Breaking: MSNBC : Prez Obama REJECTS ALL MILITARY OPTIONS IN AFGHANISTAN

[MaggieMae]

He's waiting for someone to propose a strategy involving ACORN organizing some communities over there.

Honestly, what the ****, Obama?

Another moronic comment. You drunk again? Why is it a serious discussion can never be had without someone jumping in with illiterate comments they think are oh, so "cute"??"

 

[toomuchtime_]

IMO, there's no other way for it to end.

Without strong American leadership, there is no other way for it to end, but think of what that means. If Afghanistan falls to the insurgents, it will be used as a base to wrest control of the tribal lands in Pakistan from the Pakistani government, and those lands will be used as a base of operations to try to gain control of the Pakistani government and its nuclear arsenal, putting hundreds of millions of people's lives in Pakistan and India at risk.

These people are suicide bombers who crave and glorify martyrdom and who seem to have no concern about the innocent lives they destroy as they pursue this goal. If they did gain control of Pakistan would they be deterred from a first launch by the certain devastation that would come with an Indian retaliation? These people are suicide bombers.

And what of US security? Would nuclear devices make their way from a radical Pakistani government into the hands of terrorists who are set on attacking the US or our allies? What if those planes had carried nuclear devices on Sept. 11: we would not have just lost the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon, we would have lost New York City and Washington D.C. Would a radical Pakistani government be deterred from abetting such an attack on the US out of fear of our retaliation? They're suicide bombers.

Responsible nations, like responsible people, sometimes have to do things they really don't want to do because they understand that their long term prospects are greatly improved if they do these things. There are no unsolvable problems in Afghanistan, only complications that increase the cost and may lengthen the duration of the mission, which is to help establish a stable democracy that will not allow international insurgencies such as, but not limited to, al Qaeda to establish bases of operations from which to attack the US or its allies or Afghanistan's other neighbors. Nearly everyone is the world would be better off if this mission is successful, and there is no reason to think it can't be successful in time if the US shows the kind of strong leadership and commitment to the mission that will give the various factions in Afghanistan confidence that we will not abandon them to the insurgents or to a corrupt, despotic government.

I don't think it has anything to do with American leadership at all. Face it, the only way we'd have any control over Afghanistan is if we nuked it, took it over and made it a state.

The rest of your post should have been considered before we went in.

The goal is not to control Afghanistan, as the British and Soviets tried to do, but to help the Afghan people to build a stable democracy to control the country. A strong US commitment to not only fight the insurgencies but also to help increase the competence and effectiveness of government agencies will go a long way to achieving this kind of success. The central problem is that Afghanistan is not really a nation-state. The warlords and tribal chiefs run their own governments, providing civic services and security in areas where neither NATO nor the central government's agencies and forces can. In order to bring these local leaders into the central government, Karzai must allow what we call corruption but which they may see as just rewards for leadership in dangerous times, but with a strong enough US commitment US and central government forces can secure these areas so the the central government can begin to provide the security and other services instead of these local leaders, and that is how nation-states are formed.

But this is only possible with strong US leadership and a strong US commitment to helping Afghanistan to become a stable democracy that will prevent insurgents from turning it into a base of operations from which international terrorists can launch attacks against the US and our allies and from gaining control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and threatening hundreds of millions of lives in Pakistan and India, and Obama appears not to have the will or ability to provide such leadership.

 

[manu1959]

lets see.....what were the options....

A. leave and let whatever happens happen...

B. stay and carry on as is...

C. stay and add more troops to defend kabul and go on hunting missions....

It short he doesn’t know what to do…doesn’t matter really…..

as someone said.....no one has ever conquered afganistan....

it is basically a lawless nation with a few civil cities....

it used to be a wonderful place kind of like persia.....

basically became a shit hole once the religious zealots took over....when we leave ...and we will....it will become a shit hole again.....can you say somalia....

 

[MaggieMae]

Asking you to define what would constitute victory in Afghanistan is a strawman?

Look it up, Polk.

These are actual lives Obama is playing with. He's the ******* President and he needs to act like one, not campaign.

This isn't campaigning. I know this may come as a shock to you, but decisions on matters of substance shouldn't be based on coin flips.

People lik Si modo want Afghanistan to turn into a disastrously bloody all-out civil war with U.S. troops right in the middle of it, just like Iraq. Then they can use that to propagandize that Obama is as bad as Boooooooooosh by not properly managing a war of choice.

 

[namvet]

lets see.....what were the options....

A. leave and let whatever happens happen...

B. stay and carry on as is...

C. stay and add more troops to defend kabul and go on hunting missions....

It short he doesn’t know what to do…doesn’t matter really…..

as someone said.....no one has ever conquered afganistan....

it is basically a lawless nation with a few civil cities....

it used to be a wonderful place kind of like persia.....

basically became a shit hole once the religious zealots took over....when we leave ...and we will....it will become a shit hole again.....can you say somalia....

can you say bye bye to Iraq ????

 

[MaggieMae]

weren't you guys the ones saying a surge worked in Irag? And last time I checked most said there wasn't enough troops in Afghanistan. Or maybe Bush should of maybe focused on afghanistan instead of Irag, you know the people who were actually behind 9/11.

First of all...the surge worked in Iraq and BUSH NEGOTIATED A TROOP WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT BEFORE HE LEFT OFFICE...

Second...NATO DID NOT COMMIT the number of troops it said it would after 9/11. Bush sent the number of troops he committed to...the European Union failed!!!!!

In March of 2009 with the Iraq War successfully concluding thanks to the Surge Strategy employed by the Bush Administration Obama told the Europeans "We got this one...you guys sit this one out." and revealed a grand strategy.....IT FAILED MISERABLY......now all you lefties want to do is retreat in disgrace.....
Not one of you has the ******* balls to stand up for what's right.....
YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF ******* BELL RINGING QUITTERS!!!!!!

Bush negotiated the troop withdrawal to beat the democrats to the punch when it became blatantly obvious that they were going to take the presidency.

Actually, that's only partially true. Malaki was demanding by spring of 07 that US combat troops withdraw over the horizon no later than December 31, 2008.

 

[Contumacious]

The goal is not to control Afghanistan, as the British and Soviets tried to do, but to help the Afghan people to build a stable democracy to control the country. .

Did they ask for that?

Does a US President have that authority?

What the **** is a "stable democracy". Read James Madison's works about "stable democracies".

.

 

[manu1959]

lets see.....what were the options....

A. leave and let whatever happens happen...

B. stay and carry on as is...

C. stay and add more troops to defend kabul and go on hunting missions....

It short he doesn’t know what to do…doesn’t matter really…..

as someone said.....no one has ever conquered afganistan....

it is basically a lawless nation with a few civil cities....

it used to be a wonderful place kind of like persia.....

basically became a shit hole once the religious zealots took over....when we leave ...and we will....it will become a shit hole again.....can you say somalia....

can you say bye bye to Iraq ????

i doubt it....the iraqi military will be able to hold off the terrorists ..... iran may make a run at them again though.....the perssians hate the arabs.....

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Look it up, Polk.

These are actual lives Obama is playing with. He's the ******* President and he needs to act like one, not campaign.

This isn't campaigning. I know this may come as a shock to you, but decisions on matters of substance shouldn't be based on coin flips.

People lik Si modo want Afghanistan to turn into a disastrously bloody all-out civil war with U.S. troops right in the middle of it, just like Iraq. Then they can use that to propagandize that Obama is as bad as Boooooooooosh by not properly managing a war of choice.

Sorry. That is CLEARLY NOT THE CASE. I want America to win in Afghanistan. By winning I mean leaving the country with our heads held high knowing we did everything we could to destroy the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The Afghans are going to do whatever they want after we leave anyway so there is no point in trying to turn them into a bunch of fricken capitalists. The end goal is to make it so ******* painful to even think about messing with the USA that they don't even consider it...EVER AGAIN...and should they decide to go down that road again...then smash the fly with a sledgehammer...AGAIN...until they get the message.

 

[MaggieMae]

What? You don't own a dictionary? You feel free to play with your strawman.

Asking you to define what would constitute victory in Afghanistan is a strawman?

It is unless you actually don't know what victory means and are using it to deflect this thread away from Obama's lack of policy. But, just in case you really don't know.. victory in Afghanistan would leave a nation that was safe enough for development. It would be a nation that doesn't serve as a haven for the Taliban and drug lords. It would be a nation where a woman wouldn't have to worry that her leg would be amputated because an errant wind lifted her burka and showed her ankle.

Funny, I used to believe that too. HOWEVER, in recent months it has become perfectly clear that the Afghans have no intention of democratizing itself in the fashion of the United States, regarding the drug trade or women. It is a lawless territory. The US would have to remain there indefinitely just to protect those few Afghan residents who actually DO want to pull themselves into the 21st Century. It's a lost cause, period.

I think the ONLY valid reason to possibly continue to have a strong presence there is its geographic proximity to Iran and its veiled threats to our security, but then if that becomes the goal, we are no better than any other occupier of another sovereignty solely for political superiority in a region.

 

[MaggieMae]

So he rejected a bunch of plans that had no clear end game and exit strategy. Good.

Well--having an "exit strategy" should probably have something to do with winning--

How many times during the campaign season did you hear Barack Obama state: "We took our eye off of the ball."

It kind of looks to be that he has fumbled the ball against the advise of his coaching staff--

The Taliban was driven out of Afghanistan by January 2002, and we left a skeleton crew there and invaded Iraq. The Taliban came back as soon as we were gone. So yes, "we took our eye off the ball." It's a no-brainer.

 

[manu1959]

So he rejected a bunch of plans that had no clear end game and exit strategy. Good.

Well--having an "exit strategy" should probably have something to do with winning--

How many times during the campaign season did you hear Barack Obama state: "We took our eye off of the ball."

It kind of looks to be that he has fumbled the ball against the advise of his coaching staff--

The Taliban was driven out of Afghanistan by January 2002, and we left a skeleton crew there and invaded Iraq. The Taliban came back as soon as we were gone. So yes, "we took our eye off the ball." It's a no-brainer.

and now we will leave......then you will have a taliban nation state.....with a heroine drug trade to fund it.....should be fun....

 

[MaggieMae]

It is unless you actually don't know what victory means and are using it to deflect this thread away from Obama's lack of policy. But, just in case you really don't know.. victory in Afghanistan would leave a nation that was safe enough for development. It would be a nation that doesn't serve as a haven for the Taliban and drug lords. It would be a nation where a woman wouldn't have to worry that her leg would be amputated because an errant wind lifted her burka and showed her ankle.

It's not a weakness to base your tactics off of the facts on the ground. As for your definition of victory, that's fine if you want to define things that way, but it gets to the heart of the issue. What you spelled out is a goal that can never be accomplished with force. The military is there to flatten enemy forces. It can't construct civil society. It can't ensure that the individual Afghan tribes will rally around a central government.

Well since we've spilled precious blood and lots of treasure.. let's do that before leave.

With what? Another 40,000 troops untrained to fight in mountain terrain? And also, it's not as though the "good" Taliban can be distinguished from the "bad" Taliban. How often have American troops been ambushed in areas they thought were "safe" from the latter?

 

[MaggieMae]

While this may appease many on the left...it will ultimately lead to the Taliban retaking Afghanistan.....then what?

Go back over there AGAIN? At what cost this time? Boston nuked? No thank you.

Obama needs to be Commander in Chief and man up...not a ******* George Soros puppet.

Then we're going to have to rely on our intelligence community (as scary as that sounds) to be ahead of any major attack being planned.

There are no easy answers, Phil, but just sitting around there with our collective dicks in our hand isn't a good plan.

Quite true...and this is what's happening right now ... the only difference is our troops are getting shot at and blown up while Obama plays golf and basketball. WTF???!!!

Riiiight. And another brain fart.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Where's bin Laden?

 

[Charles Stucker]

Definition: Exit Strategy

1. Politically correct term used in place of retreat

Generally yes. I however have an exit strategy which could work, if it were implemented.
Exit Strategy for Afghanistan
Step 1 - Declare martial law in response to the current corruption.
Step 2 - Make English a recognized official language in Afghanistan. Make freedom of religion part of their constitution.
Step 3 - Offer convicts in the US immediate release if they agree to go and stay in Afghanistan. Try to get ~ 500,000 to go, offer incentives as needed.
Step 4 - Grant full Afghan citizenship to all those ex cons.
Step 5 - Arm the cons.
Step 6 - Take our troops out and let the armed (former US) criminals fight the Islamic terrorists for control of the drug trade.

This is a win win situation as it will serve as a warning to all the other terrorist groups; the US can make things a lot worse in your country, so keep out of ours. At the same time we get our troops out of harms way. As for the drug trade - does it matter if American expatriate thugs or Afghan terrorist thugs control it? Only in terms of how much of the drug trade is used to support terrorism. On top of all that it reduces the number of criminals in the USA.

I realize there will be two main groups who object to this plan.
The first group will view this plan as immoral and will denounce it for being immoral.
The second group will view the plan as too likely to succeed and will denounce it for being immoral. That is not a typo - they will not denounce it for the chance it will succeed, even though that is what they find objectionable.

A third small group may exist which will view the plan as unworkable for some reason, and to be fair those who believe the plan to apt to work may choose to nay-say based on practicality rather than moral grounds, but really who cares. The plan won't be enacted, by this administration, and they will certainly get out of Afghanistan before another president can take decisive action and make them look like blithering idiots.

 

[MaggieMae]

It is unless you actually don't know what victory means and are using it to deflect this thread away from Obama's lack of policy. But, just in case you really don't know.. victory in Afghanistan would leave a nation that was safe enough for development. It would be a nation that doesn't serve as a haven for the Taliban and drug lords. It would be a nation where a woman wouldn't have to worry that her leg would be amputated because an errant wind lifted her burka and showed her ankle.

It's not a weakness to base your tactics off of the facts on the ground. As for your definition of victory, that's fine if you want to define things that way, but it gets to the heart of the issue. What you spelled out is a goal that can never be accomplished with force. The military is there to flatten enemy forces. It can't construct civil society. It can't ensure that the individual Afghan tribes will rally around a central government.

I agree with you. We aren't going to have one terrorist wave a white flag that will end the war on terror--BUT--you never show these maniacs your backside without expecting severe reprocussions from it.

It would be very easy for us to install "permanent" bases in Iraq & Afganistan to keep radicals at bay. We have bases all over the world--& many are no longer necessary--like Japan & Germany. Move them into Afganistan & Iraq--on a smaller scale--& keep them weaponized--secure--& at ready status to fight radicals within the country.

Well...since our military forces are stretched so thin, I suggest you volunteer today:
GoArmy.com

 

[MaggieMae]

It is unless you actually don't know what victory means and are using it to deflect this thread away from Obama's lack of policy. But, just in case you really don't know.. victory in Afghanistan would leave a nation that was safe enough for development. It would be a nation that doesn't serve as a haven for the Taliban and drug lords. It would be a nation where a woman wouldn't have to worry that her leg would be amputated because an errant wind lifted her burka and showed her ankle.

It's not a weakness to base your tactics off of the facts on the ground. As for your definition of victory, that's fine if you want to define things that way, but it gets to the heart of the issue. What you spelled out is a goal that can never be accomplished with force. The military is there to flatten enemy forces. It can't construct civil society. It can't ensure that the individual Afghan tribes will rally around a central government.

Obviously you are not a student of history or you wouldn't make such idiotic claims. All one has to do is look to the Allied victories over Germany and Japan.
Marshall plan?
General MacArthur WROTE the Japanese constitution.

Seems to me those 2 countries are quite "civil" now doesn't it?

The United States wasn't the only country that participated in carrying out the Marshall Plan. Shit, we can't even get Europe to help rebuild Iraq, let alone Afghanistan and any other country the U.S. decides to "fix" in the future.

 

[MaggieMae]

Another day, another Afghanistan strategy.

He's making Jimmy Carter look strong and decisive

so you would have him choose a plan that he didn't like and probably wouldn't work and probably mean more soldiers being sent over there just to make you idiots happy?

Now why don't you enlighten us to Obama's qualifications to design wars plans or to understand what constitutes a good one or a bad one?

ahuh and you call others idiots?

It's why he is surrounded by all the expert players, you fool. Maybe if Boooooooooooosh had listened to a few more who were desperately trying to get his ear instead of JUST Rummy and The Dick, the war in Iraq would have been history by 2003.

 

[MaggieMae]

Then we're going to have to rely on our intelligence community (as scary as that sounds) to be ahead of any major attack being planned.

There are no easy answers, Phil, but just sitting around there with our collective dicks in our hand isn't a good plan.

and while these guys are sitting around fondling themselves more guys are dying.....either shit or get off the shitter.....

Oh baloney. The size of the forces in Afghanistan has been tripled since last December.
If they're sitting around, the majority of those are enjoying the reprieve.