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

[mascale]

And especially if it were. . . .(It would easily be opposed)!

1) How could the Obama-Bush-Paulson-Bernanke revival of the United States Economy be expected to take only 18 months? Bernanke started his part with 24 months left in the Bush Administration.

2) Can the Kabul government be trusted? Apparently Not!

3) If the Al Qaeda leadership has been decimated, then about all that is left is to offer some nature of alternative.

4) If providing the less militant Al Qaeda members, some viable alternative--And they are in Pakistan--then 30,000 more live targets in Afghanistan is likely not entirely helpful. That would not be said the viable alternative needed.

In any more or less obtuse sense, on review: One of the great tragedies of 9/11 is that the assailants actually missed the Pentagon.

Since atrocity, aka war, is basis idiocy: Then this one is at least as idiotic as any others.

General Powell, as Secretary of State, had assembled the G-7 to take measures in Afghanistan--which could easily have been the viable infra-structure creation alternative. The Taliban were willing to try bin laden in Moslem trial, with those penalties.

Then lots of other matters would never have happened.

In Lincoln's case, the slaughter of 750,000 white people, and the decades denigration of black people: Would never have happened.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(In dealing with Kabul, Great White Half Father in Washington, D., C.: Sending in Bureau of Indian Affairs?")

 

[LibocalypseNow]

In any case,what are our kids dying for at this point? Our President just announced our Surrender in 2011 so why send more kids to be slaughtered over there? Can we really ask these kids to risk their lives for nothing? Al Qaeda and the Taliban now know we are leaving in 2011. They have won. End of story. This President should not ask our kids to continue risking their lives over there. It just seems so ludicrous to announce a "Surge" and a Surrender at the same time. It makes no sense. More kids will now be needlessly killed and maimed. What a tragedy.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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?

You must be new here - this poster doesn't respond or answer questions or document or support any of his/her opinions. He/she just copies and pastes the same wild crap in thread after thread with absolutely no regard to how often it is disproven.

Actually, the rest of us usually just ignore him/her because we're afraid we may have sent him/her into a seizure or something last time we directly addressed him/her.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

A "Surge" and Surrender Plan is no plan at all. God help our kids over there.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Sorry but i don't bother responding to tired & stale "BOOOOOOOOOOOOSSHH and FOX NOOOOOOOOOOOZ" rhetoric. That stuff really has become so lame at this point. Get some new material and then i might just start interacting with you Hopey Changeys a bit more.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Patreaus still thinks that tribal members can be bought off, just as Iraqi Sunnis were bought off. Given enough time to convince them that it's in their best interests (and that of their families) NOT to side with militant extremists, it works. He does acknowledge, however, that it's not going to be as easy actually finding all these people simply because they are so spread out over such an imposing terrain, unlike in Iraq.

 

[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

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.

I do too, and I think he accepted that responsibility when he was elected.

 

[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.

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?

It's not "my" strategy. And we didn't have the troops to carry out a Patreaus strategy before now, and still may not have enough. The difference between the Iraq strategy and this one, however, is that we're apparently not going to wait around to see IF it succeeds. The Afghanistan government will have been given hands-on assistance to take care of itself, and if within 18 months it becomes clear that they can't, the U.S. will do no more.

 

[manu1959]

why would he give his generals less troops and less time than they asked for.....

and why would he tell the enemy this.....

if this war is not his......i have a question......

who's "war" was vitenam jfk.....wwII...WWI...korea.....iraq isn't bush's war....how about the bay of pigs....somalia...rawanda....grenada.....

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

What do you think D-Day was all about? It was the final push to end the war with Germany. Tens of thousands lost their lives that day, which was a known known beforehand. Our kids who volunteer today also know they might die on the battlefield. That part of your argument is moot.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

They will be dying for the sake of OUR national security, which the young troops understand. Just like the Iraq surge was basically a last-ditch tactic that was designed to mitigate a national security disaster to get the conflict under control, the Afghanistan strategy is also a last-ditch effort to force stabilization in Afghanistan. Obama was quite clear last night that we will NOT be there indefinitely, which was a promise Bush could not make until the Iraq surge began to look like a success. (The BA actually stopped using the word "victory" in Iraq, finally, replacing it with "success" in Iraq.)

