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

[MaggieMae]

The exit strategy is a message to the Afghanistan citizens too get their butts in gear and their act together because we are not going to spend an indefinite time protecting them, risking American lives while they do nothing.

We are not going to nation build. They need to build and protect their own nation.

The exit strategy is a key and important part of the strategy.

Obama gave us plenty of flexibility by also saying the action on the ground will dictate final strategy.

I think the message last night was that we don't intend to prop up forever the Afghanistan government, or the tribal people who will never be a part of any unified central government. This is a quick surge, a last-ditch proposition to help hold back the militant Taliban, train Afghans to fight their own battles, and if they're still not uninterested, then the U.S. will be leaving. Nine years will be long enough to 'dither' in a rogue country which doesn't want nor appreciate our help.

 

[Rinata]

Did anybody watch Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, and Mike Mullen in Congress this morning to testify regarding additional troups in Afghanistan?

John McCain gave Gates such a hard time!!! It really made me laugh. McCain is not happy about declaring what the date of our departure from Afghanistan will be. So he kept asking Gates if we will leave on a certain date even if the conditions on the ground are not satisfactory. Well, Gates did not want to say and McCain kept pressing. He is like a dog with a bone when he gets something in his head. It really started to get comical.

But I have to say that there is something McCain said that is very logical. Is it really wise to let our enemies know exactly when we are leaving?? I think that the enemy should have as little knowledge as possible as to what our plans are. I am agreeing with JM?? I think the sky just fell.

 

[MaggieMae]

naturally---He doesn't take responsibilty for anything

quit your adolescent knee jerk bashing of Obama for one minute and tell me, honestly, whether you think it is OUR country's responsibility to ensure that the elected government of Afghanistan has the political will to stand up and defend itself and its people.

No it's not----so why is he sending more troops and wasting billions ? If I recall correctly our former president was criticized quite highly for this. Has something changed ?

Other than by the far left, Bush was not criticized when he FINALLY accepted the Patreaus strategy, which required an additional 60,000 troops in Iraq.

 

[JWBooth]

Change ya'll can believe in huh?

 

[MaggieMae]

Breaking News---

In a stuning move early this morning the teleprompter used at West Point in the President's national address has been fired. Mr. Gibbs in a briefing described the teleprompter's tone as unemotional in the speech given by the President. "Clearly this was not a time to simply scroll words across a screen Gibbs said. The nation deserved a heart felt rousing speech."

To compound the problem the teleprompter skipped several times which meant the President didn't read the exit date, reason that Afghanistan will have a national spirit and the Pakistanis will be a strong partner. "You just can't let the American people down like that", according to Gibbs. The montone speech nearly put the entire crowd of Cadets to sleep. Fortunately Secretary of State Clinton's snores woke enough Cadets up for a few claps at the end.

Attendence at the event was surprisingly sparse as the only options for not attending were a family death or a live demonstration on the Cadets of waterboarding. The class was very well attended according to the instructor. Some of the Cadets were getting back in line a second time.

Yep, another knee-jerker who wouldn't be happy regardless what Obama did. I'd like to see one of you speak without hesitation and going off printed material for 35 minutes. Do you actually believe Bushhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh wasn't using a teleprompter every time he faced the nation with another one of his "stay the course" speeches?

That complaint, regardless how cleverly posed, has gotten old.

 

[nodoginnafight]

quit your adolescent knee jerk bashing of Obama for one minute and tell me, honestly, whether you think it is OUR country's responsibility to ensure that the elected government of Afghanistan has the political will to stand up and defend itself and its people.

No it's not----so why is he sending more troops and wasting billions ? If I recall correctly our former president was criticized quite highly for this. Has something changed ?

Other than by the far left, Bush was not criticized when he FINALLY accepted the Patreaus strategy, which required an additional 60,000 troops in Iraq.

Iraq is not Afghanistan - I think trying to apply a cookie-cutter "what was OK for one ought to be OK for the other" is a big mistake.

Bush was criticized (and rightfully so imho) when people found out that the information they were fed justifying the Iraq invasion was BS.

The justification for rooting out Al Qaeda (the 9/11 culprits) is pretty much universally accepted.

 

[MaggieMae]

"But the challenges of rebuilding an Afghan national army of any size - for the fourth time in 150 years - are daunting. Afghanistan, torn by war over a generation, has missed the computer revolution that most militaries now take for granted. The Hindu Kush mountain range splinters much of the country into isolated valleys run by warlords, marginalizing any central government authority. And as the 219th poorest nation among the world's 229, Afghanistan simply can't afford to pay for a big military. Afghan forces today are largely slipshod and corrupt, U.S. officers who have served with them say. Technically they seem capable of doing little more than basic daytime operations, and they have yet to master the bookkeeping vital for any military force to keep track of itself."

Obama Speech Leaves Out How to Grow the Afghan Army - Yahoo! News

Can't get much to change that by July 2011.

IF Obama were to detail every strategy, he'd still be talking, fool.

Patreaus has already extended the broad strategy by providing a few details regarding winning the hearts and minds of the tribal people. These are primitive people for the most part, so if The Taliban offers a recruit $10, then we offer him $20. It's basically the same strategy that worked in Iraq, which literally bought time to separate out the good guys from the bad guys.

 

[MaggieMae]

"For each troop movement, Obama had a number to match. US strength in Afghanistan will be tripled relative to the Bush years, a fact that is sure to impress hawks in America. But just 18 months later, just in time for Obama's re-election campaign, the horror of war is to end and the draw down will begin. The doves of peace will be let free.

The speech continued in that vein. It was as though Obama had taken one of his old campaign speeches and merged it with a text from the library of ex-President George W. Bush. Extremists kill in the name of Islam, he said, before adding that it is one of the "world's great religions." He promised that responsibility for the country's security would soon be transferred to the government of President Hamid Karzai -- a government which he said was "corrupt." The Taliban is dangerous and growing stronger. But "America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars," he added.

It was a dizzying combination of surge and withdrawal, of marching to and fro. The fast pace was reminiscent of plays about the French revolution: Troops enter from the right to loud cannon fire and then they exit to the left. And at the end, the dead are left on stage."

Opinion: Searching in Vain for the Obama Magic - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Isn't it interesting that even The Wall Street Journal opined that this strategy was as good as it gets. It's sad that you have to search worldwide for some foreign opinion in order to support your own views.

One of the media's least accurate tropes is that, with the President's speech last night, Afghanistan is now "Obama's war." No, it isn't. Nations go to war, not merely Administrations, and President Obama's commitment of 30,000 more troops to that Southwest Asian theater is a national investment in blood and treasure on behalf of vital U.S. security interests.

We support Mr. Obama's decision, and this national effort, notwithstanding our concerns about the determination of the President and his party to see it through. Now that he's committed, so is the country, and one of our abiding principles is that nations should never start (much less escalate) wars they don't intend to win. ***

The Afghan Escalation - WSJ.com

 

[nodoginnafight]

"For each troop movement, Obama had a number to match. US strength in Afghanistan will be tripled relative to the Bush years, a fact that is sure to impress hawks in America. But just 18 months later, just in time for Obama's re-election campaign, the horror of war is to end and the draw down will begin. The doves of peace will be let free.

The speech continued in that vein. It was as though Obama had taken one of his old campaign speeches and merged it with a text from the library of ex-President George W. Bush. Extremists kill in the name of Islam, he said, before adding that it is one of the "world's great religions." He promised that responsibility for the country's security would soon be transferred to the government of President Hamid Karzai -- a government which he said was "corrupt." The Taliban is dangerous and growing stronger. But "America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars," he added.

It was a dizzying combination of surge and withdrawal, of marching to and fro. The fast pace was reminiscent of plays about the French revolution: Troops enter from the right to loud cannon fire and then they exit to the left. And at the end, the dead are left on stage."

Opinion: Searching in Vain for the Obama Magic - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Isn't it interesting that even The Wall Street Journal opined that this strategy was as good as it gets. It's sad that you have to search worldwide for some foreign opinion in order to support your own views.

One of the media's least accurate tropes is that, with the President's speech last night, Afghanistan is now "Obama's war." No, it isn't. Nations go to war, not merely Administrations, and President Obama's commitment of 30,000 more troops to that Southwest Asian theater is a national investment in blood and treasure on behalf of vital U.S. security interests.

We support Mr. Obama's decision, and this national effort, notwithstanding our concerns about the determination of the President and his party to see it through. Now that he's committed, so is the country, and one of our abiding principles is that nations should never start (much less escalate) wars they don't intend to win. ***

The Afghan Escalation - WSJ.com

Of course you are right - nations, not presidents, go to war. And yes, this is America's war. But NOW Obama is not just playing the hand he was dealt. NOW he is accountable for how this war will be conducted.

I agree with the assesment on THAT level.

 

[Rinata]

I'd really like to know what everybody thinks about making our leave date public. I am so confused about it.

Last night I was really disappointed that the prez did not give us a drop dead date for leaving Afghanistan. But today, as I said in a prior post, I think maybe that was the right thing to do. Anybody??

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'd really like to know what everybody thinks about making our leave date public. I am so confused about it.

Last night I was really disappointed that the prez did not give us a drop dead date for leaving Afghanistan. But today, as I said in a prior post, I think maybe that was the right thing to do. Anybody??

I like having a target date in place. I think it produces a level of accountability and direction that helps keep everyone focused, on target, and produces a sense of urgency for results. I think it also reassures the locals that we are not "there to stay" and reassures our allies that we are not dragging them into a never-ending quagmire.

I also like retaining the flexibility to adjust as conditions require. You can't just say, we're leaving July 28th no matter what. If the successes that you have achieved up to that point crumble the second you turn your back - then all those people died in vain.

That's MHO.

 

[VaYank5150]

I'd really like to know what everybody thinks about making our leave date public. I am so confused about it.

Last night I was really disappointed that the prez did not give us a drop dead date for leaving Afghanistan. But today, as I said in a prior post, I think maybe that was the right thing to do. Anybody??

I like having a target date in place. I think it produces a level of accountability and direction that helps keep everyone focused, on target, and produces a sense of urgency for results. I think it also reassures the locals that we are not "there to stay" and reassures our allies that we are not dragging them into a never-ending quagmire.

I also like retaining the flexibility to adjust as conditions require. You can't just say, we're leaving July 28th no matter what. If the successes that you have achieved up to that point crumble the second you turn your back - then all those people died in vain.

That's MHO.

I agree with nodog, HOWEVER, we must stick to this date. If we continually move the finish line, as Bush did in Iraq, we will NEVER get Karzai to get off his ass and rid his government of the corruption and actually take the lead for his own country's well being.

 

[saveliberty]

"But the challenges of rebuilding an Afghan national army of any size - for the fourth time in 150 years - are daunting. Afghanistan, torn by war over a generation, has missed the computer revolution that most militaries now take for granted. The Hindu Kush mountain range splinters much of the country into isolated valleys run by warlords, marginalizing any central government authority. And as the 219th poorest nation among the world's 229, Afghanistan simply can't afford to pay for a big military. Afghan forces today are largely slipshod and corrupt, U.S. officers who have served with them say. Technically they seem capable of doing little more than basic daytime operations, and they have yet to master the bookkeeping vital for any military force to keep track of itself."

Obama Speech Leaves Out How to Grow the Afghan Army - Yahoo! News

Can't get much to change that by July 2011.

IF Obama were to detail every strategy, he'd still be talking, fool.

Patreaus has already extended the broad strategy by providing a few details regarding winning the hearts and minds of the tribal people. These are primitive people for the most part, so if The Taliban offers a recruit $10, then we offer him $20. It's basically the same strategy that worked in Iraq, which literally bought time to separate out the good guys from the bad guys.

I understand that you engage your mouth before your brain, but Obama stated the second part of his "plan" was to make Afghanistan able to take car of its own needs. That included military security. I merely quoted a source that says that is very unlikely to occur. We have had almost eight years to implement your suggested strategy. How is that working out? You don't think we have tried that one already? Right. Did you give any thought to how hard it is to get to Walmart from these remote villages?

 

[52ndStreet]

If we tell the Taliban that we will be withdrawing on July,11 2011 , is this not giving them the oppertunity to just wait American forces out till that date rolls around?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

It's a Surge that really isn't a Surge. If you're leaving by 2011,why send 30,000 more kids over there to be killed and maimed? What will they be dying for? The Afghan Warlords will now simply solidify their ties with Al Qaeda and the Taliban and just wait for the Americans to leave in 2011. Al Qaeda and the Taliban will be there long after America is gone so they know it's better to join forces with them. This was just a Half-Measure designed to please both the Military and his Left Wing followers. In the end it will please no one though. 30,000 more kids sent to the Slaughter House for nothing. What a shame.

 

[52ndStreet]

It's a Surge that really isn't a Surge. If you're leaving by 2011,why send 30,000 more kids over there to be killed and maimed? What will they be dying for? The Afghan Warlords will now simply solidify their ties with Al Qaeda and the Taliban and just wait for the Americans to leave in 2011. Al Qaeda and the Taliban will be there long after America is gone so they know it's better to join forces with them. This was just a Half-Measure designed to please both the Military and his Left Wing followers. In the end it will please no one though. 30,000 more kids sent to the Slaughter House for nothing. What a shame.

Obama must really be a kind of Antichrist , with this anticlimax type speech he gave last night.
To build up to withdraw makes no kind of sense.
He seems to be speeking out of both sides of his mouth.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'd really like to know what everybody thinks about making our leave date public. I am so confused about it.

Last night I was really disappointed that the prez did not give us a drop dead date for leaving Afghanistan. But today, as I said in a prior post, I think maybe that was the right thing to do. Anybody??

I like having a target date in place. I think it produces a level of accountability and direction that helps keep everyone focused, on target, and produces a sense of urgency for results. I think it also reassures the locals that we are not "there to stay" and reassures our allies that we are not dragging them into a never-ending quagmire.

I also like retaining the flexibility to adjust as conditions require. You can't just say, we're leaving July 28th no matter what. If the successes that you have achieved up to that point crumble the second you turn your back - then all those people died in vain.

That's MHO.

I agree with nodog, HOWEVER, we must stick to this date. If we continually move the finish line, as Bush did in Iraq, we will NEVER get Karzai to get off his ass and rid his government of the corruption and actually take the lead for his own country's well being.

While I'll agree that there does need to be some sense of urgency and accountability for Karzai and some consequences if HE'S the reason we miss our time goal - Just bailing on the date - even if the Afghans aren't ready - risks undoing everything we fought to achieve. And that would mean our folks who died over there died for nothing.

It's a quandry - the kind of thing that forces you to wonder if nation building really is a legitimate reason to go to war.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Like i said,it's a Surge that really isn't a Surge. He basically announced our Surrender over there but is going to send a token 30,000 more kids over there for some sort of political gain. Just a Half-Measure that will only lead to more kids being killed and maimed for nothing. Seriously,what will these kids be dying for at this point? Al Qaeda and the Taliban now know exactly when we're leaving so it's all just a Win/Win for them now. How can you order our kids to go out there and be slaughtered at this point? If we're leaving than so be it. Why send 30,000 more kids over to the Slaughter House for nothing? What a shame.

 

[maineman]

Like i said,it's a Surge that really isn't a Surge. He basically announced our Surrender over there but is going to send a token 30,000 more kids over there for some sort of political gain. Just a Half-Measure that will only lead to more kids being killed and maimed for nothing. Seriously,what will these kids be dying for at this point? Al Qaeda and the Taliban now know exactly when we're leaving so it's all just a Win/Win for them now. How can you order our kids to go out there and be slaughtered at this point? If we're leaving than so be it. Why send 30,000 more kids over to the Slaughter House for nothing? What a shame.

so, I take it that you have no faith in Petraeus anymore? He is just some fawning political hack who would sell our soldier's souls for a chance to be Army Chief of Staff or CJCS?

Were you fully supportive of the Bush adsministration and their mishandling of the Afghan theater, by the way?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yes now the Hopey Changeys all hail "The Surge." Hey what do ya know? When you announce your Surrender it's pretty hard to argue that your "Surge" is going to be effective. Al Qaeda and the Taliban now know we are leaving in 2011 so i'm sure they're dancing in the streets over this decision. How can this President order our kids to go out there and risk their lives for nothing? It really is just plain sad.