• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Reportedly Eyeing "McChrystal Lite"

The Prof

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,828
Reaction score
1,808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
1. Evincing a characteristic cast for compromise, our courage-challenged Commander in Chief is reportedly on the cusp of calling for a middle course approach to the tactical crisis that is Afghanistan.

2. Unable to say "no" to his generals, compositionally incapable of executing an all-out war, Obama will typically embrace the resort of least resistance when he finally DECIDES TO DECIDE what to do with HIS hopeless hotspot in the mountains on the moon.

3. He'll give his homegrown general on the ground about HALF the troops the experts estimate are mandatory for triumph in the theater that the then candidate called the "right war."

4. McChrystal Lite, reportedly, is Obama's outlet.

5. More warfare, less results.

6. Lacking the courage to decamp, yet not committed ultimately to success, Obama, after months of public hair pulling and procrastination, adopts a "Yes, we can, No, we can't, Maybe, we'll see" strategy.

7. Either way, casualites are almost certain to increase with the combatant count.

8. Meanwhile, any chances of our succeeding are scant in the region which gutted Gorbachev.

9. The Russians warred with a WILL unknown in Washington, 200,000 ruthless Soviet soldiers slaughtered civilians for ten years.

10. Obama does NOT want to be there.

11. How can we win with such weak kneed, half hearted headsmanship?

12. Politics impel the president, not interests of United States security.

13. American lives must be sacrificed for salubrious survey results in USA Today.

14. And yet the war is pessimisticly unpopular across our entire landscape, except amongst neocons.

15. Obama's liberal base is outraged.

16. And anger will only augment with each meaningless massacre.

17. October was our meanest month, 55 unfearing fighters fell.

18. Twenty two more this week.

19. The enemy was alarmingly active in Kabul, assaulting a UN guesthouse.

20. Karzai is as corrupt as he ever was.

21. And then there's his brother, the poppy pusher.

22. Obama is at open odds with McChrystal, the Pentagon, the cabinet.

23. The great general weighs resignation.

24. This is OBAMA'S WAR, it is HIS problem.

25. It is KILLING him, politically.

26. And it will only get worse.

President Obama is considering sending large numbers of additional U.S. forces to Afghanistan next year but fewer than his war commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, prefers, U.S. officials said.

Such a narrowed military mission would escalate American forces to accomplish the commander's broadest goals, protecting Afghan cities and key infrastructure. But the option's scaled-down troop numbers likely would cut back on McChrystal's ambitious objectives, amounting to what one official described as "McChrystal Light."

Under the pared-down option, McChrystal would be given fewer forces than the 40,000 additional troops he has asked for atop the current U.S. force of 68,000, officials told The Associated Press.

Two officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because Obama has not announced his decision, said the troop numbers under the narrowed scenario probably would be lower than McChrystal's preference, at least at the outset. The officials did not divulge exact numbers.

But that pared-down approach would reflect a shift in thinking about what parts of the war mission are most important and the intense political domestic debate over Afghan policy.

A majority of Americans either oppose the war or question whether it is worth continuing to wage, according to public opinion polls dating to when Obama shook up the war's management and began a lengthy reconsideration of U.S. objectives earlier this year.

Any expansion of the war will displease some congressional Democrats, while Republicans are likely to accuse Obama of failing to give McChrystal all of what he requested.

A stripped-down approach would signal caution in widening a war that is going worse this year than last despite intense U.S. attention and an additional 21,000 U.S. forces on Obama's watch.


The Prof

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...stal-light-plan-afghan-war-small-troop-boost/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He is voting " present" on the issue while hoping the polls show less and less support for the war.
 
1. Evincing a characteristic cast for compromise, our courage-challenged Commander in Chief is reportedly on the cusp of calling for a middle course approach to the tactical crisis that is Afghanistan.

2. Unable to say "no" to his generals, compositionally incapable of executing an all-out war, Obama will typically embrace the resort of least resistance when he finally DECIDES TO DECIDE what to do with HIS hopeless hotspot in the mountains on the moon.

3. He'll give his homegrown general on the ground about HALF the troops the experts estimate are mandatory for triumph in the theater that the then candidate called the "right war."

4. McChrystal Lite, reportedly, is Obama's outlet.

5. More warfare, less results.

6. Lacking the courage to decamp, yet not committed ultimately to success, Obama, after months of public hair pulling and procrastination, adopts a "Yes, we can, No, we can't, Maybe, we'll see" strategy.

7. Either way, casualites are almost certain to increase with the combatant count.

8. Meanwhile, any chances of our succeeding are scant in the region which gutted Gorbachev.

9. The Russians warred with a WILL unknown in Washington, 200,000 ruthless Soviet soldiers slaughtered civilians for ten years.

10. Obama does NOT want to be there.

11. How can we win with such weak kneed, half hearted headsmanship?

12. Politics impel the president, not interests of United States security.

13. American lives must be sacrificed for salubrious survey results in USA Today.

14. And yet the war is pessimisticly unpopular across our entire landscape, except amongst neocons.

15. Obama's liberal base is outraged.

16. And anger will only augment with each meaningless massacre.

17. October was our meanest month, 55 unfearing fighters fell.

18. Twenty two more this week.

19. The enemy was alarmingly active in Kabul, assaulting a UN guesthouse.

20. Karzai is as corrupt as he ever was.

21. And then there's his brother, the poppy pusher.

22. Obama is at open odds with McChrystal, the Pentagon, the cabinet.

23. The great general weighs resignation.

24. This is OBAMA'S WAR, it is HIS problem.

25. It is KILLING him, politically.

26. And it will only get worse.




The Prof

Care to post a link that supports the title of this thread?
 
Care to post a link that supports the title of this thread?

He can post one, but I read this same assertion in several reputable news sources yesterday.
It's legit.
Sources close to the President are claiming that he's leaning toward a moderate troop increase, one much smaller than McChrystal is asking for.
The President, as of yesterday, was insisting that he's made no definite decision on the matter yet.
 
He can post one, but I read this same assertion in several reputable news sources yesterday.
It's legit.
Sources close to the President are claiming that he's leaning toward a moderate troop increase, one much smaller than McChrystal is asking for.
The President, as of yesterday, was insisting that he's made no definite decision on the matter yet.

Good I would agree with that decision and I would agree with a major shift on what the purpose of the mission has been for years now.
 
Are you saying you support Obama's War?

Tell me what do you think President Obama should do given the current situation?

Remember you have to totally remove all issues that have to do with Republicans having any responsibilty for what is going on there today.

Please offer some suggestions and how they might affect our future?

It sure does seem to me that you are just chawing at the bit and praying that President Obama will be as big up a **** up as Bush...

You will have to wait and see before you can make that claim with any validity what so ever.
 
Last edited:
mcchrystal lite is the worst of all options

either fight to win or bring our boys and girls home

afghanistan is killing this president, and it's only going to get worse
 
mcchrystal lite is the worst of all options

either fight to win or bring our boys and girls home

afghanistan is killing this president, and it's only going to get worse

Define "win".
 
mcchrystal lite is the worst of all options

either fight to win or bring our boys and girls home

afghanistan is killing this president, and it's only going to get worse

Without knowing the overall strategy going forward, it is impossible to say what is the best or worst option.
 
In terms of politics, it seems like this is the worst option. Obama and his advisors are smart enough to figure this out. The fact that they know that and are still leaning toward this plan seems to indicate that they think this is the best plan in terms of war strategy, without taking the political issue into consideration. Since they are the ones who are in the best position to make this analysis, I'm confident that it is the best plan.

I know I shouldn't be surprised when a politician makes a decision based on what they think is right as opposed to what they think will play best in the media, but it's nevertheless pleasant whenever it happens.
 
Last edited:
Without knowing the overall strategy going forward, it is impossible to say what is the best or worst option.

Without knowing the objective one can't intelligently choose a strategy.
 
the general has been mcchrystal clear on what he thinks is winning strategy

indeed, he said anything short will "likely result in failure"

mcchrystal's secret assessment, written aug 30 and delivered to the prez, leaked to woodward by unknown insiders and published in the post, sept 21, a day after obama blitzed five sunday talks and indicated he was still awaiting a top-to-bottom review and had not yet received requests for reinforcements:

McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure' - washingtonpost.com

pray for our president, our troops and their people, our nation

and perhaps, if you are like minded, pray even for our foes, that they will find peace and peace of mind

they too are fathers and sons and mothers and sisters...

unfortunately, afghanistan is going to kill this presidency

cliff
 
Last edited:
Without knowing the objective one can't intelligently choose a strategy.

This is true. And re-evaluating the objective, and the best way to attain that objective is a strength, not a weakness.
 
Tell me what do you think President Obama should do given the current situation?

Remember you have to totally remove all issues that have to do with Republicans having any responsibilty for what is going on there today.

Please offer some suggestions and how they might affect our future?

It sure does seem to me that you are just chawing at the bit and praying that President Obama will be as big up a **** up as Bush...

You will have to wait and see before you can make that claim with any validity what so ever.

Maybe so, maybe no.

Do you remember Obama standing at the podium at the WH last March with Hillary Clinton at his right hand and Bob Gates at his left hand? The occasion was Obama's announcement of a New Plan for the War in Afghanistan. He said he would escalate the war by sending 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. He later added another 3-4,000 troops. Those forces are now in Afghanistan. Obama then fired General Kiernan and replaced him with General McChrystal. Now we're told that the Taliban are winning the war. What happened to Obama's New War Plan?

There are three policy alternatives on Afghanistan: (1) admitting defeat and completely withdrawing, (2) seeking military victory by giving McChrystal what he asked for, or (3) seeking stalemate by following the McChrystal Lite approach.

If Obama admits defeat and withdraws American forces completely he will save the lives of countless American men and women, but he will pay an incredible political price for surrender.

If he gives McChrystal what he wants America might theoretically win, but Americans are not prepared to spend the next decade fighting an insurgency in the Hindu Kush. Besides, Obama doesn't have the political support he needs to win his war. The Left will not support him, so he must rely on the Right for support. In other words he must place his war policy in the hands of his political enemies. How long do you think it will be before the Republicans figure out they have an opportunity to cut Obama's throat?

If Obama goes for McChrystal Lite the war will go on endlessly, and Obama will be beaten to death the same way Bush was. Bush was destroyed by Iraq, and Obama will be destroyed by Afghanistan.

No matter which approach Obama selects he is in for the political beating of his life. However, if he chooses to withdraw completely and immediately our children will live. Besides, we can't afford Guns and Butter. If he does withdraw Al Qaeda will reestablish bases in Afghanistan. So what? They have bases in Pakistan now.

Obama is not the problem. Like Bush, Obama is a symptom of the problem. The problem is the corrupt special interest political system we have created. Destroying Bush and the Republicans was like a nail in the system's coffin. Destroying Obama and the Democrats is a step along the same road.

You say I will have to wait and see. Don't you tired of playing defense? The Iraq War was used to bring down Bush. The Afghanistan War will be used to bring down Obama.

I've noticed a certain foreboding and sense of despondency among Obama supporters lately. We destroy our presidents. It's simply the nature of the political order that has evolved in America. It's the way Americans roll. I do have suggestions for a new political order in our country, but that is a subject for another thread.
 
In terms of politics, it seems like this is the worst option. Obama and his advisors are smart enough to figure this out. The fact that they know that and are still leaning toward this plan seems to indicate that they think this is the best plan in terms of war strategy, without taking the political issue into consideration. Since they are the ones who are in the best position to make this analysis, I'm confident that it is the best plan.

I know I shouldn't be surprised when a politician makes a decision based on what they think is right as opposed to what they think will play best in the media, but it's nevertheless pleasant whenever it happens.

My gut reaction is that the exact opposite of this is true. By increasing the troop levels, but only doing so to a limited extent, it seems to me like they're trying to appease both sides in a sort of compromise.

Whether it's a sound strategy or not... we'll have to wait and see. Ditto to its political implications, although I think it is a massive assumption that "Obama and his advisors are smart enough to figure this out".
 
the general has been mcchrystal clear on what he thinks is winning strategy

indeed, the general said anything short will "likely result in failure"

mcchrystal's secret assessment, written aug 30 and delivered to the prez, leaked to woodward by unknown insiders and published in the post, sept 21, a day after obama blitzed five sunday talks and indicated he was still awaiting a top-to-bottom review and had not yet received requests for reinforcements:

McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure' - washingtonpost.com

pray for our president, our troops and their people, our nation

and perhaps, if you are like minded, pray even for our foes, that they will find peace and peace of mind

they too are fathers and sons and mothers and sisters...

unfortunately, afghanistan is going to kill this presidency

cliff

It's worth remembering that Pres. Obama has access to more information about what's going on than does Gen. McChrystal. If you look at the most recent revelations about Karzai's brother, you can see that the military and the CIA aren't exactly communicating clearly. While McChrystal is certainly aware of what's happening on the military front, Obama has access to all of that information, as well as to covert intelligence via the CIA and political developments via the state department.

The war power rests solely with the executive, for good reason.

