Breaking: MSNBC : Prez Obama REJECTS ALL MILITARY OPTIONS IN AFGHANISTAN

[oreo]

Asking you to define what would constitute victory in Afghanistan is a strawman?

It is unless you actually don't know what victory means and are using it to deflect this thread away from Obama's lack of policy. But, just in case you really don't know.. victory in Afghanistan would leave a nation that was safe enough for development. It would be a nation that doesn't serve as a haven for the Taliban and drug lords. It would be a nation where a woman wouldn't have to worry that her leg would be amputated because an errant wind lifted her burka and showed her ankle.

It's not a weakness to base your tactics off of the facts on the ground. As for your definition of victory, that's fine if you want to define things that way, but it gets to the heart of the issue. What you spelled out is a goal that can never be accomplished with force. The military is there to flatten enemy forces. It can't construct civil society. It can't ensure that the individual Afghan tribes will rally around a central government.

I agree with you. We aren't going to have one terrorist wave a white flag that will end the war on terror--BUT--you never show these maniacs your backside without expecting severe reprocussions from it.

It would be very easy for us to install "permanent" bases in Iraq & Afganistan to keep radicals at bay. We have bases all over the world--& many are no longer necessary--like Japan & Germany. Move them into Afganistan & Iraq--on a smaller scale--& keep them weaponized--secure--& at ready status to fight radicals within the country.

 

[Polk]

It is unless you actually don't know what victory means and are using it to deflect this thread away from Obama's lack of policy. But, just in case you really don't know.. victory in Afghanistan would leave a nation that was safe enough for development. It would be a nation that doesn't serve as a haven for the Taliban and drug lords. It would be a nation where a woman wouldn't have to worry that her leg would be amputated because an errant wind lifted her burka and showed her ankle.

It's not a weakness to base your tactics off of the facts on the ground. As for your definition of victory, that's fine if you want to define things that way, but it gets to the heart of the issue. What you spelled out is a goal that can never be accomplished with force. The military is there to flatten enemy forces. It can't construct civil society. It can't ensure that the individual Afghan tribes will rally around a central government.

I agree with you. We aren't going to have one terrorist wave a white flag that will end the war on terror--BUT--you never show these maniacs your backside without expecting severe reprocussions from it.

It would be very easy for us to install "permanent" bases in Iraq & Afganistan to keep radicals at bay. We have bases all over the world--& many are no longer necessary--like Japan & Germany. Move them into Afganistan & Iraq--on a smaller scale--& keep them weaponized--secure--& at ready status to fight radicals within the country.

I wouldn't be opposed to something like that. I just think this idea we can create a united Afghanistan, if only we have enough willpower, is faulty. Unless Pakistan really steps up, there is always going to be that valve we can't shut off.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Asking you to define what would constitute victory in Afghanistan is a strawman?

It is unless you actually don't know what victory means and are using it to deflect this thread away from Obama's lack of policy. But, just in case you really don't know.. victory in Afghanistan would leave a nation that was safe enough for development. It would be a nation that doesn't serve as a haven for the Taliban and drug lords. It would be a nation where a woman wouldn't have to worry that her leg would be amputated because an errant wind lifted her burka and showed her ankle.

It's not a weakness to base your tactics off of the facts on the ground. As for your definition of victory, that's fine if you want to define things that way, but it gets to the heart of the issue. What you spelled out is a goal that can never be accomplished with force. The military is there to flatten enemy forces. It can't construct civil society. It can't ensure that the individual Afghan tribes will rally around a central government.

Obviously you are not a student of history or you wouldn't make such idiotic claims. All one has to do is look to the Allied victories over Germany and Japan.
Marshall plan?
General MacArthur WROTE the Japanese constitution.

Seems to me those 2 countries are quite "civil" now doesn't it?

 

[oreo]

It's not a weakness to base your tactics off of the facts on the ground. As for your definition of victory, that's fine if you want to define things that way, but it gets to the heart of the issue. What you spelled out is a goal that can never be accomplished with force. The military is there to flatten enemy forces. It can't construct civil society. It can't ensure that the individual Afghan tribes will rally around a central government.

I agree with you. We aren't going to have one terrorist wave a white flag that will end the war on terror--BUT--you never show these maniacs your backside without expecting severe reprocussions from it.

It would be very easy for us to install "permanent" bases in Iraq & Afganistan to keep radicals at bay. We have bases all over the world--& many are no longer necessary--like Japan & Germany. Move them into Afganistan & Iraq--on a smaller scale--& keep them weaponized--secure--& at ready status to fight radicals within the country.

I wouldn't be opposed to something like that. I just think this idea we can create a united Afghanistan, if only we have enough willpower, is faulty. Unless Pakistan really steps up, there is always going to be that valve we can't shut off.

These people--if they weren't fighting us would be slaughterting each other. They have lived this way for centuries--we are not going to change that--no matter how hard we try.

So I think install U.S bases in Iraq & Afganistan just to keep them at bay.

 

[Polk]

It is unless you actually don't know what victory means and are using it to deflect this thread away from Obama's lack of policy. But, just in case you really don't know.. victory in Afghanistan would leave a nation that was safe enough for development. It would be a nation that doesn't serve as a haven for the Taliban and drug lords. It would be a nation where a woman wouldn't have to worry that her leg would be amputated because an errant wind lifted her burka and showed her ankle.

It's not a weakness to base your tactics off of the facts on the ground. As for your definition of victory, that's fine if you want to define things that way, but it gets to the heart of the issue. What you spelled out is a goal that can never be accomplished with force. The military is there to flatten enemy forces. It can't construct civil society. It can't ensure that the individual Afghan tribes will rally around a central government.

Obviously you are not a student of history or you wouldn't make such idiotic claims. All one has to do is look to the Allied victories over Germany and Japan.
Marshall plan?
General MacArthur WROTE the Japanese constitution.

Seems to me those 2 countries are quite "civil" now doesn't it?

A program of direct aid is not a military action, nor is writing a constitution (which MacArthur did not write the Japanese constitution personally, he gave the orders to do so to members of his staff who were trained legal professionals).

 

[Article 15]

While this may appease many on the left...it will ultimately lead to the Taliban retaking Afghanistan.....then what?

Go back over there AGAIN? At what cost this time? Boston nuked? No thank you.

Obama needs to be Commander in Chief and man up...not a fucking George Soros puppet.

Then we're going to have to rely on our intelligence community (as scary as that sounds) to be ahead of any major attack being planned.

There are no easy answers, Phil, but just sitting around there with our collective dicks in our hand isn't a good plan.

Quite true...and this is what's happening right now ... the only difference is our troops are getting shot at and blown up while Obama plays golf and basketball. WTF???!!!

I understand that is what's happening now ... it's what been happening for years. And I understand your frurstration, really, I do. As much as a hate to bring it back to Boooooosh a lot of folks were just as if not more frustrated over Iraq for a much greater period of time with the White House not bending at all. I've been there.

Obama just kicked back plans that didn't account for proper transition of power and a sound exit strategy. At least they are trying to work out a good plan albeit not fast enough for some.

 

[Polk]

I agree with you. We aren't going to have one terrorist wave a white flag that will end the war on terror--BUT--you never show these maniacs your backside without expecting severe reprocussions from it.

It would be very easy for us to install "permanent" bases in Iraq & Afganistan to keep radicals at bay. We have bases all over the world--& many are no longer necessary--like Japan & Germany. Move them into Afganistan & Iraq--on a smaller scale--& keep them weaponized--secure--& at ready status to fight radicals within the country.

I wouldn't be opposed to something like that. I just think this idea we can create a united Afghanistan, if only we have enough willpower, is faulty. Unless Pakistan really steps up, there is always going to be that valve we can't shut off.

These people--if they weren't fighting us would be slaughterting each other. They have lived this way for centuries--we are not going to change that--no matter how hard we try.

So I think install U.S bases in Iraq & Afganistan just to keep them at bay.

I think we've settled on the right model for Iraq now after years of stops and starts. I'm not sure if it'll ever work in Afghanistan. The problem with leaving a small force behind it is implies the Afghans will be able to handle the day-to-day operations themselves. Noting the country has never had a stable government, that's kinda hard to imagine.

 

[Article 15]

It is unless you actually don't know what victory means and are using it to deflect this thread away from Obama's lack of policy. But, just in case you really don't know.. victory in Afghanistan would leave a nation that was safe enough for development. It would be a nation that doesn't serve as a haven for the Taliban and drug lords. It would be a nation where a woman wouldn't have to worry that her leg would be amputated because an errant wind lifted her burka and showed her ankle.

It's not a weakness to base your tactics off of the facts on the ground. As for your definition of victory, that's fine if you want to define things that way, but it gets to the heart of the issue. What you spelled out is a goal that can never be accomplished with force. The military is there to flatten enemy forces. It can't construct civil society. It can't ensure that the individual Afghan tribes will rally around a central government.

Obviously you are not a student of history or you wouldn't make such idiotic claims. All one has to do is look to the Allied victories over Germany and Japan.
Marshall plan?
General MacArthur WROTE the Japanese constitution.

Seems to me those 2 countries are quite "civil" now doesn't it?

Germany and Japan were civilized societies before WWII.

The Allies had also decimated both countries and were in complete command.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I think it's time to bring the troops home from Afganistan. Without a strategy of a victory, or an end game, this will end up like Viet Nam, with a lot of our military becoming statistics. I don't want to see that again.....ever.

I agree. If they can't come up with cogent plan to get the entire job done then the best thing to do is get the hell out.

same here.....

 

[Mike458877]

Another day, another Afghanistan strategy.

He's making Jimmy Carter look strong and decisive

so you would have him choose a plan that he didn't like and probably wouldn't work and probably mean more soldiers being sent over there just to make you idiots happy?

Now why don't you enlighten us to Obama's qualifications to design wars plans or to understand what constitutes a good one or a bad one?

ahuh and you call others idiots?

 

[Polk]

Another day, another Afghanistan strategy.

He's making Jimmy Carter look strong and decisive

so you would have him choose a plan that he didn't like and probably wouldn't work and probably mean more soldiers being sent over there just to make you idiots happy?

Now why don't you enlighten us to Obama's qualifications to design wars plans or to understand what constitutes a good one or a bad one?

ahuh and you call others idiots?

What gives any president that power? O yeah, that's part of his job description.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Then we're going to have to rely on our intelligence community (as scary as that sounds) to be ahead of any major attack being planned.

There are no easy answers, Phil, but just sitting around there with our collective dicks in our hand isn't a good plan.

and while these guys are sitting around fondling themselves more guys are dying.....either shit or get off the shitter.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Quite true...and this is what's happening right now ... the only difference is our troops are getting shot at and blown up while Obama plays golf and basketball. WTF???!!!

and if that is indeed the case.....get those guys out of there....

 

[Luissa]

Another day, another Afghanistan strategy.

He's making Jimmy Carter look strong and decisive

so you would have him choose a plan that he didn't like and probably wouldn't work and probably mean more soldiers being sent over there just to make you idiots happy?

Now why don't you enlighten us to Obama's qualifications to design wars plans or to understand what constitutes a good one or a bad one?

ahuh and you call others idiots?

let's see he is President and he is the one who will be blamed if the plan doesn't work.
Did you even see the plans? oh! wait, no you didn't.

 

[garyd]

Obama is reading the writing on the wall and the current round of Polls. This decision has almost nothing to do with the War in Afghanistan and the war plans and everything to do with the fact that Republican polling numbers are up strongly against the Democrats going into 2010. especially among likely voters and independents in particular.

 

[California Girl]

I think it's time to bring the troops home from Afganistan. Without a strategy of a victory, or an end game, this will end up like Viet Nam, with a lot of our military becoming statistics. I don't want to see that again.....ever.

I agree. If they can't come up with cogent plan to get the entire job done then the best thing to do is get the hell out.

While this may appease many on the left...it will ultimately lead to the Taliban retaking Afghanistan.....then what?

Go back over there AGAIN? At what cost this time? Boston nuked? No thank you.

Obama needs to be Commander in Chief and man up...not a fucking George Soros puppet.

I agree. If we have learned anything from Iraq, it is that we should finish it. So we don't have to send people back there in years to come.

Our POTUS is not up to the job. He's an incompetent fool. And he cares more about his pet issues than he does about running the country. He isn't interested in our nation - he is interested only in having the power to 'fundamentally change' the country to suit his racist radical asshole friends.

He, and they, will shortly find that is not quite as straightforward as he thinks. Americans may not "go quietly into the night."

 

[JW Frogen]

So he rejected a bunch of plans that had no clear end game and exit strategy. Good.

I hate the term "exit strategy", it is really a term for how do we run away, get the fuck out regardless of the cost and why we went.

There is only one real "exit strategy", it is an old term, the only one that works in war, victory.

War is unpredictable, no war goes to plan, you can not have a pre-planned exit strategy, you can only have the determination, strategy and will to win.

Victory is the only exit strategy.

 

[California Girl]

So he rejected a bunch of plans that had no clear end game and exit strategy. Good.

I hate the term "exit strategy", it is really a term for how do we run away, get the fuck out regardless of the cost and why we went.

There is only one real "exit strategy", it is an old term, the only one that works in war, victory.

War is unpredictable, no war goes to plan, you can not have a pre-planned exit strategy, you can only have the determination, strategy and will to win.

Victory is the only exit strategy.

"You have given out too much reputation....." I'll be back to rep you for this asap. Smart comments.

 

[asaratis]

Myabe I'm thought of as a partisan, but I'm looking at this as a skeptic....I really do get a feeling that Obama has made this decision trying to shore up the moderate democrats, and possible Independents in light of how the elections came out in Jersey, and Virginia.
I know, I'm going to take some heat on this, but I just don't trust politicians....and they are all calculating bastards for a vote.

Without any reasonable doubt! One should NEVER trust a politician...from any party.

 

[asaratis]

It's not a weakness to base your tactics off of the facts on the ground. As for your definition of victory, that's fine if you want to define things that way, but it gets to the heart of the issue. What you spelled out is a goal that can never be accomplished with force. The military is there to flatten enemy forces. It can't construct civil society. It can't ensure that the individual Afghan tribes will rally around a central government.

Obviously you are not a student of history or you wouldn't make such idiotic claims. All one has to do is look to the Allied victories over Germany and Japan.
Marshall plan?
General MacArthur WROTE the Japanese constitution.

Seems to me those 2 countries are quite "civil" now doesn't it?

Germany and Japan were civilized societies before WWII.

The Allies had also decimated both countries and were in complete command.

Civil, my ass! Civil countries don't try to take over the world. You think Hitler's movement was civil? Get fuckin' serious! The civil people won the war. We could win in Afghanistan if we didn't have such arrogant PC pussies running the show. Political correctness is suicidal idiocy when battling rabid tribes of uncivilized religious nutcases.

Obama's ego and delusions of adequacy keep him from paying attention to the advice of those experienced enough to get the job done.

He's too busy admiring himself to be effective in any effort other than self-glorification and smugness. Clearly, the worst POTUS ever to buy the office.