Obama looking for Afganistan Exit Strategy

[Zona]

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.

And now there is no reason to go there. Things change.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama is easily the biggest asshole that ever occupied the Oval Office, he makes Jimmy Carter look strong and decisive.

Obama's only real enemies, the only people he thinks about eliminating are US Conservatives.

 

[Zona]

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....

Considering the current administration is corrupt, approximately how long do we have to stay there?

Al Qaeda is not there anymore. They are probably in Pakistan. Now what?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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....

Considering the current administration is corrupt, approximately how long do we have to stay there?

Al Qaeda is not there anymore. They are probably in Pakistan. Now what?

Wow. A Librul admitting the Obama Administration is corrupt.

End of Days for sure

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama took his eye off of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan to focus on (_____________)

 

[Si modo]

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....

....
Al Qaeda is not there anymore. ....

You really should at least TRY to be informed before you post bullshit.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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

That's from YOUR link Si Modo. Which seems to confirm that Al Qaeda has no sigificant presence left in Afghanistan. Most intelligence reports indicate that the Taliban is a highly nationalistic organization and is attacking U.S. soldiers BECAUSE they are in Afghanistan. Not - as the writer of this piece supposes - in an effort to protect and further Al Qaeda goals. I suppose everyone is free to make thier own determination of what they believe on that issue, but I think the evidence clearly support my interpretation of the data.

The criminals we sought to bring to justice in the wake of the 9/11 attacks were Al Qaeda. Your link - as well as numerous other reports - confirm that we have crippled that organization and rendered them incapable of attacking us again anytime in the forseeable further.

I agree that those who harbor criminals should be punished and "taught" the error of their ways. In terms of the radical Islamic community - mission accomplished imho. Most reports also indicate that the Taliban and other radical Islamic groups want absolutely nothing to do with Al Qaeda. For further support of this position you can reference the "Jihad Code" that is gaining support within the radical Islamic community:
New jihad code threatens al Qaeda - CNN.com

The criminals themselves should receive the most harsh punishment. About 90% of THAT mission has been accomplished - reserving the final 10% for the capture or the confirmed death of OBL. (Obviously everyone else is free to attach their own weight based on what percentage of the mission THEY feel OBL's death or capture represents).

Having pissed away our best opportunity to achieve that OBL part of the mission by wasting time and resources in Iraq, I'm not sure we have a realistic chance at achieveing that goal - although I would very much like to see it achieved.

I also think Obama's ability to negotiate a much higher level of Pakistan cooperation and committment to the fight and negotiating and receiving a higher level of Russian cooperation as part of his increased emphasis on THIS theater have been crucial.

Now WE are also starting to get news about NATO's preferences and news of the U.S. Ambassador in Kabul's concerns and we start to get a much clearer picture. It seems to me that POTUS has been aware of these things for longer than WE have and that perhaps explains why some who haven't had access to this information have been led to believe that POTUS has been "dragging his feet."

I personally think it would be unwise to allow our mission to "creep" towards an attempt to deal the same kind of death blow to the Taliban that we have delivered to Al Qaeda. I think it is unrealistic to expect that we - and we alone - can wipe out all possibility of future terrorist attacks all across the globe.

I think a much more realistic goal is to bring to justice the specific criminals who are responsible for specific acts of violence against America. I believe we can and should do that regardless of the level of international cooperation.

But to wipe out all traces of terrorism and terrorism-sympathetic factions throughout the world will require a huge committment from EVERY nation - we cannot hope to accomplish such a goal on our own or with the relatively small level of support we are getting from the international community right now.

Just MHO.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

But But...What about all that "Good War" campaign rhetoric? This President should be ashamed of himself for how he has sold our kids out over there. What are they fighting for at this point? Their Commander in Chief is clearly clueless. This President is far more interested in waging War against his fellow Americans than he is in waging War against the Taliban & Al Qaeda. What a shame.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

But But...What about all that "Good War" campaign rhetoric? This President should be ashamed of himself for how he has sold our kids out over there. What are they fighting for at this point? Their Commander in Chief is clearly clueless. This President is far more interested in waging War against his fellow Americans than he is in waging War against the Taliban & Al Qaeda. What a shame.

Where's bin Laden?

Obama took his eye off the ball to focus on the Chicago Olympics

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The Olympics and Fox News apparently. I have said all along and i still stand by my comments...All Socialists/Communists turn on their own people. This President really is far more interested in waging War against his own people than in waging War against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It's just very very sad.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Olympics and Fox News apparently. I have said all along and i still stand by my comments...All Socialists/Communists turn on their own people. This President really is far more interested in waging War against his own people than in waging War against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It's just very very sad.

Obama's Real enemies: Boooooosh Fox News, Glenn Beck Booooosh, Rush, Fox news

 

[SenseCommon]

Take your time Obama. It's not like our soldiers are dying or anything. Give it another two months to really think this through.....

 

[nodoginnafight]

Take your time Obama. It's not like our soldiers are dying or anything. Give it another two months to really think this through.....

so is it your contention that U.S. soldiers are dying BECAUSE no decision on the additional troops has been made?

 

[The Rabbi]

Take your time Obama. It's not like our soldiers are dying or anything. Give it another two months to really think this through.....

so is it your contention that U.S. soldiers are dying BECAUSE no decision on the additional troops has been made?

I dont know what his contention is.
But if Obama's decision is to cut and run then he is costing lives by taking so long. In any case, his indecisiveness (and not only has he had 9 months as president and many as candidate but the Pentagon has been studying the issue for years) is causing a loss of morale (except among the Taliban) and loss of support for our NATO allies.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The sad reality is that the Taliban and Al Qaeda now smell blood. They realize that this U.S. Commander in Chief is completely clueless and spineless. They're beginning to really like this U.S. President unfortunately.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Take your time Obama. It's not like our soldiers are dying or anything. Give it another two months to really think this through.....

so is it your contention that U.S. soldiers are dying BECAUSE no decision on the additional troops has been made?

I dont know what his contention is.
But if Obama's decision is to cut and run then he is costing lives by taking so long. In any case, his indecisiveness (and not only has he had 9 months as president and many as candidate but the Pentagon has been studying the issue for years) is causing a loss of morale (except among the Taliban) and loss of support for our NATO allies.

If Obama's decision is to pull out ASAP, then yes, I would agree with you. Delaying that decision and therefore the withdrawal could be costing us lives.

As for his nine months of indecisiveness???? During that period of "indecisiveness" he has sent 20,000 more troops to the theater, negotiated greater cooperation with the Russians, negotiated a tremendously expanded role for Pakistani troops and a huge commitment of troops from Pakistan, and has negotiated a much higher level of support from other allies as well.

He got more moving in Afghanistan during his first six months than Bush did in six years. The response from the Taliban has been to kick Al Qaeda out because "oh shit, these guys are serious."

NATO has expressed a desire to turn things over to the Afghans in about a year, our ambassador in Kabul says we should not be committing more troops and McChrystal wants to try to expand deployment into cities and Taliban-controled areas to try to replicate an Iraq-style surge.

I personally support the NATO plan, but I'm afraid Obama is going to go with McChrystal - if he does, then taking his time on the decision has cost us nothing. McChrystal has not ordered his men into positions that they cannot defend themselves in without the extra 40,000. He wants the 40,000 to expand his program.

That's mho anyway.

 

[Si modo]

so is it your contention that U.S. soldiers are dying BECAUSE no decision on the additional troops has been made?

I dont know what his contention is.
But if Obama's decision is to cut and run then he is costing lives by taking so long. In any case, his indecisiveness (and not only has he had 9 months as president and many as candidate but the Pentagon has been studying the issue for years) is causing a loss of morale (except among the Taliban) and loss of support for our NATO allies.

If Obama's decision is to pull out ASAP, then yes, I would agree with you. Delaying that decision and therefore the withdrawal could be costing us lives.

As for his nine months of indecisiveness???? During that period of "indecisiveness" he has sent 20,000 more troops to the theater, negotiated greater cooperation with the Russians, negotiated a tremendously expanded role for Pakistani troops and a huge commitment of troops from Pakistan, and has negotiated a much higher level of support from other allies as well.

He got more moving in Afghanistan during his first six months than Bush did in six years.

NATO has expressed a desire to turn things over to the Afghans in about a year, our ambassador in Kabul says we should not be committing more troops and McChrystal was to try to expand deployment into cities and Taliban-controled areas to try to replicate an Iraq-style surge.