My gut reaction is that the exact opposite of this is true. By increasing the troop levels, but only doing so to a limited extent, it seems to me like they're trying to appease both sides in a sort of compromise.


Whether it's a sound strategy or not... we'll have to wait and see. Ditto to its political implications, although I think it is a massive assumption that "Obama and his advisors are smart enough to figure this out".

This is of course possible, though I think a troop increase of 25k will tend to evoke enough outrage from both sides as to render it a bad political decision. Whatever you think about Obama's position on various issues, you can't deny that he is surrounded by an incredibly astute crew of political advisors.
 
We've been down this path before. In my nightmares I see Gen. McWestmoreland demanding more troops and insisting that anything less than what he demands is tantamount to surrender. So the President will send X-thousand more fine young men and Gen. McWestmoreland will announce that, "There is light at the end of the tunnel"--and that we can WIN (whatever that looks like) if the President will only send a few thousand MORE troops. Then as the number of planes required to airlift the bodies back to Dover AFB is doubled, Gen. McWestmoreland will gravely tell us, "We have turned the corner in Afghanistan." Brilliant officer that he is, he will never realize that the corner we turned takes us the wrong way down a one way street.

It's always the same dream, Doc, and I wake up with cold sweats. Can you help me?
 
i don't know how much more a community organizer from chicago and the ivoried halls of harvard law with very little mind for martial matters might know about the military realities in the mountains on the moon than the careerist soldier who's reached the ranks mcchrystal has

but, that aside, if this "decision" by the president looks anything other than purely political instead of security interested to you...

well...

it just doesn't ring true to character, to me

not the obama i've come to know

gates has also expressed mcchrystal's selfsame frustrations

and obama, who endorsed the general in march, is now pointing to karzai's corrupt election as some kind of game changer

as if the president just learned something on aug 20, three days after calling out his "war of necessity," which we weren't all fully aware of all along

again, obama's rationalizations echo hollow, to me

either way, afghanistan is his war now, all obama's problem

which ever path he opts for had better work

politics is almost as unforgiving as war
 
i don't know how much more a community organizer from chicago and the ivoried halls of harvard law with very little mind for martial matters might know about the military realities in the mountains on the moon than the careerist soldier who's reached the ranks mcchrystal has


How about the Secretary of Defense? The JCS? The people whose job it is to advise the president? Those are the ones who are actually crafting the strategy. Obama is responsible for the results, but his ignorance of military matters(like most of the people posting on this) is not the reason for his decision, whatever it might be.
 
He can post one, but I read this same assertion in several reputable news sources yesterday.
It's legit.
Sources close to the President are claiming that he's leaning toward a moderate troop increase, one much smaller than McChrystal is asking for.
The President, as of yesterday, was insisting that he's made no definite decision on the matter yet.

And it's retarded, McChrystal the counterinsurgent expert has already calculated the number of troops it will require to provide adequate security and hold territory and yet the Harvard lawyer and 1 year Senator thinks he knows how better to fight a war than the head general that he himself appointed.
 
How about the Secretary of Defense? The JCS? The people whose job it is to advise the president? Those are the ones who are actually crafting the strategy. Obama is responsible for the results, but his ignorance of military matters(like most of the people posting on this) is not the reason for his decision, whatever it might be.

Obama is getting his advice on Afghanistan from John "war criminal" Kerry. And the idea that the Secretary of Defense or Joint Chiefs know more about what's going on in Afghanistan than the lead General on the ground is ****ing asinine.
 
And it's retarded, McChrystal the counterinsurgent expert has already calculated the number of troops it will require to provide adequate security and hold territory and yet the Harvard lawyer and 1 year Senator thinks he knows how better to fight a war than the head general that he himself appointed.

Obama is getting his advice on Afghanistan from John "war criminal" Kerry. And the idea that the Secretary of Defense or Joint Chiefs know more about what's going on in Afghanistan than the lead General on the ground is ****ing asinine.

Listen to the counterinsurgency expert and lead general in Afghanistan.

Again, Gen. McChrystal could be the smartest military expert in the world, but the only thing he has information about is the military situation. Obama has access to everything McChrystal says, as well as all the information from the CIA and State Department.

Furthermore, you seem to be implying that the military's decision should be final. That's not how the constitution works - we have civilian control of the military for a reason. Pres. Obama's job is to take into account the analysis of the military, the CIA, the State Dept., and the public that elected him. Nobody else has the authority to make that decision.
 
Back
Top Bottom