How can you combine Troop increase with a Exit strategy?! Obama capitulates again.!

[Xenophon]

INteresting. Did you vote for mccain?

I have haven't voted for either piss poor party in over 20 years, i learned a long time ago that they are full of shit.


The sooner you learn that, the better off you will be.

I mean speaking of war mongers. You do realize the republicans dont want an exit strategy. They want us to go to war indefinitely. Just go in there and 'win' this unwinnable war. Only idiots say things like that.

Agree?

You don't understand, YOU and the GOP ARE THE SAME.


You are both full of shit.

There is no way to win and there never was, these wars should never have been taken on, and your party is too gutless to pull the plug, just as the GoP was too gutless to admit it couldn't win either.

You piss and moan how bad the GoP is, well your side is the same.

Barry is going to keep the tarbaby fed, he has no balls.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, great idea Repugs! Let's just keep our troops in harms way for another 5 years with no clear exit strategy in place and spend hundreds of billions more on a war that's going to solve absolutely nothing. Whooo hoo! Didn't we learn in Korea that we need an exit strategy BEFORE we go in?

What's the exit strategy for the War on Poverty? Germany? Korea?

 

[Missourian]

An exit strategy should have been part of the first deployment plan. Don't know what's so hard to understand about that.

Ideally, you go in with a specific plan of what you hope to achieve in quantifiable objectives, a plan and a timetable of how to achieve the goals, and a plan for bringing people back home when the objectives are met.

But we should be bringing everyone home ASAP - not sending more imho.

I was with you right up to "timetables".

It's like a flow chart.

1. Set goals and objectives.

2. Draw up a plan.

Q1. Do we have enough troops?

A.Yes...go to 3.

B.No. Send more troops (notice it did not take 3 months)...go to 3.
​

3. Implement plan.

Q2. Is the plan working?

A.Yes...proceed to Q3.

B.No...revise the plan...return to 2.
​

Q3. Have the goals been achieved?

A.Yes...proceed to 4.

B.No...return to 3.
​

4. Implement exit strategy.

Q4. Is the situation remaining stable?

A.Yes...Declare victory.

B.No...return to 3.
​

 

[manu1959]

Even if it takes a hundred years, righty McXenophon?

It appears you have me confused with someone else.

I'm against YOU AND YOUR WARS.

I always have been, you fucking warmongers will kill our guys if your party tells you its a 'good war' and you bitch and whine and say the other party's wars suck.

Bad news jack, YOU AND THEM are the same, you are both war mongers, and niether of your wars should ever have been fought.

So play your little partisan game with someone else.

INteresting. Did you vote for mccain? I mean speaking of war mongers. You do realize the republicans dont want an exit strategy. They want us to go to war indefinitely. Just go in there and 'win' this unwinnable war. Only idiots say things like that.

Agree?

the republican admistration would not make a comitment as to how long it would take to win a war....they simply said we would fight it till we won it....and would not tell the other side when they would be leaving.....

the democrat administration will send in 30,000 more troops to bring the total to around 100,000 (about the same as what the soviets had there before they left/lost)......so now obama and gates will finish the war carter and gates started.....and we have said we will quit in 18 months....just in time for the 2012 elections.....

the graveyard of empires will claim another victim....

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'd like to see people stop using vague, juvenile terms like "in it to win it" and "win this thing." Like this is some sort of high school football game.

Define "WIN."

What specific objectives must be met in order to "win."

Otherwise - you really are just talking crap.

 

[VaYank5150]

Yes, I understand your point, but is this not something that is kept classified with U.S. Army generals?, should a President and other politicians be discussing this in public, and
with the news media?, does this exit strategy not embolden, and or help our enemy? .

All I can say is "wow".....just "wow"....

What the hell do you mean "Wow". Did you read what I posted. This exit capitulation strategy will only embolden the Taliban.
Either we go in to win without any talk of an exit strategy, or we should not send any more troops to Afghanistan, and pull the ones that are there out now.

You Pubs need to get your stories straight. According to Patek, BOOOOOOOOOOOOSH wiped out the Taliban and we declared victory over them in late 2002. So, what Taliban are YOU worried about emboldening?

 

[DiamondDave]

Its called an exit strategy. I know you righty's have no clue what that is and haven't heard about one in the last eight years...but this president actually thought about it.