I personally support the NATO plan but I'm afraid Obama is going to go with McChrystal - if he does, then taking his time on the decision has cost us nothing. McChrystal has not order his men into positions that they cannot defend themselves in without the extra 40,000. He wants the 40,000 to expand his program.

That's mho anyway.

And McChrystal said many times that time is critical for his recommendations, only to fall on the apathetic and indecisive ears of his 'commander'.

 

[AmericanPatriot]

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....

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday voiced a list of concerns about Afghanistan: "corruption, lack of transparency, poor governance, absence of the rule of law."

pot.... kettle

 

[The Rabbi]

so is it your contention that U.S. soldiers are dying BECAUSE no decision on the additional troops has been made?

I dont know what his contention is.
But if Obama's decision is to cut and run then he is costing lives by taking so long. In any case, his indecisiveness (and not only has he had 9 months as president and many as candidate but the Pentagon has been studying the issue for years) is causing a loss of morale (except among the Taliban) and loss of support for our NATO allies.

If Obama's decision is to pull out ASAP, then yes, I would agree with you. Delaying that decision and therefore the withdrawal could be costing us lives.

As for his nine months of indecisiveness???? During that period of "indecisiveness" he has sent 20,000 more troops to the theater, negotiated greater cooperation with the Russians, negotiated a tremendously expanded role for Pakistani troops and a huge commitment of troops from Pakistan, and has negotiated a much higher level of support from other allies as well.

He got more moving in Afghanistan during his first six months than Bush did in six years. The response from the Taliban has been to kick Al Qaeda out because "oh shit, these guys are serious."

NATO has expressed a desire to turn things over to the Afghans in about a year, our ambassador in Kabul says we should not be committing more troops and McChrystal wants to try to expand deployment into cities and Taliban-controled areas to try to replicate an Iraq-style surge.

I personally support the NATO plan, but I'm afraid Obama is going to go with McChrystal - if he does, then taking his time on the decision has cost us nothing. McChrystal has not ordered his men into positions that they cannot defend themselves in without the extra 40,000. He wants the 40,000 to expand his program.

That's mho anyway.

Let's assume that any strategy will be succesful in winning. Therefore delaying making the decisions and implementing them is costing lives.
The Euros are interested in getting their troops home ASAP and letting the Americans spend money and blood. They are the most spineless bunch that side of the Atlantic.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I dont know what his contention is.
But if Obama's decision is to cut and run then he is costing lives by taking so long. In any case, his indecisiveness (and not only has he had 9 months as president and many as candidate but the Pentagon has been studying the issue for years) is causing a loss of morale (except among the Taliban) and loss of support for our NATO allies.

If Obama's decision is to pull out ASAP, then yes, I would agree with you. Delaying that decision and therefore the withdrawal could be costing us lives.

As for his nine months of indecisiveness???? During that period of "indecisiveness" he has sent 20,000 more troops to the theater, negotiated greater cooperation with the Russians, negotiated a tremendously expanded role for Pakistani troops and a huge commitment of troops from Pakistan, and has negotiated a much higher level of support from other allies as well.

He got more moving in Afghanistan during his first six months than Bush did in six years. The response from the Taliban has been to kick Al Qaeda out because "oh shit, these guys are serious."

NATO has expressed a desire to turn things over to the Afghans in about a year, our ambassador in Kabul says we should not be committing more troops and McChrystal wants to try to expand deployment into cities and Taliban-controled areas to try to replicate an Iraq-style surge.

I personally support the NATO plan, but I'm afraid Obama is going to go with McChrystal - if he does, then taking his time on the decision has cost us nothing. McChrystal has not ordered his men into positions that they cannot defend themselves in without the extra 40,000. He wants the 40,000 to expand his program.

That's mho anyway.

Let's assume that any strategy will be succesful in winning. Therefore delaying making the decisions and implementing them is costing lives.
The Euros are interested in getting their troops home ASAP and letting the Americans spend money and blood. They are the most spineless bunch that side of the Atlantic.

and yet the euros are participating at a much higher level over the past 8 or 9 months .....

But I think you have to define what you mean by "winning." before you can say a delay could be prolonging achieving it.

That's why I like to avoid terms like winning and losing. I think you have to have an quantifiable objective before you can determine whether that objective has been met fully, partially, or not at all.