Saturday, September 27, 2008

Ex navy man doesn’t know a strategy from a tactic

Last night, Senator John McCain tried to lecture Barack Obama about Obama not knowing the difference between a tactic and a strategy.

Of course, McCain was wrong. The counterinsurgency methods introduced by general David Petraeus in Iraq were a tactical change, because they were a new means to achieve President Bush’s strategic end of a stable, unified Iraq.

A change in strategy might have been withdrawal or splitting the country into Kurd, Sunni and Shi'ite regions.

I hope the poor old fellow will make sure he's on more solid ground the next time he corrects a fellow senator in public.


  1. Russ, what are you talking about? You sound like Taliban Jack Layton by favouring Obama's desire for defeat.

    Obama was dead wrong on the surge, and finally admits it. The Patreaus conter-insurgency was a strategic change because the whole manner of operations for fighting AL Qaida was shifted from seek and destroy to capture and hold.

    To think Obama knows more than McCain, who actually fought for his country and bled for his country is a joke.

    You need to re-think your principles. OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST.

  2. Sorry dude, you don't know your butt from yer elbow. Not very aufstragtactik of you.

    Tactics is the means to implement strategy. Petraeus changed both in Iraq.

  3. Biden Muffs Another One
    Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau at 12:37 AM

    Saturday, September 27, 2008
    Biden Muffs Another One
    Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau at 12:37 AM
    Post-debate commentary on Fox News Channel included Joe Biden -- who didn't have long to make a gaffe, but nonetheless managed.

    Biden tried to take McCain to task for correcting Obama on the whole "tactics" vs. "strategy" issue -- insisting that the surge was a "tactic" and Iraqi political stability was the "strategy."

    Perhaps Biden should fill in General Petraeus -- who himself called the surge the "anaconda strategy."

  4. Strong conservative:

    Obama is a socialist? Oh please!

    Wikipedia defines the term thus: "Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society." And my Oxford English Dictionary gives a similar meaning.

    I'd like to know the source of a definition of socialism that comes close to describing Obama's policies or those of the Democratic Party.

    Hyperbole seldom furthers debate. I'm ready to debate and discuss, but this sort of adolescent name-calling turns me off.

    And, if you have proof Jack Layton really has ties to the Taliban as implied by your name-calling, isn't it your duty to pass it on to the police—isn't the Taliban an illegal organization?

    Your name-calling makes you sound like those on the far left-wing who compare conservatives to Hitler and call them Nazis at the drop of the hat.

    As to my rethinking my principles: buddy you have nothing to teach me there. I blog and make comments elsewhere out in the open under my own name and identity. I don't hide behind a screen name. Anonymity is often a sign of moral cowardice.

    There is more to conservatism than name calling and ranting and raving. (Actually, that is usually a tactic of the far left.)

    Mindlessly following and supporting those who call themselves conservatives as a political cover story makes one the human equivalent of a lemming or a sheep—it does nothing to bolster ones reputation as a conservative.

    The Republican Party has many true conservatives, the Bush-Cheney-McCain is not among them. That is why I support Barack Obama …

    I could go on, but why bother?

  5. I will stand by my definition of the terms. It is supported by several years of strategic planning and by notable text books covering vision, strategy, tactics. They are often confused, but there are very real differences.

  6. I'm happy to educate Russ. Do a little research and you can find out my real name too. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm making valid comparisons.

    For example: Obama wants to sit down with Ahmadinejad with no preconditions, that's what Mr. Layton has suggested as well. A completely valid compariso to show that both favour appeasement.

    You don't think Obama is a socialist? Wow. Ok, for starters he worked for Acorn, which is practically a communist front organization. Obama wants to expand government enormously by socializing health care. He also has said plainly that he wants to increase regulation (which means bigger government), he wants to re-distribute wealth through taxes from the productive to the unproductive: a classic socialist tactic.

    Obviously I'm not the only person who thinks you're mistaken. However, if you truly stand for small "c" conservative principles, I find it difficult to understand how you could be so supportive of Obama. I'm not huge fan of McCain, mainly because I don't think he's a conservative either, but he's certainly no socialist like Obama.

    Obama wants bigger government, WAY bigger.

    J. Strong

  7. I do acknowledge there is a contradiction, but I support Senator Obama because I've seen the devastating effect of nearly 8 years of Republican-style conservatism. I shudder at the thought of four more. It is not conservative to continue to reward abject failure.

    There is an old saying about leadership: "lead or get out of the way." After eight years, it is time to get out of the way.

    The Bush admin. must surely be the worst in US history and public opinion seems to support this notion.

    I used to think Jimmy Carter had that title, but Geo. Bush, jr dethroned him.

    I'm prepared to compromise a few conservatives ideals to support the smarter man with better personal judgment and offering a steadier hand on the tiller.

    Anyway, John McCain is conservative in name only. He'd be whatever he thought he needed to be to win.

    Crises are not the time for grand-standers.