How do you turn that to your advantage?

We've seen time and again that people in America care less about getting their position enshrined in law and more about making sure that the other group, a nebulous 'other', is defeated.

I feel like there's some strategy here that we overlook because in the past policy and positions have been what drove parties.

How do you give someone the perception that they won but make it so meaningless that you can do what you need to do?

If nine out of ten Americans could not find Afghanistan on a map in 2001, it is probable that ten out of ten cannot find Niger on a map in 2017. Count me among those who could not locate Niger on the map of Africa, much less make a case for the U.S. military presence there — at least until 2014. That is when I prepared to command U.S. special operations in West and North Africa, including Niger. I deployed in 2015.

...

When commanding U.S. forces in remote regions, every day I asked myself both sides of this question. The “why or why not be there” inquiry considers available forces, physical access, foreign policy resolve, perceived risk to the U.S. homeland, and the quality and will of America’s host nation partners. Complex enough? Now add in the physics. Africa’s vast spaces empty of infrastructure make logistics, mobility, and medical support difficult.

...

Niger is one of a catalog of countries where U.S. military presence is proclaimed (not covert), yet garners little attention. Niger has the three main ingredients that call for a small, specialized U.S. military presence. First, there are lethal and expeditionary threats that require monitoring and, if merited, action. Second, Niger fields capable and willing host nation security forces, principally in the Forces Armees Nigierienes. Finally, the United States fields a skilled diplomatic team in Niger led by a respected ambassador. During my time commanding forces in Niger, these factors were adroitly in balance. For years, the best zone defense that you never heard of worked superbly.
...

So, to be there or not to be there? When man-to-man defense is neither affordable nor sustainable, America’s options are to play a zone or to walk off the court. Afghanistan showed us the cost of electing to leaving the court in the 1990s. Sixteen years later, America trudges on, retrospectively considering how a small, skilled investment in Afghanistan backed by political resolve decades ago might have altered a tragic history. In Niger, as in other countries difficult to locate on a world map, the middle ground is to play zone. This means incurring calculated risk to select Americans in order to hedge against strategic surprise.

....


Much more at link...

______________________________________-

Article is pretty broken up to meet copy and paste requirements but is worth a read.

COL Petit was a pretty solid Group commander and this gives some solid justifications for what we do and what we choose not to.

Enjoy...

With rumors swirling that Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton will soon head for the CIA, another Senate race may be added to the 2018 list. The safe money is for an open seat in Arkansas to stay in Republican hands. But who thought Alabama would host a competitive Senate race? If Democrats can find a credible candidate, and unruly Republican voters again fail to take their nomination process seriously, anything could happen.

However, to call the Arkansas Democratic Party a shell would be an insult to turtles. There are no Democratic officials holding statewide office, nor any in the U.S. House delegation. Out of the 135 members of the Arkansas state legislature, only 33—less than 25 percent—are Democrats. Not a single Democrat has yet stepped up to run for governor next year. The only Democratic Senate prospect that Arkansas Times columnist Jay Barth could come up with isn’t even a Democrat, but former Republican state House Speaker Davy Carter, who has been critical of President Donald Trump and could run as “an Independent with Democratic backing.”

...

That leaves us with one Clinton: Chelsea.

...

She has the Clinton name but little of the Clinton baggage. She wouldn’t hurt for name recognition or campaign cash. She’s vice chair of the controversy magnet known as the Clinton Foundation, but emails released during the presidential campaign by WikiLeaks and the State Department show Chelsea getting caught doing good, seeking to root out corruption by foundation officials and warning of problems with Haiti earthquake relief.

More at link...


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/03/clinton-should-run-for-tom-cottons-senate-seat-216001

________________________________

I just... wow...



I don't know who Bill Scher is but someone needs to find his computer and smash it to bits before he puts out something like this again...

People just don't learn...

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., says he understands why Hillary Clinton decided to write her campaign memoir, “What Happened,” which was published in September — 10 months after her brutal election loss to Donald Trump. But McCain, who suffered his own bitter defeat, to Barack Obama, as the Republican nominee in 2008, also knows that “you can’t rewrite history.”

“One of the almost irresistible impulses you have when you lose is to somehow justify why you lost and how you were mistreated: ’I did the right thing! I did!’” McCain told Esquire magazine for a lengthy profile published online Sunday. “The hardest thing to do is to just shut up.”

In “What Happened,” Clinton claims that the “attacks” Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., leveled at her during their Democratic primary battle “caused lasting damage,” made it harder to “unify progressives” and paved the way for Trump’s “Crooked Hillary” refrain.

“What’s the f***ing point? Keep the fight up?” McCain said of Clinton’s tome. “History will judge that campaign, and it’s always a period of time before they do. You’ve got to move on. This is Hillary’s problem right now: She doesn’t have anything to do.”


_______________________

Wow...


More at link

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mccain-to-hillary-clinton-youve-got-to-move-on_us_5a1c4a2fe4b0e771d6b7df68?utm_campaign=hp_fb_pages&utm_source=politics_fb&utm_medium=facebook&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013§ion=politics

George Washington was 43 when the Continental Congress placed him in command of the fledgling army that would eventually drive the British out of their American colonies. At 55, the general presided over the fractious convention that produced the most durable constitution the world has ever seen. He then served two terms as the nation’s first president, leaving office for the last time at 65.
...

If our four best presidents entered office at an average age of 50, why am I reading about potential candidates for 2020 who will be in their 70s? Former vice president Joe Biden says he is thinking about making a run. If he won, he would take office at 78. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has been touted as a front-runner for the Democratic nomination. He would be 79. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) beams as throngs of Democrats chant her name. If she runs and wins, she would take the oath at 71.

Until Donald Trump came along, the United States had never sent a septuagenarian to occupy the Oval Office. (We did keep one there in 1984, when Ronald Reagan was reelected at 73.) We’ve sworn in more than twice as many presidents under the age of 50 as over the age of 65. That serious people are discussing candidates who would be pushing 80 is unprecedented — and sclerotic for our political system.

My point is not to disparage the elderly, for I am rapidly becoming one myself. But no thriving society finds its fresh thinking among its oldest leaders. The wisdom of years is a check, not an engine. Though age takes its toll in different ways on different people, in the aggregate the science is clear: Mental agility, executive function and creativity all tend to decline as we pass through middle age. A nice summary of the research, published by the distinguished Dana Foundation, noted: “Older adults tend to be slower in conceptualizing and less ready to change strategies when circumstances shift.”


...

More at link.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/time-to-take-baby-boomers-off-the-ticket/2017/11/24/7b4aa97c-d154-11e7-81bc-c55a220c8cbe_story.html?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.0d3ba926cfde

... while none of the Republicans have admitted it.

Just wait for it...

Ugh...

It's 40 minutes of awkwardness trying to defend Moore.

I know... It's weird... but I swear it's worth it...

Even his normal lineup of talking heads was like 'Damn, that dude is guilty as hell' and Hannity flopped around like a fish.

I don't know how they made it past the screeners.

Never again....

... Is there a danger that they could be replaced by someone with the same shit agenda but there has been enough time to find someone who actually knows how to manage, organize or god forbid... govern?

I sometimes wonder if the stupid devils we know are better than the likely more intelligent ones we don't.

Someone like Besty Devos, who by all accounts is an idiot, could be replaced by someone who knows what's what.

The spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association says death threats from “gun control advocates” have forced her to move her family from their California home.

“Spent my weekend preparing to move due to repeated threats from gun control advocates,” NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch tweeted Sunday to her 642,000 followers. The tweet included a photo of bags presumably filled with her belongings piled up on her floor.

Loesch, a frequent cable news guest, also wrote that one person threatened to shoot her after obtaining her private cellphone number, another threatened rape and another “dragged her kids into” the threats, ultimately prompting the move

Staunch gun control advocate Chelsea Clinton weighed in to support Loesch, calling the threats “awful and unacceptable.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/355717-nra-spokeswoman-says-shes-moving-due-to-gun-control-death-threats#

It's nice that Clinton supported her but that comments section. What an ugly place...