The Military Thread

[The Human Q-Tip]

At the moment, there is a PLAN to maximize leverage with China. There hasn't been action on that plan to this point.

Wow...again, it's like we're watching two completely different sets of events.

First, we know that Trump met with XI. We don't know exactly what was discussed, but almost immediately afterwards, China took a much more public, harder line against NK. So to say there "hasn't been action on that plan" seems to speculate in the exact opposite direction of what the evidence suggests. And a lot of folks would consider at least part of the reasoning behind the cruise missile strike to be a demonstration of our position on WMD's.

Additionally, we've sent more ships there, and the Veep is clearly making noises about us getting more aggressive. Public statements like that alone put pressure on the Chinese because they worry it might trigger a shooting war.

Trump's commentary on the subject has been far less encouraging:

Here is a quote of his on Twitter: “If China decides to help, that would be great. If not, we will solve the problem without them!”

Normally, Trump's tweets are not helpful. But that one? How is sending a message to the Chinese that we will act if they don't not encouraging/helpful? The Chinese do not want a war on the Korean peninsula. And if they believe that a failure to act on their part might result in one getting triggered, that's the exact kind of pressure we should be applying.

His flip flop on China as a currency manipulator.

I thought you said he hadn't done anything regarding leverage with China?

seemingly shifting toward the threat of using the military, contrary to your article above:

“North Korea would do well not to test his resolve -- or the strength of the armed forces of the United States in this region.”

and

"All options are on the table to achieve the objectives and ensure the stability of the people of this country."

But that's precisely the point! Tat's exactly why this seems unusually well thought out. We are sending them a single, consistent message across a wide-variety of topics --"either you do something to solve this problem, or we are, and you're not going to like it when we do." Basically, broad pressure on China, using every bit of political/military/economic leverage we have, to convince them it is in their own interests to solve Kim.

I don't see how any of that suggests the lack of a coordinated internal strategy.

 

[Sebastian]

Wow...again, it's like we're watching two completely different sets of events.

First, we know that Trump met with XI. We don't know exactly what was discussed, but almost immediately afterwards, China took a much more public, harder line against NK. So to say there "hasn't been action on that plan" seems to speculate in the exact opposite direction of what the evidence suggests. And a lot of folks would consider at least part of the reasoning behind the cruise missile strike to be a demonstration of our position on WMD's.

Additionally, we've sent more ships there, and the Veep is clearly making noises about us getting more aggressive. Public statements like that alone put pressure on the Chinese because they worry it might trigger a shooting war.



Normally, Trump's tweets are not helpful. But that one? How is sending a message to the Chinese that we will act if they don't not encouraging/helpful? The Chinese do not want a war on the Korean peninsula. And if they believe that a failure to act on their part might result in one getting triggered, that's the exact kind of pressure we should be applying.



I thought you said he hadn't done anything regarding leverage with China?



But that's precisely the point! Tat's exactly why this seems unusually well thought out. We are sending them a single, consistent message across a wide-variety of topics --"either you do something to solve this problem, or we are, and you're not going to like it when we do." Basically, broad pressure on China, using every bit of political/military/economic leverage we have, to convince them it is in their own interests to solve Kim.

I don't see how any of that suggests the lack of a coordinated internal strategy.

I think his beef is that it appears Trump isn't in synch with his own policy, undermines our position with his stupid statements, and quite frankly may not even be making any of the decisions.

Somebody is making policy decisions though and hopefully it is Mattis or someone else with some sense.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I think his beef is that it appears Trump isn't in synch with his own policy, undermines our position with his stupid statements,

This is honestly the part I'm not getting. Trump certainly says some stupid things. I'm just having a tough time figuring out what they are in the specific context of NK. Regardless of whether it is his strategy or someone else's, someone is playing a coherent, Nixonian brand of brinksmanship. And to this point, China seems to be playing the role we'd want them to play.

 

[AZ_]

 

[Scrote Squad]

Apparently, Trump himself did not make the decision to drop that bomb -- wasn't even asked. The authority/decision to use that bomb was made by General Nicholson, the senior U.S. military commander in Afghanistan.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a...ssive-bomb-strike-reports-say/article/2620294

Frankly, the idea that the authority to use any conventional weapon in the arsenal finally has been delegated to field commanders is a huge positive to me. Enough micromanaging of military operations from Washington.

@King Stannis

Shouldn't POTUS make the final call on something like this? Considering that a bombing of this magnitude can have a critical impact on our relationships in the area, I would prefer that Trump makes the final call. Even though I am no fan of his, he was elected by the people and General Nicholson certainly was not. I'm fine with heeding the advice of top military personnel, but isn't it a bit ridiculous for the president to not even be asked?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

So? Trump says an inordinate number of dumb things, but I'm struggling to understand why anyone would take issue with either of those statements.

 

[Lee]

Shouldn't POTUS make the final call on something like this? Considering that a bombing of this magnitude can have a critical impact on our relationships in the area, I would prefer that Trump makes the final call. Even though I am no fan of his, he was elected by the people and General Nicholson certainly was not. I'm fine with heeding the advice of top military personnel, but isn't it a bit ridiculous for the president to not even be asked?

As it is explained to me in one word...NO.

They have a 4 star general in charge of military efforts in Afghanistan and he has 100% authority to do what is necessary and should be the final word. This isnt an Obama vs Trump thing, but reality is neither are nearly as qualified as a 4 star general who is in charge of the military in the Middle East so this should be the person making the call.

Reality is dem or rep, the president gets way to much credit or blame for things.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Shouldn't POTUS make the final call on something like this? Considering that a bombing of this magnitude can have a critical impact on our relationships in the area, I would prefer that Trump makes the final call.

How so? The MOAB is a conventional 21,000 lb. bomb (18,000 explosive material). We routinely drop 500lb bombs in clusters. The MOAB gets a big sexy name, and due to Fake News like USA Today, it's impact is horribly misrepresented. But by way of perspective, the nuclear bombs we dropped on Japan were roughly 1,000 times more powerful. Though this was a big bomb, we drop a greater total weight of explosives on a daily basis.

In any case, our entire military operations over there have an enormous "impact on our relations in the area". Firefights in/around villages, explosions on a daily basis, etc.... One larger explosion in an unpopulated (except for bad guys) area has much less of an impact on their lives than would a sustained air/ground campaign to root them out normally.

Even though I am no fan of his, he was elected by the people and General Nicholson certainly was not. I'm fine with heeding the advice of top military personnel, but isn't it a bit ridiculous for the president to not even be asked?

Exactly where would you draw the line to determine what weapons/tactics the military is allowed to use? If there are snipers firing at us from a mosque, should the military have to get specific Presidential improvement before engaging? If there is an enemy force holed up in a village, does somebody in Washington have to approve before you call in an airstrike, or start firing artillery? How many 500 pound bombs can the military trop on a target before getting Presidential approval?

Seems to me that once the civilian authority sets the basic parameters of a mission, the military should be left to determine the specific weapons/tactics to be used to accomplish that mission. Obviously, that includes the underlying rule of nukes being under the direct control of the National Command Authority. But otherwise....why would/should the White House be involved in decision-making? It lacks the expertise, and slows down mission-critical response times.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

As it is explained to me in one word...NO.

They have a 4 star general in charge of military efforts in Afghanistan and he has 100% authority to do what is necessary and should be the final word. This isnt an Obama vs Trump thing, but reality is neither are nearly as qualified as a 4 star general who is in charge of the military in the Middle East so this should be the person making the call.

Agree. Thought that was not true under the prior Administration.

 

[Lee]

Agree. Thought that was not true under the prior Administration.

Per my friend who is not political but former Army Ranger, this is how it is.

The killing of Obama was a special forces mission and that comes directly from the President, the bombing of a known threat does not.

The difference is the dropping of a MOAB is considered normal engagement and an assassination of one person is not, so different levels of approval are needed.

And to be clear, this is how my friend described it, this is not personal knowledge at all.

 

[AZ_]

So? Trump says an inordinate number of dumb things, but I'm struggling to understand why anyone would take issue with either of those statements.

They're updated commentary relevant to the topic, that's why I posted them.

Not to make judgement or condemn his statements.

 

[Scrote Squad]

How so? The MOAB is a conventional 21,000 lb. bomb (18,000 explosive material). We routinely drop 500lb bombs in clusters. The MOAB gets a big sexy name, and due to Fake News like USA Today, it's impact is horribly misrepresented. But by way of perspective, the nuclear bombs we dropped on Japan were roughly 1,000 times more powerful. Though this was a big bomb, we drop a greater total weight of explosives on a daily basis.

In any case, our entire military operations over there have an enormous "impact on our relations in the area". Firefights in/around villages, explosions on a daily basis, etc.... One larger explosion in an unpopulated (except for bad guys) area has much less of an impact on their lives than would a sustained air/ground campaign to root them out normally.

You're misrepresenting my position entirely. For clarification, I've read plenty on the bomb that was dropped. Any time we drop a bomb, there are consequences, intended or otherwise, that impact our relationships across the world. I'm not doubting the qualifications of the General in the field. But isn't it worth considering that the POTUS, and his advisers, may have unique insight on a certain region that the General doesn't?

Exactly where would you draw the line to determine what weapons/tactics the military is allowed to use? If there are snipers firing at us from a mosque, should the military have to get specific Presidential improvement before engaging? If there is an enemy force holed up in a village, does somebody in Washington have to approve before you call in an airstrike, or start firing artillery? How many 500 pound bombs can the military trop on a target before getting Presidential approval?

Seems to me that once the civilian authority sets the basic parameters of a mission, the military should be left to determine the specific weapons/tactics to be used to accomplish that mission. Obviously, that includes the underlying rule of nukes being under the direct control of the National Command Authority. But otherwise....why would/should the White House be involved in decision-making? It lacks the expertise, and slows down mission-critical response times.

This is a good question that deserves serious consideration. I don't pretend to have all of the answers. My point, however, is that Donald Trump was elected to represent the people. If you're going to make this distinction on military expertise in conflicts around the world, where does the line get drawn? Should Betsy DeVos make all education decisions without consulting Trump? Does Carson make all HUD decisions without consulting Trump?

I'm of the opinion that Donald Trump, as CiC, should have been brought in on this decision. We can agree to disagree.

 

[Scrote Squad]

As it is explained to me in one word...NO.

They have a 4 star general in charge of military efforts in Afghanistan and he has 100% authority to do what is necessary and should be the final word. This isnt an Obama vs Trump thing, but reality is neither are nearly as qualified as a 4 star general who is in charge of the military in the Middle East so this should be the person making the call.

Reality is dem or rep, the president gets way to much credit or blame for things.

I'm not making it a partisan issue. But, when we're dropping a bomb in another country, I believe that the POTUS should be involved. Trump was elected to make these types of decisions. No offense to General Nicholson, but he was not.

 

[Lee]

I'm not making it a partisan issue. But, when we're dropping a bomb in another country, I believe that the POTUS should be involved. Trump was elected to make these types of decisions. No offense to General Nicholson, but he was not.

It is not a nuclear bomb, it is a very big bomb, but emits no radiation. We have generals for a reason, and bombs are dropped all the time, thousands upon thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 10 years.

This is only an issue to you because you are ignorant of what real war/conflicts are like. Not trying to insult, but this is the reality of wars and you dont have the time or need to consult the president with every military move, this is why authority is delegated to generals.

 

[AZ_]

Sounds like things are going smoothly.