• 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

Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think it could ever be credibly suggested that it is wise to commit more troops to a combat theater.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So what do you really think of the emporer's new clothes? :lol:

ok so the americans who have to sit around and be shot and killed "don't really matter" while Obama fiddles while Afghanistan burns.... Gotcha. :roll:
Click to expand...

Come on Rev, give the Pres. a break. After all, do you really expect quick decisions on a war from someone that took 4 months to decide what kind of dog to get?
 
American said:
"A good plan implemented today is better than a perfect plan implemented tomorrow."

— George Patton​
Click to expand...

Ya, but that assumes that this is at least a "good plan," which is the entire point in dispute. I doubt that Old Blood and Guts would say that a bad plan implemented today is better than a good plan implemented tomorrow. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
So you think that the president should only be allowed 20 days to decide on a major strategic shift in a war? That seems pretty important to me.
Click to expand...

That is not the point. He has been in office a lot more than 20 days.

And he is barely close up inspecting himself just now?
 
dirtpoorchris said:
That is not the point. He has been in office a lot more than 20 days.

And he is barely close up inspecting himself just now?
Click to expand...

And he has expanded the force in Afghanistan already once, and made other adjustments.
 
Redress said:
And he has expanded the force in Afghanistan already once, and made other adjustments.
Click to expand...

You realize that he only sent about 2,000 additional troops to the theater, right? Please, don't act as if he sent a ****load of new people.

What adjustments would those be?

IMO, I think he's figured out that he isn't going to leave Iraq as fast as he thought and he's got his ass in a crack. He's trying to figure out how to work this so it doesn't turn into a cluster ****, like everything else he's done.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
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.
Click to expand...

But one can make the decision to take time to make another decision. In this case, a good decision was required for the 'lucky' scenario. Consider my perceptive uncertainty thread in the religion and philosophy sub-forum.

But, they're not on the battlefield, which makes their opinion purdy much ****.
Click to expand...

If their opinion is worthless, than what is yours? I can't imagine you are on the ground right now typing on a political debate forum. Besides, what about Gen. McChrystal's report? How long do the logistics of deployment take?
 
Helte/2Skelter said:
If their opinion is worthless, than what is yours? I can't imagine you are on the ground right now typing on a political debate forum.
Click to expand...

Am I suggesting that McChrystal's plan is wrong? Am I saying wait? No, I'm saying go with the ground commander's assessment of the situation. No one can argue that his perspective is better than anyone else's.

How long do the logistics of deployment take?
Click to expand...

The logistics certainly take time. The longer we wait to deploy, the long it will take to get boots on the ground.
 
apdst said:
Am I suggesting that McChrystal's plan is wrong? Am I saying wait? No, I'm saying go with the ground commander's assessment of the situation. No one can argue that his perspective is better than anyone else's.
Click to expand...

I can argue against that. His perspective is narrow. He may or may not know about future strategy changes planned or in discussions. He probably is not entirely on top of overall force management and availability. He has a narrow focus, not a broad perspective. This does not mean he is wrong, and I am not claiming he is.

The logistics certainly take time. The longer we wait to deploy, the long it will take to get boots on the ground.
Click to expand...

There is a time limit certainly. I would strongly believe that a decision will be reached before that time limit, but until then, there is no reason to rush into a decision.
 
I can see the headline for a world doomsday scenerio already, "COMET IMPACT IMMINENT! Obama takes 20 day breather."
 
liblady said:
really? really? our troops have been shot at for how many years, and you're actually upset about weeks? how non partisan of you.
Click to expand...




If Bush did this I'd be the same way. If you need "Weeks" to make up your mind, you don't announce it.


What if you were in afghanistan, How would you feel not knowing what the mission is, and having so sit by for months waiting while being shot at?


The partisanship, is on you.
 
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...




70 days and two conversations with the general. His actions speak louder than words.
 
Another big concern of mine is that I've heard from three different sources that the rules of engagement have changed since civilians were killed in a missile strike a few months ago.

I've heard that artillery is being refused when called in to support ground troops that come under attack because they are afraid of hurting civilians.

I've also heard that air cover is is now limited. Helicopters and jets are only allowed to fire flairs and overfly the Taliban fighters to try and scare them away, but are not allowed to fire on them.

Like I said, I've heard this from three different sources that claim to have been on the ground, but I have not been able to confirm it. If this is true, the Obama administration is putting our troops in mortal danger.
 
Gill said:
Another big concern of mine is that I've heard from three different sources that the rules of engagement have changed since civilians were killed in a missile strike a few months ago.

I've heard that artillery is being refused when called in to support ground troops that come under attack because they are afraid of hurting civilians.

I've also heard that air cover is is now limited. Helicopters and jets are only allowed to fire flairs and overfly the Taliban fighters to try and scare them away, but are not allowed to fire on them.

Like I said, I've heard this from three different sources that claim to have been on the ground, but I have not been able to confirm it. If this is true, the Obama administration is putting our troops in mortal danger.
Click to expand...





When you find the source for this. Let me know. This would be outrageous.
 
apdst said:
A bad decision is better than no decision at all.
Click to expand...

So you're not one that in the health care debate is going "No plan is better than a bad plan"?

Or is that diiiiiiiiifferent
 
Watching some of the conservatives in here using the death of soldiers for political gain is absolutely sickening, and disgusting. It was disgusting for 8 years when liberals did it, with their obvious demented glee at times behind the fact that the bad news is coming out, and its disgusting here. All those doing it are insulting the troops, both past and present. There's legitimate things to talk about here, but stop with your grandstanding and capitalizing on the death of troops for your own pathetic political games.
 
