Obama: Victory Not Goal in Afghanistan

[MaggieMae]

I feel for the men and women that have to serve under another Democrat President that hates our great military.Obama: Victory Not Goal in Afghanistan | Sweetness & Light

The objective in geopolically important Afghanistan is to stabilize the country so it does not become a haven for terrorists. Duh...

You're in serious need of some homework.

 

[Modbert]

Damn. You beat me to the punch.

Cue con talking point #1125:

"Liberals hate General Petreaus. They called him General Be-tray-us!"

I noticed I beat you to the punch.

My response to that:

Judging people by the extremes of their political leanings is a very bad way to go about things. Imagine if we began to judge all Republicans based off how the extreme ones act?

 

[elvis]

Obama added a historically ignorant and otherwise troublesome statement when he went on to say:......American Thinker- Print Article

First FDR went on television as President in 1929, and now it was Hirohito who surrendered to MacArthur. these guys need to take a history class.

 

[geauxtohell]

If our goal in Afghanistan is to deny that country to al Qaeda and others as a safe base of operations from which to attack the US and our allies, then we must first defeat the military forces of the Taliban and their allies, by one means or another, before economic development can proceed and stable political institutions can take root. Military victory is not a complete solution but it is a necessary part of any solution.

"Deny" is absolutely one of our goals., and we must defeat the Taliban. Defeating them militarily is one piece of the puzzle, but we are never going to have a total military victory over the Taliban.

We have to provide enough breathing room for the central government to expand out of Kabul and to the borders. That requires a degree of stability and economy.

However, direct action against the Taliban is not as effective as trying to interdict them by pulling the population over to the side of the Karzai government. That's why that is the major focus of our military in Afghanistan right now.

The larger problem is how do we create an economy in a nation with no economy and no real prospects for an economy?

 

[geauxtohell]

I noticed I beat you to the punch.

My response to that:

Judging people by the extremes of their political leanings is a very bad way to go about things. Imagine if we began to judge all Republicans based off how the extreme ones act?

I agree. We can have a rational discussion about this without the hyperbole.

 

[geauxtohell]

Sad that Victory has to be defined.

Define vicotory in Afghanistan and then tell us how to achieve it. Rise above the hyperbole for a second and become a military thinker.

 

[MaggieMae]

This is GREAT

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT


RUSH: Columbia, Maryland, as we go back to the phones on Open Line Friday. Hi.

CALLER: Hello, Mr. Limbaugh. How are you?

RUSH: Fine and dandy, sir. Thank you.

CALLER: Great. I've been listening to you for about 17 years, and today's the first time I have attempted to call, and I got through.

RUSH: Congratulations. That's a major accomplishment. A lot of people have been trying for 20 years and haven't made it.

CALLER: Listen, while we're asking the president for apologies, I think the president should apologize to all those brave men and women he committed to the battlefields of Afghanistan. For him to suggest that victory isn't his objective, let me ask you this, does anybody doubt that the objective of every one of those brave warriors is victory? I mean this guy -- I can't even figure out where he comes from. It sounds as though he's afraid of achieving victory because then he'd have to apologize for that.

RUSH: I think you're right. I think there is a guilt that he has associated with US victory, US success. There is a guilt that it's somehow immoral and unjust because we have an unfair advantage going on in. But you are exactly right. If you're just tuning in, Barack Obama said that he doesn't like the word or the concept "victory" being tossed around when discussing things in Afghanistan because when he thinks victory, he thinks of Emperor Hirohito coming down from the mountains and signing a surrender agreement with MacArthur on the USS Missouri. I read that, I said, "What the hell?" But your perspective here, "Then what are these brave troops doing over there?"

CALLER: Exactly.

RUSH: He said all they're trying to do is prevent these people from attacking the US. But we're not. He said we can't achieve victory out there, Bill, because these people aren't even part of the country.

CALLER: Well, if this commander-in-chief is committed to anything short of victory, he should be impeached. When I read this I was so outraged, and thank God I have not lost anybody close to me in this war. But I could only think about the mothers, the fathers, the wives, the husbands, the children of these people we've lost, I can only imagine how they must feel when they hear the commander-in-chief say that, you know, victory really isn't the overarching concern in this. I mean, I can't believe this guy.

RUSH: Great point. Great point. Got a problem with victory. Then why have them there in the first place?

CALLER: Exactly. It's that or nothing should be the commitment because I guarantee you every one of those warriors is committed to victory.

RUSH: Every day Barack Fonda is telling us who he is. Every day. He's Barack Fonda and Barack Nifong in one day. He's telling us exactly who he is. Pretty soon he's going to be… well, he's Barack Marx every day.

CALLER: It's outrageous.

RUSH: But now he's adding, you know, last names, and no birth certificate so he can paint whatever name he wants, Barack Nifong, Barack Fonda, it's a great point. I hadn't thought about that, about the parents, family members of those soldiers that are over there. This mission they're on, it's a huge offensive we're on, huge firefights are taking place.

CALLER: Absolutely.

RUSH: Well, look, Bill, I'm glad you called. It's an excellent perspective.


END TRANSCRIPT

 

[geauxtohell]

CALLER: Absolutely.

RUSH: Well, look, Bill, I'm glad you called. It's an excellent perspective.

Wow. "Caller" and Limbaugh really offered a unique and helpful perspective on this matter.

Of course, everything Limbaugh needed to learn about the insurgency, he learned by using an ass zit to the fullest effect needed to duck out of Viet Nam.

Why you guys listen to this chicken shit on matters of combat is beyond me.

 

[MaggieMae]

There is no military solution in Afghanistan.


Purple fingers in Iraqi proves you are wrong.

Riiiight...now they have a theocracy and a breeding ground for new anti-American terrorists. You know, those young Iraqis who have never known anything BUT American occupation.

 

[Modbert]

I still haven't heard how we achieve victory in Afghanistan. Any of you Republicans want to give a simple layout?

How about you Ozz, care to share some insight?

 

[elvis]

I still haven't heard how we achieve victory in Afghanistan. Any of you Republicans want to give a simple layout?

How about you Ozz, care to share some insight?

if victory isn't the goal, no matter how it's defined, what the fuck are we doing there and why has Obama increased the troop levels?

 

[Modbert]

if victory isn't the goal, no matter how it's defined, what the fuck are we doing there and why has Obama increased the troop levels?

You can't define this situation by a simple word like victory. Honestly, do you ever believe we'll win the "War on Terror?" It's a war on a freakin emotion!

The best thing to do is to eliminate the terrorists currently holding up in Afghanistan, the drones do a awesome job as well. After that, and the Government is stable to the point where they won't collapse the day after we leave, we leave.

Though honestly, dropping as many bombs on those caves like we did with Laos so wrongly all those years ago would of solved this problem by now.

From 1964 through 1973, the United States flew 580,000 bombing runs over Laos — one every 9 minutes for 10 years. More than 2 million tons of ordnance was unloaded on the countryside, double the amount dropped on Nazi Germany in World War II.

And THAT was just on the civilians. Imagine what we could do to the actual armed enemy!

 

[elvis]

if victory isn't the goal, no matter how it's defined, what the fuck are we doing there and why has Obama increased the troop levels?

You can't define this situation by a simple word like victory. Honestly, do you ever believe we'll win the "War on Terror?" It's a war on a freakin emotion!

The best thing to do is to eliminate the terrorists currently holding up in Afghanistan, the drones do a awesome job as well. After that, and the Government is stable to the point where they won't collapse the day after we leave, we leave.

Though honestly, dropping as many bombs on those caves like we did with Laos so wrongly all those years ago would of solved this problem by now.

From 1964 through 1973, the United States flew 580,000 bombing runs over Laos — one every 9 minutes for 10 years. More than 2 million tons of ordnance was unloaded on the countryside, double the amount dropped on Nazi Germany in World War II.

And THAT was just on the civilians. Imagine what we could do to the actual armed enemy!

I don't think we should have gone to Vietnam. but since we did, victory should have been the goal, and therefore, bombing Laos and Cambodia were the right choices imo.

 

[MaggieMae]

Sad that Victory has to be defined.

It doesn't always mean military victory. In fact, in the waning days of the Iraq war (pre-counterinsurgency), the Pentagon dropped the word "victory" and replaced it with the word "success."

 

[geauxtohell]

if victory isn't the goal, no matter how it's defined, what the fuck are we doing there and why has Obama increased the troop levels?

This is just outrage pimping by the right.

We can be successful in Afghanistan, but there will be no clear cut decisive point when we achieve a total military victory over the enemy. It's not that kind of war.

That's what Obama meant. It's the same thing George Bush said when he was president. The right didn't have a problem with it then. They do now.

Go figure.

*by "right", I mean talking heads like Limbaugh.

 

[Modbert]

I don't think we should have gone to Vietnam. but since we did, victory should have been the goal, and therefore, bombing Laos and Cambodia were the right choices imo.

You're right, we should of never had gone to Vietnam. Bombing Laos to the extent we did was a horrible horrible choice.

The reason we began to bomb Laos was the simple fact that the CIA could not overthrow their government in a coup like they did several other times before to other governments. It wasn't for Vietnam. This shit wouldn't of happened if JFK hadn't got shot in the head.

 

[editec]

Victory?

In Afghanistan?

Not a fucking chance.

There's nothing there to win.

 

[elvis]

I don't think we should have gone to Vietnam. but since we did, victory should have been the goal, and therefore, bombing Laos and Cambodia were the right choices imo.

You're right, we should of never had gone to Vietnam. Bombing Laos to the extent we did was a horrible horrible choice.

The reason we began to bomb Laos was the simple fact that the CIA could not overthrow their government in a coup like they did several other times before to other governments. It wasn't for Vietnam. This shit wouldn't of happened if JFK hadn't got shot in the head.

Really? How many people in South Vietnam did JFK kill when he started bombing them in 1962? He never would have allowed South Vietnam to go communist.

 

[MaggieMae]

I feel for the men and women that have to serve under another Democrat President that hates our great military.Obama: Victory Not Goal in Afghanistan | Sweetness & Light

There is no military solution in Afghanistan. The problem is economic at its heart.

In regards to the insurgency, they are never going to surrender. If we can adequately stymie them, they will simply assimilate into the populace. Thus, there will be no definite "victory" or decisive point where the war was won accompanied by a ticker tape parade.

Only the ignorant in this country, who have no understanding of tactics or our goals in Afghanistan, think otherwise.

Bush said the same thing. They are both right. It's not inherent to the President, it's inherent to the tactics and an insurgency conflict.

If our goal in Afghanistan is to deny that country to al Qaeda and others as a safe base of operations from which to attack the US and our allies, then we must first defeat the military forces of the Taliban and their allies, by one means or another, before economic development can proceed and stable political institutions can take root. Military victory is not a complete solution but it is a necessary part of any solution.

The use of the term "victory" implies an occupation. It's that simple. We are not there to occupy Afghanistan and topple its leadership. Much of the operation involves convincing the Afghan people that the militant arm of The Taliban is working against their interests. It's using the same Patreaus strategy but with different players.

 

[elvis]

Victory?

In Afghanistan?

Not a fucking chance.

There's nothing there to win.

so WHY are we there?