Pompeo is a snake. When the book, Peril, came out he lambasted Gen. Milley along with Trump world even though he was trusted in the Milley and Esper circle. Now I can’t find record of it but I heard the whole interview weeks ago and it was full Maga against Milley. Now, after, yesterday, he is playing the careful wordplay game. This man is a competent Trump. He is not to be trusted with a bag of groceries.
I am glad that so many people have pointed out Peter Baker's misleading strip quote of the Stephanopoulos interview. My question to you, Charlie: how do we make sure that those sorts of strategically bad edits (designed to push a story line) don't take flight? Even you were misled enough to include it in your newsletter.
Also, listening to your podcast with Amanda Carpenter led me to want to push back on one other thing: there's no way that the progressives should approve the infrastructure bill until Sinema puts her cards on the table. Manchin is a known quantity, and the bought-and-paid-for Mark Penn dissidents in the House have played their cards, and while some of the most appealing parts of the reconciliation bill (drug negotiation and tax increases) will have to be scaled back way more than I would like to get their votes, it's at least a rational negotiation with them where the progressives can feel somewhat confident that there won't be a full-fledged reneging on the deal. Sinema, on the other hand, can't be trusted in my view unless and until she's signed in blood -- and even then I'm not sure. So even though it's counterintuitive, I think that you and Amanda are wrong and that the infrastructure bill has to be held hostage until she shows her cards. (see, e.g., the Ro Khanna interview on AC360 last night).
"So your military advisers did not tell you, “No, we should just keep 2,500 troops. It’s been a stable situation for the last several years. We can do that. We can continue to do that?""
That's what Biden answered no to. No general told him they could keep a stable situation in Afghanistan with only 2,500 troops staying there especially given the Doha agreement between TFG and the Taliban.
From the same link above, Austin said, “the intelligence was clear that if we did not leave in accordance with that agreement, the Taliban would recommence attacks on our forces.”
So keeping 2,500 US forces there would not nearly have been enough to keep any kind of stability.
But I'm looking forward to Shay Khatiri's next hyperventilating article about how we should have stayed in Afghanistan forever because reasons.
We have to remember that Austin is a politician now (and not particularly good at it), not just a “former general.”
His quote about Afghanistan being a logistical success is a perfect example. From a military perspective, it was disastrous from a logistical perspective.
Logistics is one of the most difficult skills, which is why it was one of the main services that we provided for Afghanistan. And no, doing so isn’t unusual. We ran logistics for the South Korean military for 50 years, and are still intimately involved.
You cannot have a modern military without logistics, which is why the Afghanistan military collapsed almost immediately. “The Generals” have been pointing this out for years, and McKenzie’s recommendation to keep 2,500 troops there no doubt took that into consideration. So, OF COURSE the Afghanistan military would collapse after we yanked logistical support.
The South Korean military would collapse, too, if we yanked logistical support overnight. And it constitute a massive logistical failure, just like the Afghanistan debacle.
Oh, an we left a ridiculous amount of equipment there…also a logistical failure.
the one place I think you slipped up was on the refutation of the advice on withdrawal Biden got form the generals and whether or not he lied about it.. the advice changed. In the spring there were dissenting opinions, but by the end of August there was (near) unanimity to pull out by 8/31.
Your comment and Tim's on Sen. Sanders 'inconsistency' is the most concise explanation I've seen yet for why the next President probably won't be a Democrat and why there's at least a chance that the GOP will control both houses of Congress too. If anyone ever wants to write a book about how to achieve losing when one is leading within sight of the finish line, the Democratic party is an outstanding case in point.
So Milley's "that's not how the military works" take is full of shit. We *100%* have a military that not only rejects certain types of orders but is *expected* to do so. Example: A lieutenant tells a private to execute a POW, the private refuses to do so because even though he was issued a direct order from a superior he has the right to refuse if he believes the order is illegal, immoral, or so ill-informed that it is bound to get troops unecessarilly killed. What Milley did here was sound the "I vas just following orderz!" line that was used at Nurenberg. Maybe he doesn't get to resign, but he *does* get to tell the Pentagon and politicians to go back to the drawing board or his troops aren't moving an inch because the plan is FUBAR. I have personally seen more intestinal fortitude from *corporals* telling company-level officers to fuck themselves when issuing FUBAR orders to the enlisted. This is the kind of shit that got officers "fragged" in combat. If you didn't know what the fuck you were doing your guys wasted you before you wasted them. What Milley is telling us is that he'd rather live in the world where his troops die so that his office doesn't lose face for refusing FUBAR orders. THAT is what he was defending yesterday.