I cant fucking believe you righty's are actually bitching about an exit plan. You people are amazing. hacks.

hey taliban and al queada.....we are sending 30K more troops but will have all them out in 3 years....regardless, that is our exit strategy, so please don't hide out for 3 years and wait for us to leave, attack us now so we can go home in 3 years

Do you think they are still in Afghanistan? They aren't even there...they are in Pakistan...you do know this righty?

We are not at war with the afghan government...really there is no 'win' in this war. We should not be there. We had the chance to do something about the them 8 years ago, but we went to war with Iraq for wmd's. remember?

Yes... all hail zona and his omniscient intel and his mastery of fighting and war strategy

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nobody even heard of "Exit Strategy" until the Neo-Marxists made it a campaign issue against Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh and now every single "independent-minded" Librul parrots it back like it's a good idea.

 

[nodoginnafight]

An exit strategy should have been part of the first deployment plan. Don't know what's so hard to understand about that.

Ideally, you go in with a specific plan of what you hope to achieve in quantifiable objectives, a plan and a timetable of how to achieve the goals, and a plan for bringing people back home when the objectives are met.

But we should be bringing everyone home ASAP - not sending more imho.

I was with you right up to "timetables".

It's like a flow chart.

1. Set goals and objectives.

2. Draw up a plan.

Q1. Do we have enough troops?

A.Yes...go to 3.

B.No. Send more troops (notice it did not take 3 months)...go to 3.
​

3. Implement plan.

Q2. Is the plan working?

A.Yes...proceed to Q3.

B.No...revise the plan...return to 2.
​

Q3. Have the goals been achieved?

A.Yes...proceed to 4.

B.No...return to 3.
​

4. Implement exit strategy.

Q4. Is the situation remaining stable?

A.Yes...Declare victory.

B.No...return to 3.
​

MY use of timetables is simply a plan - a reasonable estimate - not a written in stone, we-moving-to-the-next-stage-regardless kind of deadline. They can be flexible but they are important. Failing to achieve an objective within the estimate should prompt a review. Why didn't we reach that goal on time? Do we need to adjust our strategy? Type thing - without that level of accountability we are (imho) just pissing in the wind.

I also don't necessaril;y equate "victory" with stability. Afghanistan wasn't particularly stable at any point in their history. Toss out those vaguely worded "objectives" and replace them with clear, quantifiable ones and you may have a decent plan.

 

[manu1959]

I'd like to see people stop using vague, juvenile terms like "in it to win it" and "win this thing." Like this is some sort of high school football game.

Define "WIN."

What specific objectives must be met in order to "win."

Otherwise - you really are just talking crap.

i would use the same objectives as that which were used to define the victory over germany or japan or the serb croat conflict or the losses in vietnam and korea and rawanda and somalia ...

if the govt in iraq holds then it will be a victory.....same goes for afganistan.....now i doubt either govt will hold up....so it will ultimatley be a loss....

 

[52ndStreet]

I'd like to see people stop using vague, juvenile terms like "in it to win it" and "win this thing." Like this is some sort of high school football game.

Define "WIN."

What specific objectives must be met in order to "win."

Otherwise - you really are just talking crap.

Don't you people know that there is no way America will win in Afghanistan!
The British, the Russians all got their butts kicked in Afghanistan.
Its the international Drug cartels. There is just to much drug money, and corrupt
politicians in Afghanistan. This war is just flushing Billions of American Dollars down
the drain.

If America continues on the course of engaging in these un winnable wars, we will
be bankrupt within the next few years.
Lets get the hell out now!!

 

[Bern80]

An exit strategy should have been part of the first deployment plan. Don't know what's so hard to understand about that.

Ideally, you go in with a specific plan of what you hope to achieve in quantifiable objectives, a plan and a timetable of how to achieve the goals, and a plan for bringing people back home when the objectives are met.

But we should be bringing everyone home ASAP - not sending more imho.

I think the goal part is the problem. I'm not sure Obama or anyone else gets what the goal needs to be to 'win' this. What does he think the goal is? End Al Queda? Won't happen. I don't think you'll ever accomplish that. Al Quaida is just another group of muslim extremists. Defeating that and making sure it isn't a threat to our country requires a goal on the order of nation building. It would require us to somehow fundamentally change the culture of an entire region of the country. Because up to this point those that don't count themselves among the extremists don't seem too gung ho about wantng to take responsibility for combating it.

We need to rethink the war on terror. I would agree with bring the bulk of the troops home at this point. I think trying to change the culture is useless. I think it should be handled more covertly with the use of S.E.A.L's, Spec Ops and the like.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'd like to see people stop using vague, juvenile terms like "in it to win it" and "win this thing." Like this is some sort of high school football game.

Define "WIN."

What specific objectives must be met in order to "win."

Otherwise - you really are just talking crap.

Don't you people know that there is no way America will win in Afghanistan!
The British, the Russians all got their butts kicked in Afghanistan.
Its the international Drug cartels. There is just to much drug money, and corrupt
politicians in Afghanistan. This war is just flushing Billions of American Dollars down
the drain.

If America continues on the course of engaging in these un winnable wars, we will
be bankrupt within the next few years.
Lets get the hell out now!!

Again - more "win" talk with no definition of win.

If you define win as kicking Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan - we've already won.

If you define win as removing the Taliban from control of the Government - we've already won.

So if you say this is "unwinnable" then you HAVE to include your definition of win or it's STILL just more empty rhetoric.

 

[manu1959]

An exit strategy should have been part of the first deployment plan. Don't know what's so hard to understand about that.

Ideally, you go in with a specific plan of what you hope to achieve in quantifiable objectives, a plan and a timetable of how to achieve the goals, and a plan for bringing people back home when the objectives are met.

But we should be bringing everyone home ASAP - not sending more imho.

why do believe there was no plan or exit strategy.....

as for a timetable in war....the otherside does have something to say about that ...they aren't going to just sit there....

 

[manu1959]

I'd like to see people stop using vague, juvenile terms like "in it to win it" and "win this thing." Like this is some sort of high school football game.

Define "WIN."

What specific objectives must be met in order to "win."

Otherwise - you really are just talking crap.

Don't you people know that there is no way America will win in Afghanistan!
The British, the Russians all got their butts kicked in Afghanistan.
Its the international Drug cartels. There is just to much drug money, and corrupt
politicians in Afghanistan. This war is just flushing Billions of American Dollars down
the drain.

If America continues on the course of engaging in these un winnable wars, we will
be bankrupt within the next few years.
Lets get the hell out now!!

Again - more "win" talk with no definition of win.

If you define win as kicking Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan - we've already won.

If you define win as removing the Taliban from control of the Government - we've already won.

So if you say this is "unwinnable" then you HAVE to include your definition of win or it's STILL just more empty rhetoric.

i disagree with your definitions...aq still has folks fighting agianst the afgan govt not to mention the taliban......and the taliban may not control kabul but the control large sections of the country.....

winning a war in afganistan is not possible without wholesale extermination of the "enemy"....

 

[Missourian]

An exit strategy should have been part of the first deployment plan. Don't know what's so hard to understand about that.

Ideally, you go in with a specific plan of what you hope to achieve in quantifiable objectives, a plan and a timetable of how to achieve the goals, and a plan for bringing people back home when the objectives are met.

But we should be bringing everyone home ASAP - not sending more imho.

I was with you right up to "timetables".

It's like a flow chart.

1. Set goals and objectives.

2. Draw up a plan.

Q1. Do we have enough troops?

A.Yes...go to 3.

B.No. Send more troops (notice it did not take 3 months)...go to 3.
​

3. Implement plan.

Q2. Is the plan working?

A.Yes...proceed to Q3.

B.No...revise the plan...return to 2.
​

Q3. Have the goals been achieved?

A.Yes...proceed to 4.

B.No...return to 3.
​

4. Implement exit strategy.

Q4. Is the situation remaining stable?

A.Yes...Declare victory.

B.No...return to 3.
​

MY use of timetables is simply a plan - a reasonable estimate - not a written in stone, we-moving-to-the-next-stage-regardless kind of deadline. They can be flexible but they are important. Failing to achieve an objective within the estimate should prompt a review. Why didn't we reach that goal on time? Do we need to adjust our strategy? Type thing - without that level of accountability we are (imho) just pissing in the wind.

I also don't necessarily equate "victory" with stability. Afghanistan wasn't particularly stable at any point in their history. Toss out those vaguely worded "objectives" and replace them with clear, quantifiable ones and you may have a decent plan.

We're closer together than either of may have previously thought.

I could live with your definition of timetables as long as everyone understood from the outset that they were estimates and not set in stone.

The only problem I see with timetables is when not meeting them is construed as a failure when it could as easily be the timetable was unrealistic or that conditions on the ground changed.

As for 'stability', I only meant: are the goals we initially set and later achieved stable or by drawing down are we undermining our achievement and should possibly delay our exit to secure our previously accomplished objectives.

 

[nodoginnafight]

as for a timetable in war....the otherside does have something to say about that ...they aren't going to just sit there....

did you miss:

MY use of timetables is simply a plan - a reasonable estimate - not a written in stone, we-moving-to-the-next-stage-regardless kind of deadline. They can be flexible but they are important. Failing to achieve an objective within the estimate should prompt a review. Why didn't we reach that goal on time? Do we need to adjust our strategy? Type thing - without that level of accountability we are (imho) just pissing in the wind.

 

[Rinata]

David Schuster said that Obama will give us an exit strategy and timeline tonight. I really hope he does. All of the news people are saying different things, so maybe Mr. Schuster is wrong. He also played a speech by Richard Nixon giving a timeline on leaving Vietnam. We didn't leave for 4 more years after the date he gave. So who knows. We'll see.

I am not smart enough to know what course should be followed to get us out of there once and for all. All I do know is that I don't want to see anymore sweet, young faces of our young people, on the news, that have been killed. I trust Obama to do the right thing. So I don't think it's unreasonable to ask everybody to listen tonight to see what he has to say before we judge his plan.

 

[nodoginnafight]

i disagree with your definitions...aq still has folks fighting agianst the afgan govt not to mention the taliban......and the taliban may not control kabul but the control large sections of the country.....

winning a war in afganistan is not possible without wholesale extermination of the "enemy"....

There are fewer than 100 Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan today, according to the latest declassified intel. If you have "better" figures and can document them - I'm all ears.

The Taliban was ousted from government in late 2001 (maybe 2002) have to check that one.

As for the relative strength of Taliban fighters throughout Afghanistan, that wasn't a part of either of the "win" definitions I tossed out. You can calculate "win" however you want. But my point is that if you don't include your definition of win, or if you have no quantifiable plan to achieve it - then talking about "winning" and "losing" is just pointless empty words.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I was with you right up to "timetables".

It's like a flow chart.

1. Set goals and objectives.

2. Draw up a plan.

Q1. Do we have enough troops?

A.Yes...go to 3.

B.No. Send more troops (notice it did not take 3 months)...go to 3.
​

3. Implement plan.

Q2. Is the plan working?

A.Yes...proceed to Q3.

B.No...revise the plan...return to 2.
​

Q3. Have the goals been achieved?

A.Yes...proceed to 4.

B.No...return to 3.
​

4. Implement exit strategy.

Q4. Is the situation remaining stable?

A.Yes...Declare victory.

B.No...return to 3.
​

MY use of timetables is simply a plan - a reasonable estimate - not a written in stone, we-moving-to-the-next-stage-regardless kind of deadline. They can be flexible but they are important. Failing to achieve an objective within the estimate should prompt a review. Why didn't we reach that goal on time? Do we need to adjust our strategy? Type thing - without that level of accountability we are (imho) just pissing in the wind.

I also don't necessarily equate "victory" with stability. Afghanistan wasn't particularly stable at any point in their history. Toss out those vaguely worded "objectives" and replace them with clear, quantifiable ones and you may have a decent plan.

We're closer together than either of may have previously thought.

I could live with your definition of timetables as long as everyone understood from the outset that they were estimates and not set in stone.

The only problem I see with timetables is when not meeting them is construed as a failure when it could as easily be the timetable was unrealistic or that conditions on the ground changed.

As for 'stability', I only meant: are the goals we initially set and later achieved stable or by drawing down are we undermining our achievement and should possibly delay our exit to secure our previously accomplished objectives.

I have no problem with anything you've said here. I agree that not meeting an objective within the "time goal" (is that a better way to word it?) doesn't mean "failure."

I also agree with what you say about the stability of the achievement - you really haven't achieved much if your "achievement" falls apart the second you turn your back.

I agree.