• 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 vows to ‘finish the job’ in Afghanistan

"Occupying" is a bit of a stretch. How does one occupy a virtual desert run by a glorified gang of drug smugglers with no rule of law?

It is a staging area for the long, arduous task of gradually weeding out terrorists where they used to find complete freedom to roam.
so you're for staying indefinitely?
 
Aside my personal beef with the man....

Part of the problem - and hinderance - is that what we're really trying to do is take a country and a people who are use to ____ type of lifestyle, and giving them a new lifestyle.

Some like it
Some don't care
Some don't like it
some reaaaaaly don't like it.

We're fighting the people who really don't like it and along the way we have to try to make the don't cares and don't like it's - well - like it or at least accept it.

It's not just like we're going in and plucking out the foul fools - no one would complain about that - we're altering the way they've lived and existed as a whole people for who knows how long.

Sometimes change comes smoothly and sometimes it doesn't. . .and we're in the "it doesn't" situation with all of this right now.
 
targeted attacks, i think. really gone after bin laden. bombed the **** out of the taliban, but no occupying forces.

Also, where would you have launched these bombs from? You can't just send missiles over the top of countries without their permission. You need a base to work from.
 
so you're for staying indefinitely?

No, but I'm not leaving just because it's "hard". The more dedicated we are to it, the shorter it'll be.

For that matter, we're still in Germany. We're still in Korea. We're still in Japan.
 
No, but I'm not leaving just because it's "hard". The more dedicated we are to it, the shorter it'll be.

For that matter, we're still in Germany. We're still in Korea. We're still in Japan.

And we should not be in any of those countries, these are just prime examples that the taliban will use to continue to recruit....
 
And we should not be in any of those countries, these are just prime examples that the taliban will use to continue to recruit....

Well, maybe we can kill 'em as they recuit 'em.

I also like that it gives us a base in the middle east from which to hold Iran, Syria, and others in check, but that's a semi-unintended consequence.

Have you noticed how quiet Syria has been since we landed in Iraq?
 
good question. india?

So what's the difference? Again, Afghanistan barely qualified as a country. It's like occupying Antartica.

I don't really remember seeing Afghanistant sport a team in the Olympics or hold an election before we got there.
 
Last edited:
This is good news.
 
And now McClatchey and others are claiming that "finish the job" means "34,000 more troops"

Obama plans to send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan | McClatchy

Obama's come out to deny every one of these trial balloons so far, so I'm not putting much stock in this one yet.

Some fascinating stuff in that article.

The administration's plan contains "off-ramps," points starting next June at which Obama could decide to continue the flow of troops, halt the deployments and adopt a more limited strategy or "begin looking very quickly at exiting" the country, depending on political and military progress, one defense official said.

"We have to start showing progress within six months on the political side or military side or that's it," the U.S. defense official said.

It's "not just how we get people there, but what's the strategy for getting them out," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday.

However, just now on Hardball, they are saying that there are no hard deadlines, so not sure on all this. However, I do think we ned to set goals, and if we cannot meet the goals, in particular political ones, it might be time to start getting out.

As part of its new plan, the administration, which remains skeptical of Karzai, will "work around him" by working directly with provincial and district leaders, a senior U.S. defense official told McClatchy.

I find that fascinating, and really points to the trouble with the whole war in Afghanistan.
 
he's between a rock and a hard place.....damned if he does.......


can you imagine the outcry if we pulled out completely right now?

It would be the single biggest mistake of his presidency. It would definitely put him up there as the only president in history that retreated from a battlefield.
 
I must be the only person here who thinks Pres. Obama has done the right thing with Afghanistan by taking his time, pulling together his war cabinet staff, discussing matters with those nations that have a vested interest in how this War in Afghanistan plays out, i.e., Pakistan, India, England and even NATO, and reviewing every detail no matter how trivial it might seem in an effort to come up with a comprehensive strategy to stablize that country and place them on a footing to better government themselves.

As much as many would like to think otherwise, the War on Terror isn't an American war; the lives of many foreign nations were lost on 9/11. As such, the soveignty of several nations were brought into the frey on that dreadful day. It's only right that more nations reaffirm their commitment to halt terrorism in the region and bring a end to this war.

I think he has done the right thing in putting pressure on Pakistan to do alot more to combat terrorism in the south-west region where Taliban and Al Quaida are reportedly holding up, using that area as a safe haven. Why keep giving them millions of U.S. dollars if they're not going to step up to the plate? Perhaps most people overlooked this, but have you noticed how the Pakistan military has taken the fight to the Taliban of late rather than sitting back and waiting for the next terrorist act to occur? Have you noticed that British and NATO forces have begun to get more involved in the fighting? But more important, have you noticed reports coming out of Afghanistan itself where more training of local police and military forces is taking place and that more Afghan security personnel are patrolling the streets where U.S./coalition forces have strongholds?

I'm a long way from praising our President, but I think he has done the right thing here in taking the time to re-evaluate what's really going on over there and working with all entities to find a better way to fight this war and win it.
 
[/b]I must be the only person here who thinks Pres. Obama has done the right thing with Afghanistan by taking his time[/b], pulling together his war cabinet staff, discussing matters with those nations that have a vested interest in how this War in Afghanistan plays out, i.e., Pakistan, India, England and even NATO, and reviewing every detail no matter how trivial it might seem in an effort to come up with a comprehensive strategy to stablize that country and place them on a footing to better government themselves.

As much as many would like to think otherwise, the War on Terror isn't an American war; the lives of many foreign nations were lost on 9/11. As such, the soveignty of several nations were brought into the frey on that dreadful day. It's only right that more nations reaffirm their commitment to halt terrorism in the region and bring a end to this war.

I think he has done the right thing in putting pressure on Pakistan to do alot more to combat terrorism in the south-west region where Taliban and Al Quaida are reportedly holding up, using that area as a safe haven. Why keep giving them millions of U.S. dollars if they're not going to step up to the plate? Perhaps most people overlooked this, but have you noticed how the Pakistan military has taken the fight to the Taliban of late rather than sitting back and waiting for the next terrorist act to occur? Have you noticed that British and NATO forces have begun to get more involved in the fighting? But more important, have you noticed reports coming out of Afghanistan itself where more training of local police and military forces is taking place and that more Afghan security personnel are patrolling the streets where U.S./coalition forces have strongholds?

I'm a long way from praising our President, but I think he has done the right thing here in taking the time to re-evaluate what's really going on over there and working with all entities to find a better way to fight this war and win it.

No, you're not the only one that believes that stupid assed notion.
 
Why is it stupid for him to carefully assess the situation from all sides - military and political - before making a informed decision on how to proceed?
 
No. I appear to be the only person on this forum capable of admitting an obviously glaring truth:

Afghanistan doesn't have a viable export that can be used to generate monies to provide opportunities to its people better then those the insurgents can. It's why Bush never dealt with it in 7 years. Because it doesn't exist. Replacing Bush with Obama does not change this core central fact. What bothers me is that the partisans here don't understand what should be a really, really, really simple concept. But apparently if Obama is now dealing with the same problem Bush never fixed, only Obama deserves criticism. Frankly, neither of them deserve criticism because the problem cannot be fixed.

Hyperpartisan hypocritical loonies are everywhere here.

Problem is that Afghanistan is where the 911 attacks were launched from. If we had taken out bin Laden from the get-go, we could then have gone home in victory. Now we have Obama, who is going to do the same half-assed job Bush did.

Afghanistan was supposed to have been the "good war", where America would exact a heavy price on those who chose to screw with us. We should have bombed the whole country back into the stone age, then left, with a warning that, should another 911 ever happen again, the country responsible would be turned forever into a glassed-over, radioactive desert.
 
Why is it stupid for him to carefully assess the situation from all sides - military and political - before making a informed decision on how to proceed?

Because, as someone whose supposed to be a leader, he needs to display some decisiveness and the ability to think on his feet. What PBO has done was prove that he doesn't possess either quality and tried to pass it off as being careful. Caution is a bad thing in warfare. It sucks when politicians worry more about their politics than they do about their soldiers that on the battlefield.
 
Why is it stupid for him to carefully assess the situation from all sides - military and political - before making a informed decision on how to proceed?

because he strokes his chin so publicly, as indecesive as imelda marcos in a shoe store

he leaks contradictory "resolves" every few days

he disputes in the open with his commander in the field and his own defense secty

he undermines the confidence in our commitment of the indigenous
 
Because, as someone whose supposed to be a leader, he needs to display some decisiveness and the ability to think on his feet. What PBO has done was prove that he doesn't possess either quality and tried to pass it off as being careful. Caution is a bad thing in warfare. It sucks when politicians worry more about their politics than they do about their soldiers that on the battlefield.

It's better to be stupid than rational. It's better to be rash than thoughtful. It's better to be wrong than right.

Apdst has strange views, and lives in a strange world.
 
it's better to LOOK like a president than a fool

particularly if you occupy the oval office
 
It's better to be stupid than rational. It's better to be rash than thoughtful. It's better to be wrong than right.

Apdst has strange views, and lives in a strange world.

Warfare is an irrational business. What's normal on mainstreet is irrational on the battlefield. Too bad your personal attack blew up in your face.

Allow me quote General Patton:

The first objective of any fighting force, is to do more damage, in less time, than the enemy

PBO has failed to live up to that axiom.
 
He wouldn't be the first president or world leader to do that. Granted, at least he's not taking troops away from hunting down Bin Laden like a former president did.

For everyone that criticizes Obama on this, why have none of them actually addressed the real problem of lack of development that also existed under Bush?

Seems to me this is just another pathetic veiled partisan mode of attack.
You have clear evidence that he took troops away from that specific mission, which had adverse effects?
 
Originally Posted by obvious Child
He wouldn't be the first president or world leader to do that. Granted, at least he's not taking troops away from hunting down Bin Laden like a former president did.

Bush didn't take troops away from hunting UBL.
 
he's between a rock and a hard place.....damned if he does.......


can you imagine the outcry if we pulled out completely right now?

The outcry would be wholly justified. An immediate pullout would be catastrophic, both at home and abroad. If America withdraws to its borders en masse, expect the terrorists to:

a. Declare victory against America. This will reinvigorate their followers and help increase their ranks.

b. Consolidate their forces; rest, replenish, and reorganize. Prepare for the campaign in Western homelands, namely the United States.

c. Sabotage key infrastructure and kill as many civilians as possible until every last infidel is dead or converted; remember 9/11?

Withdrawing from the Middle East is exactly what the enemy wants us to do.
 
Back
Top Bottom