40k more troops to Afghanistan

[/dev/null]

No. I was actually unaware that the Peace Prize was awarded in Oslo; I thought it was awarded in Stockholm like all the others.

 

Easy mistake. In fact I must confess that I'm not sure which of the 57 states he'll make his speech in

[Frit0 Bandit0]

Speaking of A-stan check out this vid for a laugh ...

 

Ultra-Realistic Modern Warfare Game Features Awaiting Orders, Repairing Trucks

[DC Tom]

Speaking of A-stan check out this vid for a laugh ...

 

Ultra-Realistic Modern Warfare Game Features Awaiting Orders, Repairing Trucks

 

That's great.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Easy mistake. In fact I must confess that I'm not sure which of the 57 states he'll make his speech in

Well he snubbed # 58 in the campaign so probably there.

[Magox]

http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/world/arti...s-new-timelines

President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

 

dithering?

[IDBillzFan]

http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/world/arti...s-new-timelines

President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

 

dithering?

I suspect what he's doing is (at the very least) two-fold. First, he needs an exit plan, which hasn't existed before and is necessary. And two, be honest - he doesn't even remotely have the nutsack to be there. He needs health care and cap-n-trade, so since he can't be in Afghanistan with any level of competency, he can withdraw in exchange for health care and cap-n-trade votes with some abortion provisions put in, and as far as he's concerned, it's a win-win-win. I don't know that it's a good idea, but you could probably make the case that the last thing that Barack Obama should be in charge of is a war.

 

One thing you know about this dude; the only thing he really cares about is moving his agenda forward. War doesn't work for his voting pool.

 

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Excellent work, THIS is!

[Magox]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...u27Ho&pos=9

 

I wonder why Petraeus would be saying this today?

 

General David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, said former President George W. Bush’s “surge” of U.S. troops aided social stability in Iraq and reduced the level of violence in the country.

 

“The surge was really a surge of ideas as much as it was a surge of forces,” Petraeus said at a Bloomberg conference in washington. War violence in Iraq is down 90 percent from the spring of 2007, he said.

 

Petraeus was speaking today at the conference held by Bloomberg Ventures, a unit of Bloomberg LP, parent of Bloomberg News.

[UConn James]

http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/world/arti...s-new-timelines

President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

 

dithering?

 

This has all the hallmarks of someone who voted 'Present' 129 times in the Illinois legislature.

 

When you're the Commander-in-Thief, you really ought to either sh-- or get off the pot. Our soldiers have been fighting and dying for a year there, buying time waiting for a strategy as AQ/Taliban/insurgents have taken more hold of the country.

 

Word is that 10 different plans were presented, and apparently he's passed on all of them.

 

Here's a very effective exit strategy. It's worked in the Revolution, the Civil War, WWII, Korea, et al. and by and large it kept working right up until one of the major parties in the U.S. became a bunch of pussies afraid to hit people who deserve to be hit and who are more interested in getting patted on the back by Old Europe at G-8 parties than doing what needs to be done to protect ourselves. Here's the exit strategy that had worked so well: WIN.

[Chef Jim]

This has all the hallmarks of someone who voted 'Present' 129 times in the Illinois legislature.

 

When you're the Commander-in-Thief, you really ought to either sh-- or get off the pot. Our soldiers have been fighting and dying for a year there, buying time waiting for a strategy as AQ/Taliban/insurgents have taken more hold of the country.

 

Word is that 10 different plans were presented, and apparently he's passed on all of them.

 

Here's a very effective exit strategy. It's worked in the Revolution, the Civil War, WWII, Korea, et al. and by and large it kept working right up until one of the major parties in the U.S. became a bunch of pussies afraid to hit people who deserve to be hit and who are more interested in getting patted on the back by Old Europe at G-8 parties than doing what needs to be done to protect ourselves. Here's the exit strategy that had worked so well: WIN.

 

So much for his comparison to Abe Lincoln. During the Civil War he was a true commander and even though he had no experience made many of the tough decisions that some of his Generals couldn't or wouldn't make. Even though he knew many of these decisions were unpopular they had to be made in order to win.

[Magox]

So much for his comparison to Abe Lincoln. During the Civil War he was a true commander and even though he had no experience made many of the tough decisions that some of his Generals couldn't or wouldn't make. Even though he knew many of these decisions were unpopular they had to be made in order to win.

Guess who said this?

 

"You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. You cannot LEGISLATE the poor into freedom by LEGISLATING the wealthy out of freedom. What on persn receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The Government CANNOT give to anybody anything that the Government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half get's the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is surely the end of any nation's future".

 

I think it's safe to say that these two have a very different view on how this country should be run.

[Chef Jim]

Guess who said this?

 

"You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. You cannot LEGISLATE the poor into freedom by LEGISLATING the wealthy out of freedom. What on persn receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The Government CANNOT give to anybody anything that the Government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half get's the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is surely the end of any nation's future".

 

I think it's safe to say that these two have a very different view on how this country should be run.

 

I think the similarities end at both being from Illinios and having very little political experience.

[Adam]

It's not Obama's fault he got the Nobel Peace Prize...it's the committee's fault, for awarding it on exactly no basis to begin with.

 

So if the administration decides that 40k more troops are needed in Afghanistan, even though it may be based on a questionable set of policy assumptions, they should make the decision without any consideration given to a bunch of fools in Stockholm.

We should just get out of there...........

[3rdnlng]

We should just get out of there...........

 

 

What would the consequences be if we did that? For Afganistan? For the U.S.? For Europe?

[DC Tom]

So much for his comparison to Abe Lincoln. During the Civil War he was a true commander and even though he had no experience made many of the tough decisions that some of his Generals couldn't or wouldn't make. Even though he knew many of these decisions were unpopular they had to be made in order to win.

 

Actually, during the Civil War Abe, while politically astute, was pretty much a !@#$ing idiot as a commander. Until Grant was given command of all the Union armies, many of the North's failures were directly attributable to bad leadership from Washington, and all the North's successes despite it.

[DC Tom]

We should just get out of there...........

 

Yeah, that's a great idea. I mean, being completely disengaged from the region worked SO well during the Clinton administration, when the Taleban actually came to power and gave al Qaeda a safe haven. Because usually the solution to having an unrealistic strategy is to decide to have absolutely no discernable or coherent strategy.

 

What would the consequences be if we did that? For Afganistan? For the U.S.? For Europe?

 

Afghanistan would probably be better off, given that the average Afghani is a tribalist who's sphere doesn't extend much beyond their livestocks' pasture. The US, and Europe, on the other hand...probably would suffer for it, but still be better off than Pakistan.

[Magox]

Does this set the stage for sending more troops to Afghanistan?

 

Nov. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Hillary Clinton welcomed Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s “visionary outline” for his second five-year term, which includes fighting corruption and building up security forces to take over from U.S. troops.

 

“I’ve heard a lot and I’m encouraged,” Secretary of State Clinton said in an interview after a two-day visit to the Afghan capital, Kabul, to attend Karzai’s swearing-in ceremony.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...dCCdk&pos=9

[John Adams]

Yeah, that's a great idea. I mean, being completely disengaged from the region worked SO well during the Clinton administration, when the Taleban actually came to power and gave al Qaeda a safe haven. Because usually the solution to having an unrealistic strategy is to decide to have absolutely no discernable or coherent strategy.

 

 

 

Afghanistan would probably be better off, given that the average Afghani is a tribalist who's sphere doesn't extend much beyond their livestocks' pasture. The US, and Europe, on the other hand...probably would suffer for it, but still be better off than Pakistan.

 

I've not seen a proposal that is good for Afghanistan. So rather than sticking with the current suckass plan, I'd rather take the send the troops home and keep spending down ****ty plan than keep the troops there and spend gazillions ****ty plan.

 

I know, I know. You object to the use of the word "plan" because it assumes a fact not in evidence.

[Magox]

I've not seen a proposal that is good for Afghanistan. So rather than sticking with the current suckass plan, I'd rather take the send the troops home and keep spending down ****ty plan than keep the troops there and spend gazillions ****ty plan.

 

I know, I know. You object to the use of the word "plan" because it assumes a fact not in evidence.

If I am understanding McChrystals plan, it is to not just defeat the Taliban in each battleground but to secure the territory afterwards. The problem I have been reading is that when the Taliban are engaged in battle, they will fight for a while and then disperse. Once the US or International military leave after the battle, the Taliban return and then control the area.

 

What this plan is supposed to achieve is to secure territories, build trust within the Afghan community and infrastructure, meanwhile the Afghan army is to grow by hundreds of thousands of troops, and once they have recruited and trained these troops, then they are to be deployed in the areas that the US and international forces are securing.

 

Then at this point, we can start drawing down military from Afghanistan.

[DC Tom]

If I am understanding McChrystals plan, it is to not just defeat the Taliban in each battleground but to secure the territory afterwards. The problem I have been reading is that when the Taliban are engaged in battle, they will fight for a while and then disperse. Once the US or International military leave after the battle, the Taliban return and then control the area.

 

That's because you're narrowly interpreting "secure". That includes not just policing and patrolling the area, but building up basic infrastructure (political, social, economic) so that the Taliban has nothing to really provide the area and thus can't get a foothold.