• 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 Reportedly Eyeing "McChrystal Lite"

Agent Ferris said:
Obama is getting his advice on Afghanistan from John "war criminal" Kerry. And the idea that the Secretary of Defense or Joint Chiefs know more about what's going on in Afghanistan than the lead General on the ground is ****ing asinine.
Click to expand...

Really? You know this how? What meeting have you sat in on?
 
RightinNYC said:
Again, Gen. McChrystal could be the smartest military expert in the world, but the only thing he has information about is the military situation. Obama has access to everything McChrystal says, as well as all the information from the CIA and State Department.
Click to expand...

Lol so now the CIA and State Department specialize in counterinsurgency operations? Um wait no they don't they provide intelligence to those who specialize in counterinsurgency operations. Now you do have the the CIA's Special Activities Division, however, I bet you my bottom dollar that they are telling Obama the exact same thing that McChrystal is and that is we need more 40,000 additional troops in order to provide adequate security and in order to actually hold territory.

Furthermore, you seem to be implying that the military's decision should be final. That's not how the constitution works - we have civilian control of the military for a reason. Pres. Obama's job is to take into account the analysis of the military, the CIA, the State Dept., and the public that elected him. Nobody else has the authority to make that decision.
Click to expand...

Obama is the CinC but he doesn't know **** about warfighting, the POTUS needs to listen to the Generals on the ground. For example that's why Hitler lost WW2 IE he thought he was a General when the real Generals were demanding that he finish through on Dunkirk with air power to take out the shipping and to finish up in North Africa which would have effectively taken the British out of the war before he set his sites on the Soviets.

But maybe you're right and FDR not Eishenhower should have lead the battle of D-Day and Bush shouldn't have listened to Petraeus, and Obama shouldn't listen to McChrystal. Brilliant.
 
Last edited:
Agent Ferris said:
Lol so now the CIA and State Department specialize in counterinsurgency operations? Um wait no they don't they provide intelligence to those who specialize in counterinsurgency operations. Now you do have the the CIA's Special Activities Division, however, I bet you my bottom dollar that they are telling Obama the exact same thing that McChrystal is and that is we need more 40,000 additional troops in order to provide adequate security and in order to actually hold territory.



Obama is the CinC but he doesn't know **** about warfighting, the POTUS needs to listen to the Generals on the ground. For example that's why Hitler lost WW2 IE he thought he was a General when the real Generals were demanding that he finish through on Dunkirk with air power to take out the shipping and to finish up in North Africa which would have effectively taken the British out of the war before he set his sites on the Soviets.

But maybe you're right and FDR not Eishenhower should have lead the battle of D-Day and Bush shouldn't have listened to Petraeus, and Obama shouldn't listen to McChrystal. Brilliant.
Click to expand...

Obama is also considering changing the objective in Afghanistan. McChrystal isn't.
 
Agent Ferris said:
Lol so now the CIA and State Department specialize in counterinsurgency operations? Um wait no they don't they provide intelligence to those who specialize in counterinsurgency operations.
Click to expand...

Have you paid attention to the news recently? The CIAs actions in Afghanistan are pretty well developed.

Now you do have the the CIA's Special Activities Division, however, I bet you my bottom dollar that they are telling Obama the exact same thing that McChrystal is and that is we need more 40,000 additional troops in order to provide adequate security and in order to actually hold territory.
Click to expand...

I bet my bottom dollar that you don't have the slightest idea that the CIA thinks.

Obama is the CinC but he doesn't know **** about warfighting, the POTUS needs to listen to the Generals on the ground. For example that's why Hitler lost WW2 IE he thought he was a General when the real Generals were demanding that he finish through on Dunkirk with air power to take out the shipping and to finish up in North Africa which would have effectively taken the British out of the war before he set his sites on the Soviets.

But maybe you're right and FDR not Eishenhower should have lead the battle of D-Day and Bush shouldn't have listened to Petraeus, and Obama shouldn't listen to McChrystal. Brilliant.
Click to expand...

Obama's job is to take the advice of his generals under consideration. The military does not make its own decisions.

If 95% of the country wanted to pull out of Afghanistan but the generals wanted to stay, should we have to stay?
 
This makes no sense to me.

McChrystal says we need 40,000 troops to maintain an effective CI campaign in Afghanistan and Obama considers sending roughly half?

The only explaination for this is that Obama's advisors think McChrystal is wrong and that the same objective can be accomplished with less troops; I don't see that as being likely.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
Maybe so, maybe no.

Do you remember Obama standing at the podium at the WH last March with Hillary Clinton at his right hand and Bob Gates at his left hand? The occasion was Obama's announcement of a New Plan for the War in Afghanistan. He said he would escalate the war by sending 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. He later added another 3-4,000 troops. Those forces are now in Afghanistan. Obama then fired General Kiernan and replaced him with General McChrystal. Now we're told that the Taliban are winning the war. What happened to Obama's New War Plan?

There are three policy alternatives on Afghanistan: (1) admitting defeat and completely withdrawing, (2) seeking military victory by giving McChrystal what he asked for, or (3) seeking stalemate by following the McChrystal Lite approach.

If Obama admits defeat and withdraws American forces completely he will save the lives of countless American men and women, but he will pay an incredible political price for surrender.

If he gives McChrystal what he wants America might theoretically win, but Americans are not prepared to spend the next decade fighting an insurgency in the Hindu Kush. Besides, Obama doesn't have the political support he needs to win his war. The Left will not support him, so he must rely on the Right for support. In other words he must place his war policy in the hands of his political enemies. How long do you think it will be before the Republicans figure out they have an opportunity to cut Obama's throat?

If Obama goes for McChrystal Lite the war will go on endlessly, and Obama will be beaten to death the same way Bush was. Bush was destroyed by Iraq, and Obama will be destroyed by Afghanistan.

No matter which approach Obama selects he is in for the political beating of his life. However, if he chooses to withdraw completely and immediately our children will live. Besides, we can't afford Guns and Butter. If he does withdraw Al Qaeda will reestablish bases in Afghanistan. So what? They have bases in Pakistan now.

Obama is not the problem. Like Bush, Obama is a symptom of the problem. The problem is the corrupt special interest political system we have created. Destroying Bush and the Republicans was like a nail in the system's coffin. Destroying Obama and the Democrats is a step along the same road.

You say I will have to wait and see. Don't you tired of playing defense? The Iraq War was used to bring down Bush. The Afghanistan War will be used to bring down Obama.

I've noticed a certain foreboding and sense of despondency among Obama supporters lately. We destroy our presidents. It's simply the nature of the political order that has evolved in America. It's the way Americans roll. I do have suggestions for a new political order in our country, but that is a subject for another thread.
Click to expand...

Look...we have a new President. Who along with SEVERAL knowlegable people's recommendation,(not just one General) can and will offer up his OWN PLAN for what our new direction will be in Afghanistan...it will not be your opion 1, 2 or 3 it will be an entirely different option it will be the President's option.
So you say "Now we are being told that the Taliban is winning" CARE TO PROVIDE A LINK?
and you say the NOW happens to be after the president took office and after he has added more troops to the theater....Tell me? How long do you think the taliban has been winning? One week? One month? FOUR YEARS?

You say that Afghanistan will be used to bring down Obama just as Iraq "WAS USED" to bring down Bush. Look Albert..Bush brought himself down with his actions in Iraq and the events surrounding it. Him and Cheney are to blame..nobody else. Just as President Obama OVERTIME will be judged on his actions and events surrounding his policies...this just isn't the time because his actions have yet to pan out..good or bad.

It is the time for the Righties to stop blaming everybody else for their faults and failures, find the guts to admit to them. Learn from them and support our President in making good choices in order to not repeat those same mistakes.

They should try that for a change.
 
RightinNYC said:
Have you paid attention to the news recently? The CIAs actions in Afghanistan are pretty well developed.
Click to expand...

The CIA's Special Activities Division is far far smaller than the military's Special Forces levels.

I bet my bottom dollar that you don't have the slightest idea that the CIA thinks.
Click to expand...

There is not one single counterinsurgency expert on the entire god damn planet that will say that you can defeat an insurgency with the troop levels currently in Afghanistan. In fact the General rule of thumb for any successful counterinsurgency strategy is 1 soldier to every 50 people in the population, McChrystal is actually asking for only appx. 1 NATO and U.S. soldier to every 200 people in the population, possibly because he feels that the indigenous Afghani military and security forces combined with private contractors can pick up the slack as they did in Iraq.

Obama's job is to take the advice of his generals under consideration. The military does not make its own decisions.
Click to expand...

Obama's job is to win the ****ing war or get the **** out not be a co-conspirator in the murder of U.S. soldiers because he ****ing refuses to listen to the Generals and would rather play politics with their lives in order to placate his radical base.

If 95% of the country wanted to pull out of Afghanistan but the generals wanted to stay, should we have to stay?
Click to expand...

Does 95% of the country want to pull out of Afghanistan?
 
Last edited:
The Prof said:
1. Evincing a characteristic cast for compromise, our courage-challenged Commander in Chief is reportedly on the cusp of calling for a middle course approach to the tactical crisis that is Afghanistan.

2. Unable to say "no" to his generals, compositionally incapable of executing an all-out war, Obama will typically embrace the resort of least resistance when he finally DECIDES TO DECIDE what to do with HIS hopeless hotspot in the mountains on the moon.

3. He'll give his homegrown general on the ground about HALF the troops the experts estimate are mandatory for triumph in the theater that the then candidate called the "right war."

4. McChrystal Lite, reportedly, is Obama's outlet.

5. More warfare, less results.

6. Lacking the courage to decamp, yet not committed ultimately to success, Obama, after months of public hair pulling and procrastination, adopts a "Yes, we can, No, we can't, Maybe, we'll see" strategy.

7. Either way, casualites are almost certain to increase with the combatant count.

8. Meanwhile, any chances of our succeeding are scant in the region which gutted Gorbachev.

9. The Russians warred with a WILL unknown in Washington, 200,000 ruthless Soviet soldiers slaughtered civilians for ten years.

10. Obama does NOT want to be there.

11. How can we win with such weak kneed, half hearted headsmanship?

12. Politics impel the president, not interests of United States security.

13. American lives must be sacrificed for salubrious survey results in USA Today.

14. And yet the war is pessimisticly unpopular across our entire landscape, except amongst neocons.

15. Obama's liberal base is outraged.

16. And anger will only augment with each meaningless massacre.

17. October was our meanest month, 55 unfearing fighters fell.

18. Twenty two more this week.

19. The enemy was alarmingly active in Kabul, assaulting a UN guesthouse.

20. Karzai is as corrupt as he ever was.

21. And then there's his brother, the poppy pusher.

22. Obama is at open odds with McChrystal, the Pentagon, the cabinet.

23. The great general weighs resignation.

24. This is OBAMA'S WAR, it is HIS problem.

25. It is KILLING him, politically.

26. And it will only get worse.




The Prof

Obama Reportedly Eyeing 'McChrystal Light' Plan for Afghan War With Small Troop Boost - Political News - FOXNews.com
Click to expand...


And the slow bleed begins.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
And the slow bleed begins.


j-mac
Click to expand...


So, what does this do to the democratic party members contention that the bush administration had too few troops in afghanistan if they themselves put.......too few troops in afghanistan? :confused:
 
Dutch said:
So, what does this do to the democratic party members contention that the bush administration had too few troops in afghanistan if they themselves put.......too few troops in afghanistan? :confused:
Click to expand...


The difference I would say would be that Bush's contention was that he wanted to win, and just blew it in an epic way. Obama on the other hand, and liberals as well don't want to win, they can't even tell you what victory would be. No, Obama wants some mythical understanding with the Taliban that without inflicting severe loss on them would be at best a lie.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
The difference I would say would be that Bush's contention was that he wanted to win, and just blew it in an epic way. Obama on the other hand, and liberals as well don't want to win, they can't even tell you what victory would be. No, Obama wants some mythical understanding with the Taliban that without inflicting severe loss on them would be at best a lie.


j-mac
Click to expand...

I have noticed an awful lot of posts where american liberals/democratic party members seem to be requesting "definitions" of winning. Odd. :confused:
 
goldendog said:
Care to post a link that supports the title of this thread?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I want to see that link too. Frankly I don't think he's eyeing anything. This clown is over his head, and what happened to all the wisdom that was going to bless us from the foreign policy expert VP? No where to be seen.
 
Dutch said:
I have noticed an awful lot of posts where american liberals/democratic party members seem to be requesting "definitions" of winning. Odd. :confused:
Click to expand...
That's because winning is unfair, and it doesn't sync with their fairness mindset.
 
goldendog said:
Look...we have a new President. Who along with SEVERAL knowlegable people's recommendation,(not just one General) can and will offer up his OWN PLAN for what our new direction will be in Afghanistan...it will not be your opion 1, 2 or 3 it will be an entirely different option it will be the President's option.
So you say "Now we are being told that the Taliban is winning" CARE TO PROVIDE A LINK?
and you say the NOW happens to be after the president took office and after he has added more troops to the theater....Tell me? How long do you think the taliban has been winning? One week? One month? FOUR YEARS?

You say that Afghanistan will be used to bring down Obama just as Iraq "WAS USED" to bring down Bush. Look Albert..Bush brought himself down with his actions in Iraq and the events surrounding it. Him and Cheney are to blame..nobody else. Just as President Obama OVERTIME will be judged on his actions and events surrounding his policies...this just isn't the time because his actions have yet to pan out..good or bad.

It is the time for the Righties to stop blaming everybody else for their faults and failures, find the guts to admit to them. Learn from them and support our President in making good choices in order to not repeat those same mistakes.

They should try that for a change.
Click to expand...

Goldendog, I salute you as a kindred spirit, but I'm going to have to respectfully part ways with you on these issues.

Debate styles vary from person to person. I call the debate style used in the preceding post the "filibuster method." I mean no offense, but that's what I call it. I prefer a different style. Call it what you will.


The Taliban are winning:

The Taliban are winning - Full Comment

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/taliban_winning_strategy.pdf

Taliban Now Winning - WSJ.com


How Long Have We Been Losing:

I would be happy to discuss the progress of the Afghan War with you. Have you followed the conflict closely? Imo, America has been losing the propaganda war for a long time. The Afghan Theater was a low level rural insurgency from 2002-2007 or so.

With new sanctuaries in the NWF and N and S Waziristan of Pakistan, the Quetta Shura of Mullah Omar, the Harquani (sp) group, the Hekmatier (sp) gang, and others rearmed, regrouped, developed new tactics, and recruited thousands of Pakistani madrassa students. In the spring and summer campaigns of 2004-2006 the Taliban operated in large units and were put to the sword by the thousands. But there were thousands of more recruits.

In the campaigns of 2007 something seems to have changed. They've learned from their mistakes, and have developed a new professionalism, discipline under fire, and tactics, e.g., being able to break off contact before smart bombs arrive. So I would measure America's declining martial fortunes from around the autumn of 2007 or so.

Bush/Obama

Bush? Culpable. Off with his head. But that does not relieve Obama of culpability in the CONTINUING deaths of Americans, Afghans, Pakistanis, Arabs, etc. Mein gut, after all he is the Commander in Chief.

You ask for patience for Obama. Sorry, but you can't always get what you want. It doesn't matter whether that's fair or not. It is what it is. He's bleeding. Detach your emotions from his success or failure.
 
goldendog said:
Look...we have a new President. Who along with SEVERAL knowlegable people's recommendation,(not just one General) can and will offer up his OWN PLAN for what our new direction will be in Afghanistan...it will not be your opion 1, 2 or 3 it will be an entirely different option it will be the President's option.
So you say "Now we are being told that the Taliban is winning" CARE TO PROVIDE A LINK?
and you say the NOW happens to be after the president took office and after he has added more troops to the theater....Tell me? How long do you think the taliban has been winning? One week? One month? FOUR YEARS?

You say that Afghanistan will be used to bring down Obama just as Iraq "WAS USED" to bring down Bush. Look Albert..Bush brought himself down with his actions in Iraq and the events surrounding it. Him and Cheney are to blame..nobody else. Just as President Obama OVERTIME will be judged on his actions and events surrounding his policies...this just isn't the time because his actions have yet to pan out..good or bad.

It is the time for the Righties to stop blaming everybody else for their faults and failures, find the guts to admit to them. Learn from them and support our President in making good choices in order to not repeat those same mistakes.

They should try that for a change.
Click to expand...

Goldendog, I salute you as a kindred spirit, but I'm going to have to respectfully part ways with you on these issues.

Debate styles vary from person to person. I call the debate style used in the preceding post the "filibuster method." I mean no offense, but that's what I call it. I prefer a different style. Call it what you will.


The Taliban are winning:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/02/19/the-taliban-are-winning.aspx

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/taliban_winning_strategy.pdf

Taliban Now Winning - WSJ.com


How Long Have We Been Losing:

I would be happy to discuss the progress of the Afghan War with you. Have you followed the conflict closely? Imo, America has been losing the propaganda war for a long time. The Afghan Theater was a low level rural insurgency from 2002-2007 or so.

With new sanctuaries in the NWF and N and S Waziristan of Pakistan, the Quetta Shura of Mullah Omar, the Harquani (sp) group, the Hekmatier (sp) gang, and others rearmed, regrouped, developed new tactics, and recruited thousands of Pakistani madrassa students. In the spring and summer campaigns of 2004-2006 the Taliban operated in large units and were put to the sword by the thousands. But there were thousands of more recruits.

In the campaigns of 2007 something seems to have changed. They've learned from their mistakes, and have developed a new professionalism, discipline under fire, and tactics, e.g., being able to break off contact before smart bombs arrive. So I would measure America's declining martial fortunes from around the autumn of 2007 or so.

Bush/Obama

Bush? Culpable. Off with his head. But that does not relieve Obama of culpability in the CONTINUING deaths of Americans, Afghans, Pakistanis, Arabs, etc. Mein gut, after all he is the Commander in Chief.

You ask for patience for Obama. Sorry, but you can't always get what you want. It doesn't matter whether that's fair or not. It is what it is. He's bleeding. Detach your emotions from his success or failure.
 
The Prof said:
14. And yet the war is pessimisticly unpopular across our entire landscape, except amongst neocons.
Click to expand...

Ok, Prof. What's this one all about? I call myself a neocon and I think we should get out! But I am willing to give Obama a shot. Let's see if the strategy changes.
 
hi, reefedjib

i admit i'm painting with a pretty broad brush, here, but that's what politics does

a neocon is a generally republican who differs with the party's traditional isolationist tendencies

a neocon is a republican who advocates a more activist foreign policy, especially in the middle east

Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative#Neoconservative_views_on_foreign_policy

it is slightly impolite to say it, but necons are often fundamentally motivated by an impulse to protect the interests of israel

irving kristol, recently deceased, is broadly considered one of the founders of the movement

i always thinks of fox news' bill kristol, founder of the weekly standard, irving's son, as today's face of neoconservatism

tho i was born a jew, i've always had my gentle, mild, respectful differences with that wing of the party i'm such a reluctant member of in the first place

i consider myself a genghis con, traditional old line reaganite

but, either way, there is little doubt in my mind that the strongest proponents of military success in afghanistan come from that component of our vivid political spectrum

libs by and large are outraged about american activity over there

isolationist rightists, old-line america firsters, harbor our reservations

but the neocon contingent is pretty motivated, is my observation

thanks for asking, please forgive any mistakes or overgeneralizations i might make or hold personally

take care

USA!!!

RED, WHITE and BLUE!!!

FOREVER!!!

cliff
 
Last edited:
The Prof said:
hi, reefedjib

i admit i'm painting with a pretty broad brush, here, but that's what politics does

a neocon is a generally republican who differs with the party's traditional isolationist tendencies

a neocon is a republican who advocates a more activist foreign policy, especially in the middle east

Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it is slightly impolite to say it, but necons are often fundamentally motivated by an impulse to protect the interests of israel

irving kristol, recently deceased, is broadly considered one of the founders of the movement

i always thinks of fox news' bill kristol, founder of the weekly standard, irving's son, as today's face of neoconservatism

tho i was born a jew, i've always had my gentle, mild, respectful differences with that wing of the party i'm such a reluctant member of in the first place

i consider myself a genghis con, traditional old line reaganite

but, either way, there is little doubt in my mind that the strongest proponents of military success in afghanistan come from that component of our vivid political spectrum

libs by and large are outraged about american activity over there

isolationist rightists, old-line america firsters, harbor our reservations

but the neocon contingent is pretty motivated, is my observation

thanks for asking, please forgive any mistakes or overgeneralizations i might make or hold personally

take care

USA!!!

RED, WHITE and BLUE!!!

FOREVER!!!

cliff
Click to expand...

My opinion, I am a neocon because of sharing those aggressive foreign policy goals. Otherwise I am pretty liberal, except for some economic items. The thing about AFG is that if we leave, the Taliban will fight their way to Kabul again. Not a pretty outcome. I'll see what Obama does.

USA!!! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom