The Hill: Trump claims he 'essentially fired' Mattis, knocks US military strategy
President Trump on Wednesday claimed that he "essentially" fired former Defense Secretary James Mattis, and criticized U.S. military leadership during his first Cabinet meeting of 2019.
Asked about the ongoing war in Afghanistan, Trump expressed disapproval with the U.S. performance there despite the hundreds of billions of dollars in additional funding appropriated for defense over the past two years.
"Gen. Mattis was so thrilled," Trump said of the funding. "But what's he done for me? How's he done in Afghanistan? Not too good. Not too good. I'm not too happy with what he's done in Afghanistan, and I shouldn't be happy."
Read more ....
More News On President Trump Voicing His Disapproval Over Former Defense Secretary Mattis' Handling Of The Afghan War
'What's he done for me?': President Donald Trump slams former Secretary of Defense James Mattis -- USA Today
‘Not too good’: Trump rips Mattis’s performance as the Pentagon seeks stability -- Washington Post
'I Want Results': Trump Says Mattis 'Didn't Do Such a Great Job in Afghanistan' -- FOX Insider
'What's he done for me?' Trump insists he FIRED Jim Mattis and boasts 'I would've been a good general' after Pentagon chief attacks him on his way out -- Daily Mail
Trump Says He’s Unhappy With Job That US Generals Did in Afghanistan -- Epoch Times
Trump says he 'essentially' fired Mattis (who actually resigned in protest) -- CNN
Trump Says Mattis Resignation Was ‘Essentially’ a Firing, Escalating His New Front Against Military Critics -- The New York Times
Trump must be crazy if he thinks the Pentagon needs to be accountable AND win wars.
ReplyDeleteWe had an interest in Afghanistan. Osama, the rich boy jihadi, was the CEO of an organization planned and executed 911. He admitted it. We asked the Taliban to extradite him. They refused.
ReplyDelete"understand what happened to the English and the Russians"
The English were never in Afghanistan. The British were. That is a quibble, but there it is. The British had 5 empires. They are split up into pre & post American revolution. Another manner of division is ethnic and is broken down into Irish, Scottish and British. The British ran their empire on a shoe string. They had a company, The East India, run a subcontintent, a large nation that would one day become one of the BRIC countries. They eventually took over. The Brits ran things as cheaply as possible and it showed form Chinese Gordon getting pawned in Sudan to their defeat by the Zulu. That they would get defeated at the edge of Empire far from the sea a the end of a long supply line is not shocking.
The Russians almost won Afghanistan in the 1980s. If they had just been fighting the Muj backed by the Saudis, Iranian, Pakistan, China, and Britain, they would have got it done. The Saudis would not have given as much as they did for the War against the Russians except for American prodding. High level American diplomats would be sent to have the Saudis match what the Americans were spending. It is not that the Saudis did not want to give. They were glad to give. It is just they had a budget and they gave until it hurt. The Saudis might not have given near as much without America as an ally. Russia could have won that war.
Under which president did America first go into Afghanistan? Why?
ReplyDeleteBegin there.
Lapides,
DeleteCome on you can do better.
"Under which president did America first go into Afghanistan? "
ReplyDeleteThe above statement is throw it up there and see if it sticks or peak DERP.
So let's play Derpenstein's game. It was under Bush and the reason why is in the title of the article linked below.
We won't hand over bin Laden, say defiant Taliban
By Alex Spillius in Peshawar12:01AM BST 22 Sep 2001
Osama was guilty. We knew it, the Taliban knew it and Osama knew it. However, many liberals are not so sure.
ReplyDeleteAl-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States.
After Osama claimed responsibility, liberals were not sure he was guilty of the atrocities of 911. Liberals started there 'Why Do they Hate Us' meme or campaign to sow disunity in the national effort and ti never let a crisis go to waste. They wanted to seize power by lying.
Why do they hate us? – Harvard Gazette
Why Do They Hate Us? | HuffPost
Why Do They Hate Us? Not Because of Iraq - The New York Times
Why they hate us - CNN - CNN.com
The Politics Of Rage: Why Do They Hate Us? - Newsweek
Consider the fact that many juhadis intended on a large scalle massacre of thge Christmas Market in Strasbourg in 2000
Strasbourg Cathedral bombing plot
"In December 2000, an al-Qaeda-linked plot to bomb the Strasbourg Christmas market, at the feet of the Strasbourg Cathedral on New Year's Eve was discovered. The plot was foiled by French and German police... "
From the Atlantic Magazine we have:
The Twenty Years’ War
Two decades ago, Osama bin Laden officially launched al-Qaeda’s struggle against the United States. Neither side has won.
DOMINIC TIERNEY
AUG 23, 2016
Rich Boy Osama born with a silver spoon in his mouth was upset that the U.S> military was in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere protecting people against Sadam's tanks. He said he could do a better job. Not sure how a playboy bunny jihadi could do such a thing.
* So Al Qaeda was at war with the US long before George W. Bush announced his candidacy.
One of Osama Bin Laden's beefs was the fact that the U.S. had soldiers in the Saudi Peninsula. Just the mere fact that they set foot at the invitation of various governements.
Why were the Americans there? Because an a__hat, Sadam Hussein invaded a sovereign country, Kuwait.
Did we have a right to protect Kuwait? Yes. It was in our national interest and the UN said it was good also. See UN Resolution 678.
"15 out of 19 911 perps were Saudi's..."
ReplyDeleteWhy the ellipsis? Is the reader to guess the argument or is it common knowledge?
The country that sent the largest percentage of jihadis to Iraq from 2003 to 2011 was Libya. Are we to assume that it was official Libyan policy that Qadaffi sent them? The explanation I have seen is that he emptied his jails. Most liberals call for that. He emptied his jails hoping that the former residents would be killed on a foreign battle field and they would be out of his hair. Qadaffi did not aid them with money or intel), He did not tell them. He simply let them go knowing what they would do. If all the jihadis were not killed he could lock up the remainder when they came back.
So it should be said that the country that "contributed" (not sent) the largest percentage of jihadis to Iraq from 2003 to 2011 was Libya.
So did Saudi Arabia send them or did they just happened to be from there?
Take Osama. Is he Yemeni or is he Saudi. His father is from Yemen. His other is from Syria. Where is he from?
I've always wanted to know how much the Saudis and other Gulf states fund jihad form state coffers and how much from individual donations of the middle class and wealthy. Would the CIA tell us?
I see Saudi Arabia as an enemy and maybe as an ally. We have been in this boat before during WW@ with the USSR. I consider the The Saudi funding prison ministries and funding mosques in the US 10 to 100 time larger than the community they serve to be a form of jihad. I do not not trust the Saudis.
15 of 19 hijackers were Saudi (1st generation; 2nd generation?). That is certainly smoke and probably a damn big bonfire. It fits inductive logic, but not deductive logic. You try using inductive logic in our political system and the 1st thing that will happen is the usual useless suspects will "cwy" "wacism".
Personally I like inductive logic. It keeps you alive most all animals use it, because it keeps them alive. Science has shown this. But you have to make a damn good case and be prepared for some hard knuckled politicking because the Left will not back down. they'll sen the press and their goon squad (like Antifa).
"It was Obama who took out OBL...not conservatives"
ReplyDeleteObama pulled the trigger. Everything was lined up for him from information collected by the Bush administration.
4 years before Osama's death would be during GWB's term. George lined it up for Obama. There is a picture of Obama sitting in the corner letting the adults in the room take care of business. They should have given Obama a booster seat, so he could have taken a better picture! Poor guy looks all wee wee'd up in the picture.
Poor dude is not even at the table. Hillary is at the table.
"Four years ago — American intelligence for the first time uncovers the name of Osama bin Laden's trusted courier but cannot locate him."
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/05/02/world/asia/abbottabad-map-of-where-osama-bin-laden-was-killed.html?ref=asia
And what about 7 countries in 5 years? Are Iraq, Libya and Syria more stable now after we did our thing there?
ReplyDeleteObama did Libya, because of the R2P doctrine. Bush got an agreement and left him alone.
Syria was broken in 2011, 2012 before we got there. I do not mind helping the Kurds.
911 had 15 out of 19 hijackers were 'Saudi'. Iran Helped Al Qaeda carry out 911. Can a operation like that have only one father/mother (patron)? Sadam supported lots of terrorists. He gave among other things free transit to Al Qaeda that we know of. Who knows what else Iraq did at that time. I am sure we could put together burnt ashes and reconstruct the record.
Game, set and match to Trump in the Trump vs. Mattis slim war.
ReplyDeleteMattis had it coming despite a honorable service to the nation over his entire career. He slammed his boss while leaving, a boss he served for 2 years. The honorable exit was to leave with a shout out to his service. Instead he slammed his boss and opened the door for Trump to state all the many reasons he came to ignore Matti's advice.
If they are looking for Osama for 7 years and gets some leads, Obama could not simply demur when it came to getting Osama. He would look like a traitor.
ReplyDeleteHe did look like a little boy sitting in the corner, while Hillary was sitting at the table.