 

[manu1959]

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.

What do you think D-Day was all about? It was the final push to end the war with Germany. Tens of thousands lost their lives that day, which was a known known beforehand. Our kids who volunteer today also know they might die on the battlefield. That part of your argument is moot.

ya.....we gave ike 3/4 of what he asked for and told him he would get most of it in 6 months and in 18 months we were withdrawing.....and we announced it on national tv so the germans were up to speed....

ya it is just like d-day....

 

[MaggieMae]

A "Surge" and Surrender Plan is no plan at all. God help our kids over there.

A military "surge" is defined as clear, secure, retain. With the obvious ultimate goal of ending a conflict, or exiting participation therein. That's precisely what this strategy will employ, only on a fast-track instead of drawn out forever.

 

[MaggieMae]

Sorry but i don't bother responding to tired & stale "BOOOOOOOOOOOOSSHH and FOX NOOOOOOOOOOOZ" rhetoric. That stuff really has become so lame at this point. Get some new material and then i might just start interacting with you Hopey Changeys a bit more.

Well Hopey Changey has gotten a little old too, fella. Get a new mantra.

 

[manu1959]

A "Surge" and Surrender Plan is no plan at all. God help our kids over there.

A military "surge" is defined as clear, secure, retain. With the obvious ultimate goal of ending a conflict, or exiting participation therein. That's precisely what this strategy will employ, only on a fast-track instead of drawn out forever.

30,000+ 70,000 for a total of 100,000 soliders are going to clear secure and retain all of afganistan in 18 months.....

you do realize the soviets deployed over 100,000 soliders and spent 8 years trying to do it ....

 

[MaggieMae]

why would he give his generals less troops and less time than they asked for.....

and why would he tell the enemy this.....

if this war is not his......i have a question......

who's "war" was vitenam jfk.....wwII...WWI...korea.....iraq isn't bush's war....how about the bay of pigs....somalia...rawanda....grenada.....

We don't HAVE 60,000 troops to deploy to Afghanistan. And most people, me included, have already said it's Obama's war.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

What do you think D-Day was all about? It was the final push to end the war with Germany. Tens of thousands lost their lives that day, which was a known known beforehand. Our kids who volunteer today also know they might die on the battlefield. That part of your argument is moot.

ya.....we gave ike 3/4 of what he asked for and told him he would get most of it in 6 months and in 18 months we were withdrawing.....and we announced it on national tv so the germans were up to speed....

ya it is just like d-day....

But the Germans began their retreat and the war with them officially ended just short of one year after D-Day.

 

[saveliberty]

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?

It's not "my" strategy. And we didn't have the troops to carry out a Patreaus strategy before now, and still may not have enough. The difference between the Iraq strategy and this one, however, is that we're apparently not going to wait around to see IF it succeeds. The Afghanistan government will have been given hands-on assistance to take care of itself, and if within 18 months it becomes clear that they can't, the U.S. will do no more.

What you say is close enough for me to just say I agree. My article was laying out several very good reasons why that is not a likely outcome. So, if the results are highly questionable for part two of the plan and part three which requires the Pakistanis to be partners and not share intel with the terrorists (which has not been the case to date) is a likely fail, just pack it in. A year with 30,000 extra targets, a known withdrawl time frame and today McCrystal was talking strategy on CNN. It is a plan for failure.

 

[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??

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.

That's a good opinion!!! It makes a lot of sense. Thanks for responding.

 

[Maple]

I ask you all, how in the hell do you combine a troop increase with an exit strategy?
President Obama has done this before with the Iraq campaign. There is no logic in President Obama going to West Point, to give a speech about a major troop increase, and then also to discuss an exit strategy.

This exit strategy is just what the Taliban wants to hear. This will only embolden the Taliban, and put our troops in greater danger.
American forces have not won the war in Afghanistan, so why even discuss an exit strategy now?. This sends the wrong message to the Taliban Terrorist, and other Terrorists throughout the world.
This Obama strategy may backfire on U.S. Army forces now in Afghanistan.

This out right capitulation by our President makes America looks weak to the rest of the world.

President Obama has it all wrong.

If I were the Tliban I would just sit back, relax put the withdrawal date on the calender and move in when the U.S moves out.