Obama looking for Afganistan Exit Strategy

So much for that "Good War" stuff. That stuff is going the way of his "Changing the Tone of Washington" stuff has gone. Just another lie in the end. :(

The change in the white house now is, him not being all swager, ego and from texas. He is actually thinking about situations before saying things like mush room clouds and wmd's.

See the difference?

and how many kids are dying while he allegedly "thinks" ???? you left that one out huh ???

How many of the additional 40,000 soldiers will die? And for what purpose?

That is why he has to "think"
 
I like the idea of thinking BEFORE you put other peoples sons and daughters in harms way.

Maybe he's trying to ask the same question I am "What objectives remain to be achieved" and maybe no one there has come up with any better answer that I've gotten here ......

Who knows?
 
Interesting posts guys..

More examples of right wing morons wanting to commit our troops without any strategy of how we will eventually get them out.


You just don't get it do you RW.

If we don't leave these places in far better condition than they were when we found them, twenty years down the road, we'll just have to go back and do it again. And next time our credibility with the indigenous population will be less than zero.

It happened in Iraq. Had we ousted Saddam the first time around, we would have been the heroes of the Iraqi people.

Had we helped the Afghans in the 80's after there overthrow of the soviet puppet government, we would have had a staunch ally instead of an enemy that helped launch the 9/11 tragedy.

We should learn from these mistakes, not repeat them.

Isn't that what an exit strategy is?

We need a definite plan of what needs to be accomplished and when. Protecting the peace is not an exit strategy, neither is winning the hearts and minds of the people.

If we are going to send 40,000 additional troops we need a plan on what we expect them to accomplish. Otherwise, send them all home

I'm with Rabbi...if this is the definition of exit strategy Obama is referring to, he must be completely incompetent. These objectives should have been solidified months ago when Obama introduced his Afghanistan plan and hand picked his General to implement it.
 
So NOBODY is even going to TRY to articulate why we should stay there? What remains to be accomplished?

I had really hoped that someone could contribute something....

I'll keep checking back.
 
So we just "declare victory", pack up and leave the Afghans in the lurch...again?

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

hey it worked in Rwanda and somalia.....

Excellent point Manu.

I just read an outstanding article in National Geographic about Somalia, the number one failed state in the world.

I highly recommend it...I'll try to find a link if I can.

Included in the article was a ranking of the countries most at risk of failure as ranked by a well regarded organization (whose name I cannot recall at the moment).

Both Afghanistan and Iraq were in the top 5 and if memory serves, they were #2 and #3 respectively.

That is a situation we cannot allow.

As for Rwanda, check my blog for an informative and insightful documentary from PBS on the Rwandan genocide.
 
Do we have to re-fight the reasons we went to Iraq for the gazillionth time?

There were plenty of very compelling reasons to go into Iraq. There was unfortunately a very major reason not to: We needed to keep focusing our efforts on Afghanistan.
 
"I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions – with fewer restrictions – from NATO allies." Hasan's best friend BHO 7/15/2008
 
Si - I have come to enjoy your input as being a lot more than empty rhetoric.

And I just keep getting more and more curious - maybe you can be the one to help me out. In your opinion, are there remaining objectives to achieve in Afghanistan? Objectives worthy of the sacrfices our folks over there (and their loved ones still at home) are making?

What different tact would you endorse and why?

I've come to expect the empty and banal rhetoric from some posters, but I've always held you in higher regard. I'd appreciate your input.
I'm no expert on military tactics, nor are you, nor is Obama. But he does have experts telling him exactly what to do and he does nothing, still.
 
"And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban -- or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged -- that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can."

"Afghanistan has been denied the resources that it demands because of the war in Iraq" and now a commitment must be made.

3/27/09 President Barack Hussein Obama
 
still waiting for someone who supports staying in Afghanistan to articulate why and to tell me exactly what objectives they think are left to be achieved......

Anyone???????

let me start by saying we shouldn't be there in the first place....

that said....the us broke their country from what it was.....just leaving will only result in a cleansing similar to vietnan...rawanda....somalia....the iraqi kurds....those that were once in power will take it back and kill or re-educate those currently in power....

so .... we stay and make sure that the current administration can take care of itself....or we leave and wish them luck....
 
After having done a little research on my own and from crusader frank i've picked up on what some may consider a couple of objectives that remain.

One may be to make sure OBL is really dead - that may not be entirely possible.

Another could be to combat the influence of the Taliban. Many advocate eradicating the herion production through which the Taliban is funded. But there is some disagreement as to how much of a threat the Taliban represents to the U.S.

Intelligence reports seem to consider the Taliban highly nationalistic with no interest in attacking any targets outside Afghanistan while others insist that they do represent a threat to the U.S.

I've also read about some sentiment for "stabalizing" Afghanistan to a point in which the Taliban loses influence. In response to that goal many argue that Afghanistan has always been (and probably will be into the forseeable future) a loosely assembled group of tribal and regional powers with no history of a strong centralized government.
 
Last edited:
still waiting for someone who supports staying in Afghanistan to articulate why and to tell me exactly what objectives they think are left to be achieved......

Anyone???????

let me start by saying we shouldn't be there in the first place....

that said....the us broke their country from what it was.....just leaving will only result in a cleansing similar to vietnan...rawanda....somalia....the iraqi kurds....those that were once in power will take it back and kill or re-educate those currently in power....

so .... we stay and make sure that the current administration can take care of itself....or we leave and wish them luck....

Well, I would argue that we certainly did have a legitimate reason to go there in the first place. That's where the criminals who attacked us on 9/11 were hiding. And if Afghanistan wasn't going to arrest them and turn them over to us, then we have a legitimate right to go there and get 'em. And to take any any who resisted as well as any others who joined in that resistence.

I think we've pretty much done that - and the additional focus and resources that this administration pumped into the effort has certainly helped imho.

And to say we "broke" their country .... I dunno - I don't see them as being in any greater state of vulnerability than they were when we got there.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top