Unless, Boo, you want to argue that Obama is deliberately sending more American men in uniform than necessary to their death in order to knowingly put into place a failed strategy?
Last edited by cpwill; 06-13-12 at 09:11 AM.
The Anbar Awakening was largely a grassroots Iraqi initiative to replace the provincial government with an emergency government led by the Awakening leadership. Police recruitment and partnering with the United States were means to that end.
As Sheikh Sattar was successful in gaining U.S. support in police recruitment, his popularity and influence grew. And as the Anbar Awakening in Ramadi was successful and gained more U.S. support, his vision of the Awakening also grew. He started talking about expanding the Awakening beyond Anbar and even Iraq, envisioning it as a way of changing the Sunni world.
If the Awakening leadership were able to tap into that power and use it to expel al Qaeda from Anbar, they would be able to claim that they had conquered an enemy the strongest military in the world could not defeat—negating the argument that they were collaborating with the Americans.
U.S. support for the Awakening changed, though, in February 2007, when General Petraeus replaced General George Casey and first heard about tribal movement. In an effort to expand the influence of the Awakening, General Petraeus started the Sons of Iraq program for operations in Diyala and Baghdad, usually paying Sunni tribesmen in al Qaeda– infested areas to work as paramilitaries with the hope that someday they would be integrated into the Ministry of the Interior. Initially, the ethnosectarian parties in the government agreed to integrate the Anbar Awakening fighters into the ministry because they were from a homogeneous Sunni province that was a former al Qaeda sanctuary. (My note: It had already started, now we take advantage)
The surge did not have a role in the Anbar Awakening. Surge troops that came to Anbar in 2007 were not seen as useful, other than on the eastern border with Baghdad where the ISF acted as a sectarian militia. In fact, U.S. troops in general were not seen as useful even before the surge.
This is a no-brainer - OBAMA, hands down.
A check of both WhiteHouse.gov under "Defense" and "Veterans" clearly shows President Obama is doing and has DONE so much more for our Defense Department, active duty service personnel and their families and veterans. A review of MittRomney.com, however, only covers information on "National Defense" where he details (loosely, I might ad) how he'd appropriate funds to add more ships to our Navy or increase the size of our Air Force fighter squadrons. In short, Mitt Romney would rekindle the military industrial complex. Thing is, most of his information is WRONG! Such as the following line from his website:
Oh, really, Mr. Romney? Care to explain how the latest smart bombs, advanced weapons capable of shooting around corners, or the latest in snipper riffle technolog such as the Army's XM2010 with an effective range greater than 2,000 meters has found its way into combat action in Afghanistan? Or how he used Stealth Helicopters in concert with SealTeam 6 using the most advanced weaponry to kill OBL?The Obama administration’s cuts have left us with a military inventory largely composed of weapons designed forty to fifty years ago.
I mean, c'mon, people. Some things are just clear cut! There's no argument as to which person is doing and HAS DONE MORE or will do for our military. One clue as to who it's not: MITT ROMNEY! But don't take my word for it. Just go to the aforementioned web sites and check out the facts for yourself.
Last edited by Objective Voice; 06-13-12 at 02:05 PM.
Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
Granted, President Obama did implement an increase in troop force similar to the surge that was used in Iraq, but let's get a few things straight about that.
1. It took GW Bush nearly a year to finally decide to switch tactics and go with the surge long after Gen. Petraeus recommended a new "counter-insurgency" strategy over the "counter-terrorism" strategy that was in place. Source: The War Within by Bod Woodward and The Gamble by Thomas E. Ricks
2. It took President Obama a mere 6 months to make a similar decision concerning Afghanistan. Source: Obama's Wars by Bod Woodward
Now, granted, President Obama had the advantage of hindsight in his favor - his ability to review the mistakes made concerning implenting the Iraq surge and the military leaders at his disposal. There's also the fact the w/Petraeus' military acumen at his disposal, President Obama and his defense team combined facets of counter-terrorism w/counter-insurancy to tackle the AfPak problem. So, it's the same as the surge but different. (See "Memorandum for the Principals: President Obama's Final Orders for Afghanistan/Pakistan Strategy or Terms Sheet" at the end of the book, "Obama's Wars" for details)
Last edited by Objective Voice; 06-13-12 at 02:28 PM.
”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin