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

[rdean]

Although the war in Afghanistan began as a response to al-Qaeda terrorism, there are perhaps fewer than 100 members of the group left in the country, according to a senior U.S. military intelligence official in Kabul who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Taliban Surpasses Al Qaeda in Afghanistan - CBS News

With only a hundred left, I'm sure he is trying to figure out a strategy to get us out.

Them = 100

US = 100 THOUSAND

Why can't we win?

 

[Charles Stucker]

Lord knows, the Republicans never had one. If all the Republicans that scream for war volenteered, it would have been over. 5 million troops will do that.

I know a guy just like that. He talks about how when he was young he opposed war on principle, but now that he is older and wiser he's all in favor of a strong American Military, now that he's too old to be drafted. If the terms Coward and Hypocrite spring into your mind, we're on the same page. The guy in question is a card carrying Democrat.

It happens on all sides of the political field; people support the war for diverse reasons. People are inconsistent.

FYI the Republicans had a plan, it was just a poor plan. A poor plan is still better than no plan. Obama has no plan.

 

[Charles Stucker]

the population was over 30,000,000!!!!!

Half as many people as Afghanistan.

No Afghanistan has ~ 28,000,000 people now. Comparable to the number of people in Vietnam then.

 

[dilloduck]

Deciding that the strategies presented to him are bad doesn't mean he reject ALL of the, only the ones he's been given so far. Maybe there was no exit strategy?

So what are there? About a hundred al Queda in Afghanistan?

We had more than half a million troops in Vietnam and that country had half as many people, and was a third the size of Afghanistan, where we only have about a hundred thousand troops.

Besides, Bin Laden is gone. Bush and the Republicans LET HIM GO. They gave him a SEVEN YEAR HEAD START.

So, what is the goal in Afghanistan? Make it a "democracy" they way we have in Iraq? Ask Iraqi Christians and women how successful we were.

What is Obama's strategy?

I'm pretty sure that's what he is trying to figure out.

Lord knows, the Republicans never had one. If all the Republicans that scream for war volenteered, it would have been over. 5 million troops will do that.

You're PRETTY sure ? You're PRETTY SURE he has a plan ????

 

[Si modo]

Deciding that the strategies presented to him are bad doesn't mean he reject ALL of the, only the ones he's been given so far. Maybe there was no exit strategy?

So what are there? About a hundred al Queda in Afghanistan?

We had more than half a million troops in Vietnam and that country had half as many people, and was a third the size of Afghanistan, where we only have about a hundred thousand troops.

Besides, Bin Laden is gone. Bush and the Republicans LET HIM GO. They gave him a SEVEN YEAR HEAD START.

So, what is the goal in Afghanistan? Make it a "democracy" they way we have in Iraq? Ask Iraqi Christians and women how successful we were.

What is Obama's strategy?

I'm pretty sure that's what he is trying to figure out. ....

Then he's a ******* moron if he hasn't figured it out by now. He has been continually briefed on this since the election. That was a year ago.

 

[namvet]

will osama have enough helo's for his exit strategy ????​

 

[mudwhistle]

No, you are confused.

I'm not a politician running for public office. I don't have a constituency who I must woe in order to get their support.

My loyalty is to the US Constitution.

.

That is highly doubtful....because the Constitution just might get in the way of your ideology.

Obama's constituency isn't one side or the other. His constituency is the American people as a whole. Once he became President his actions should have reflected that.

And the number one constituency is the men and women in uniform he is duty bound to lead in a competent manner....not neglect in a manner that borders on criminal.

Firstly, let me remind you that the US Ambassador --Karl Eikenberry-- is a Retired General who was the Commander in Afghanistan for several years. He has advised the Prez not to send in more troops.

The ONLY criminal in this situation is Bush II who committed the troops to that region.

The US Constitution provides Congress an excellent remedy if it really wants to dispose of Osama - its called a letter of marque and reprisal.

.

Eikenberry was enlisted to give Obama an excuse. He is not the current theatre commander so he is out of the tactical loop. The current military commander is the expert in Afghanistan. Eiken berry is a civilian.

Also, I sugges Obama worry about all of the corruption in Washington before he starts demanding other countries get rid of theirs.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Deciding that the strategies presented to him are bad doesn't mean he reject ALL of the, only the ones he's been given so far. Maybe there was no exit strategy?

So what are there? About a hundred al Queda in Afghanistan?

We had more than half a million troops in Vietnam and that country had half as many people, and was a third the size of Afghanistan, where we only have about a hundred thousand troops.

Besides, Bin Laden is gone. Bush and the Republicans LET HIM GO. They gave him a SEVEN YEAR HEAD START.

So, what is the goal in Afghanistan? Make it a "democracy" they way we have in Iraq? Ask Iraqi Christians and women how successful we were.

You ignoramus...now you're saying Viet Nam only had a population of 250,000 citizens in the 60's?
the population was over 30,000,000!!!!!

Half as many people as Afghanistan.

Do you talk out of your ass all the time or was this a special occasion?

28.396 million (July 2009 est.)

CIA World Factbook

 

[del]

You ignoramus...now you're saying Viet Nam only had a population of 250,000 citizens in the 60's?
the population was over 30,000,000!!!!!

Half as many people as Afghanistan.

Do you talk out of your ass all the time or was this a special occasion?

28.396 million (July 2009 est.)

CIA World Factbook

yes. yes, he does.

 

[dilloduck]

What is Obama's strategy?

I'm pretty sure that's what he is trying to figure out. ....

Then he's a ******* moron if he hasn't figured it out by now. He has been continually briefed on this since the election. That was a year ago.

But I'm sure it's a different kind of moron than Boooosh was when he didn't know what the plan was !

 

[MaggieMae]

To understand Obama better, I recommend that people review his speeches. Not the content but the man. I have found it very telling that he speaks with such passion and eloquence when he talks about certain subjects. Yet, when he talks about our military, etc, he speaks the words but there is nothing behind them. He doesn't care.

Got any links, dear? (This should be good...)

Yea. I have links. However, I think it is better for people to do their own research on his speeches. That way you choose what speeches you listen to. I would just recommend that people look at the difference in tone between his 'community' speeches and his 'job' speeches. Interesting.

Translation: I only hear what I want to hear.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Although the war in Afghanistan began as a response to al-Qaeda terrorism, there are perhaps fewer than 100 members of the group left in the country, according to a senior U.S. military intelligence official in Kabul who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Taliban Surpasses Al Qaeda in Afghanistan - CBS News

With only a hundred left, I'm sure he is trying to figure out a strategy to get us out.

Them = 100

US = 100 THOUSAND

Why can't we win?

Know anything about asymmetric warfare?

Yeah, I thought not.

The asymmetric warrior can keep "fighting" practically forever. Especially in a situation where politics prevents the foe from decisively engaging him on the battlefield.

In this situation, the Taliban and AQ can sit in Pakistan (unless the Pakis eventually decisively engage them), and sally forth at a time and place of its choosing to inflict damage. Classic Clausewitzian strategy writ small. The enemy (us) can't be everywhere in strength at once, so the enemy achieves localized numerical superiority to launch its attacks on enemy forces. Otherwise, it simply plants bombs and mines to demoralize the foe and more importantly the civilian populace back home. (Death by a thousand cuts).

You have played directly into their hands by being a sniveling cry-baby and not having the strength of your convictions to carry through the tough parts of a campaign. It's really embarrassing to see you like this. Like a puppet on a string for the Taliban to play with. You should be ashamed, but instead you'll attack me back and claim original thought and say that you are not being played like a fiddle by enemies of your country. Unfortunately, you're wrong.

So, the strategy is one of two. Either counter-insurgency, which is labor/personnel intensive or move back to a special ops only strategy. Small groups of special ops target the leadership of bands, cells and other organization parts of the Taliban/AQ on both sides of the border. This strategy is pretty much what we did before 2006 in Afghanistan. It's ok as long as the country can generally be held by the current Afghan government. If that's in doubt, it's a poor strategy.

I think it is currently in doubt.

 

[dilloduck]

Got any links, dear? (This should be good...)

Yea. I have links. However, I think it is better for people to do their own research on his speeches. That way you choose what speeches you listen to. I would just recommend that people look at the difference in tone between his 'community' speeches and his 'job' speeches. Interesting.

Translation: I only hear what I want to hear.

Obama's Plan---you got it yet ?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

the surge worked in Iraq

No it didn't. The violence started abating when we started PAYING 70,000+ Sunnis not to shoot at us. The surge just gave the insurgents more targets to shoot at.

 

[MaggieMae]

Obama had bigger things on his agenda: the Chicago Olympics, appearing on Letterman, campaigning for Corzine, Deeds and Abdullah in Afghanistan.

Where are yoru priorities?

Your foolish comments always amuse me. All anyone (you included) need to do is check Obama's daily schedule (backward and forward by month) by going here (it's off to the right of the page). You and your ilk must enjoy being dumbed down, I'm convinced:

POLITICO 44: The Obama Presidency. Minute by Minute - POLITICO.com

If there is any hope of a "point" in your churlish little rejoinder, it is not making an appearance.

Presidents, in modern times, get over-booked. They are called upon to deal with tons of ceremonial crap as well as with more significant matters of state.
No shit, Joe Palooka. Mine was in response to the moronic statement that he wastes too much time. Pay attention.

big ******* hairy deal.
Yeah, I suspect Neanderthals like you know all about hairy deals.

If President Obama is too over-worked, he should advise his appointments secretary and his Chief of Staff to simmer it down. "I want some nap-time! No fair! I need recess! Gimme basketball after lunch or else!"

In the interim, he has known for a long time that he was facing the prospect of having to make one of the larger decisions any President can make: the direction we will be going in time of war.

And his official decision appears to be that he needs yet more time and more advice in order to decide.

Yes sir, Mr. President. You have officially decided not to decide. Very indecisive in a decisive way -- or perhaps it's the other way around. Difficult to say.

The criticism is clearly valid, despite all the Obamaphiles and Messiah Addicts who would play the role of supplicant and apologist. This President is the DITHERER in Chief!

YES!!! And if you and your ilk don't *get* why, then you've learned NOTHING since the invasion of both those countries. Pathetic, simply pathetic.

 

[WillowTree]

I remember this..."Afghanistan is a war worth fighting." Yes I dew!

 

[Coyote]

the surge worked in Iraq

No it didn't. The violence started abating when we started PAYING 70,000+ Sunnis not to shoot at us. The surge just gave the insurgents more targets to shoot at.

Afghanistan is also a completely different situation - geographically, culturally and politically. A tactic like what was used in Iraq would likely not work in Afghanistan.

 

[Tech_Esq]

the surge worked in Iraq

No it didn't. The violence started abating when we started PAYING 70,000+ Sunnis not to shoot at us. The surge just gave the insurgents more targets to shoot at.

How much computer time do they give you a day at the Home for the Stupid?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

How much computer time do they give you a day at the Home for the Stupid?

Please refute what I said. I dare you.

ps. As far as stupid goes, I'm not the one quoting Reagan.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

And I want links.