• 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 to take weeks to study Afghanistan strategy

ConservaBill said:
The blood of the 8 American soldiers that died this past weekend is on the hands of the anointed one and that my friends will NEVER wash off!

... as is every soldier that has died or been hurt since he read the report (I don't care when he received it, he's had it for over a month now!). His incompetence is screaming!:3oops:
Click to expand...

8 vs. how many who did because of Bush/Cheney's lies?
 
missypea said:
Saying things like this make you look really silly, Rev.

No president is going to just forget that there's a war going on.


:doh
Click to expand...

That's true. No matter how hard PBO tries to ignores the war, he'll never forget about it.
 
apdst said:
Yes, even moreso.
Click to expand...

Okay fine just jump in and see what happens. I'd rather have a careful and considered approach to the situation than just a hodgepodge.
 
winston53660 said:
Okay fine just jump in and see what happens. I'd rather have a careful and considered approach to the situation than just a hodgepodge.
Click to expand...

Well, you can study the situation till the cows come home, but time is money in these matters. There comes a point where you have to make a decision. The situation on the ground can't wait for you to study the situation and devise the perfect plan.

It's like this, if you make a decision, there's a chance that it won't be a good decision. If you don't make a decision, there's a 100% chance that a good decision will never be made.
 
apdst said:
Well, you can study the situation till the cows come home, but time is money in these matters. There comes a point where you have to make a decision. The situation on the ground can't wait for you to study the situation and devise the perfect plan.

It's like this, if you make a decision, there's a chance that it won't be a good decision. If you don't make a decision, there's a 100% chance that a good decision will never be made.
Click to expand...

Decisions have been made. In fact, what is requested is a change in a decision that was made. There is no chance of no decision.
 
apdst said:
Well, you can study the situation till the cows come home, but time is money in these matters. There comes a point where you have to make a decision. The situation on the ground can't wait for you to study the situation and devise the perfect plan.

It's like this, if you make a decision, there's a chance that it won't be a good decision. If you don't make a decision, there's a 100% chance that a good decision will never be made.
Click to expand...

I don't think you will ever acknowledge the approach as good or bad Obama takes to the Afghanistan situation even if he nukes the place or turns the nation into ally. The only thing you are worried about is the fact Obama is a Democrat and I suspect you would be secretly happy if more troops parished under his tenure at the very least you would use it for political gain not the gain of the troops or the USA.
 
Redress said:
Decisions have been made. In fact, what is requested is a change in a decision that was made. There is no chance of no decision.
Click to expand...

The decision has been made not to send additional troops to the ATO? When was that?
 
winston53660 said:
I don't think you will ever acknowledge the approach as good or bad Obama takes to the Afghanistan situation even if he nukes the place or turns the nation into ally. The only thing you are worried about is the fact Obama is a Democrat and I suspect you would be secretly happy if more troops parished under his tenure at the very least you would use it for political gain not the gain of the troops or the USA.
Click to expand...

You're wrong. If PBO makes a good decision, then I'll give credit where credit is due. I gave PBO his props in the past for continueing his drone attacks on hostile targets in Pakistan. So far, however, PBO hasn't made a decision and that is what I'm critical of. He needs to listen to his theater commander, that he promoted and make a decision.
 
apdst said:
The decision has been made not to send additional troops to the ATO? When was that?
Click to expand...

No, you are not following. In fact, the decision to send 2 additional brigades was made shortly after Obama took office, and decisions on strategy have been made during his tenure. The operational orders that the military is acting under are a decision. What has not been done is a decision on an addition 40k troops, while the pentagon and White House decide if that is the best course of action. As I understand it, the troop increase would arrive in January time frame, so there is some time to debate before the decision is time critical.
 
apdst said:
You're wrong. If PBO makes a good decision, then I'll give credit where credit is due. .
Click to expand...

But you have already stated good or bad you don't care what decision he makes.
 
apdst said:
Well, you can study the situation till the cows come home, but time is money in these matters. There comes a point where you have to make a decision. The situation on the ground can't wait for you to study the situation and devise the perfect plan.

It's like this, if you make a decision, there's a chance that it won't be a good decision. If you don't make a decision, there's a 100% chance that a good decision will never be made.
Click to expand...

100% isn't quite true. There is some probability that changes could occur for the better on the ground while deciding, in which case waiting would have been a good decision.

I just heard an interview with two generals (Newshour) of opposing views on Afghanistan strategy agree that a decision on Afghanistan strategy is not urgent. Neither expressed worry about Pres. Obama taking some time to make the decision.
 
Redress said:
No, you are not following. In fact, the decision to send 2 additional brigades was made shortly after Obama took office, and decisions on strategy have been made during his tenure. The operational orders that the military is acting under are a decision. What has not been done is a decision on an addition 40k troops, while the pentagon and White House decide if that is the best course of action. As I understand it, the troop increase would arrive in January time frame, so there is some time to debate before the decision is time critical.
Click to expand...

The facts are, the theater commander has requested additional troops. The president is dragging his ass making the decision to fill that request. The longer they wait to decide, the longer it will be before the troops will arrive in country. They can't decide in December to dploy 40,000 troops and expect to have them there by January.
 
winston53660 said:
But you have already stated good or bad you don't care what decision he makes.
Click to expand...

I don't think I ever said that. But, if I said that, or anything remotely close to it, then I certainly retract that statement.
 
Helte/2Skelter said:
100% isn't quite true. There is some probability that changes could occur for the better on the ground while deciding, in which case waiting would have been a good decision.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess crossing your fingers might work, but probably, not. On a battlefield, indecision usually doesn't improve the situation.

I just heard an interview with two generals (Newshour) of opposing views on Afghanistan strategy agree that a decision on Afghanistan strategy is not urgent. Neither expressed worry about Pres. Obama taking some time to make the decision.
Click to expand...

They're not the theater commanders, either. So, their opinions are just that, opinions.
 
apdst said:
I don't think I ever said that. But, if I said that, or anything remotely close to it, then I certainly retract that statement.
Click to expand...

Okay cool it was the impression I got from what you had said. In the end good and bad decisions are going to be made. I hope they work out for the benefit of the world populace and we can curb this needless violence that is propagated.
 
winston53660 said:
Okay cool it was the impression I got from what you had said. In the end good and bad decisions are going to be made. I hope they work out for the benefit of the world populace and we can curb this needless violence that is propagated.
Click to expand...

I agree with that sentiment. However, I just can't abide by indecision.
 
apdst said:
The facts are, the theater commander has requested additional troops. The president is dragging his ass making the decision to fill that request. The longer they wait to decide, the longer it will be before the troops will arrive in country. They can't decide in December to dploy 40,000 troops and expect to have them there by January.
Click to expand...

It's not December, there is a window of opportunity to commit more troops, and there is a possibility that it is not wise to commit those troops, which is almost certainly what is being discussed.
 
apdst said:
The facts are, the theater commander has requested additional troops. The president is dragging his ass making the decision to fill that request.
Click to expand...

Other members of the top military brass are highly skeptical of this plan. There is hardly unanimity here. Rushing into a decision would be a mistake.

apdst said:
The longer they wait to decide, the longer it will be before the troops will arrive in country. They can't decide in December to dploy 40,000 troops and expect to have them there by January.
Click to expand...

What's your point? George Bush could have ordered a deployment last year. Circumstances have changed since then, you say? Then they could change again in the next few months, so what's the hurry?
 
apdst said:
Yeah, I guess crossing your fingers might work, but probably, not. On a battlefield, indecision usually doesn't improve the situation.
Click to expand...

Probably not, I am just stingy about using 100% to describe the probability of any real event.

They're not the theater commanders, either. So, their opinions are just that, opinions.
Click to expand...

Given their expertise, they are probably the best that can be gotten that are not currently on the battlefield. As for Gen. McChrystal, he is talking about getting more troops within the next year. Do you know about how long the logistics of deployment is? This may allow us to produce a reasonable estimate of how much time Pres. Obama has to be within Gen. McChrystal's current time-line.
 
Kandahar said:
You'd rather he make a rash decision without collecting evidence and consulting all of the relevant people? Once upon a time we had a president who tried that strategy. Our troops ended up in Iraq.
Click to expand...
"A good plan implemented today is better than a perfect plan implemented tomorrow."

— George Patton​
 
Kandahar said:
Other members of the top military brass are highly skeptical of this plan. There is hardly unanimity here. Rushing into a decision would be a mistake.
Click to expand...

Care to point out who those members are? So far, everyone that is actually in the chain of command agrees with McChrystal's assessment.



What's your point? George Bush could have ordered a deployment last year. Circumstances have changed since then, you say? Then they could change again in the next few months, so what's the hurry?
Click to expand...


It's called, "risk assessment". You plan for the worst, hope for the best. We must assume the worst, prepare for it; if we deploy additional forces and events on the ground develope differently and they're not needed, then that's ok. It's better to have'em and not need'em than to need'em and not have'em.
 
Helte/2Skelter said:
Probably not, I am just stingy about using 100% to describe the probability of any real event.
Click to expand...

No, it's a fact, if no decsion is made, there's a 100% chance that a good decision will not be made. Getting lucky doesn't factor in.



Given their expertise, they are probably the best that can be gotten that are not currently on the battlefield. As for Gen. McChrystal, he is talking about getting more troops within the next year. Do you know about how long the logistics of deployment is? This may allow us to produce a reasonable estimate of how much time Pres. Obama has to be within Gen. McChrystal's current time-line.
Click to expand...


But, they're not on the battlefield, which makes their opinion purdy much ****.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom