Comments on: Can Obama stick to a surge in Afghanistan?

By: thebookkeeper

thebookkeeper — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:13:44 +0000

Unless there’s Velcro on what Jesse wants to remove, he won’t stick to nuthin’.

By: Maquis

Maquis — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:40:56 +0000

Are you kidding Ed? The man won’t even hold hearings on the country’s status even though that’s supposedly his current responsibility! He proves his incompetence by his inaction even while he demands to be put in charge of the whole enchilada. And I thought Kerry was the most flawed presidential candidate of my lifetime…

By: reliapundit

reliapundit — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:57:07 +0000

obama wanted to throw iraq under the bus.

he will certainly throw Afghanistan under the bus.

and he will throw israel under the bus – as soon as they attack iran.

and they will do it.

and the un will condemn them.

and only a usa veto will stop it.

WHO DO YOU TRUST WITH THAT VETO, MCCAIN OR OBAMA?

By: Texas Gal

Texas Gal — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:56:08 +0000

I think right now upon his return home, someone should ask Obama to define success in Afghanistan and is that separate from getting OBL?

And if he does succeed in getting our hands of OBL alive, what are his plans for prosecuting OBL?

Let’s get it on the record.

Of course, Obama will fight in Afghanistan based on his poll numbers.

I watched Charlie Wilson’s War this weekend. I highly recommend it. I know that it was a movie, but I’m assuming that the basic facts were correct. Now I’m even more convinced we will have to be in Afghanistan for 100 years! just to keep it from returning to a haven for terrorists.

By: mred

mred — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:55:17 +0000

Barry has no Malkins.

Jesse was successful?

By: drjohn

drjohn — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:42:17 +0000

Why would a surge work here if it wasn’t going to work in Iraq?

Anyone think to ask the Obamessiah that?

By: MB4

MB4 — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:35:38 +0000

Will Obama stick with the fight if it becomes less popular?

If it becomes too unpopular, should he? Should any President in a republic of the people, by the people and for the people?

By: Rick

Rick — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:21:49 +0000

Why don’t we focus on more important things, like limiting the US military’s carbon footprint – let’s make this a true green military. One that fights climate change, not causes it. That is a “surge” everybody can get behind : )

By: Steve Z

Steve Z — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:19:24 +0000

Obama in 2009: General, send your men over there!

General (pointing to map): But why there, Mr. President? The enemy is over here!

Obama: If you go where the enemies are, you’ll lose men and I’ll look bad. You see, I have judgment to lead.

By: maverick muse

maverick muse — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:18:57 +0000

Obamarx envisions himself as Napoleon revisited. After committing forces in spring uniforms to invade Russia, just as Napoleon evacuated HIMSELF from Russia in the dead of the 1812 winter leaving his troops on foot without coats to fend for their own frozen retreat, so Obamarx would lead our troops into the night. Whatever failings US forces suffered due to POLITICAL indecision in Viet Nam will pale compared to what Obamarx The Malleable will unleash, precisely to undo our military with his global socialist agenda. Without our military to defend America, we are finished, leaving all the more for Obamarx’s untouchables to gobble. This POTUS job means no more to Obamarx than any other on his easy route to power enabled by socialists. Even POTUS is just another step along his way to becoming an absolutely untouchable global elite. He can’t wait to get to the point of invisibility. He’s already practicing “now you hear me, now you don’t” and soon enough it will be, “you have no power over me, I have all power over you.” He will never fulfill any Constitutional responsibility (failing the onus to produce his legal and unaltered certificate of live birth) as he moves on to greener pasteurs. If the likes of Gaddafi spells it out for Americans that Obama is allowed to say ANYTHING in order to get elected and that his promises are lies, then truly there is no excuse for ANYONE to cry foul when Obamarx makes good on Marxism, destroying our Constitution and our country. The only consistent feature Obamarx maintains with his conartist finesse is absolutely IRRESPONSIBLE and MALLEABLE POSTURING.

By: Rick

Rick — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:17:51 +0000

“There is no military solution to Iraq Afghanistan.”

Rhinoboy on July 21, 2008 at 5:45 PM

Yes, “bring our troops home now!”

By: profitsbeard

profitsbeard — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:12:27 +0000

Obama is like a well-oiled windvane.

When it blows, he blows.

(Maybe because of his Weatherman friends.)

By: Terrye

Terrye — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:09:59 +0000

Obama will follow the polls.

By: Travis1

Travis1 — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:09:58 +0000

Sen. Evan Bayh went on CNN a few minutes ago and said that a surge in Afghanistan was Barack Obama’s idea. Is Barack Obama a good military strategist? Evan Bayh thinks so and so does CNN, who allows left wing lies to be spewed there daily, mainly through blowhard commenter, Jack Cafferty. CNN, in addition to Evan Bayh, is dishonest. And their dishonesty can be proven time and time again if someone wants to dig it all up. Is there any way to indict people for dishonesty?

By: Chakra Hammer

Chakra Hammer — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:05:34 +0000

Publicly, he has called for an additional two combat brigades to move from Iraq to the NATO alliance in order to bolster an increasingly shaky effort to defeat al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Under NATO control? Will they be lead and be taking orders from NATO?

Uhh huh..

By: warlocketx

warlocketx — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:05:23 +0000

The nasty thing there is that a “surge” won’t work in Afghanistan.

That’s because “the surge” didn’t work in Iraq in the terms many here accept it. Additional American/Coalition troops, even with the changes in tactics and ROE, did not make the crucial difference. What did make the crucial difference was the so-called “Awakenings” and corresponding events among the Shi’ia. Without that change in Iraqi attitudes, more troops would have been nothing more than more meat for the grinder regardless of tactics or leadership.

No such change is even hinted at as a possibility in Afghanistan. If anything, the reverse is the case — with the Pakistani Tribal Areas as a sanctuary, the Taliban and Islamists are gaining, not losing. Unless something changes in the hearts and minds of Afghans, particularly Pashtuns, sending the whole Army there wouldn’t make a noticeable difference.

Regards,
Ric

By: Rhinoboy

Rhinoboy — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:45:29 +0000

“There is no military solution to ~~Iraq~~ Afghanistan.”

By: oakpack

oakpack — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:40:28 +0000

So now this buffoon is a military strategist? He’s going to advise our generals on tactics? As Hank Hill put it, “just kill me now”.

By: Califemme

Califemme — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:40:20 +0000

Publicly, he has called for an additional two combat brigades to move from Iraq to the NATO alliance in order to bolster an increasingly shaky effort to defeat al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Who TF does he think he is to call for anything? He is NOT the president yet, no matter what those merci beaucoup fans tell him…

By: irishspy

irishspy — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:36:56 +0000

Ed:

Publicly, he has called for an additional two combat brigades to move from Iraq to the NATO alliance in order to bolster an increasingly shaky effort to defeat al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

This reminds me of something (among many things) that bugs me about the Harbinger of Hope, Change, and Waffles’ position on Afghanistan: If, as many leading Democrats have said, our military is overstretched, worn out, even “broken,” then isn’t rushing two brigades to Afghanistan from Iraq risking the cohesion of our military even further? Don’t they need rest, recreation, therapy, and grief counselors? (The latter two being a favorite of the “We’re all victims” meme the Democrats love.) Once again, they’re trying to have it both ways: “BushChimpHitler has broken the military” and “We’re smart enough to use it the right way in the right fight right now.”

Bah.

By: dustoffmom

dustoffmom — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:33:47 +0000

BHO ever dances on the strings of Soros, MoveOn and Kos. He will talk a big tale to get elected but that’s it. At the end of the day he is a spineless lib and has no stomach for any fight. The man simply does not have a clue…..48 hours incountry has made him the latest ‘expert’ on what is needed there. And his masses swoon!

By: KW64

KW64 — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:31:48 +0000

Obama’s party will demand a “peace dividend” whether there is peace or not because they want to spend much more money elsewhere. Obama may go along by proclaiming victory in Iraq and Afghanistan and leaving Maliki and Karzai to “stand up”. Actually, they will likely get their heads cut off but that will be blamed on them.

Maliki will regret endorsing Obama’s withdrawl date in Iraq. While Maliki did not mean it and only adopted it for political reasons, Obama really does mean it for political reason.

By: a capella

a capella — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:31:07 +0000

I assume the CiC also has to authorize the ROE, although having NATO involved may influence that. Using another HA poster’s description, potty training Barry while giving him authority over our troops’ ROE makes me pretty apprehensive.

By: Dusty

Dusty — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:30:39 +0000

[omnipotent on July 21, 2008 at 5:20 PM]

Yeah, except the result will look more like Rwanda than Somalia.

By: Janos Hunyadi

Janos Hunyadi — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:29:52 +0000

if the ‘command structure’ were ‘unified’ under a Barack Hussein administration, C.H., all that Unity of Command would not mean Squat.

As Egland noted, Obama would pull out as soon as there was a Rough Patch.

Fortunately, as I’ve been predicting here for months, there will be a McCain administration, not a BHO one, so the question asked in this post is rhetorical