreds of troops from Niger, which allows the militants to go on the offensive. Then 4 US soldiers are killed. Hmm, I wonder if some can follow the dots. Source, among many if one Googles Chad Niger.

 

[iuwclurker1]

The US/Trump added Chad to the travel ban. Chad is upset and withdraws hundreds of troops from Niger, which allows the militants to go on the offensive. Then 4 US soldiers are killed. Hmm, I wonder if some can follow the dots. Source, among many if one Googles Chad Niger.

Everything Trump touches turns to troglodyte manure. He canceled TPP, taking all our leverage away from China on North Korea, and so on...

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

The US/Trump added Chad to the travel ban. Chad is upset and withdraws hundreds of troops from Niger, which allows the militants to go on the offensive. Then 4 US soldiers are killed. Hmm, I wonder if some can follow the dots. Source, among many if one Googles Chad Niger.

I bet there will be multiple investigations, hearings, and select committees over this. Four deaths is the magic number for republicans.

 

[Rockfish1]

I bet there will be multiple investigations, hearings, and select committees over this. Four deaths is the magic number for republicans.

I heard Rex Tillerson issued a stand down order. #Nigerghazi!

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I bet there will be multiple investigations, hearings, and select committees over this. Four deaths is the magic number for republicans.

They have concluded the first investigation, it was Hillary's fault.

 

[TheVegasHoosier]

I heard Rex Tillerson issued a stand down order. #Nigerghazi!

Trump threw his generals under the bus saying, "I didn't order the operation.....they did."

There are two reasons why he's given the generals in the field the authority to do what they want:

1) Trump is a complete moron and has no idea what to tell them to do

2) when things go bad, he can throw them under the bus just like he did here.

 

[sglowrider]

And yet he needs a paper in front of him to remind him of the fallen soldier's name? Idiot!