President Barack Obama...putting it all into perspective!

The speech last night...informative and totally explanatory: General McCristal told our president that the Afghanistan war could be won in 18 months with more troops...so he'll either be correct in his opinion/report or we'll be coming home...either way...this heinous event needs to have an ENDING DATE!:cool:

And with our presidents remarks about the whys & wherefores about Vietnam...I'll not be using it as a comparison any longer. He was quite right...Afghanistan isn't Vietnam and we do have NATO behind us and we need the NATO troops to step up to the plate and support this endeavor because the Taliban has had a negative impact on their countries as well!

What did you think about his speech?

Nothing's going to be happening in 18 months, something I believe you already suspect. This is just going to go on and on, while defining the Obama presidency in a negative way and at the same time splitting the Democratic party.

While I was watching the speech I was thinking...yeah sure President Bush, er, Obama..the so called terrorists are coming after us, so lets continue to support a corrupt regime while killing thousands and spending billions. Heck, Bush and Obama, the promises are different but when it gets right down to it it's all about...'meet the new boss, same as the old boss.'
 
Werbung:
Nothing's going to be happening in 18 months, something I believe you already suspect. This is just going to go on and on, while defining the Obama presidency in a negative way and at the same time splitting the Democratic party.

While I was watching the speech I was thinking...yeah sure President Bush, er, Obama..the so called terrorists are coming after us, so lets continue to support a corrupt regime while killing thousands and spending billions. Heck, Bush and Obama, the promises are different but when it gets right down to it it's all about...'meet the new boss, same as the old boss.'

But, But...don't you see the hidden big arsed ploy? Without those many thousands of military contracts there would be more & more & more layoffs and the Haliburton/KFB would be loosing out on more money and the graft would start to hit those gold lined pockets that are on the financial reward end of that long-long line of benefactors from that LARGE ARSED CORPORATION RAPING OUR COUNTRY WHILE DOING CONTRACTUAL WORK OVER THERE!

"WAR...UGH...WHAT THE HELL IS IT GOOD FOR...ABSOLUTELY NOTHIN"...but someone somewhere is getting war profits from these 2 long drawn out engagements! ANY GUESSES?
 
I am by no means a brilliant war strategist. But just about every war strategist and politicians too knows it is not wise to telegraph your moves to the enemy.

"Not all that long ago, leading Democrats thought arbitrary and rigid timetables were a very bad idea. Speaking at the National Press Club in 2005, now-Majority Leader Harry Reid said this: "As far as setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that's not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don't want us there, and it doesn't work well to do that."

Six months later, the now-Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph Biden, put it this way: "A deadline for pulling out . . . will only encourage our enemies to wait us out." He added it would be "a Lebanon in 1985 [sic]. And God knows where it goes from there."


BUT!! OBAMA SAYS " In COMMUNITY ORGANIZING SCHOOL THEY TAUGHT US TO GIVE TIME LIMITS ON EVICTIONS!!" It Worked in CHICAGO , why not in AFGH.WAR , HUH PROMPTER? , answer me
 
What? Just in May, the British and American military commented that they were up to two years behind in training the police in most of Afghanistan.

The focus was pretty much all on the military, but it has taken 7 years to get a force that is questionable at best, has high desertion rates, and is unable to secure the country itself.



The size of the military does not mean anything. You need a trained unit that looks beyond tribal barriers and has a view of Afghanistan as one country. That is going to take more than 18 months to address in my opinion.


Why?

How long will it take in your opinion?
 
What? Just in May, the British and American military commented that they were up to two years behind in training the police in most of Afghanistan.

The focus was pretty much all on the military, but it has taken 7 years to get a force that is questionable at best, has high desertion rates, and is unable to secure the country itself.



The size of the military does not mean anything. You need a trained unit that looks beyond tribal barriers and has a view of Afghanistan as one country. That is going to take more than 18 months to address in my opinion.

If it does, we can always just stay...there is suppose to be a review in a year of evrything..its not like we are just forced to leave if we choose not to.
 
If you were the coach of an NBA basketball team and during a heated game you made the statement that you were going to have your team stop trying to win in 2 minutes what do you suppose the opposing team would do in response? A smart opposition would call a time out for 2 minutes then resume playing and score lots of points while your team just watched.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to be out AFTER VICTORY. But one should not tell the enemy that they should just relax until you go home then resume their activities.

news flash, we have a end date in iraq....how is that working out?
news flash, we can set a date....and Freaking change the date if we need to...amazing how that works. But at least we have a goal.
 
If it does, we can always just stay...there is suppose to be a review in a year of evrything..its not like we are just forced to leave if we choose not to.

Sure, why not just stay there forever. We're already occupying Iraq, thanks to Bush and despite Obama's promise to pull the troops out.

Ain't it wonderful? You can count on the two major parties to continue to feed the appetite of the military industrial complex by fighting continuous wars.

They're all the same, they're all in it together and they are all so very crooked...makes me sick.
 
Sure, why not just stay there forever. We're already occupying Iraq, thanks to Bush and despite Obama's promise to pull the troops out.

Ain't it wonderful? You can count on the two major parties to continue to feed the appetite of the military industrial complex by fighting continuous wars.

They're all the same, they're all in it together and they are all so very crooked...makes me sick.

when was the last war we had that he just said right way, lets fight it for x time only? never , becuse you fight till you win, or can't win , or find a solution .
 
Some Allies Wary of New Troop Pledges
articleLarge.jpg
John Thys/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO secretary general, spoke on Wednesday at the NATO headquarters in Brussels.
By ALAN COWELL

Published: December 2, 2009
PARIS — As political and military leaders across the globe pondered President Obama’s announcement of his Afghan strategy, European allies offered a mixed response on Wednesday, with some of the biggest contributors to the NATO coalition withholding promises of immediate troop reinforcements.
Obama’s Surge Strategy in Afghanistan
Will 30,000 additional troops be sufficient to curb the insurgency?
The NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said he believed other members of the alliance would contribute 5,000 soldiers — and possibly more — to make a “substantial” increase to the 42,000 NATO troops already ranged against the Taliban.
“This is not just America’s war,” he said at the alliance’s headquarters in Brussels.
But the president’s entreaties drew an ambivalent response in some European nations where the war is broadly unpopular among voters who question why it is being fought and whether it can be won.
France and Germany ruled out an immediate commitment, saying they were awaiting an Afghanistan conference in London in late January. Other nations offered only limited numbers of soldiers.
Álvaro de Vasconcelos, director of the European Union Institute for Security Studies in Paris, said the war was “badly perceived in Europe, contaminated by the Iraq war, the killing of civilians, the collateral damage, all of which has contributed to a widespread opposition to the Afghan war among Europeans.”
“If the civilian side is as important as the military one — training the Afghan police, judiciary and doing development, which Europeans know very well how to do and consider their main expertise — it will make it easier for European leaders to get support.’”
“More troops for a very unpopular war, without knowing where we’re going, doesn’t work — you can’t sell it to Europeans,” Mr. de Vasconcelos said. “But you can sell the transition from war to crisis management.”
Mr. Obama’s plan to send around 30,000 more American soldiers was closely watched in Pakistan, gripped by a Taliban insurgency intertwined with Afghanistan’s.
There, distrust of American intentions runs deep, partly because the United States is seen as having abandoned the region after the Soviet Union’s withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989, and there is widespread fear in the security establishment of a repetition of those events. And Pakistanis remain concerned about the possible implications of a huge troop surge just across their long and porous border with Afghanistan.

<for the rest of this story>
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/world/03reax.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

****************************
NATO nations having the same debate on the exact same ISSUES as the USA...I'm wondering if this will make them delay all of their committed troops to support our endeavor?
 

Well, that has basically been the strategy for eight years at this point. I think that we have made progress, but it takes time to gain the trust of tribal leaders and assure them that we are not going to just leave.

It makes it that much harder to get tribes to work with you and want to help when they know you will leave and the Taliban will not. I think the notion of "if we set a timetable they will be forced to get it together" is wrong. I think the timetable only forces them to pick a side. If put in their situation would you pick the people who are leaving, or those that will still be around?

Ultimately, I think the strategy can work, but I just hesitate to say "it has to work in 18 months."

How long will it take in your opinion?

That is impossible to know I think. It might happen in 18 months, and if so that will be great, but I hesitate to go along with that especially given the rules of engagement we face and the long way we still have to go.
 
If it does, we can always just stay...there is suppose to be a review in a year of evrything..its not like we are just forced to leave if we choose not to.

True, but politically a pull out in 2011 will come right before the 2012 elections. If Obama does not do anything he will face some serious domestic opposition from his base.

What he might do is just pull out some of the additional soldiers we are sending it and point to that as the beginnings of a draw down, but of course that would be mostly symbolic.
 
news flash, we have a end date in iraq....how is that working out?
news flash, we can set a date....and Freaking change the date if we need to...amazing how that works. But at least we have a goal.

The problem with end dates is that the enemy can wait until after you pull out. We won't know until after the date.

It won't work out to well for President Obama if he leads his followers to believe there is a firm end date and then changes it to fit the needs. The loony left will not be satisfied with an extension no matter how needed.
 
Not since...way back in the beginning of this entire debacle {8 years ago} has there been any A N Y, secretive/confidential material {that was the night that G.W.B. came on and had the emergency broadcast that announced our invasion of Afghanistan} that has not been written up/discussed/chewed over and in general...just tossed around the media world for any and all to hear and you are concerned/worried about the ENEMY KNOWING OUR STRATEGY...MY THAT SEEMS RATHER LIKE THE COW AND THE BARN DOOR?

I am always concerned about the enemy knowing our strategy. I always thought too much of it was made public in the wrong ways. But there is still a difference between end dates and other aspects of strategy; the dems said it.
 
The problem with end dates is that the enemy can wait until after you pull out. We won't know until after the date.

It won't work out to well for President Obama if he leads his followers to believe there is a firm end date and then changes it to fit the needs. The loony left will not be satisfied with an extension no matter how needed.

Dates/Deadline are just another mark on the calender to the Taliban! Scouring the entire world for those 'rat packed Taliban' seems a effort in futility. They will just lay low, scurry back to IRAQ to kidnap more young men and purchase ammo, travel to some other remote site and accomplish their training methods away from our prying eyes and when they think we have sufficiently let our non-existent border guard down then they'll be BACK. Much the same as ridding the world of that lowly cockroach...they'll never be totally gone...so what established marker for 'GETTING THE WAR WON' makes any rational sense at all...get in-get Osama Ben Laden and GET THE HELL OUT!
 
Werbung:
Dates/Deadline are just another mark on the calender to the Taliban! Scouring the entire world for those 'rat packed Taliban' seems a effort in futility. They will just lay low, scurry back to IRAQ to kidnap more young men and purchase ammo, travel to some other remote site and accomplish their training methods away from our prying eyes and when they think we have sufficiently let our non-existent border guard down then they'll be BACK. Much the same as ridding the world of that lowly cockroach...they'll never be totally gone...so what established marker for 'GETTING THE WAR WON' makes any rational sense at all...get in-get Osama Ben Laden and GET THE HELL OUT!

Replace "Iraq" with Pakistan, and you are pretty close. We cannot beat them if they have a safe zone they can go to.
 
Back
Top