Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 65 of 65

Thread: Official: Obama wants his war options changed

  1. #61
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Official: Obama wants his war options changed

    Quote Originally Posted by Strucky View Post
    Yes,lives are at stake....By indecision.
    And a decision will put tens of thousands of lives at stake.

    Not something to be taken lightly.

  2. #62
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Official: Obama wants his war options changed

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    About the article by RightinNYC. Click on the link prof. You will see that same day, at 10 PM the whitehouse said it was a false report.

    Why does he need to make a descision now? If you read the article we cannot even begin to deploy troops for a year anyways. He might as well weigh all his options and make the best decision he can by hearing all of the arguments. It is completely irrational to make a rushed decision in this case.

    I completely disagree with anyone saying he does not have guts because he is actually taking time to make an informed descision with more than one persons opinion. It takes more guts to stand up to a general than to just give him everything he wants.

    He does not "want out." He wants to make a smart decision.

    One more thing; who is playing politics? The president by weighing different options from different people and trying to implement the best strategy, or the people who are trying to marginalize him by calling this "indecisive" when there is no reason for a rushed descision.
    the white house said (at 10 pm) it was a false report---LOL!

    the white house says the exact opposite every 6 hours

    unfortunately, abc, cnn, fox, drudge---EVERYONE got ahold of that false report and ran with it for a week

    the 34000 figure was the worst kept secret in washington since mcchrystal's call for 40G

    i don't know that he "needs to make a decision now"

    what he needs to do is LOOK like a president who has a clue

    instead of completely undoing his own position stated clear as mcchrystal on march 27

    what he needs to do is quit calling karzai a crook mere days before congratulating the corrupt coup

    what he needs to do is stop the public dissension within his won DOD

    you call for rationality?

    all this public chin stroking while soldiers are being slaughtered in record numbers is nothing but

    but it sure aint helping

    it's been 10 months, hardly "rushed"

    by all accounts he didn't even consult mcchrystal until august

    it's been four months since he received the "top-to-bottom review" he dishonestly declared on september 20 on five sunday talk shows he was still waiting for

    sure, he doesn't want out, no doubt

    why, when it comes to afghanistan, he can only be described as eager

    let me at em, let me at em

    he really needs to be restrained

    maybe axelrod can calm him down

    meanwhile, we're getting killed over there, we have no chance, his own base is totally opposed to the war

    so back to the drawing board he goes---IN PUBLIC

    you're right, friend, afghanistan is really working for this president

    it's making him a regular george mcclellan

  3. #63
    Sage
    gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    uk
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,365

    Re: Official: Obama wants his war options changed

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    I believe Ambassador Eikenberry is raising urgent and relevant questions.

    Although I agree that additional manpower is needed, I believe a full discussion needs to examine, among other things, the past experiences concerning Czarist, British, and Soviet forces in Afghanistan, the failure of earlier "surges" to bring about a stable outcome, and Afghanistan's historically decentralized framework in which tribal leaders/local institutions play a larger role than its central government. Former Soviet President Gorbachev's warning, while unpleasant, goes to the heart of the convergence of Afghanstan's history and lack of governance structure. The Soviets had much greater manpower and much freer operating constraints and still failed to pacify Afghanistan.

    Currently, Kabul is defined by corruption, cronyism, and incompetence, if not leadership that may not adequately represent all of Afghanistan's various ethnic or tribal groups. Afghanistan remains closer to a failed state than a viable national unit. The leadership issue is one that the military planners need to address. In the wake of previous failed strategies, they have a genuine burden to address the issues as to why the previous troop surges in Afghanistan, including one from earlier this year, proved ineffective, why their earlier plans failed to foresee how events unfolded to date, why one should have confidence that the outcome this time around will be different given Afghanistan's historic experience and current dynamics. They need to identify who specifically will be the key tribal leaders whose efforts will be leveraged in implementing the plan and how reliable have they been in the past. They need to identify what local institutions will be relied upon to complement the efforts of the additional troops, among others.

    The historic experience, failure of earlier troop surges, and, arguably worst of all, previous strategies' failure to come close to anticipating the overall evolution of events does not inspire much confidence. Neither do the realities associated with failed or failing states. As a result, difficult questions need to be raised and addressed.

    The assumptions on which the strategy is based must fit reality. Those assumptions need to be sober, not excessively optimistic. The new strategy cannot simply be a "patch" that changes one or two variables but does not fit the current environment nor address issues raised by the historic and recent experience, otherwise it will rapidly become obsolete well short of achieving its goals as happened with the previous strategies. It also needs to specifically identify and address a wide range of contingencies.

    Experience with failing or failed states with a history of highly fragmented leadership/multiplicity of tribal leaders with widely varied interests e.g., Somalia, illustrate the enormous difficulties involved in Afghanistan. Historic and recent experience in Afghanistan demonstrate the reality of those difficulties.

    In the end, it seems to me that Ambassador Eikenberry is asking the difficult questions that need to be asked. It would be prudent for the President to give those questions and issues a thorough review in the planning exercise, even if the exercise requires some additional time.
    I think you encapsulate the situation extremely well. This highlights why Obama is wise not to rush, and needs to explore all option or possibilities. The stability of Afghanistan is not as straight as some people think. As you have pointed out Tribal traditions path the way, in an Afghan society, and in my opinion its here we need to be concentrating our-negotiating efforts. Win from the bottom up. As has been highlighted recently the Afghan people are fickle in terms of allegiances, and often invest there support 'in the wining side' at that particular moment. An obvious way of 'winning them over' is to improve there lot, on a local scale. After speaking recently with serving friends it seems locals are far more grateful of an engineering success [re-diverting water supplies-the fixing of a generator etc] than any Military success that we can deliver. This is perhaps as we no full well that military success is often short lived, where as, life enhancement projects tend to last.

    Paul
    Last edited by gunner; 11-13-09 at 05:49 AM.
    RIP THE EUROPEAN FORUM 2016

  4. #64
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Official: Obama wants his war options changed

    sure, decide correctly

    great point---LOL!

    but---dispute your military leadership in public?

    unmake your own "comprehensive strategy," stated with mcchrystal clarity on march 27?

    dissemble on five sunday talks, only to be exposed the next day by assessment leaker woodward?

    say one thing about karzai on a monday, then the opposite on wednesday?

    the only reason the president so deliberatively dithers in the first place, according to obama, is cuz karzai's so recently uncovered (LOL!) corruption changes fundamentally the equation

    so the prez calls to congratulate the dictator on his coup?

    have your own secty defense go out in public and criticize your sitting on your hands?

    solemn deliberation is one thing

    crass executive incompetence is obama

    afghanistan is killing him, the only reason he's there is cuz his CAMPAIGN decreed he's not your traditional anti-military dem

    he RAN hard on this right war

    he clearly does NOT want to fight it

  5. #65
    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: Official: Obama wants his war options changed

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    And a decision will put tens of thousands of lives at stake.

    Not something to be taken lightly.
    Who said anything about taking it lightly?
    "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

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Posting Permissions

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