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

[MaggieMae]

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?

Isn't there a kiddie website you can go play with?

 

[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.

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....

Constitutionally, the point of ANY war that U.S. gets involved in is for the defense of our country, and sometimes aiding in the defense of our allies.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

What if we leave, not just Afghanistan but the rest of the world as well, and the people of the world realize that there's no longer any reason to hate us? What if we stop giving average ordinary people a reason to resent us and they simply live their lives in peace? What if we treated the rest of the world as we would wish to be treated?

I personally think we'd be much safer.

[youtube]4fHfdSi-GDo[/youtube]

 

[MaggieMae]

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

I can't take the time to read the full interview, but I was always under the impression that the primary reason we got involved in Vietnam was the very real threat of the spread of Communism into Southeast Asia, and if it was allowed to progress, the Phillipines could have been next. It had nothing to do with training the South Vietnamese or nation-building.

 

[manu1959]

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?

What if we leave, not just Afghanistan but the rest of the world as well, and the people of the world realize that there's no longer any reason to hate us? What if we stop giving average ordinary people a reason to resent us and they simply live their lives in peace? What if we treated the rest of the world as we would wish to be treated?

I personally think we'd be much safer.

[youtube]4fHfdSi-GDo[/youtube]

i agree that we should pull up stakes in all other countries and leave them to sort things out on their own....and cut off us tax dollars being spent outside the us.....

but there will always be people that hate the us.....we are too big and too rich....well we used to be rich....

 

[MaggieMae]

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?

He probably was talking about peacekeeping troups, actually. But there really is no new US ("Obama") plan anymore. The Iraqi government has set the timetable, and troops began leaving last January.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

What if we leave, not just Afghanistan but the rest of the world as well, and the people of the world realize that there's no longer any reason to hate us? What if we stop giving average ordinary people a reason to resent us and they simply live their lives in peace? What if we treated the rest of the world as we would wish to be treated?

I personally think we'd be much safer.

[youtube]4fHfdSi-GDo[/youtube]

i agree that we should pull up stakes in all other countries and leave them to sort things out on their own....and cut off us tax dollars being spent outside the us.....

but there will always be people that hate the us.....we are too big and too rich....well we used to be rich....

Yes, there will always be irrational hate. But with no bread and butter issues to point to Osama bin-Laden would find it very difficult to find any recruits willing to give their lives for him.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

There ya go. That's been the plan, and that will be the plan. It's the strategy for how to get it done that's been the controversy.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Huh? I understood your point--a circle strategy. However, MY point is that things (strategy) changes as events on the ground change. And sometimes those events necessitate going back to Square One.

 

[Yurt]

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?

as usual you make no sense....

obama apparently believes our action there still requires an additional 3 years....obviously "they are in pakistan" means obama want to stay there an additional 3 years because they are not a danger to afghanistan.....

you're such an ignorant tool.....

 

[MaggieMae]

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....

Yeah, it took George Bush another three years to flipflop on Iraq strategy. Shoulda listened to Kerry from the outset.

 

[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?

What if we leave, not just Afghanistan but the rest of the world as well, and the people of the world realize that there's no longer any reason to hate us? What if we stop giving average ordinary people a reason to resent us and they simply live their lives in peace? What if we treated the rest of the world as we would wish to be treated?

I personally think we'd be much safer.

[youtube]4fHfdSi-GDo[/youtube]

Nice thoughts, and everyone wishes it were that easy. But it gets even harder to isolate ourselves from conflicts because the world's economies are becoming more and more intertwined. There will always be countries that hate us and will try to destroy us, either from without or within.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

What if we leave, not just Afghanistan but the rest of the world as well, and the people of the world realize that there's no longer any reason to hate us? What if we stop giving average ordinary people a reason to resent us and they simply live their lives in peace? What if we treated the rest of the world as we would wish to be treated?

I personally think we'd be much safer.

[youtube]4fHfdSi-GDo[/youtube]

Nice thoughts, and everyone wishes it were that easy. But it gets even harder to isolate ourselves from conflicts because the world's economies are becoming more and more intertwined. There will always be countries that hate us and will try to destroy us, either from without or within.

Doubtful. Give them no reason to hate you and they probably won't.

 

[manu1959]

Item 3, Q2, B.

Reading for comprehension is your friend Maggie.

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

Yeah, it took George Bush another three years to flipflop on Iraq strategy. Shoulda listened to Kerry from the outset.

if i recall bush follwed kerry's advcie and invaded iraq and removed saddam.....then if i recall he sent in more troops to win the peace.....and lastly once there was a stable govt and military in place a time table for the removal of troops was set....

 

[MaggieMae]

What if we leave, not just Afghanistan but the rest of the world as well, and the people of the world realize that there's no longer any reason to hate us? What if we stop giving average ordinary people a reason to resent us and they simply live their lives in peace? What if we treated the rest of the world as we would wish to be treated?

I personally think we'd be much safer.

[youtube]4fHfdSi-GDo[/youtube]

i agree that we should pull up stakes in all other countries and leave them to sort things out on their own....and cut off us tax dollars being spent outside the us.....

but there will always be people that hate the us.....we are too big and too rich....well we used to be rich....

Yes, there will always be irrational hate. But with no bread and butter issues to point to Osama bin-Laden would find it very difficult to find any recruits willing to give their lives for him.

So we SHOULD feed the world? Many of these "recruits" are young men with no hope for their futures at all, except for the pittance offered by the likes of bin Laden who promises them a Shangri-la and they are too ignorant (lacking in education) to know any better. They get swept up in the cult mentality that their "mission" has been preordained.

 

[MaggieMae]

What if we leave, not just Afghanistan but the rest of the world as well, and the people of the world realize that there's no longer any reason to hate us? What if we stop giving average ordinary people a reason to resent us and they simply live their lives in peace? What if we treated the rest of the world as we would wish to be treated?

I personally think we'd be much safer.

[youtube]4fHfdSi-GDo[/youtube]

Nice thoughts, and everyone wishes it were that easy. But it gets even harder to isolate ourselves from conflicts because the world's economies are becoming more and more intertwined. There will always be countries that hate us and will try to destroy us, either from without or within.

Doubtful. Give them no reason to hate you and they probably won't.

Why do some hate us now? I can give you many reasons, not the least of which is decadance on display, material gain is priority, criticism of cultural traditions of other countries, an arrogance that we're the biggest and best...so watch out.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

i agree that we should pull up stakes in all other countries and leave them to sort things out on their own....and cut off us tax dollars being spent outside the us.....

but there will always be people that hate the us.....we are too big and too rich....well we used to be rich....

Yes, there will always be irrational hate. But with no bread and butter issues to point to Osama bin-Laden would find it very difficult to find any recruits willing to give their lives for him.

So we SHOULD feed the world? Many of these "recruits" are young men with no hope for their futures at all, except for the pittance offered by the likes of bin Laden who promises them a Shangri-la and they are too ignorant (lacking in education) to know any better. They get swept up in the cult mentality that their "mission" has been preordained.

Many of these recruits are people who have had family members killed by U.S. bombs, sanctions, or troops, or have been negatively effected in some other way by the U.S. Maybe they see our military occupation of their holy lands as disrespectful, or our government sponsorship of Israel as inflammatory. If we leave them alone the majority of them will leave us alone, and the minority that will hate us regardless will not have the resources or support to do anything about it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nice thoughts, and everyone wishes it were that easy. But it gets even harder to isolate ourselves from conflicts because the world's economies are becoming more and more intertwined. There will always be countries that hate us and will try to destroy us, either from without or within.

Doubtful. Give them no reason to hate you and they probably won't.

Why do some hate us now? I can give you many reasons, not the least of which is decadance on display, material gain is priority, criticism of cultural traditions of other countries, an arrogance that we're the biggest and best...so watch out.

Or it could be because of the propping up of dictatorships by the U.S. government, the bombs that have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, the murderous sanctions that only hurt innocent civilians, or the military occupation of their countries and holy lands.

 

[rightwinger]

How can any President commit troops to fight without having a viable exit strategy?

"They will treat us as liberators" is not an exit strategy

 

[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

I can't take the time to read the full interview, but I was always under the impression that the primary reason we got involved in Vietnam was the very real threat of the spread of Communism into Southeast Asia, and if it was allowed to progress, the Phillipines could have been next. It had nothing to do with training the South Vietnamese or nation-building.

Nixon was elected President and began his policy of slow disengagement from the war. The goal was to gradually build up the South Vietnamese Army so that it could fight the war on its own. This policy became the cornerstone of the so-called " Nixon Doctrine." As applied to Vietnam, the doctrine was called "Vietnamization." The stated goal of Vietnamization was to enable the South Vietnamese army to increasingly hold its own against the NLF and the North Vietnamese Army. The unstated goal of Vietnamization was that the primary burden of combat would be returned to ARVN troops and thereby lessen domestic opposition tothe war in the U.S.

Vietnam War South Vietnamese North United Conflict U.s States