Fred Thompson: “The war in Afghanistan has been lost”
posted at 4:51 pm on November 19, 2009 by Allahpundit
Ace makes a good point in distinguishing this from Reid’s infamous declaration that the war was lost in Iraq: Dingy Harry was aiming at withdrawal, which would have assured the outcome he had in mind, while Fred’s trying to pressure Obama into committing to the war and proving him wrong. Even so, this is a rotten thing to say when troops are in the field, with morale already sagging. But don’t take my word for it. Take Fred Thompson’s:
HANNITY: The biggest battle we have is this war on terror, this battle in Iraq. We have a really deep divide in the country. Senator Reid the war is lost. We still have to finish the job there. Where do you stand in general on the war on terror and, more specifically, in Iraq, and on the divide surrounding Iraq?
THOMPSON: Well, let’s talk about Senator Reid for a moment. Right before I came over here, I was sitting outside, getting a bite to eat, before we did our interview. A young woman [former Army captain] came up and asked if she could sit down and talk to me a minute… I asked her what she thought about this. She said, “How in the world can anyone, any one of our leaders, declare war, declare that the war has been lost when we’ve got troops in the field? My friends are over there in the field. I know what they think about this.”
And, of course, it’s just like all other Americans think. The very idea that they would do this and undercut our efforts over there is unprecedented. And it’s not only unprecedented; it’s awful politics.
Awful politics indeed. That blockquote comes courtesy of Vets for Freedom founder Pete Hegseth, who proceeds to lay Thompson out for his double standard and for jumping the gun:
President Obama may not be many people’s preferred commander in chief, but he is our commander in chief. He still may commit sufficient resources to Afghanistan, and it’s almost certain that his generals will support additional troop levels. Our warriors will take the fight to the enemy, and hopefully turn the tide in Afghanistan.
The war is not lost, but it could be lost; especially if our political leaders, and political commentators, start making statements like this. There may be a point at which the war in Afghanistan is no longer worth pursuing, but it’s certainly not before the president announces his decision on troop levels and our top-tier generals are given a chance to execute a counterinsurgency strategy.
I assume Fred said this now rather than later precisely because Obama hasn’t made his decision yet; if the GOP’s going to pressure him on troop levels, there’s no logic in waiting until after he’s given the orders. But let’s say the gambit fails and The One ends up giving McChrystal only 25,000 of the 40,000 troops he asked for. What are soldiers stationed in Afghanistan, some of whom are undoubtedly Thompson fans, supposed to do with his declaration of defeat then? McChrystal will be trying to rally them to believe that they can do the job even though they’re shorthanded — and meanwhile here’s a leading conservative telling them that they can’t, that they’re fighting for a lost cause. Terrific.
Update: Commenters are arguing that if we’re only going to fight at half-strength, to “lose with honor,” then we’re better off bringing everyone home and saving some American lives. That’s a noble sentiment — I’m sure I’ve said it before myself — but the hard, cold fact of the matter is that bringing them home isn’t an option that’s being considered. McChrystal’s either going to get the troops he wants or some fraction thereof, and he’ll have to try to secure the country with what he’s got. Which way do righties want to play it going forward? Trying to win with the resources available or sporadically telling the troops who’ll have to fight the rest of this war under tough conditions that they’re destined to lose?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
And that is not only the point, but a fact…do you think Obama has the will power and desire to win this war?
right2bright on November 19, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Flip a coin. Under Obama, neither one has a happy ending. Obviously the point was the Obama should be considering options that he’s not considering.
Ronnie on November 19, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Last November, Obama was going to fight the good fight in Afghanistan, and the Left voted for him. Now he isn’t sure if he wants to fight the good fight in Afghanistan. At least his actions so far don’t show that he wants to continue the good fight in Afghanistan. He also hasn’t brought home the troops from Iraq, which is what the left also voted for.
Fred should have said that Obama has lost, or is losing the will to win in Afghanistan, or that Afghanistan is Obama’s Viet Nam. He should not have said that the war is lost.
PappaMac on November 19, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Now, I forget, what are you? A commie or a Paulbot?
Terrye on November 19, 2009 at 5:31 PM
During my first tour we were winning the war and had the support of the people. During my second tour we were winning the war but had lost the support of the people. When popular support was gone the troops were in fact brought home. Furthermore, during that dark time moral was low, discipline was bad and the nation was sick. A quick answer to your question is that soldiers should not be asked to sacrifice themselves if their country cannot willingly and completely support their needs and efforts.
rplat on November 19, 2009 at 5:31 PM
I wouldn’t bet on that at all. I would not put it past O to give McChrystal only part of what he’s asking for, in the hopes that the “quagmire” continues, so that O can come back in 2012 and order a complete withdrawal as a political move in order to shore up the Left in time for his re-election bid.
He’s a shitty Chief Executive, but sometimes his political sense is pretty strong. He’s against the war, but knows he can’t pull out yet. 2+ more years of high pain in the AfPak theatre gives him cover, and a potential political win.
nukemhill on November 19, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Another thing I might as well get off my chest here. I don’t really think Obama is dithering or that his indecision is causing us to lose the war in Afghanistan. I think he has decided, and that he wants us to lose. I belive he is on the other side.
MikeA on November 19, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Paulbot. Though he might be the one that thought Paul isn’t even isolationist enough. Can’t quite remember.
amerpundit on November 19, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Remembered by who? All the lefty anti-military Bush-hating Democrats who have in their hearts from the very beginning believed the war was lost. Who gives a crap what they think? What Thompson said hasn’t changed their minds one iota. What Thompson said will not be taken in a bad light by our troops. What CNN says about what Thompson said will have no impact on our troops or how they continue to fight the war, whether this forces Obama to get off of his lazy arse or not.
The day hasn’t come yet when I am swayed by anything I hear on CNN or MSNBC. I’m smarter than that. So are our troops.
fogw on November 19, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Yeah, because Americans are so stupid, we can’t figure out what Fred said and why and what he means.
Oh, yeah…you might be right. I watch the senators of this country…yeah..Americans are too stupid…
bridgetown on November 19, 2009 at 5:33 PM
This is not the Fred Thompson I thought I knew.
Here’s the thing: I know what he was trying to say, but he should have been either much more articulate or possessed much more restraint. It’s like the Rush Limbaugh “I hope he fails” thing.
Matticus Finch on November 19, 2009 at 5:34 PM
I have to disagree here. I think it is to time to understand that bucking up the morale of people in the field while not fighting a mentality that would only kick the can of defeat down the road is not, at the end of the day, ethical. This is not politics, in the normal talking head mode of “gotcha”. It is just being blunt on Senator Thompson’s part.
Unless things change, I see a repeat of the Vietnam experience–and this time, to answer MikeA’s questions–yes, you pull them out if you know that is going to happen. Because the only reason they died if you leave them there is to buck up some pols poll numbers. The Chief Executive needs to stop dithering. Pull out, or find a way to win with a will to win.
And for the record, I see no reason why we cannot win there. Only requires a little imagination–and perhaps 5-10 years. The key is to do it organically–grow yourself an Afghanistan, one village at a time, that is suitable for what you want–perhaps a flinty federation of regions and tribes, somewhat like the Greek city-state leagues of the Hellinistic period, before the Romans.
We need stability, eradication of corruption, and education of the populace: teachings of moderate Islam (which can be had), some mix of an educated culture suitable to the Afghani mind (perhaps admixtures from Persian culture), and education in basic literacy so that the men of the tribe can act as men among men, able to govern themselves in a hierarchical tribal structure. The key to a stable Afghanistan lies not in a central state, but in the structures of the past admist a virtuous population. All that can be found in the finest traditions of Islam.
We just need to adopt a suitable governance to the character of the Afghan people as they are now and as they could be in ten-twenty years–after that they will take care of the rest.
And speak to me not of the economy–men have been living subsistence livelihoods since the beginning. All they need is hope that tomorrow will be better than today, and the day after tomorrow better than that. That can be had.
Horatius on November 19, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Listen again, that is what he said, his summation was that it is lost because of Obama.
He states…The war is lost, it didn’t have to be that way, it doesn’t have to be that way, it is a sad and simple fact, Obama does not have the will or determination to win this war…
right2bright on November 19, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Honestly, I can’t say I’ve paid very much attention to him up to this point.
The Dean on November 19, 2009 at 5:34 PM
He’s an anti-semitic Hitler-excusing troll.
MadisonConservative on November 19, 2009 at 5:34 PM
What am I missing? I read this like 6 times and have no idea what the hubbub is about.
And AP, I really don’t care how the media uses the narrative if they twist it and make crap up.
This doesn’t compare with what Reid said back in the day.
JeffinOrlando on November 19, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Nothing. President Obama’s dithering is losing this war, and I’m not making any kind of political statement in saying so.
But the war is not lost.
And our guys, thousands of them, aren’t coming home no matter what number President Obama ultimately decides to settle on. So you can put pressure on him, and the Dems, to ignore their base and commit the resources required, or you can sound like a saggy breasted Code Pink member and cry that it’s already over and we should all come home.
It’s amazing to see people here concede the war while tens of thousands of Americans are still bleeding trying to win it.
BadgerHawk on November 19, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Splashman:
It is not necessary to create a Jeffersonian democracy in Afghanistan. A loosely formed confederation with a stable security force might be the most you can hope for in the short term anyway.
But the truth is that just bombing the place won’t keep the Taliban or AlQaida out. Years of bombing and war and destruction actually helped establish AlQaida and the Taliban in the region in the first place.
Terrye on November 19, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Context and ground truth have no bearing? So if Obama doesn’t care about winning the war in Afghanistan, would just assume lose except that withdrawing would entail political costs that he’s not willing to pay, thus he leaves troops in the field taking casualties while withholding the resources and man power required to win—and Fred points this out, it just doesn’t matter, Fred was wrong?
FloatingRock on November 19, 2009 at 5:36 PM
Hell yes!
Terrye on November 19, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Obama doesn’t have to have the desire. McChrystal does. Gates does. A re-taken Congress does. Enough people around him can beat him into temporary sense, hopefully.
MadisonConservative on November 19, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Boy,thats blunt,and the gawd awful truth!!!
And,Fred Thompson nails it!
Obama has been dithering and Liberally Lolly-wagging
his F’n sweet time,last count was another few weeks
on a decision,
another glorious keep kick’n the infamous can down the
road grand stalling Lefty tricks tactic!!
===========================================================
OBAMA NEVER EVER HAD A STRATEDGY,he BULLSH*TTED himself
right through campaigning on into the Presidentcy!!
He alone,has failed,the American people,the American soldiers,and is delibertately putting young men in harms
way,
IMPEACH THE PRESIDSENT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHO SIDE IS OBAMA ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BTW,whens Obama next date after Thanks Giving,New Years,!!
———————————————————-
President Obama will not announce his decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan before the Thanksgiving holiday, senior aides said Thursday.
===========================================================
canopfor on November 19, 2009 at 5:37 PM
The text is not from the video.
Ronnie on November 19, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Have you ever seen that situation comedy scene where a tall man is holding a basket ball up over his head, and very much shorter opponents are futilely trying to jump up and knock the ball out of his hand? Of course you have.
Obama is the tall man, the basket ball is Afghanistan, and we conservatives are yelling ‘fight to win’.
Skandia Recluse on November 19, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Well, that answers my question.
Terrye on November 19, 2009 at 5:38 PM
The Viet Nam analogy is appropriate here.
Either get in to win or get out. None of this sacrificing-lives-in-a-noble-and-well-fought-effort-to-stop-the-spread-of-
communismterrorism crap.I can just see it now, video of the last helicopter leaving the roof of the American embassy in Kabul.
jaime on November 19, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Here’s how I’d play it if the troops have to live on half rations so we can have more health care back home. ;-) First I wouldn’t fall into the trap of seeming to delight in bad news from the front the way the Dems did. When bad news will and does happen, I’d get GOP Senators and Congressmen to introduce a bill authorizing more troops/support/training immediately. Then the next time it happens, I’d do the same damn thing. Each time the media would be forced to repeat the story about how O shorted the troops for some new bureaucratic airport to no where.
If however, O finds the stones and goes all in with the troops requested, I’d say at least he’s serious about one campaign promise and hasn’t folded to his masters on the hard left entirely. Then I’d go back to fighting domestic battles until something else in the world blows up “on Obama’s watch”. Which, of course it will when you talk softly and have a limp stick.
rhombus on November 19, 2009 at 5:39 PM
The troops will come home shortly after Obama closes Gitmo.
Heh.
MadisonConservative on November 19, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Another Hell yes!
Terrye on November 19, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Let\’s not forget that this is what the Michael Yon\’s of the world have been saying for months now.
Tman on November 19, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Do you have a link to the audio handy?
FloatingRock on November 19, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Just curious — for any of you that think that the war in Afghanistan can be “won,” please explain what Afghanistan looks like in ten or twenty years (government, economy, etc.), and how many American troops will be still getting killed there each year.
It’s not my opinion that we have “lost the war.” It is my opinion that the current situation in Afghanistan is not a war (the war ended in 2001), but an occupation in order to prop up a sick joke of a government in the vain hope that a historically ungovernable collection of tribes would someday, somehow, morph into a stable, democratic nation.
Splashman on November 19, 2009 at 5:40 PM
I can’t disagree with any of this. But we can’t do this, if we are not there.
Terrye on November 19, 2009 at 5:41 PM
You mean like we are in Vietnam? Oh wait…
Dark-Star on November 19, 2009 at 5:42 PM
How about,instead of an Anti-War War Rally,
the,
Patriots,have another Tea Party Style Protest!And protest
Obama jerk’n and ignoring of the Aghanistan theatre wither
ing on the vine March!!
Another million Patriots,reminding,that your fellow son’s and daughters who are dying,while Obama hopes it just goes all away!!!
canopfor on November 19, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Okay all you poster against Thompson…I have one simple question.
Do you think Obama has the will and determination to win this war…no dithering, do you think he has the will and determination to see this war to the end and win?
Matticus Finch on November 19, 2009 at 5:34 PM
PappaMac on November 19, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Terrye on November 19, 2009 at 5:31 PM
MadisonConservative on November 19, 2009 at 5:23 PM
BadgerHawk on November 19, 2009 at 5:25 PM
amerpundit on November 19, 2009 at 5:15 PM
So which ones of you think that Obama has the will and determination to win this war? Please be direct…do you have faith in him or not…
right2bright on November 19, 2009 at 5:44 PM
At this point if McChrystal is going to win with what he has the ROE will have to change. The ROE will have to change to Total War.
theguardianii on November 19, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Dark-Star:
Oh please, did the Viet Namese bring down the World Trade Center? We left Viet Nam, because we
I am saying that if we just leave Afghanistan, the Taliban and with them AlQaida will be right back in there, doing what they were doing before we so rudely interrupted them…and then back we go.
Terrye on November 19, 2009 at 5:45 PM
The troops are in to win. Obama wants out, but can’t come up with a clever enough excuse to surrender.
Don’t forget, the troops serving over there now all enlisted to serve their country. They are doing something they believe in. I know, I have one in the fight. The bulk of troops in Vietnam were drafted, so from the get-go they had a different mentality when they put their boots on the ground.
fogw on November 19, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Many of us are and yes, let’s.
Of course it is. We can still get the al Qaeda goons without fighting an ubercostly decades-long nation-building war in the land where superpowers go to die.
Agreed, and then some.
Rae on November 19, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Say what?
Dark-Star on November 19, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Just scroll up and click on the little arrow in front of Fred’s face…it’s called an audio file, you can listen to what he said…then listen again…
right2bright on November 19, 2009 at 5:46 PM
You seem to forget who their Commander in Chief is, the person who determines where and how many and for how long…that person is the president, Obama.
right2bright on November 19, 2009 at 5:48 PM
right2bright:
I don’t know if Obama has the will or not, but he is the CinC. We can’t just bug out because a Democrat won an election. I mean come on…I have been told over and over again that McCain was a crappy candidate and that if we can not get a real conservative then who cares who wins..but you know what? I voted for McCain because I thought he had the will and determination to carry out this mission. I was worried about Obama from the git go…but that does not mean that we just declare the war lost and go home as if this were all just some diversion not worth bothering with.
Terrye on November 19, 2009 at 5:48 PM
I don’t like what Fred said, but it should be noted somewhere in this discussion that there is a world of difference between the comments of a radio talk show host and the comments of the then-minority leader in the U.S. Senate. Private citizens can say what they wish. Public officials have to show more forebearance because their comments can be interpreted to represent official policy.
PackerBronco on November 19, 2009 at 5:49 PM
Waiting to see if any of these brave souls will answer my question…simple enough should take about 30 seconds to answer it.
right2bright on November 19, 2009 at 5:49 PM
Obama ran as a centrist, who would fight the “good” war in Afganistan… and was even more Hawkish then McCain with his rhetoric about invading Afganistan.
He was elected on lies… he fooled enough of the people (the moderates) enough of the time, to get elected.
As to the War? Obama either needs to Lead, follow, or get the He11 out of the way… but he won’t do any of those…
One of the WORST things you can do in any military situation is make NO decision… Obama is too busy BOWING to the His Shortness the Emporer of Japan to make military decisions…
With him as Commander in Chief, and staying in the decision making roll… IMO the War may not be Lost… but it certainly won’t be WON.
Romeo13 on November 19, 2009 at 5:49 PM
I’ll answer… no he does not have the Will to Win… as it won’t be to HIS historical credit.
Romeo13 on November 19, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Sure. We’ll just arrest the entire ruling class (they’ll go peacefully); order up a few thousand moderate Pashtun-speaking moderate imams and schoolteachers who don’t mind being blown up for their efforts; eradicate the poppy trade; and kill a few thousand insurgents in the name of a government largely despised by the population, in such a way that killing them doesn’t send all their brothers, cousins and sons (and those of civilian casualties) into the mountains to learn how to make IEDs.
Should be no problem.
Then
Bleeds Blue on November 19, 2009 at 5:51 PM
No, at that time we were subscribing to Eisenhower’s “Domino Theory”, but a similar threat was envisioned.
rplat on November 19, 2009 at 5:51 PM
Well,at first its bench marks,
-then wait till Afghanistan has their election
-then the election is corrupt,which for Obama is PREICELESS
-wait for a relection
-then it was in a few months
-now its Thanksgiving
-whats
-the
-next
-date
-?
canopfor on November 19, 2009 at 5:51 PM
How’s that?
Maybe you should go back and read my last five hundred posts on this website.
fogw on November 19, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Fred is just reverting to his old habit of supporting Islamist terrorism.
tommylotto on November 19, 2009 at 5:52 PM
It is immoral to ask our men to die for a cause in which their own Commander in Chief does not believe in. Obama said himself that he doesn’t think “victory” is the goal there. We know he supported the conflict for political reasons only. Thomospon is right, his heart was never in it. We have 3 long years before Obama can be replaced, that is too long to allow our brave soldiers to struggle without the support they need. It’s over.
echosyst on November 19, 2009 at 5:53 PM
All well and good, except for the fact there is no historical precedent for a “loosely formed confederation with a stable security force”! Afghanistan is an artificially-conglomerated collection of perpetually-warring tribes. Where is the “security force” going to come from? Who’s going to keep one tribe from dominating all the others? Does the Sunni/Shia experience in Iraq mean anything to you? Your generic “security force” is just as much of a pipe dream as a Jeffersonian democracy.
Did you read what I wrote? I didn’t say the goal was to keep them out; I said the goal was to keep them from becoming a serious threat. If they want to live as 9th-century nomads in constant threat of a JDAM up the ass, they’re welcome to it. The cost of us maintaining 24/7 aerial surveillance over Afghanistan would be a small fraction of the current cost, and will provide much (not all) of the same benefit, which is to keep America safe.
Splashman on November 19, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Look, we need to be in it to win it, but I don’t like ANYONE telling us the war has been lost, is lost, with troops still on the ground.
Make the point that the loser in chief needs to get off his finger and give our troops the tools to kill the bad guys and claim victory, but don’t say all is lost.
HornetSting on November 19, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Dark-Star:
I don’t think English is your first language.
For one thing, when we left Viet Nam, they did not allow terrorists to set up camps for the express purpose of killing our people. That was a very different war in that respect.
For another, after the Russians left, Afghanistan was forgotten and it fell into chaos and conflict. Once the Russians were gone, we just ignored Afganistan, the Taliban took advantage of the chaos and moved in. They will do it again.
Terrye on November 19, 2009 at 5:53 PM
I have absolutely no confidence in our CINC to prosecute this war effectively.
But I do have confidence in our guys on the ground, and their commanders. And no matter what, we won’t be out of there by 2012. So you can remain strong and pressure the left, and with any luck we’ll elect someone with the fortitude to do what’s neccessary to win. Or you can concede the fight while we’re still in it.
I’ll be there next year. It’ll be interesting to see if both the right and left think I’m risking my life for nothing.
BadgerHawk on November 19, 2009 at 5:53 PM
There is one who thinks Obama may have the will and determination.
Yes he is the CINC, so how he feels about the war is paramount.
You think he might, and are willing to sacrifice how many more men for you to know?
This is where you and I (Fred and others who feel the same) disagree. we are certain that Obama does not have the will or determination…he has never shown any thing to have us think any other way. He opposed the war in Iraq, the surge (even after it worked), he is a pacifist…I am curious, what makes you think he may have that huge will and determination to see this war through to the end, and win it.
right2bright on November 19, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Hornet Sting:
I agree.
Terrye on November 19, 2009 at 5:54 PM
No.
jaime on November 19, 2009 at 5:55 PM
What kept you? We needed some straws grasped at.
MadisonConservative on November 19, 2009 at 5:55 PM
The troops are already pissed they’ve been left out to dry by Obama – Thompson saying this may dishearten a few, but Thompson isn’t even a pol anymore.
Obama has waffled and dithered on Afghanistan for months and continues to do so. In the end, my prediction is he’ll send half of what McChrystal has asked for and the troops will have to do what they can.
Things will jog on after that for a year or so, then with no clear change, Obama will then have the ‘justification’ he needs to start the “win with Honor” pap.
I’ve been deployed and spent time overseas (both as a young troop and as a senior NCO), there is nothing more disheartening than knowing your leadership doesn’t give a rats ass about you – or what you’re doing.
Thompson can’t do anything to troop morale that their own commander in chief hasn’t done to them already in spades.
catmman on November 19, 2009 at 5:56 PM
You actualy have somthing of a point there…
IMO we lost a lot of credibility with Afgan’s when we allowed the Farce that they called an election to stand.
We cannot stand on a moral highground when we support a usurper…. someone who blatanly and publicly stole the election.
There is a LOT of history about how to pacify and civilize an occupied Barbaic Land… we actualy DO know how to do it…
Problem is? Its not nice, and necessitates either Direct RULE, or to support a Puppet Dictator… right now we have the Worst of both…
An emplaced Ruler, who does not really like us, who has no mandate from his own people either.
Romeo13 on November 19, 2009 at 5:59 PM
Hey focus people,it about Obama,not Fred!!!!!!!!!
canopfor on November 19, 2009 at 5:59 PM
FWIW, I don’t like the current strategy in place either. I don’t like the COIN model for Afghanistan. I don’t like the ROE. I don’t like the guy at the top of the chain.
But I’m not about to turn my back on the guys over there and say they’re wasting the blood and sweat on a failure. Say their mission is pointless, a lost cause, a futile endeavor, and that’s what you’re doing, whether you think so or not.
BadgerHawk on November 19, 2009 at 5:59 PM
I’ll be away from the computer for the rest of the night. Have a good one.
BadgerHawk on November 19, 2009 at 5:59 PM
Thank you. That was Fred’s point.
fogw on November 19, 2009 at 6:00 PM
Splashman:
How do you keep them from being a serious threat if you are not there? How do you even know where they are? How do you get your intel, why would anyone trust you or side with you or tell you what you need to know? If you leave, where do launch the drones from? What about Pakistan?
You are saying that Afghanistan is what it will always be…but the truth is that before the Russians went in there and that war started, there was a country there. Much of Afghanistan was certainly backward, but not so much as it was after decades of conflict. It will only get worse. When I say a confederation, I mean that Afghanistan will have to grow from the bottom up, with most of the governing in the hands of the local villages. The state needs to be able to repeal outside threats and maintain security.
Terrye on November 19, 2009 at 6:01 PM
The President campaigned on having a F*(*&*&^%$$%^&*(
strategy,then gets elected!!!
Obama,its been almost a year,
WHERES THE F*K’n PLAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
canopfor on November 19, 2009 at 6:01 PM
You are not risking your life for nothing, nor do any of us think the military is not capable…the point is the CINC, the man who determines whether you will win or not, is the man you have no faith in…nor does he have faith in you.
And no, I don’t want you to go back, under President Bush, I would have no problem, if McCain won, no problem…but with Obama, to what end are you going. As a “show”?
I want to win that war, and every war, I want every dictator destroyed…but more important I want men and women like you not to waste your life for nothing, when we know that we won’t win.
I am in my early 60′s…I lost way to many friends, and family to a war where the CINC was not convinced, where we had actually won, but politically we lost…58,000+ dead (300,000+ wounded), I don’t want your name, or the name of my nephews, or my best friend nephew, another friends son,or my neighbors son, to be on a list of lost lives for political expediency.
Trust me, the lost of my friends decades ago still haunt me…and I despise the people who allowed that to happen.
I am not going to put a “happy face” on and say…Good luck BadgerHawk, win that war, rah, rah!!” When I know that your CINC doesn’t care, and is using you only as a pawn.
right2bright on November 19, 2009 at 6:06 PM
right2bright:
The point is no one is talking about pulling out. That is not on the agenda right now. What some on the right seem to be saying is that since Obama is a moron, we abandon the fight, forget about the war, and come home until and unless a Republican wins the election and then we can fight again.
You can’t just start and stop and start and stop because you don’t like the guy who is running things right now.
Terrye on November 19, 2009 at 6:06 PM
So is Allahpundit Jewish? Doesn’t hurt to narrow it down a bit.
Sharke on November 19, 2009 at 6:06 PM
Am I missing something? In the blockquote, Mr. Thompson says,
Now, I know he says, then, that it could be lost. But that is a hypothetical.
It seems, in fact, that he is chiding people who say the war is lost. He’s saying that we don’t know what will happen; how can we know if the war is lost. He’s saying we need to give our CinC and our generals a chance.
Jens on November 19, 2009 at 6:06 PM
It, actually, can be done. I’m talking about building nations the way they historically have been built. You start with a region that is yours already. You grow from there–over time. 10, 20, 40 years. It can be done because it has been done. All you have to decide is to do it, and want to do it, and keep at it.
Think of it–a modern Islamic state, like Turkey, with a moderate Islam. The ability to master technology of great destructive power–the atom, chemicals, pathogens–grows day by day and will eventually be in the reach of every state on Earth–including states of Islamic faith. We can either decide to active manage the process, or be caught up in a whirlwind, tossed to and fro by the vicissitudes of the human heart. So you will pardon, me, Bleeds Blue, if I think that perhaps I can see a way forward, because, you know what–I can. Perhaps not an easy way, and perhaps not a way that will ever be acted upon, for many reasons–but we are not necessarily doomed. Unless we continue to act as we are right now, because, at this moment, the war there is indeed already lost, which means that eventually the initiative to influence tides of history is going to go back to the other side. I prefer to retain it.
Horatius on November 19, 2009 at 6:06 PM
Fred is saying,by Obamas own hand,by Obama’s indecision,
Obama is losing,and has lost the war,big difference between
Freds comments,and Reid,the War is Lost!!!!!!!!!!
canopfor on November 19, 2009 at 6:07 PM
It is not just about the CinC.
Terrye on November 19, 2009 at 6:08 PM
canopfer:
Not really. Both Reid and Thompson are using the war to make a poltical point. They are both saying the war is lost, to make a dig at the Commander in Chief. Reid said it to hurt Bush, and Thompson said it to hurt Obama.
Terrye on November 19, 2009 at 6:09 PM
I had not thought of it like that. Maybe you are right. I hope so.
Terrye on November 19, 2009 at 6:11 PM
You are young…sending men in to die for a lost cause is not honorable.
Yes I am saying that under Obama it is a lost cause, and pointless…it would be better to pull back now, save lives and wait until we have a real commander that can resolve the problem.
I am not a cheerleader…rah, rah, go to war and die, rah, rah.
But if under a real commander, where I knew he was committed, then I say go for it, with all my heart and soul.
I honor your service…honor my position of seeing families decimated by uncommitted political hacks…
right2bright on November 19, 2009 at 6:12 PM
Ahhhh… but you miss the Obama “plan”.
Without the Commander in Chief being a Cheer leader… as American casulties mount, there will be more and more public outcry to end the war.
Add in the constant reports of how bad the Afgan Government is?
Add in stupid ROEs that put our troops in Danger?
It will be less than a year before the War becomes a crises, which Obama will use to both take the attention off his Domestic Takeover… but will eventualy use to have “Peace with Dignity” by essentialy surrenduring to the Taliban (although they will be under a different name).
We see the groundwork being laid… even with the KSM decision… as it will make it impossible to take Prisoners in Afgan, as they will be granted full American Civil Rights just in case they have to be brought to a US Civilian Court.
Romeo13 on November 19, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Reid said it after the surge was working, basically after we had won…and after the generals and the CINC were committed to winning, remember President Bush was determined to win.
Can you honestly say you think Obama is committed to win this war, that he is willing to expend the political capital it takes to win the long and “dirty” war?
You have that much faith in Obama?
right2bright on November 19, 2009 at 6:15 PM
The West is unserious.
Our leaders are imbecillic children in kindergarten.
Soldiers’ lives and our freedoms will be lost, while naked political power is the only elixir on the political whores’ minds.
I apologize to all whores, sincerely.
Schadenfreude on November 19, 2009 at 6:16 PM
Except when Reid said it, Bush was doing everything within his power to win the war in Iraq.
Obama is doing the exact opposite.
fogw on November 19, 2009 at 6:16 PM
You think he doesn’t have the ultimate say in this?
He is the Commander of all the armed forces…and you have faith that Obama’s supporters want him to continue this fight…or do you think that the right will put so much pressure that he will give the generals some of what they need…think this through.
You are putting your faith in the hands of Obama, and the liberal democrats…you must be very sure that they have the will and determination to get this job done.
right2bright on November 19, 2009 at 6:18 PM
Hey focus people,it about Obama,not Fred!!!!!!!!!
canopfor on November 19, 2009 at 5:59 PM
Thank you. That was Fred’s point.
fogw on November 19, 2009 at 6:00 PM
fogw: Fred is sending a clear and present danger regarding
Obama!
Reid stated the WAR IS LOST,meaning,pack up,its over,and that came out around the time of IN COLD BLOOD Murtha!!
Thompsom is framing it as,by Obama’s doing,the War is Lost!
People are mis-characterizing Freds Comments as if he was
an un-hinged Lefty Anti-War Moonbat NutCake!!
They are totally mis-reading Fred!
Focus your anger on Obama,not to Fred for mentioning the
obvious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ugharooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
canopfor on November 19, 2009 at 6:18 PM
CAN it be done? Yes… WILL it be done?… no.
Why? because the US Government now does not bother to read history, and will not take the steps needed to build that state.
We kept DIRECT rule in Germany and Japan for YEARS after WWII… in order both stamp out certain Philosophies and to give them a STABLE Government while they rebuilt.
In both Iraq, and Afganistan, we did not do that. We tried to create Democracys too fast… without the basic ORDER a Democracy must have.
In Iraq? We have been very lucky. They had some idea of what a working Government should look like..
In Afganistan? We need to retake DIRECT Rule… we cannot continue to support a Government that took power in a KNOWN Fraudulent Election…
Romeo13 on November 19, 2009 at 6:19 PM
Well said.
beachgirlusa on November 19, 2009 at 6:19 PM
AP, the troops know it better than Fred.
dogsoldier on November 19, 2009 at 6:21 PM
I agree.
beachgirlusa on November 19, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Do you know anything about the Vietnam war?
The stopping and starting of the bombing? The starting and stopping of military engagement?
Have we reached the point where this is such ancient history that a lesson can’t be learned?
Generals win wars…politicians lose wars…right now a politician is running this war…get it?
right2bright on November 19, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Everyone needs to listen again to the first 45 seconds…we had one poster who was upset with Fred, then challenged me as to if I had a link to his message.
Go to the top, click on the Fred message and listen to the first 45 seconds, then do it again…now listen to the next 30 seconds, then again…you will begin (hopefully) to understand what Fred was saying….forget what Allah posted, actually listen and think for yourself…
right2bright on November 19, 2009 at 6:24 PM
Rahm and Obama,
I have to say that that Alinsky guy was one genius on how to divide your opponents. Today, because of Obama’s dithering, someone who I never would have dreamed of saying the “war is lost” lost control and it is now causing infighting amongst the strongest defenders of our military.
I hope former Senator Thompson clarifies his point and changes it to say:
Dear Americans and especially our troops, I have never doubted that you could win in the field if fully supported by your President, your Congress, and the American people and that you could persevere if one or all of those faultered til better times arose. Yesterday, I lazily constructed my thoughts and I apologize for any drop in morale that occurred.
Then he could go on to say:
President Obama entrusted Gen McChrystal in March with the fight in Afghanistan. In July, Gen McChrystal gave the President his imput and recommendations on troop levels to win the war in Afghanistan. It is now the end of November. Almost 4 months have passed. If President Obama has not made a troop decision by Jan 30 ,2010 I will appeal to my former colleagues on the Hill to ask that Obama be found unfit to be CinC. I know that our troops in the field will do everything in their power to defeat the Taliban and Al-Q no matter how undermanned they are. That is what American troops have done in every war they have fought and what they will continue to do. May the winter weather in Afghanistan keep the casualty rate low and may the President’s decision come in time to put in place troops to ensure victory next year.
Ball in O’s court. Military praised and encouraged. Alinsky defeated.
journeyintothewhirlwind on November 19, 2009 at 6:30 PM
As a matter of principle we cannot have our side talking about “lost” wars. Our principle should be that our troops are capable of winning any conflict to which we can apply sufficient political capital. We should NEVER, EVER declare a war lost for simple political expediency. I am not willing to crawl into the same vat of bile that the Demoocrats did for the purpose of bringing down an administration. The timing of Thompson’s pronouncement is a distinction without a difference. We best be careful about hoping for the failure of the war/economy/vital interests for the hope of unseating Barack Obama. He seems to be doing a pretty good job of that on his own. As Ronald Reagan said, we need to be the shining light on the hill, not just a bunch of naysayers hoping to catch the crumbs of power that may come our way because of someone else’s failure.
Is it fair to point out that the administration and CIC have failed? If it’s grounded in fact, absolutely. Do we have an obligation to point to a better path? Undoubtedly. But when it is said that we have lost the war, it means America has lost the war. Contrary to that declaration, America can change its leadership and strategy. To accept defeat for political purposes, on the other hand, is unconscionable. Vietnamization of foreign policy is for liberal losers, not for principled conservatives.
ObjectionSustained on November 19, 2009 at 6:31 PM
The first rule of war is never reinforce failure – and that’s what Afghan is – a failure. Are we supposed to ignore the inevitable truth because we have troops in the field? How many more men must die for us to save face? 8 years on and we’re further than we ever were from capturing Bin Laden.
lodge on November 19, 2009 at 6:32 PM
Not really.
Terrye on November 19, 2009 at 6:09 PM
Terrye: Well,in the case of hurting Obama,its true tho!!:)
And the difference is,Bush was trying,Obama is
ignoring it!!
A decision Protest might be helpful!
And,I wonder what AxleBrokenRod would call them,
Militant Whiners I bet!!:)
canopfor on November 19, 2009 at 6:32 PM
Naptime, Fred.
Either lambaste Obama CLEARLY for being a liar, a fool and a dithering dipsh*t on his self-declared “MUST WIN, JUST WAR”, -or don’t try to make apparently-abstruse points with overly-simple words, Fred.
Naptime.
profitsbeard on November 19, 2009 at 6:33 PM
Mike A, RUN FOR OFFICE!
leftnomore on November 19, 2009 at 6:36 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »