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

[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 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.

I think Al Qaeda has been dealt a death blow - but what remains to be accomplished is in Pakistan - not Afghanistan imho. That goes for the goal of capturing or confirming the death of Bin Laden too. If he is still alive - he's almost certainly in Pakistan.

But I agree with you in part in that I think Afghanistan has never had a strong, centralized government that can exert significant control throughout the nation. And I don't think were are likely to succeed in trying to install one now.

I think we should be satisfied to 1) eradicate Al Qaeda 2) make life hell for those who offered aid to Al Qaeda so they will think long and hard about sheltering terrorists again and 3) Capture or confirm the death of Bin Laden.

In the wake of 9/11, I consider those to be reasonable, achievable goals. Today, I think we've met two of those three objectives. I'm not sure how likely we are to achieve the third and I'm not convinced that the odds are good enough to spend a lot more money and a lot more lives chasing it.

I gather Obama thinks there is significant work left to be done on #2. But if his objective is to create a world in which terrorism cannot exist, I think it is unacheiveable.

 

[52ndStreet]

So in essence, what this all boils down to is that we are building up, but then we are going to get the
hell out of Afghanistan with a timetable for the Taliban terrorist to see our exit strategy.?!
Oh, thats really smart now.
This is the most insane strategy I have ever heard of!!.

 

[52ndStreet]

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.

I think Al Qaeda has been dealt a death blow - but what remains to be accomplished is in Pakistan - not Afghanistan imho. That goes for the goal of capturing or confirming the death of Bin Laden too. If he is still alive - he's almost certainly in Pakistan.

But I agree with you in part in that I think Afghanistan has never had a strong, centralized government that can exert significant country throughout the nation. And I don't think were are likely to succeed in trying to install one now.

Oh now this is great. Iraq, and Afghanistan wasn't enough, now we need to get it on with Pakistan!.They have nuclear weapons , I hope you people know.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama Speech.

In March I asked Gen McChrytal to give me a plan to win in Afghanistan. When I got back from trying to get the Olympics in Chicago, the General delivered the Plan. Oh wait, the General delivered it BEFORE the Olympics, right. Well, ummmm, since then, what with Oprah going off the air and appearing on Letterman and all, I've been pretty busy. We've been saving jobs. Lots of jobs. We've been making up Congressional districts where these jobs have been "Saved" so, um, er, as I said in Cairo, mecca lekka hi mecca heidi ho, mecca lekka hi mecca johnny ho, that's not Arabic, that Pee Wee Hermann, they tell me the Teleprompter will be back online in a few...um, er, so as I was saying, say your child has asthma. How are you tonight? All wee weed up?

 

[manu1959]

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.

is afganistan a stable country able to rule and defend itself from hostile forces either from within or without.....no.....thus the us has not won the war....the point of war is to remove one group and install another friendly to your cause.....see japan and germany.....the us afgan government is still at war with both the taliban and aq on afgan soil....and will be long after you an i are dead....

i do find your statment about "winning" and "losing" being just pointless empty words....and your constant desire to define them to suit your argument interesting....

 

[Navy1960]

There are three ways that men get what they want; by planning, by working, and by praying. Any great military operation takes careful planning, or thinking. Then you must have well-trained troops to carry it out: that's working. But between the plan and the operation there is always an unknown. That unknown spells defeat or victory, success or failure. It is the reaction of the actors to the ordeal when it actually comes. Some people call that getting the breaks; I call it God. God has His part, or margin in everything, That's where prayer comes in. Gen. George S. Patton

Careful planning in any military operation is vital to its success, but as Patton rightly pointed out there are always unknowns and its how we face them that makes the difference. Of course you can carefully plan an exit as part of an overall mission plan, but it may not always go as you wish. One thing and this I suppose comes from being part of the Air Land Battle Doctrine and the one prior to that, is you commit to battle to win it, is and you do is in a manner that leaves no doubt as to the outcome, you execute that plan in a brutal and massive manner until such time as it is complete. Once completed you exit from that plan. Again though the "unknowns" in that plan will always dictate how well or how fast you exit and one more thing here, once committed to battle , if you do not commit to win, then LEAVE. otherwise all you do is put peoples lives in danger.

 

[Missourian]

Richard Holbrooke defines the mission in Afghanistan November 24th, 2009.

1. Our goal is to destroy al-Qaida, a terrorist organization with global reach which attacked the United States, which conducted attacks in London, Madrid and Bali, and Mumbai and Islamabad, which supports attacks in Afghanistan through other groups.


2. To help the Afghans build their own capacity so that their security forces can replace the international forces over an acceptable period of time.


3. To create enough time and space for the Afghans to take over their own security responsibility. That is the core of the strategy.

4. We're not seeking to destroy every person who supports the Taliban, that's not a credible goal.


2 and 3 are essentially the same goal reworded, so according to Holbrooke ( US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan) our Afghanistan strategy close mirrors our Vietnam strategy...as the interviewer from SPIEGEL quickly picks up on.

SPIEGEL: When the US has talked about handing over the responsibility for a war to local forces in the past, it represented the final stage before a complete collapse.

Holbrooke: You keep going back to the wrong war and I would rather just focus on Afghanistan.​

Read the interview transcript here : Interview with US Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke: 'We're Not in Afghanistan to Build a Perfect Democracy' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

 

[MaggieMae]

If you fight a war, the 'exit strategy' should be to win it, anything else is stupid.

Not wars like these (Iraq, Afghanistan) where the people are not the enemy. The Taliban is an insurgent movement and does not represent the majority of the Afghan people, nor the Afghan government.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

What's our exit strategy from the War on poverty? Or Germany? or Korea?

Libs are such nOObs

Huh? Peacekeeping troups remain in Germany and South Korea (and elsewhere) to protect our interersts and those of our allies. There will undoubtedly be peacekeeping troups in Iraq someday also. After all, we just built a billion-dollar Embassy in Baghdad.

 

[manu1959]

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.

What's our exit strategy from the War on poverty? Or Germany? or Korea?

Libs are such nOObs

Huh? Peacekeeping troups remain in Germany and South Korea (and elsewhere) to protect our interersts and those of our allies. There will undoubtedly be peacekeeping troups in Iraq someday also. After all, we just built a billion-dollar Embassy in Baghdad.

so when mccain said there would be troops in iraq for 100 years ... he was refering to the obama plan?

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

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"....

Incredible, isn't it?

WHY IS IT TAKING SO LONG FOR OBAMA TO TELL THE PUBLIC WHAT THE STRATEGY IS?!

WHY IS OBAMA TELLING THE PUBLIC WHAT THE STRATEGY IS?

But now to the question of emboldening the enemy, I imagine it probably will. But it will ALSO embolden the Afghan people to get serious about taking matters into their own hands and make sure the Taliban stays gone when they know the U.S. won't be there forever to do it for them.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

Isn't that exactly what the critics said of the Iraq surge and ultimate exit strategy? Has al-Qaeda returned to Iraq? Nope. They continue to fight their civil war, but it's without AQ butting in anymore.

 

[MaggieMae]

The exit strategy should be to start leaving Afghanistan immediately.

I'll repeat: What if we leave, The Taliban completely takes over the country, invites al-Qaeda back in, and another attack happens against a U.S. city? Who would you blame?

 

[Missourian]

John Kerry's goals in Afghanistan November 6, 2009.

1. “To prevent the Taliban - with their long-standing ties to Al Qaeda - from once again providing terrorists with an unfettered Afghan safe haven.’’

2. “To empower and transfer responsibility to Afghans as rapidly as possible and achieve a sufficient level of stability to ensure that we can leave behind an Afghanistan that is not controlled by Al Qaeda or the Taliban.’’

In Afghanistan, Kerry keeps US goals modest - The Boston Globe

 

[MaggieMae]

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.
​

So are you suggesting that battle strategies in previous legitimate wars were a one-shot deal, without any changes in strategies at all? I'm sure General Patton would let out a big guffaw over that one.

 

[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.
​

So are you suggesting that battle strategies in previous legitimate wars were a one-shot deal, without any changes in strategies at all? I'm sure General Patton would let out a big guffaw over that one.

Item 3, Q2, B.

Reading for comprehension is your friend Maggie.

 

[manu1959]

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.
​

So are you suggesting that battle strategies in previous legitimate wars were a one-shot deal, without any changes in strategies at all? I'm sure General Patton would let out a big guffaw over that one.

Item 3, Q2, B.

Reading for comprehension is your friend Maggie.

damn....you would think they would understand nuance after kerry....

 

[MaggieMae]

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?

After the US moved its forces (and funding) to Iraq, The Taliban did regroup, in larger numbers than before and by recruiting radicals from neighboring countries who were AQ sympathizers. The only Afghan tribe affiliated with The Taliban now are the Pashtun. The rest of the Afghan population wants them destroyed. So the odds are in favor of pushing them back again, and this time keeping them out.

 

[MaggieMae]

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!!

And we can then remain their best customer for their product. Good plan.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Right now, al-Qaeda is headquartered in the mountains bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan. If The Taliban is not defeated in Afghanistan, AQ will return (it is bin Laden's home), and they will be free to plan other major attacks unhindered by American or NATO troops (if we up and leave). AQ is splintered right now, with the Pakistan government taking more reponsibility for removing them from that country as well. Without a centralized organization and a state from which to operate freely, al-Qaeda will eventually disintegrate.

But whoever said we need to rethink how to the "war on terror" is fought is absolutely correct, because splinter groups of radical Islamists continue to pop up all over the world. We can no longer think of "terrorists" as just one entity with a defined location.