Zyphlin said:
So you're not one that in the health care debate is going "No plan is better than a bad plan"?

Or is that diiiiiiiiifferent
Click to expand...




I think it is.


Right now we have troops sitting in harms way, waiting for Obama to make a decision.


Where it is the same, is that Obama is delaying the healthcare thing as well, putting it in others hand, afraid imo to do any heavy lifting.



Poop or get off the pot.


Take the politics out of it. Imagine sitting in kabul now, as a troop, how would you feel as the day go by? :shock:
 
I think weeks to take ANY action is idiotic.

I think taking weeks to determine and over arching strategy isn't bad.

Do we honestly thing "The surge" came about in the same time it takes to go on Leno and take a ****? That Bush woke up one day and went "I'm gonna do a surge" and boom it happened? Give me a freaking break.

If Obama is going to do absolutely nothing, his generals do absolutely nothing, and we're going to continue as we're doing in Afghanistan for 3 or 4 weeks...that's a problem.

If right now he's allowing the Generals to start shifting strategy abit, looking into at least shifting a few extra troops over there initially, while talking with his Joint Chiefs and directly or through them the generals to devise and over arching strategy over the next few weeks, I'll have no problem with it.

We won't know which of those is going to happen until about a week or so goes by and we see how its happening.

I'd be MUCH more confident in a massive shift in Afghanistan strategy if it was actually something that was given some serious thought and investigation rather than just going "DO THIS!" and throwing spaghetti against the wall and hoping it sticks.

Utlimately, I'd like a bandaid put on in the short term while attempting to fix the root of the problem. However, if its between just putting bandaid after bandaid on it while never fixing the root problem or letting it bleed a bit longer to then actually fix the root problem for good, I'd rather the later.
 
Zyphlin said:
I think weeks to take ANY action is idiotic.

I think taking weeks to determine and over arching strategy isn't bad.

Do we honestly thing "The surge" came about in the same time it takes to go on Leno and take a ****? That Bush woke up one day and went "I'm gonna do a surge" and boom it happened? Give me a freaking break.

If Obama is going to do absolutely nothing, his generals do absolutely nothing, and we're going to continue as we're doing in Afghanistan for 3 or 4 weeks...that's a problem.

If right now he's allowing the Generals to start shifting strategy abit, looking into at least shifting a few extra troops over there initially, while talking with his Joint Chiefs and directly or through them the generals to devise and over arching strategy over the next few weeks, I'll have no problem with it.

We won't know which of those is going to happen until about a week or so goes by and we see how its happening.

I'd be MUCH more confident in a massive shift in Afghanistan strategy if it was actually something that was given some serious thought and investigation rather than just going "DO THIS!" and throwing spaghetti against the wall and hoping it sticks.

Utlimately, I'd like a bandaid put on in the short term while attempting to fix the root of the problem. However, if its between just putting bandaid after bandaid on it while never fixing the root problem or letting it bleed a bit longer to then actually fix the root problem for good, I'd rather the later.
Click to expand...




I think you misunderstand me... 1st I think the clock started when he tapped McChrystal. Troops now know he has been on leno, 50 different tv apperances and campaigning for the olympics.

In that time, Obama spoke via VTC to mcChrystal once, and then again for 25 mins on the tarmack over in europe.


It sends a clear message on priorities. And that is harmful to the mission in my opinion.


This is not just "weeks" but "weeks" added on to months.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
When you find the source for this. Let me know. This would be outrageous.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it appears to be at least partially correct.

U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village.

The Marines were cut down as they sought cover in a trench at the base of the village's first layer cake-style stone house. Much of their ammunition was gone. One Marine was bending over a second, tending his wounds, when both were killed, said Marine Cpl. Dakota Meyer, 21, of Greensburg, Ky., who retrieved their bodies.
Click to expand...
'We're pinned down:' 4 U.S. Marines die in Afghan ambush | McClatchy
 
Zyphlin said:
Watching some of the conservatives in here using the death of soldiers for political gain is absolutely sickening, and disgusting. It was disgusting for 8 years when liberals did it, with their obvious demented glee at times behind the fact that the bad news is coming out, and its disgusting here. All those doing it are insulting the troops, both past and present. There's legitimate things to talk about here, but stop with your grandstanding and capitalizing on the death of troops for your own pathetic political games.
Click to expand...




I hope sir, you are not talking about the Greatness that is the Good Revernd. My concern, my only concern, is the troops.

Obama needs to make a decision already. Fiddling while they are in harms way, is not the right thing to do.


Put yourself in Afghanistan and think about how you would feel with no mission and no direction.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
So you're not one that in the health care debate is going "No plan is better than a bad plan"?

Or is that diiiiiiiiifferent
Click to expand...

It's extrememly different and no, I'm not one of the one's saying that no plan is better than a bad plan.
 
Zyphlin said:
Watching some of the conservatives in here using the death of soldiers for political gain is absolutely sickening, and disgusting. It was disgusting for 8 years when liberals did it, with their obvious demented glee at times behind the fact that the bad news is coming out, and its disgusting here. All those doing it are insulting the troops, both past and present. There's legitimate things to talk about here, but stop with your grandstanding and capitalizing on the death of troops for your own pathetic political games.
Click to expand...

I've yet to see any Conservatives do that, sir.

On the bright side, there aren't any KIA threads, "honoring", the troops.
 
apdst said:
I've yet to see any Conservatives do that, sir.

On the bright side, there aren't any KIA threads, "honoring", the troops.
Click to expand...




Drudge is posting pics of flag draped coffins. I have seen no threads using them as we were treated to during the iraq war from several posters here.


btw, shame on drudge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom