Sestak’s got a solid pro-war record, voting to give Bush a blank check on Iraq and proudly launching attacks inland from miles offshore.

Sestak keeps “name-dropping” the phrase “when I was on the ground in Afghanistan”.

It gives the impression that he was there as a combatant.

My understanding has always been that he was there for a short visit as an observer or for some briefing. In an attempt to make his trip “colorful” at campaign events, Sestak used to talk about seeing some CIA-type bag-man with a suitcase of cash for bribing local officials.

My questions are:
1) Did Sestak witness an illegal/improper use of taxpayer money?
2) If it was wrong, did he report it to anyone?
3) As a congressman, did he ever investigate the authorization or paper trail?

Sestak’s been vague on the details of his Afghanistan trip.
When was it? How many days was he there? Where was he, relative to the fighting?

Sestak recently claimed, that while in Afghanistan he witness an mentally disturb person in custody (banging his own head against a wall). Sestak says he was told the person was turned over for a bounty by locals.

Did Sestak actually do anything about it at the time to pursue the matter?

Hey David,

As you know, I’ve consistently defended your right to voice your opinion on pa2010.com: http://www.pa2010.com/2009/06/on-moderating-comments/

I have also encouraged you to maintain a certain level of civility in the discourse, and mostly, you have obliged. I appreciate this.

But with that in mind, I want to just caution you a bit here, specifically to your comment about Sestak “proudly launching attacks inland from miles offshore.” I’m not sure precisely to what you’re referring, but it seems like you’re comparing following military orders to some kind of awful war crime.

Congressman Sestak’s political career is completely open for criticism, and if you really have something substantive to bring up from his military service that’s relevant to these discussions, then I suppose that’s fair game, too. But it seems to me that if Sestak was ordered to fire missiles from a boat, any American, Democrat or Republican, pro-Sestak or pro-Specter, would, 99 times out of 100, expect him to follow orders.

So, let’s stay focused on the issues. Let’s keep this conversation to where Sestak and Specter differ on Afghanistan and what it means for the primary.

You know I enjoy having your voice on the site, and appreciate your willingness to be accountable for what you say by using your real name.

But let’s stay in bounds.

Dan Hirschhorn

I agree with Specter and Ralph Peters of the New York Post. I don’t think we have a strategy to win in such a corrupt and lawless country. Afganistan is known as the graveyard of empires for a reason. We cannot transform this country and why should we. America feels responsible for helping a country that wants to harm it and it will come back to bite us. Slash, burn, and get out.

Is the survey really necessary? I’m sure Specter put a poll out into the field on this before deciding which way to go anyways.

Dan-
Sestak has publicly talked about engaging in “softening up” operations and talks about how proud he’s been of the responsibility of leading men into harms way.
I’ve never liked that particular phrasing, and in general, dislike military operations conducted long distance. I don’t thing there is any “glory” or honor in that type of warfare.
Ships as platforms for delivering supplies: yes
Ships as remote mobile weapon launchers against a non naval power seems wrong.

I’m kind of in the Bill Maher camp when it comes to push-button warfare and air-chair warriors as a general policy.

But Sestak sounds like he’s conflating his non-combat time on the ground with his combat time from afar.

Also, Sestak has publicly discussed his interaction with a young sailor on the eve of battle. Sestak stated he felt like commander, father, confessor and “God” to this young sailor. (Yes, Sestak actually referred to himself as God. It was the first day I met him at his announcement for Congress.)

This behavior reminds me more of an Ollie North than a John Kerry. Sestak seems more enthralled by war and the “glory”.

As an anti-war liberal, I feel Sestak is not “one of us”.

That “God” story is so bizarre. Is there any context that might explain it better?

flynnwb-
During the Obama campaign I met a Delco Dem who was former Navy, and a supporter of Sestak. He seemed to know Joe well and liked Joe. He explained to me that that kind of God-complex was not all that uncommon among other high-ranking officers he had met. I’ve met a few people that have made similar remarks. I don’t know if it’s different with the Navy vs the other branches.

It may be an occupational hazard of high command.

Ironically, the VERY first thing I ever said to Joe when I met him was that he should drop the “I was his God!” line punch-line from his story. True story.

Specter has completely lost his mind. It almost seemed like he doubted the connection between Afghanistan and al Qaeda. The Taliban and al Qaeda are in Afghanistan and Pakistan right now. Does he doubt that they would retake that country if the US left, as he suggested? Would it be crazy to suggest that they would set up terrorist camps again? Would it be crazy to suggest they might launch and all-out attack on Pakistan, a US ally with nuclear weapons? Specter is playing a very, very dangerous game and I have no idea why. Does he really think this foolish talk is going to help him? Maybe in the primary where he has to be as left as Sestak, but in the general election Toomey is going to smash him with this, and even the conservative Democrats in Western PA aren’t going to like this. Very dumb move, and I have no idea why he did it. If he simply keeps his mouth shut for the next 6 months and doesn’t do anything stupid he defeats Sestak easily.

Jim-
Specter left himself an opening in that he didn’t want to commit troops without an exit strategy.

Are we taking the right approach there? We greatly outnumber people we are fighting, and are getting our @sses kicked because we are large, lumbering and exposed.

There seems to be a debate about whether or not this is winnable. I think it could be with the right strategy. But I’m not sure if those that think in terms of overwhelming power are looking at different strategies for this type of battle.

I don’t know if the problem is just numbers of troops.

A defeat in Afghanistan carries a heavy price as well as an expensive non-victory.

I think the US needs to focus on getting Bin Laden and his inner circle, and worry less about the foot soldiers.

David,

I disagree with your belief that we are having trouble because we’re large, lumbering and exposed. Why not try a surge like we had in Iraq rather than giving up and calling it a defeat? Defeat should always be the last resort, especially when dealing with a dangerous situation like Afghanistan. This is not Vietnam. There was never a threat of Vietnam coming after us after we left, but there certainly is with Afghanistan.

My comments about Specter stand. This is another in a long line of foolish moves on his part to “out liberal” Sestak. Specter has made a career on moderation. He should position himself as the moderate candidate, and paint Sestak as too liberal and Toomey as too conservative. He’s clearly not doing that, which is a bad move. It might not cost him in the primary, but it certainly will in the general election. Think about it…he is pro-choice, recently said he supports gays serving openly in the military, questions whether we should be staying in Afghanistan, voted for TARP, voted for the stimulus, now says he’ll support universal health care, and card check, and cap and trade. This is not the same moderate Arlen Specter that has been in Congress for nearly 30 years and this Arlen Specter will not be able to win in Pennsylvania, particularly in a 2010 election year that is probably not going to be friendly towards Democrats.

David:
I served in uniform as well, so I am familiar with the “rarified air” that flag and general officers breathe. I can definitely picture VADM Sestak saying something like this in private, but at his campaign announcement? That is just bizarre.

As far as the substance goes, I happen to believe that leaving Afghanistan now would be foolish – both in terms of the continued fight against jihadist transnational terrorism, and in terms of geopolitics and grand strategy.

We are looking at a vulnerable democratic government in Pakistan facing a determined Pashtun insurgency that would be very much emboldened by a scaled back American commitment in Afghanistan.

But can the new American strategy work?

The success of counterinsurgency (COIN) is to an extent a function of the number of troops executing the strategy. So yes, if we want the new strategy to succeed, we need more troops in-country. And yes, we must be prepared for more casualties in the near-term if we want to be successful.

However, successful COIN is also contingent on a competent government that is worthy of the citizenry’s trust. The Karzai government is clearly not up to this standard, and this is what gives me pause.

If it were simply a matter of more US troops executing a COIN strategy, I would have no doubt at all. But it pains me that the extraordinary sacrifice of our servicemembers might still be for naught if the Karzai government doesn’t get it together.

Nonetheless, I think we have little choice but to go “all-in.” Pres. Obama needs to use his considerable communications skills to get American opinion on-board, while simultaneously making clear to Karzai in private that he has a VERY short leash.

In any event, I guarantee that in anything even resembling a fair fight, our American servicemembers are up to the task.

Jim-
Why not a surge?

Mountains vs flag dessert. Places to hide vs open terrain.

Vietnam’s thick jungles gave us similar problems.

When DADT was passed 70% or more of military thought gays should serve. That stat has reversed itself since. Specter’s always been pro-choice and pretty decent on civil rights. Without the GOP holding him back, we are getting Specter-Unchained! It’s like a political version of an action flick….
“The broke his balls for 30 years: Now it’s Payback Time”.

flynnbw-
Rarefied air. LOL! Usually a term I associate with low oxygen for the brain.
It was kind of creepy. He kept it up for about the first week or two of the campaign, then finally dropped it. The way he delivered the “I was his God! punchline was so melodramatic that he obviously thought it was a great line. Welcome to civilian life.

I can understand a large force to protect a city or town. But, for the mountain fighting, I think we need small, agile groups that can almost sneak in and out before the enemy knows we are there. If it means incursions into Pakistan to kill these guys in the villages where they are hiding, then so be it.
As it stands now, they know where we are, so they can avoid us and sneak back and forth across the border invisibly.
With our night vision goggles, satellite maps, GPS, etc., we should be able to travel at will and not be seen, instead.

For example: Our submarines are both more quiet and more sensitive listeners than the Russian subs. We can follow them, just outside their detection range. I worked in anti-submarine warfare for a government contractor. It didn’t even matter if they had more subs. Ours were that much better and we could follow them anywhere.

We had sonic buoys and listening arrays all over the ocean. We should have thousands of micro-cameras with sound and motion detectors all over the border regions tracking their movements, or at least some kind of wireless solar-powered “webcam” that we can monitor from miles away.
There are kids with home-made systems that can steal a WiFi signal from miles away, and we can’t build our own warning/tracking system? Hunters and nature researchers use this kind of technology to find animal trails. We can find the trails of these animals?

Anyway, my point is that feels like we are being inefficient in our use of man-power and using small technology.
Think about it: these guys are using cell-phones to make $50-$100 bombs to take out $1 million pieces of equipment. But, we aren’t taking cell-phones to make bombs. No, we spend years developing expensive high-tech bombs from a government contractor in the district of an influential legislator.

Their strategy is for us to expend disproportionate resources.

In my opinion: I was under the impression that the only reason we were in Afghanistan was to hunt down and capture/kill Bin Ladin. While our fearless/fearful leaders are so wrapped up with their healthcare fiasco they are neglecting the troops that wake up everyday not knowing if this is their last. I feel uncomfortable bringing this up but I think it needs to be said: I was boots on the ground in ’72. While there, I sensed my country had abandoned us which gave a psychological advantage to the enemy. For the sake of the men and woman in Afghanistan, send the 40,000 or get out immediately. God, please keep blessing America!

Andrew, the problem is, you can’t slash and burn a graveyard.

David, what I hear Mr. Obama affirming is having the capacity to call up 40,000…but not all at once.

I can’t help feeling that people’s views of how the Army works, they got from movies! flynnbw is the first to sound like s/he has any practical exposure relating to this matter.

Things are complicated enough without us being beset with the ghosts of Baby Boomers’ Vietnam traumas. I wish people would stop referring to Vietnam, and instead make their comments about war strategy and tactics from THAT basis. That is, strategy and tactics. Liberals think it’s the be-all and end all to invoke the giant street puppet of Vietnam, or Bush, or Cheney. More is required of us!

And, Boomers, THIS ISN’T ABOUT YOU! Can’t you get that through your heads? There is FINALLY something that is ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE! On THEIR terms.

If we can destroy Al Qaida–as should have been done ten years ago–we must stop at nothing to do so.

If we cannot…well, I can’t say that appeasement is a strategy. I’ve known too many women living under the horrors of the Taleban and other jihadist Islamicists. Which reminds me:

A friend on his fourth tour (now in Afghanistan) cried over beer with me this past summer as he talked about his exhaustion. What’s the most important thing he’s doing over there, in his view? Not geopolitics. It’s staying there by hook or by crook just so he can hand out pencils, paper, and books to girl children (bought with his own money, and donations from his friends). He spends every moment he can teaching them to read. In the hopes that if the Taleban reclaims the area, at least they will have had that taste of liberation. He’s there officially as an agronomist. But he thinks that the tribal/warlord system is too corrupt to make much of a difference on that front.

Sorry, but it isn’t The Sixties, it isn’t Vietnam, it isn’t any of that. We have got to think in future ways, not past ways. Which means letting the past inform where that is useful…but today and tomorrow couldn’t be more different. And simplistic, categorical, kneejerk thinking has no role in that future.

Ok TP, we all can wish and right now I wish you were pres. because based on your comments, I derive, if confronted with the question of troops or no troops, you would have responded, ‘I am ready to do whatever it takes to support my military personell and give them whatever they require to overcome the enemy!’.
That is all he had to say. If given the choice, I much rather serve under Bush than O

Tom-
“I am ready to do whatever it takes to support my military personel and give them whatever they require to overcome the enemy!”

A statement like that is just a lot of empty cheerleading, unless there is actually a well thought out plan behind it. By carefully considering his actions, Obama is paying real respect to the troops and any sacrifices he may have to ask of them.

David-
Thank you, I consider you one of the most well thought bloggers on this site.
The fact that the pres. demonstrated hesitation sent a message to the enemy that may have emboldened them to step up their effort. Even if the pres. knows he is giving up he should never telegraph his feelings. Whether it was empty cheerleading doesn’t matter, he showed weakness and doubt which puts our troops at a greater risk.

Tom-
I don’t think that taking time to plot an effective strategy emboldens the enemy. Quite the contrary, it give them reason to fear there is intelligence behind our actions.
George Bush’s style, attitude and incompetence assisted our enemy on several levels:

1) Bush did not cooperate with our allies. As a result we got less support/commitment from them and their citizens.

2) On the international polling question: “Do you trust the US to do the right thing?” We’ve gone from 41% under Bush to 75% under Obama. THAT weakens our enemy and their ability to recruit. It also gives our allies backing to support us.

3) Torture. The policies under Bush helped terrorist recruitment. The evidence is clear that torture didn’t make us safer, and had the opposite effect.

4) There may be some truth that leaders like Saddam were “respected” by our enemies for how many people he was willing to send to needless deaths in a battle. The US doesn’t need that kind of respect.

5) Obama’s making a point of getting better quality intelligence than from Dick Cheney and “Curveball” and playing into the hands of not only al Quada but also Iran (remember Chalabi?)

Spending a few extra weeks getting it right is the best thing Obama can do for the troops.

David-

I do not share the same view, as you, on the 5 or six point given. In my opinion, we are drifting away from the comment Specter made: “…we ought not to add troops in Afghanistan” and “I oppose sending additional troops to Afghanistan, and “I want to hear your thoughts,” coupled with the fact that the pres. wants to develop a strategy and apparently has been working on this strategy for months, indicates the pres. and the leadership have no idea what to do. In my opinion, the comments made by both Specter and the pres. were made for the purpose of determining how the voting base would react. In my opinion, when the pres. approval began to fall, the pres. indicated an increase of 35k. Specter will now probably approve of this decision because the polls may work against him if he doesn’t. In my opinion, these guys are politicians, not leaders.

As I said before, I was under the impression the mission, in Afghanistan, was only to hunt down and capture/kill Bin Laden, not to bring some sort of pseudo democracy. The primary concern of this country should be to our troops in harms way so, in my opinion, make a decision now to 1) Continue the effort to capture/kill Bin Laden and send whatever is necessary or 2)Bring our troops home immediately.