A Tale of Two Surges

[The Rabbi]

After months of dithering Obama finally decided on an Afghan policy that would more or less mirror the surge in Iraq, one that he opposed and was successful anyway. In doing so he chose the plan laid out by his own general, McChrystal, that had the least chance for success.
So how did he do compared to Bush's surge?
Timeline of the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bush's surge got going in Feb 2007 to enormous Congressional opposition from Democrats, who voted against it but funded it anyway. By Nov evidence of its success was begining to emerge and we know what's happened since.
Obama's surge was announced in Feb 2010. Here it is November 2010, the same time period, and all evidence is the surge has failed miserably, with the Taliban stronger than ever and Karzai probably negotiatng with them for a power sharing arrangement ahead of the US withdrawal in July.
Note that Obama also had full congressional endorsement, notwithstanding some anti war leftist kooks.
Obama launches Afghanistan surge | The Australian

 

[R.C. Christian]

LOL, there is no solution there. You can kill them all and they'll just make more. The best you can hope for is another brutally repressive regime under the guise of a so called democracy, with billions of taxpayer money every year keeping it propped up.

 

[Greenbeard]

... opposition from Democrats, who voted against it but funded it anyway.

Now there's a fascinating concept.

 

[R.C. Christian]

I've yet to see the militaries counter insurgency doctrine work in afghanistan. It's a pretty damn good doctrine too, I will admit, having read it back to back a few times now. Divide and conquer.

 

[The Rabbi]

... opposition from Democrats, who voted against it but funded it anyway.

Now there's a fascinating concept.

Yeah, it's called gutless demagoguery. The Dems opposed Bush's policies and voted against them many times but refrained from actually taking action, like ending funding, which would make them take responsibility.

 

[The Rabbi]

LOL, there is no solution there. You can kill them all and they'll just make more. The best you can hope for is another brutally repressive regime under the guise of a so called democracy, with billions of taxpayer money every year keeping it propped up.

There is no good solution. The British got their asses kicked in the 19thC. The Russians in the 1980s, and they were rigth across the border. No one has been successful bringing order to that hell hole.

 

[washamericom]

sorry guys...wrong column, this is a new thread... sorry

 

[The T]

After months of dithering Obama finally decided on an Afghan policy that would more or less mirror the surge in Iraq, one that he opposed and was successful anyway. In doing so he chose the plan laid out by his own general, McChrystal, that had the least chance for success.
So how did he do compared to Bush's surge?
Timeline of the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bush's surge got going in Feb 2007 to enormous Congressional opposition from Democrats, who voted against it but funded it anyway. By Nov evidence of its success was begining to emerge and we know what's happened since.
Obama's surge was announced in Feb 2010. Here it is November 2010, the same time period, and all evidence is the surge has failed miserably, with the Taliban stronger than ever and Karzai probably negotiatng with them for a power sharing arrangement ahead of the US withdrawal in July.
Note that Obama also had full congressional endorsement, notwithstanding some anti war leftist kooks.
Obama launches Afghanistan surge | The Australian

As to Afghanistan? Throw this tidbit into the mix:

Negotiator for Taliban said to be imposter

 

[The Rabbi]

After months of dithering Obama finally decided on an Afghan policy that would more or less mirror the surge in Iraq, one that he opposed and was successful anyway. In doing so he chose the plan laid out by his own general, McChrystal, that had the least chance for success.
So how did he do compared to Bush's surge?
Timeline of the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bush's surge got going in Feb 2007 to enormous Congressional opposition from Democrats, who voted against it but funded it anyway. By Nov evidence of its success was begining to emerge and we know what's happened since.
Obama's surge was announced in Feb 2010. Here it is November 2010, the same time period, and all evidence is the surge has failed miserably, with the Taliban stronger than ever and Karzai probably negotiatng with them for a power sharing arrangement ahead of the US withdrawal in July.
Note that Obama also had full congressional endorsement, notwithstanding some anti war leftist kooks.
Obama launches Afghanistan surge | The Australian

As to Afghanistan? Throw this tidbit into the mix:

Negotiator for Taliban said to be imposter

Anyone think it's time the adults came back and took over running this country?

 

[washamericom]

oops wrong post !!!

 

[The Rabbi]

with all of the furry about corporations being able to contibute to campaigns, and the way the president insulted the supreme court in his state of the union, should the court reverse the decision ? if they did, should they bar unions the same way to make it fair ? atfer all they contributed 200 mil mostly to democrats in the midterm. for many "contibutors" the money was a mandatory forced donation or lose your job.
is this a "fair" practice ??

it will be interesting to see how many supremes show up for january's state of the union show.

This is relevant here, why?

ETA:
OK, mistake noted.

 

[antagon]

i liked the biden deescalation plan. i dont see what is supposed to be gained by a surge in afghanistan.

 

[The Rabbi]

i liked the biden deescalation plan. i dont see what is supposed to be gained by a surge in afghanistan.

I presume the goal was to achieve the same level of success as Bush. And to overcome Obama's lack of foreign policy/military experience. Also to give some patina of truth to Obama's criticism of Bush and his claim that Afghanist was "the just war."
In all of those the policy is a gross failure.

 

[washamericom]

i liked the biden deescalation plan. i dont see what is supposed to be gained by a surge in afghanistan.

I presume the goal was to achieve the same level of success as Bush. And to overcome Obama's lack of foreign policy/military experience. Also to give some patina of truth to Obama's criticism of Bush and his claim that Afghanist was "the just war."
In all of those the policy is a gross failure.

i don't see how one war can be "just" or justified, while another isn't

 

[DaGoose]

i liked the biden deescalation plan. i dont see what is supposed to be gained by a surge in afghanistan.

I presume the goal was to achieve the same level of success as Bush. And to overcome Obama's lack of foreign policy/military experience. Also to give some patina of truth to Obama's criticism of Bush and his claim that Afghanist was "the just war."
In all of those the policy is a gross failure.

Two things have remained constant.

First is my support to going into Afghanistan to find and kill Bin Laden. (You know, the guy Bush said he wasn't concerned about.)

Second is my opposition to the Iraq Invasion and Occupation. (You know, the one Bush said was for finding those pesky WMD's and got thousands of our military KILLED to prove it.)

And to say Bush "had success in Iraq" is like saying Hitler had success in Poland.

And to say Obama's not handling those two items correctly is disingenious at best. Bush fought the Afghan war only half heartily which Obama had to correct.

 

[washamericom]

i liked the biden deescalation plan. i dont see what is supposed to be gained by a surge in afghanistan.

I presume the goal was to achieve the same level of success as Bush. And to overcome Obama's lack of foreign policy/military experience. Also to give some patina of truth to Obama's criticism of Bush and his claim that Afghanist was "the just war."
In all of those the policy is a gross failure.

Two things have remained constant.

First is my support to going into Afghanistan to find and kill Bin Laden. (You know, the guy Bush said he wasn't concerned about.)

Second is my opposition to the Iraq Invasion and Occupation. (You know, the one Bush said was for finding those pesky WMD's and got thousands of our military KILLED to prove it.)

And to say Bush "had success in Iraq" is like saying Hitler had success in Poland.

And to say Obama's not handling those two items correctly is disingenious at best. Bush fought the Afghan war only half heartily which Obama had to correct.

wow are you biased.

 

[The Rabbi]

i liked the biden deescalation plan. i dont see what is supposed to be gained by a surge in afghanistan.

I presume the goal was to achieve the same level of success as Bush. And to overcome Obama's lack of foreign policy/military experience. Also to give some patina of truth to Obama's criticism of Bush and his claim that Afghanist was "the just war."
In all of those the policy is a gross failure.

i don't see how one war can be "just" or justified, while another isn't

It has something to do with stronger links to 9/11. Or something. I don't pretend to understand Obama's foreign policy because I think it is inherently contradictory and ad hoc.

 

[FactFinder]

I presume the goal was to achieve the same level of success as Bush. And to overcome Obama's lack of foreign policy/military experience. Also to give some patina of truth to Obama's criticism of Bush and his claim that Afghanist was "the just war."
In all of those the policy is a gross failure.

i don't see how one war can be "just" or justified, while another isn't

It has something to do with stronger links to 9/11. Or something. I don't pretend to understand Obama's foreign policy because I think it is inherently contradictory and ad hoc.

I don't see how one surge can be compared to the other. Totally different geographies, enemy locations and civil development.

 

[washamericom]

i don't see how one war can be "just" or justified, while another isn't

It has something to do with stronger links to 9/11. Or something. I don't pretend to understand Obama's foreign policy because I think it is inherently contradictory and ad hoc.

I don't see how one surge can be compared to the other. Totally different geographies, enemy locations and civil development.

i agree with you both

 

[NYcarbineer]

... opposition from Democrats, who voted against it but funded it anyway.

Now there's a fascinating concept.

Yeah, it's called gutless demagoguery. The Dems opposed Bush's policies and voted against them many times but refrained from actually taking action, like ending funding, which would make them take responsibility.

Well, take comfort in the fact that the Republicans can now defund the Afghan war in January.