U.S. decision can't wait for Afghan legitimacy: Gates

goldendog said:

They were not and never were hiding in Bush's Iraq. Fact is this decision SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE YEARS AGO.

Click to expand...

What the hell does that have to do with this thread?

Gibberish said:

Yes he is saying a decision needs to be made after he is able to meet with Obama to decide what the options Obama needs to choose from.

Click to expand...

Then Obama needs to get his skinny ****ing ass into a meeting NOW. Troops are dying over there, in no small part due to the new ***** ROE's that were recently implemented concerning the use of artillery and air support, so I'm getting pretty fed up with his dithering and his incessant need to mull things over.

Obama is a pathetic Commander In Chief. Simply pathetic.

apdst said:

What the hell does that have to do with this thread?

Click to expand...

You were talking about committing troops to a war that has to do with avenging the deaths of 3000 Americans?

And how we should HURRY UP and do so?

goldendog said:

You were talking about committing troops to a war that has to do with avenging the deaths of 3000 Americans?

Click to expand...

Are you sure you're on the right thread?

apdst said:

Are you sure you're on the right thread?

Click to expand...

Curious...exactly how long have you been committed to doing the right job in Afghanistan and hunting the actual people down that were either support or where partially or totally responsible for 3000 American deaths?

1-20-09?

goldendog said:

Curious...exactly how long have you been committed to doing the right job in Afghanistan and hunting the actual people down that were either support or where partially or totally responsible for 3000 American deaths?

1-20-09?

Click to expand...

Would you have us invade Pakistan?

reefedjib said:

Would you have us invade Pakistan?

Click to expand...

I would have immediately parked as many troops as it would have taken along that border and demanded that the Paki Government cooperate and do what it would have taken to do as far as getting the job done properly and then after doing the job properly hanging a sign saying "MISSION ACCOMPLISHIED" and not be lying about it.

goldendog said:

I would have immediately parked as many troops as it would have taken along that border and demanded that the Paki Government cooperate and do what it would have taken to do as far as getting the job done properly and then after doing the job properly hanging a sign saying "MISSION ACCOMPLISHIED" and not be lying about it.

Click to expand...

It's not that easy.

Of course, the "Mission Accomplished" sign referred to that aircraft carrier's mission. Not the invasion and regime building of Iraq as a whole. But it was implied. That was too bad - part of Bush's miscommunicating the objectives and progress. Of course, this is another thread.

Ethereal said:

Then Obama needs to get his skinny ****ing ass into a meeting NOW. Troops are dying over there, in no small part due to the new ***** ROE's that were recently implemented concerning the use of artillery and air support, so I'm getting pretty fed up with his dithering and his incessant need to mull things over.

Obama is a pathetic Commander In Chief. Simply pathetic.

Click to expand...

From what I have read Gates is trying to get increased troop support from Allies before the US dedicates more US troops. As Gates said, Afghanistan is a "shared responsibility" and "that if General McChrystal has a set of needs, it should not be looked upon as exclusively the responsibility of the United States to respond".

Gibberish said:

From what I have read Gates is trying to get increased troop support from Allies before the US dedicates more US troops. As Gates said, Afghanistan is a "shared responsibility" and "that if General McChrystal has a set of needs, it should not be looked upon as exclusively the responsibility of the United States to respond".

Click to expand...

Well, good luck with that, guys....

reefedjib said:

Well, good luck with that, guys....

Click to expand...

If it works or not it should be attempted. It will tell us exactly who is willing to support this initiative.

What ever happens from Gates meeting with our Allies, Obama should be prepared to make a decision quickly on the amount of additional support the US will dedicate.

Gibberish said:

If it works or not it should be attempted. It will tell us exactly who is willing to support this initiative.

What ever happens from Gates meeting with our Allies, Obama should be prepared to make a decision quickly on the amount of additional support the US will dedicate.

Click to expand...

It should be attempted, but American troops already in theater shouldn't have to wait on that.

patience?

while soldiers die in record numbers?

in mcchrystal's secret assessment of august 30, leaked to the public by the post's bob woodward on sept 21, the day after obama blitzed five sunday talks and said he was waiting for an assessment he was the next day revealed to be sitting on, when he lied by saying he had not yet been asked for more troops...

in that secret assessment, obama's hand picked commander, mcchrystal, warned that delay in the mountains above the moon dooms us to defeat

obama clearly does NOT want to commit to afghanistan

even tho it was a prime plank of his campaign, pushed forward to convince the electorate he was not your traditional blame-america-first, anti military democrat

aghanistan is obama's war

on march 27, the prez announced his "new, comprehensive" strategy for afghanistan, and it was in total accord with mcchrystal's assessment

in august he called it a "war of necessity," not one of "choice"

it's the "right war," he's maintained up til the present

domestically, he's gonna have to surrender on the public option, infuriating his base

he can't afford to piss em off on the war front, as well

that's what's going on here

he now uses karzai's corruption as a fig leaf to cover his reversal

he's so transparent

he suddenly discovered the dictator's dishonest?

shocked, shocked, shouted claude rains in curtiz' cinema classic, casablanca, maybe the greatest movie ever made

gambling in rick's cafe!

obama has totally estranged the cia, panetta's nonplussed

when's the last time you heard mention of the prosecution?

and now, the pentagon

mcchrystal's gonna quit

the military is mad as hell that the politicos went on stephy and mtp and john king this sunday and, without consulting them, announced this complete reworking of strategy

petraeus, mcchrystal and gates feel sucker punched

if karzai's too corrupt to send reinforcements, how is he decent enough for 68000 americans already there to fight for?

here's lookin' at you, kid

Gibberish said:

From what I have read Gates is trying to get increased troop support from Allies before the US dedicates more US troops. As Gates said, Afghanistan is a "shared responsibility" and "that if General McChrystal has a set of needs, it should not be looked upon as exclusively the responsibility of the United States to respond".

Click to expand...

Okay, how long are they willing to wait for NATO to decide? And if we don't get NATO to commit, then what!? Mission over? Pack up your bags? Or will we just get more dithering and indecisiveness while American troops die?

The Commander In Chief needs to act now; he only has two sane choices:

1. Send the troops and commit to winning this war.
2. Declare defeat and withdraw the troops.

The third option - the one he's currently employing - is to stick his thumb up his butt while troops die and generals wait for Washington to commit.

He needs to drop everything he's doing and concentrate on the Afghan strategy. That means no more talk shows, no more health care propaganda, and certainly no more infantile bickering with Fox-****ing-News.

Pull your head out of your ass, SIR! The troops needed a Commander In Chief yesterday...

Ethereal said:

Okay, how long are they willing to wait for NATO to decide? And if we don't get NATO to commit, then what!? Mission over? Pack up your bags? Or will we just get more dithering and indecisiveness while American troops die?

The Commander In Chief needs to act now; he only has two sane choices:

1. Send the troops and commit to winning this war.
2. Declare defeat and withdraw the troops.

The third option - the one he's currently employing - is to stick his thumb up his butt while troops die and generals wait for Washington to commit.

But of course dropping all of the nations interests and focusing on only his legacy is yet another option.




He needs to drop everything he's doing and concentrate on the Afghan strategy. That means no more talk shows, no more health care propaganda, and certainly no more infantile bickering with Fox-****ing-News.

Pull your head out of your ass, SIR! The troops needed a Commander In Chief yesterday...

Click to expand...

4. He could ignore the true realities in Afghanistan and divert all of our nations rescources and manpower into a totally unrelated war in a country who never had any connections to attacking us or connections to anybody who had those intentions. Lie to the citizens of his own country for political gain while ignoring all of the commanders on the ground that tell him to do the exact opposit of what he actually does...and fires them all. While all of his supporters are running around like a bunch of dimwits whining about Freedom fries and lame crap like that.

Or he could be a true intelligent leader and be patient will getting advice and listening to all angles of knowledge reguarding the situation in the country that borders the country that is harboring the people that we need to rid the world of. Instead of running away from the true problems.

Or he could drop all of the nations interests and only focus on political matters that relate to his legacy while troops die and rescources are wasted.

I am beginning to think, unlike Iraq, democratic nation building in Afghanistan may be impossible outside of Kabul; the society is too tribal and backward.

Still, most people are being hysterical about the losses we are taking there; they are nothing comparable to almost every other war we have ever fought, including Iraq. We could sustain this effort for a long time.

If nation building fails in the next years, say five years or so, that does not mean the war must end or that we must surrender to the Taliban. We do not have to be the ******s we presenting the the Talaban and Al Qeada.

For our strategic purpose all we need achieve is to prevent the Taliban from controlling most of the country or having large safe havens in which to plan terror attacks in the West at their leisure.

Having them fighting a low intensity guerrilla war in Afghanistan for decades serves our purpose every bit as much as the costlier goal of nation building.

We could arm any group that opposes them, including the opium lords (who in the long run know a Taliban victory means their elimination) and let them do most of the slog fighting while we only augment with Special Forces, air power and increasingly effective predator drones, thus keeping the Taliban perpetually pinned down fighting in Afghanistan until they wear down.

Just keeping them fighting in Afganistan is a victory.

The West is not thinking about all its strategic options.

The Taliban do not have the power to defeat us, only we do.

Hell he could even install yet another corrupt puppet government that does nothing but dilly dally and screw things up over the next eight years.

goldendog said:

4. He could ignore the true realities in Afghanistan and divert all of our nations rescources and manpower into a totally unrelated war in a country who never had any connections to attacking us or connections to anybody who had those intentions. Lie to the citizens of his own country for political gain while ignoring all of the commanders on the ground that tell him to do the exact opposit of what he actually does...and fires them all. While all of his supporters are running around like a bunch of dimwits whining about Freedom fries and lame crap like that.

Click to expand...

Still trying to blame your Messiah's failures on Bush, I see. How freaking pathetic.

Or he could be a true intelligent leader and be patient...

Click to expand...

Yea, just be patient as the train bears down on you...:roll:

What you describe sounds a lot like my third option, i.e., dither and waste time on talk shows and fighting Fox News while troops die in the field and generals wait for direction from Washington.

...will getting advice and listening to all angles of knowledge...

Click to expand...

Like what? Got any examples?

...reguarding the situation in the country that borders the country that is harboring the people that we need to rid the world of.

Click to expand...

Nice sentence.

Instead of running away from the true problems.

Click to expand...

The General is still waiting, last time I checked.

"The General is still waiting, last time I checked."


Hell some Presidents would have fired his ass by now.

JW Frogen said:

Still, most people are being hysterical about the losses we are taking there...

Click to expand...

The hell I am. I got friends over there and Obama is putting their lives in unnecessary danger with his indecisiveness and weak leadership.

Yea, troops die, but we shouldn't put them in more danger than is necessary because some spineless politician can't make up his puny little mind.

Ethereal said:

The hell I am. I got friends over there and Obama is putting their lives in unnecessary danger with his indecisiveness and weak leadership.

Yea, troops die, but we shouldn't put them in more danger than is necessary because some spineless politician can't make up his puny little mind.

Click to expand...

I have had friends there too.

I agreed with Bush on many things but he made decisions too quick and then stayed with them even when they were not working, (the surge was obvious long before Bush took to it) and I disagree with Obama on a lot of things, but the next moves we make in Afghanistan are going to have long term cost, we need to think about it.

If we want to nation build, then we need to surge, if we think the Afghans can not nation build then we need a more ruthless, yet limited strategy that seeks to hunt only the Taliban and Al Qeada.

Given the historically low death rates of this war, we have the time and need to think and get it right.

JW Frogen said:

I have had friends there too.

I agreed with Bush on many things but he made decisions too quick and then stayed with them even when they were not working, (the surge was obvious long before Bush took to it) and I disagree with Obama on a lot of things, but the next moves we make in Afghanistan are going to have long term cost, we need to think about it.

If we want to nation build, then we need to surge, if we think the Afghans can not nation build then we need a more ruthless, yet limited strategy that seeks to hunt only the Taliban and Al Qeada.

Given the historically low death rates of this war, we have the time and need to think and get it right.

Click to expand...

I agree with the second option. They've had their chance to pull it together as a nation. They have also been at war with one group of people or the other for a long time...several decades. The latest corrupt election is yet another example of the corrupt standards that the previous US administration condoned while diverting our troops and resources into Iraq.

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV See below.

I think everyone in the Administration is waiting to see how this election run off goes as a signal which strategy to use.

Afterall, continued nation building WILL be costly in life, but fighting Al Qeada and the Talaban, arming anyone who opposes them, and hunting them with special forces and preditor drones will not.

Not in our life, but it will cost Afgans more life.

I would hope we can do the former, but if not that does not mean we give up to the Talaban and Al Qeada.

JW Frogen said:

I have had friends there too.

I agreed with Bush on many things but he made decisions too quick and then stayed with them even when they were not working, (the surge was obvious long before Bush took to it) and I disagree with Obama on a lot of things, but the next moves we make in Afghanistan are going to have long term cost, we need to think about it.

If we want to nation build, then we need to surge, if we think the Afghans can not nation build then we need a more ruthless, yet limited strategy that seeks to hunt only the Taliban and Al Qeada.

Given the historically low death rates of this war, we have the time and need to think and get it right.

Click to expand...

If Obama had any guts he'd commit to this war until it was won and won decisively. Our mission should be nation-building AND Taliban-killing. We can achieve both if we give the generals what they ask for and remain determined. The only force on the planet that can beat the American military is the defeatist media and Washington politicians.