Pompeo is a snake. When the book, Peril, came out he lambasted Gen. Milley along with Trump world even though he was trusted in the Milley and Esper circle. Now I can’t find record of it but I heard the whole interview weeks ago and it was full Maga against Milley. Now, after, yesterday, he is playing the careful wordplay game. This man is a competent Trump. He is not to be trusted with a bag of groceries.
I am glad that so many people have pointed out Peter Baker's misleading strip quote of the Stephanopoulos interview. My question to you, Charlie: how do we make sure that those sorts of strategically bad edits (designed to push a story line) don't take flight? Even you were misled enough to include it in your newsletter.
Also, listening to your podcast with Amanda Carpenter led me to want to push back on one other thing: there's no way that the progressives should approve the infrastructure bill until Sinema puts her cards on the table. Manchin is a known quantity, and the bought-and-paid-for Mark Penn dissidents in the House have played their cards, and while some of the most appealing parts of the reconciliation bill (drug negotiation and tax increases) will have to be scaled back way more than I would like to get their votes, it's at least a rational negotiation with them where the progressives can feel somewhat confident that there won't be a full-fledged reneging on the deal. Sinema, on the other hand, can't be trusted in my view unless and until she's signed in blood -- and even then I'm not sure. So even though it's counterintuitive, I think that you and Amanda are wrong and that the infrastructure bill has to be held hostage until she shows her cards. (see, e.g., the Ro Khanna interview on AC360 last night).
About that Peter Baker tweet: he "creatively" edited Stephanoplous's question. The actual question was:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/28/3-big-takeaways-mark-milley-hearing/
"So your military advisers did not tell you, “No, we should just keep 2,500 troops. It’s been a stable situation for the last several years. We can do that. We can continue to do that?""
That's what Biden answered no to. No general told him they could keep a stable situation in Afghanistan with only 2,500 troops staying there especially given the Doha agreement between TFG and the Taliban.
From the same link above, Austin said, “the intelligence was clear that if we did not leave in accordance with that agreement, the Taliban would recommence attacks on our forces.”
So keeping 2,500 US forces there would not nearly have been enough to keep any kind of stability.
But I'm looking forward to Shay Khatiri's next hyperventilating article about how we should have stayed in Afghanistan forever because reasons.
Just a note of appreciation for The Bulwark… you and The Economist are currently my two most helpful, informative reads… thanks….
We have to remember that Austin is a politician now (and not particularly good at it), not just a “former general.”
His quote about Afghanistan being a logistical success is a perfect example. From a military perspective, it was disastrous from a logistical perspective.
Logistics is one of the most difficult skills, which is why it was one of the main services that we provided for Afghanistan. And no, doing so isn’t unusual. We ran logistics for the South Korean military for 50 years, and are still intimately involved.
You cannot have a modern military without logistics, which is why the Afghanistan military collapsed almost immediately. “The Generals” have been pointing this out for years, and McKenzie’s recommendation to keep 2,500 troops there no doubt took that into consideration. So, OF COURSE the Afghanistan military would collapse after we yanked logistical support.
The South Korean military would collapse, too, if we yanked logistical support overnight. And it constitute a massive logistical failure, just like the Afghanistan debacle.
Oh, an we left a ridiculous amount of equipment there…also a logistical failure.
the one place I think you slipped up was on the refutation of the advice on withdrawal Biden got form the generals and whether or not he lied about it.. the advice changed. In the spring there were dissenting opinions, but by the end of August there was (near) unanimity to pull out by 8/31.
Your comment and Tim's on Sen. Sanders 'inconsistency' is the most concise explanation I've seen yet for why the next President probably won't be a Democrat and why there's at least a chance that the GOP will control both houses of Congress too. If anyone ever wants to write a book about how to achieve losing when one is leading within sight of the finish line, the Democratic party is an outstanding case in point.
So Milley's "that's not how the military works" take is full of shit. We *100%* have a military that not only rejects certain types of orders but is *expected* to do so. Example: A lieutenant tells a private to execute a POW, the private refuses to do so because even though he was issued a direct order from a superior he has the right to refuse if he believes the order is illegal, immoral, or so ill-informed that it is bound to get troops unecessarilly killed. What Milley did here was sound the "I vas just following orderz!" line that was used at Nurenberg. Maybe he doesn't get to resign, but he *does* get to tell the Pentagon and politicians to go back to the drawing board or his troops aren't moving an inch because the plan is FUBAR. I have personally seen more intestinal fortitude from *corporals* telling company-level officers to fuck themselves when issuing FUBAR orders to the enlisted. This is the kind of shit that got officers "fragged" in combat. If you didn't know what the fuck you were doing your guys wasted you before you wasted them. What Milley is telling us is that he'd rather live in the world where his troops die so that his office doesn't lose face for refusing FUBAR orders. THAT is what he was defending yesterday.