Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 130

Thread: Obama's Afghan Plan: About 40K More Troops

  1. #111
    Hard As A Rock
    Strucky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Minnesota
    Last Seen
    10-19-17 @ 08:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    2,074

    Re: Obama's Afghan Plan: About 40K More Troops

    Bush was the "Decider"

    Obama is the "Undecider"
    "The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without."

    ~Dwight D. Eisenhower

  2. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: Obama's Afghan Plan: About 40K More Troops

    Quote Originally Posted by Strucky View Post
    Bush was the "Decider"

    Obama is the "Undecider"
    The Ol' Decidificator

  3. #113
    Professor
    WillRockwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    07-10-10 @ 09:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,950

    Re: Obama's Afghan Plan: About 40K More Troops

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    Can you imagine the conversations among the soldiers in Afghanistan right now?

    It's like having the Home Economics teacher coaching the football team.
    I expect they are all hoping Obama will bring them home. Or do you think they prefer being targets for the Taliban with nothing to shoot at? Or is it that you just like the sound of the word "victory" and don't care how many troops die in pursuit of it?

  4. #114
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: Obama's Afghan Plan: About 40K More Troops

    Quote Originally Posted by WillRockwell View Post
    I expect they are all hoping Obama will bring them home. Or do you think they prefer being targets for the Taliban with nothing to shoot at? Or is it that you just like the sound of the word "victory" and don't care how many troops die in pursuit of it?
    If we come home we have to do it in a more honorable way than the Soviets did.

  5. #115
    Sage
    akyron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,487

    Re: Obama's Afghan Plan: About 40K More Troops

    This must be a political point to make in here somewhere..40k isnt nearly enough.


    Obama's war council debate


    "Senior officials said that in order to fully force a COIN strategy of 20 to 25 troops per 1,000 residents in Afghanistan, there would have to be 600,000 U.S., NATO and Afghan troops and police"


    Blow it up or build roads and schools. Its going to take 30 years for a change to take effect.
    Last edited by akyron; 11-12-09 at 06:08 PM.
    Thank you

  6. #116
    Hard As A Rock
    Strucky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Minnesota
    Last Seen
    10-19-17 @ 08:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    2,074

    Re: Obama's Afghan Plan: About 40K More Troops

    This best explains Obama's leadership style-

    "The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without."

    ~Dwight D. Eisenhower

  7. #117
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Last Seen
    03-18-13 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,544

    Re: Obama's Afghan Plan: About 40K More Troops

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    If we come home we have to do it in a more honorable way than the Soviets did.
    No we don't. It will be a teachable moment. What do you think will be the impact on the Obama Administration if American forces suffer a clear political and military defeat? The whole world must see Obama figuratively tuck his tail between his legs, slink away from the field of battle, abandon the women of Afghanistan to the mercies of monsters, and recant his mantra about the "War of Necessity." Obama must receive the full Bush treatment.

  8. #118
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: Obama's Afghan Plan: About 40K More Troops

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo View Post
    No we don't. It will be a teachable moment. What do you think will be the impact on the Obama Administration if American forces suffer a clear political and military defeat? The whole world must see Obama figuratively tuck his tail between his legs, slink away from the field of battle, abandon the women of Afghanistan to the mercies of monsters, and recant his mantra about the "War of Necessity." Obama must receive the full Bush treatment.
    It'll get blamed on Bush, and the Messiah walks, innocent on all charges.


  9. #119
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Last Seen
    03-18-13 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,544

    Re: Obama's Afghan Plan: About 40K More Troops

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    It'll get blamed on Bush, and the Messiah walks, innocent on all charges....
    Memory is unreliable. We blame whatever president is in office at the time of every setback.

  10. #120
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,772

    Re: Obama's Afghan Plan: About 40K More Troops

    Quote Originally Posted by akyron View Post
    This must be a political point to make in here somewhere..40k isnt nearly enough.


    Obama's war council debate


    "Senior officials said that in order to fully force a COIN strategy of 20 to 25 troops per 1,000 residents in Afghanistan, there would have to be 600,000 U.S., NATO and Afghan troops and police"


    Blow it up or build roads and schools. Its going to take 30 years for a change to take effect.
    Found this (Minneapolis-St. Paul StarTribune) article on WorldNews.com and thought it might help explain some of the issues surrounding the President's delay in sending more troops as some would have him do right now.

    Exerpts from the article:
    The secretary general of NATO said Thursday (11/05/09) that alliance forces should begin handing responsibility to Afghan forces in a coordinated way next year in areas where conditions permit.

    [But] criticism is mounting that the Afghan government is too corrupt and inept to facilitate such handovers.

    Obama has said he won't accept any of the Afghanistan war options before him without changes. His own ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, sent a strongly worded cable warning against bolstering the American presence in Afghanistan unless corruption within the Afghan government is addressed.
    Take what you will from this, but I know I wouldn't send more ground troops in-country unless and until I had assurances that the government in place had a firm hand in taking over their own country.

    If you look at the map on page 10 to this thread, you'll see that the Taliban still holds a vast majority of Afghanistan. If the mission has, in fact, changed from "defeating Al-Quaida" to "nation building", then ensuring that the new government is capable of governing is crucial to this process. So, until you know that they can, it makes no sense to commit more troops to an otherwise futile cause. Hence, the question rightfully before the President: Has the original anti-terrorist objective been met? If so, how do we leave in short order and ensure stability in the region? -OR- What is the new mission and how do we go about achieving it?
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 11-12-09 at 07:22 PM.

Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •