• 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!

Military Spending Weighs on Obama's Afghan Decision

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
41,104
Reaction score
12,202
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
by FOXNews.com
Senior administration officials told the New York Times that the financial implications of more troops has become a volatile issue as the president works to push a costly health care plan through Congress and the government budget deficit is soaring.


Concerns over funding additional forces in Afghanistan are adding pressure to President Obama as he weighs plans to move forward in the region, the New York Times reported.

Senior administration officials told the Times that the financial implications of more troops has become a volatile issue as the president works to push a costly health care plan through Congress and the government budget deficit is soaring.

The cost estimates of adding 40,000 U.S. forces and increasing Afghan security are $40 to $54 billion a year according to officials, and even if less troops are sent, the White House formula would remain constant at about $1 million per soldier.


Military Spending Weighs on Obama's Afghan Decision - FOXNews.com


So let me see if I have this straight....Billions in bail out funds for those who demo's are now painting as 'greedy', and unworthy. More than a Trillion for a stimulus package that was really little more than a boon of pork, and a thousand pages. And now considering a 2 thousand page 'Health care' package that costs over a Trillion that is nothing but a hammer of control over peoples lives.

All the while Obama travels the globe on his never ending apology tour, bowing to emperors, and Saudi Kings, and never addressing a direct question on whether or not he thinks that the decision to use 'the bomb' in WWII, ultimately saving hundreds of thousands of lives in the long run, was a good one.

This man is feckless, and a coward in my estimation, and the world sees it. Coming up on a year, and no accomplishments, other than spending this country into a grave, and transforming America into a laughing stock while emboldening our enemies, and giving rise to one world control through the UN.

What say you Charles?


Charles Krauthammer said:
The genius of democracy is the rotation of power, which forces the opposition to be serious -- particularly about things like war, about which until Jan. 20 of this year Democrats were decidedly unserious.


When the Iraq war (which a majority of Senate Democrats voted for) ran into trouble and casualties began to mount, Democrats followed the shifting winds of public opinion and turned decidedly antiwar. But needing political cover because of their post-Vietnam reputation for weakness on national defense, they adopted Afghanistan as their pet war.

"I was part of the 2004 Kerry campaign, which elevated the idea of Afghanistan as 'the right war' to conventional Democratic wisdom," wrote Democratic consultant Bob Shrum shortly after President Obama was elected. "This was accurate as criticism of the Bush administration, but it was also reflexive and perhaps by now even misleading as policy."

Which is a clever way to say that championing victory in Afghanistan was a contrived and disingenuous policy in which Democrats never seriously believed, a convenient two-by-four with which to bash George Bush over Iraq -- while still appearing warlike enough to fend off the soft-on-defense stereotype.

Brilliantly crafted and perfectly cynical, the "Iraq war bad, Afghan war good" posture worked. Democrats first won Congress, then the White House. But now, unfortunately, they must govern. No more games. No more pretense.

So what does their commander in chief do now with the war he once declared had to be won but had been almost criminally under-resourced by Bush?

Perhaps provide the resources to win it?

You would think so. And that's exactly what Obama's handpicked commander requested on Aug. 30 -- a surge of 30,000 to 40,000 troops to stabilize a downward spiral and save Afghanistan the way a similar surge saved Iraq.

That was more than five weeks ago. Still no response. Obama agonizes publicly as the world watches. Why? Because, explains national security adviser James Jones, you don't commit troops before you decide on a strategy.

No strategy? On March 27, flanked by his secretaries of defense and state, the president said this: "Today I'm announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan." He then outlined a civilian-military counterinsurgency campaign to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.

And to emphasize his seriousness, the president made clear that he had not arrived casually at this decision. The new strategy, he declared, "marks the conclusion of a careful policy review."

Conclusion, mind you. Not the beginning. Not a process. The conclusion of an extensive review, the president assured the nation, that included consultation with military commanders and diplomats, with the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan, with our NATO allies and members of Congress.

snip

Against Emanuel and Biden stand Gen. David Petraeus, the world's foremost expert on counterinsurgency (he saved Iraq with it), and Stanley McChrystal, the world's foremost expert on counterterrorism. Whose recommendation on how to fight would you rely on?

Less than two months ago -- Aug. 17 in front of an audience of veterans -- the president declared Afghanistan to be "a war of necessity." Does anything he says remain operative beyond the fading of the audience applause?


Charles Krauthammer - Obama Indecisive About Afghan Strategy - washingtonpost.com


Hear, hear Charles.

We live in sad times for this country my fellow countrymen.


j-mac
 
$1 Million per soldier? Man, we spend more money on one soldier, and on one bomb than the entire opposition has in their coffers.

Yet, we're still having to place the defensive game.
 
Military Spending Weighs on Obama's Afghan Decision

Since when has cost been a factor for this pres?
 
Military Spending Weighs on Obama's Afghan Decision

Since when has cost been a factor for this pres?


When it comes to showing America as strong, or able. After all he is the one traveling the globe on the "America sucks" tour.


j-mac
 
IMO, the U.S. should be careful to ensure that it makes sufficient investments in the military so as to meet the requirements that arise from its critical overseas interests. Needless to say, the hint of competition for funding between military needs and health care-related objectives is something that will become far more pronounced in the years ahead if the nation does not embark on a credible and sustained fiscal consolidation effort following the recession. A credible fiscal consolidation program would address the imbalances associated with the nation's mandatory spending programs.

At the same time, the growing cost differentials between the U.S. military and its foes is worrisome. In the long-run, financial considerations could give U.S. enemies an asymmetric advantage e.g., they would merely have to endure until the U.S. consumes its resources to the extent that the military efforts become politically unsustainable. Narrowing what is a growing cost-disadvantage is something that will need to be examined in a thoughtful and deliberate manner.
 
Fox has already been caught lying about Obama and his war-plans (citing "unnamed officials" as sources) once this week.
Come on.
This is just another feeble attempt to push him in the direction they want him to go.
"Obama's too cheap to protect our troops! He'd rather spend our tax dollars on giving free abortions to the poor!"

Who cares what anyone who takes Fox News seriously thinks? :roll:
 
Fox has already been caught lying about Obama and his war-plans (citing "unnamed officials" as sources) once this week.
Come on.
This is just another feeble attempt to push him in the direction they want him to go.
"Obama's too cheap to protect our troops! He'd rather spend our tax dollars on giving free abortions to the poor!"

Who cares what anyone who takes Fox News seriously thinks? :roll:

Care to back that up?

And please cite the evidence you have if the information was incorrect that Fox News knew their source was lying.
 
At least there is someone in the US political system that does not give a cart blanc to the military. All government spending should be under review including military spending.
 
At least there is someone in the US political system that does not give a cart blanc to the military. All government spending should be under review including military spending.

There is, really...who?:confused:
 
At least there is someone in the US political system that does not give a cart blanc to the military. All government spending should be under review including military spending.

yeah, let' put a price tag on soldier's lives.
 
yeah, let' put a price tag on soldier's lives.

Why not, you and your cohorts put a human lives in the domestic debate, so why not on soldier's lives too?
 
At least there is someone in the US political system that does not give a cart blanc to the military. All government spending should be under review including military spending.

Why do you hate America and love terrorists?


Seriously, military spending is HUGE. Why is it a surprise it is one of the many factors a President considers when making decisions?
 
Why do you hate America and love terrorists?

Well you know us non-Americans or non conservative Americans.. no wait, anyone who does not agree with the US right.. we are all communist neo nazi anti semitic racist Clinton terrorist lovers that eat babies and want to steal your women... :roll:

Seriously, military spending is HUGE. Why is it a surprise it is one of the many factors a President considers when making decisions?

Exactly. It is not putting the troops in danger or anything hyper partisan like the right would love it to be about. It is about something the right SHOULD be good at... fiscal responsibility, but sadly the right in the US lost this feel decades ago and do not understand what the words mean any more.. What do you expect from a party that gave blank checks to the military for years and borrowed to do it..
 
yeah, let' put a price tag on soldier's lives.

There is already a price tag on their lives.
I find it comfortingly steep.
Surely they'll take good care of them, when each soldier is costing them so much.
 
If I remember correctly I think we heard Liberals saying that Iraq was a lost cause and the Vietnam reference came up again.
"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid.

As I have said before and a about thousand times, our Military didn't lose the Veitnam War Politicians gave up after restricting targets and putting political considerations ahead Military strategy.

What was it Obama said about winning? Oh Yes;
"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.
First the dumb ass got it wrong. That never happened anyone who ever studied history knows Hirohito was not on the Missori and that Japanese Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu signed the surrender in September 1945.

In Aphganistan Obama first restricted Targets with a policy that requires that our troops not even fight back if the is any possibility of civilian injury or death. Gosh he effectively restricted.

Gee I wonder if that dumb ass policy gave the enemy any ideas on how to conduct operations?
In doing this Obama's clear bias favoring of his Muslim brothers became a major political consideration from the start. We have seen his allegiances come to the front when he went to the Middle East earlier this year and make concession speeches and bow to Saudi Royalty.

We have listened to Obama blame along with his Pastor and others around him blame America for just about every conflict and problem around the world for the last 60 plus years.

So in review of the facts and comparison to Vietnam.

1. Political considerations over Military objectives and Stratagy.......Check

2. Politicians Restricting targets.................................................Check

3. Having no will to Win............................................................Check

4. Cut funding to insure personnel and equipment shortages............Check

5. Built in excuse for losing. Blame his failures on Bush....................Check

And with that we see Obama's Plan to lose and give him a political way out. He does everything he can to insure there is no possibility of Victory while claiming to care. Then when he gets his wish he simply blames it on Bush for not winning sooner or for having the wrong plan or who knows. We can only be sure of one thing. Nothing was Obama's fault in the end. He's getting good at that just look at the failed economy strategy.

Good God I could take few people who's posts I've read here on this site and put together a team that could address all of our present issues and have solutions working to solve the problems almost over night.

All that is required for victory, which buy the way is about us being more secure at home, is to aloow the Generals do what they are trained to do and stay the hell out of the way.

To win a War you can not use half baked political ideas or half way measures. War is an all or nothing in it to win it situation. It;s not about National pride it's about Survival of Our Way of Life when we're talking dealing with radical Islamists.
 
Why not, you and your cohorts put a human lives in the domestic debate, so why not on soldier's lives too?

Hey, I support this Liberal school of thought, 100%. It'll only insure that they will get their asses voted out in the next few years.
 
Hey, I support this Liberal school of thought, 100%. It'll only insure that they will get their asses voted out in the next few years.

So you are for giving the military a blank check for whatever they want?

And you are a fiscal conservative? pathetic.
 
So you are for giving the military a blank check for whatever they want?

And you are a fiscal conservative? pathetic.

No, but I'm not in favor of running an army on the cheap, either.
 
No, but I'm not in favor of running an army on the cheap, either.

Who said he was thinking of that? You are the one accusing him of this along with your cohorts, but what proof do you have? NON as usual.
 
Who said he was thinking of that? You are the one accusing him of this along with your cohorts, but what proof do you have? NON as usual.

Well, when you're decision on whether, or not to send badly needed troops to a combat theater is determined by a price tag, then it's obvious that someone wants to do for as cheap as possible.

We're not talking about a billion dollar weapons system that the military may, or may not need. We're talking sending support to soldiers on an actual battlefield that is needed.
 
If I remember correctly I think we heard Liberals saying that Iraq was a lost cause and the Vietnam reference came up again.


As I have said before and a about thousand times, our Military didn't lose the Veitnam War Politicians gave up after restricting targets and putting political considerations ahead Military strategy.

What was it Obama said about winning? Oh Yes;
First the dumb ass got it wrong. That never happened anyone who ever studied history knows Hirohito was not on the Missori and that Japanese Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu signed the surrender in September 1945.

In Aphganistan Obama first restricted Targets with a policy that requires that our troops not even fight back if the is any possibility of civilian injury or death. Gosh he effectively restricted.

Gee I wonder if that dumb ass policy gave the enemy any ideas on how to conduct operations?
In doing this Obama's clear bias favoring of his Muslim brothers became a major political consideration from the start. We have seen his allegiances come to the front when he went to the Middle East earlier this year and make concession speeches and bow to Saudi Royalty.

We have listened to Obama blame along with his Pastor and others around him blame America for just about every conflict and problem around the world for the last 60 plus years.

So in review of the facts and comparison to Vietnam.

1. Political considerations over Military objectives and Stratagy.......Check

2. Politicians Restricting targets.................................................Check

3. Having no will to Win............................................................Check

4. Cut funding to insure personnel and equipment shortages............Check

5. Built in excuse for losing. Blame his failures on Bush....................Check

And with that we see Obama's Plan to lose and give him a political way out. He does everything he can to insure there is no possibility of Victory while claiming to care. Then when he gets his wish he simply blames it on Bush for not winning sooner or for having the wrong plan or who knows. We can only be sure of one thing. Nothing was Obama's fault in the end. He's getting good at that just look at the failed economy strategy.

Good God I could take few people who's posts I've read here on this site and put together a team that could address all of our present issues and have solutions working to solve the problems almost over night.

All that is required for victory, which buy the way is about us being more secure at home, is to aloow the Generals do what they are trained to do and stay the hell out of the way.

To win a War you can not use half baked political ideas or half way measures. War is an all or nothing in it to win it situation. It;s not about National pride it's about Survival of Our Way of Life when we're talking dealing with radical Islamists.

The problem with this war, the same as Vietnam, is the enemy is mixed in with the populace. There are two trains of thought here.

1. The military should be able to annihilate anyone and everyone and sacrifice morality. Let the civilians die with the radicals.

2. Be aggressive but restrictive to save civilian lives and sacrifice timeliness of completing the objective or completing it altogether.

There will always be radicals and terrorists. If we annihilated every populace group that was shown to have radicals in it this world would be a wasteland and the population cut in at least half. There is no winning a "war on terror" because terror will always exist. All we can do is defend our selves as best we can and make sure that one 1) it's near impossible to succeed on an attack on US soil 2) those that attack receive swift retribution for their act.
 
Well, when you're decision on whether, or not to send badly needed troops to a combat theater is determined by a price tag, then it's obvious that someone wants to do for as cheap as possible.

No. Typical right wing bs. You SHOULD know there is a political and military aspect of any war and unlike Bush, Obama actually has brain to understand both.

As it stands now the military as always wants more and more troops even though by last count they out number the enemy by 12 to 1. That is the military reality that the commanders have come too, based on their military assessment. There is no guarantee that sending another 40k troops will do anything to help the situation. What will you do if they come back and ask for another 40k? or 500k troops.. give them that too?

Now the political reality is that you have a very weak corrupt government in place that has very little support outside its government buildings.. and that is even a stretch. This political reality calls into question the present strategy in the whole war.

This war will NOT be won on the battlefield pure and simple, even the commanders on the ground have said so. So what use is it to send more troops into battle if they will not solve the political situation?

The Taliban are not going to go away, we will need to not only talk to them but also bring them into the fold again if we are to help Afghanistan. I dont like it one bit, but that is the reality of the political situation we are in and we have to deal with that.

As it stands now it seems to me the US commanders have not learned from the mistakes of Vietnam and think their limited success in Iraq can some how be repeated in Afghanistan...

We're not talking about a billion dollar weapons system that the military may, or may not need. We're talking sending support to soldiers on an actual battlefield that is needed.

Yes we are talking about sending more troops into a meat grinder that has at present has no end in sight. Now the question is, is it worth sending in more troops if you cant win or maybe it is time to find an alternative to the present strategy...

You see unlike Bush who could not even eat a freaking pretzel without nearly putting Cheney in the White House, Obama has a brain and huge intellect. He is not will to sacrifice the lives of thousands of American men and women if there is not a huge chance of being successful. That is called leadership.

So I fully understand that he wants to take his time to find the correct solution to the problem and not just put band aids on it by sending another 40k troops into an unwinable war. Like it or not the political situation MUST be solved and another 40k troops wont do a damn thing to help that...
 
At least there is someone in the US political system that does not give a cart blanc to the military. All government spending should be under review including military spending.

Except "stimulus" bills, bank bail-outs, and health care "reform". That stuff needs to be passed NOW NOW NOW!!!
 
Except "stimulus" bills, bank bail-outs, and health care "reform". That stuff needs to be passed NOW NOW NOW!!!

Yes and no, but that is a whole other discussion. Sending 40k troops into harms way with no political solution on the cards is just another Vietnam.. do you want that?
 
Except "stimulus" bills, bank bail-outs, and health care "reform". That stuff needs to be passed NOW NOW NOW!!!

Could you imagine the effect on the military had our entire financial system imploded?
 
Back
Top Bottom