Obama’s decision: 34,000 troops to Afghanistan
posted at 8:48 am on November 24, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
McClatchy reports that Barack Obama made his decision last night on Afghanistan, and has decided on a number between McChrystal’s medium- and high-risk plans. Instead of 40,000 or 20,000, Obama will send an additional 34,000 troops to bolster the NATO forces and employ the counterinsurgency strategy that he publicly demanded for two years and made official US policy in March. However, McClatchy also reports that Obama won’t announce the new numbers until next week:
President Barack Obama met Monday evening with his national security team to finalize a plan to dispatch some 34,000 additional U.S. troops over the next year to what he’s called “a war of necessity” in Afghanistan, U.S. officials told McClatchy.
Obama is expected to announce his long-awaited decision on Dec. 1, followed by meetings on Capitol Hill aimed at winning congressional support amid opposition by some Democrats who are worried about the strain on the U.S. Treasury and whether Afghanistan has become a quagmire, the officials said.
The U.S. officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the issue publicly and because, one official said, the White House is incensed by leaks on its Afghanistan policy that didn’t originate in the White House.
Perhaps part of their reluctance would also be that Obama threatened to fire anyone who leaked information about his decision. The comment about “not originating in the White House” seems odd, too. Did the White House want to pin the leaks on the Pentagon? Sourcing these as “US officials” makes it as generic as possible; that term could apply to an EPA clerk.
The new plan contains the “off-ramps” Obama demanded from his national security team. Those begin to arrive as early as June, according to McClatchy, giving the US a few easy outs if Obama chooses to retreat. If the “political side” or the war itself doesn’t improve, Obama apparently wants to get out altogether. In other words, this looks like McChrystal’s last stand. Next week, McChrystal will return to DC in order to help Obama roll this out, where Obama will almost certainly get significant pushback from Democrats in Congress over the cost and the need to keep fighting.
The increase in troops is a good decision, but the off-ramps almost completely undermine it. The point in extending our footprint is to win the trust of the local communities and prove our reliability in providing them security, which is the central thrust of McChrystal’s COIN strategy. By getting them to trust our commitment, we can get them to help fight the Taliban themselves, as we did with the Anbar Awakening in Iraq against al-Qaeda, and greatly improve the intel we get from the locals. If we send 34,000 more troops but give ourselves a six-month time frame for success or bug-out, the locals will very quickly come to the realization that allying with us will be suicide. The COIN strategy only worked in Iraq because George W. Bush was adamant that we would stay until we won.
A Commander in Chief doesn’t need “off-ramps.” Any President can call an end to a deployment based on his own judgment. Putting these conditions into the American strategy signals weakness — a desire to pull out without getting blamed for the decision. Obama wants to be off the hook for an eventual withdrawal by claiming that he’s forced to do it because of these benchmark failures. And if Obama’s that keen to retreat, he should just do it now.
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 4 5 Next »
When Barry is “committed” to something, everyone already knows that there’s an “expiration date”.
GarandFan on November 24, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Don’t forget all of your talking points..we also are anti-black, want to starve the children, let the elderly die, no medical treatment for anyone, dirty polluted water we live for, unbreathable air, gun fights in the streets, don’t educate the minorities, we would prefer war with every country, and live to be hated by every other leader…and we kick our dogs when we come home (except our hunting dogs, we gotta kill all the bears and cute deer).
right2bright on November 24, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Hey hawkdriver, here’s another one of your “we support the troops” liberals demonstrating how he really feels about our military.
So, how about a link to show where we spent 20% of our budget for the war in Afghanistan. Your ignorance is only surpassed by your stupidity.
fogw on November 24, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Disgraceful? Your F*cked-up party has been dreaming of an American defeat since 9/11. We should bring all the troops home and do some much needed political cleansing right here, before we loose our country to the party of Liars and Fools.
There is Nothing Right about the Left… $#!+-for-brains.
ronnyraygun on November 24, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Sir, merely serving in a war theatre makes you no expert in COIN. That’s like a assembly worker claiming he knows all about cars because he turns one screw. Sorry for being blunt.
You should really read General’s report and what his strategy entails. At least, then you would not talk nonsense about ROE’s.
rightistliberal on November 24, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Just a quick tip before you explain to Hawkdriver all about how war works and all that other tough guy military stuff: You make four point in your two statements, but three of them are wrong. You might want to dress that up a bit.
Jaibones on November 24, 2009 at 10:40 AM
Will these 34,000 be counted in the “saved or created” jobs figures?
pablo5108 on November 24, 2009 at 10:40 AM
Shooting at U.S. aircraft is an act of war, period.
Johan Klaus on November 24, 2009 at 10:41 AM
When he was running for the office and questioned about his foreign experience to which he repled he had lived in Pokistan I laughed. This situation parallels with the stupidity statement about the police department. And now Chris Matthews is saying he is maybe too smart for the job. I can’t take all the laughter.
bluegrass on November 24, 2009 at 10:41 AM
LOL. They are not Americans they are leftist parasites like their wretched excuse of a precedent.
elduende on November 24, 2009 at 10:42 AM
No, but Bush was president for 7 years. What the dems may have been dreaming or not dreaming is besides the point. The fact is they could not.
Admittedly, it was deliberately provocative. To point out we need to think this war through. We have tried for 8 years now. How do we go forward? How do we fix Pakistan, for instance. These are things which need to be thought of instance of..let’s stay there for ever with no strategy in mind.
rightistliberal on November 24, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Bing. But when he finishes his Sociology 230 class this semester, he’ll be fully qualified to write military ROE policy for Obama. So…
Jaibones on November 24, 2009 at 10:42 AM
You are a liar or seriously ignorant of the facts. If this situation was so serious, why did it take so long to make (still hasn’t been made officialy for that matter). Why does the filthy lying cowards August vacation, trip to sell Chicago to the IOC, Asian vacation, and Thanksgiving all come before he does something about the troops in harm’s way now? For soldiers died last night in Afghanistan, they should have had some indication of the new strategy before now.
In short, how dare you feign concern about the troops. You and the filthy lying dithering coward in the White House only care about the politics of the matter and that is reprehensible. I honestly hate people like you and Obama and I do not hate easily. Nevertheless eight years of liberals working against those sent into combat makes me very unforgiving of the evil you spew.
highhopes on November 24, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Bush did not require reading captured prisoners their Miranda Rights. In other words, Obama is the only POTUS with a vagina overseeing a war.
fogw on November 24, 2009 at 10:42 AM
What are your military credentials?
You may be the most pathetic example of a self-hating American I’ve ever seen.
AsianGirlInTights on November 24, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Oh…My….God.
Where in Gods good name were you for the first eight years of the wars.
hawkdriver on November 24, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Now that the Dems have a chance to support the troops and the CiC, all we hear from them is support for the CiC.
Christien on November 24, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Yes, only a crazy person would see five times the amount of US coffins coming back as failure.
Chuck Schick on November 24, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Sure. fair point. And then just kick their butt from air? We have the most awesomest air power ever known to mankind for some reason, right?
Invading Iraq did not serve our interests. That’s my point. I could not care less for Saddam.
rightistliberal on November 24, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Wow… took him months to do nothing more than split the difference. could have made that decision in 5 min.
sprice75019 on November 24, 2009 at 10:44 AM
And those troops were part of the strategy that Bush and Co. had put together, remember? You don’t remember that? When Obama tried to take credit, and it was shown that the strategy he used was the exact same laid out to him for months before the election. Bush was so conscientious that he allowed Obama in an early transition with the war effort…you didn’t know that?
It has gone downhill from the political side…militarily we have been doing a superb job…just not with enough support from the liberal congress.
Obama has exercised what has been laid out for him…now he has to construct his own policy, and that is difficult to do since he doesn’t even know how to salute/shake hands/salute an officer.
right2bright on November 24, 2009 at 10:46 AM
McCrystal plainly stated this summer that without a major influx of troops, the war would be lost “within a year”.
We are now going into December and Obama has not even addressed or supplied McCrystal with the resources to carry out OBAMA’S NEW STRATEGY FROM MARCH.
Now he is finally addressing and making his first real decision on Afghanistan(remember, the 20,000 troops sent early on was from the plan Bush left for him that Rahm Emanual got caught lying about) since spending two years talking about how much “smarter” he was and that he had a “smarter” plan.
By the time the troops are deployed, McCrystal will not have all the troops he needs until well into next year.
But Obama wants to set up “off ramps” for evaluating success when McCrystal will not even have the resources to bring this success.
This is like telling an NFL football coach that if he does not win the next 4 games he is fired,then only allowing him to field 8 players on each side of the ball.
You would think that if Obama was serious about winning, he would ensure that McCrystal has everything he needs and talk publically about winning being the only option….
not “here is some of what you asked for and if everything is not peachy here in a few months…we are out of here.”
Obama and the democrats are the ones who spent years yelling and screaming about how the Iraq war could not be run and we should cut and run.
The were 100% wrong.
Then they spent years talking about how important winning in Afghanistan is and that they had a “smarter plan”.
They promised to kill Osama and destroy the Taliban/al-qaeda’s ability to plan and launch attacks.
All we heard is now that Bush is gone, the international community will love us.
Obama is going to save the day.
Were is all that international love that the liberal messiah was supposed to turn into concrete support…you know…like getting troops from the other NATO countries?
Watching Obama and the democrats fumble around like keystone cops shows that they really had no “smart plan” at all, it was just talking points.
Everything they have done in that theater is what Bush showed them how to do (drone attacks, plan to send 20,000 troops).
If Obama’s idea of having a “smarter plan” is to lay restrictions and benchmarks down for success without even having fully supplied the mission,Afghanistan will become the same failure that Obama’s economic policies like the stimulus are.
The fact of the matter is,Obama governs by polls.
He is more concerned about his personal glory and his socialist domestic policies than he is in stopping “man made disasters”.
This naive and irresponsible handling of Afghanistan shows he is no leader.
It takes more than just sending troops to win this war….there has to be a commitment to winning,failure cannot be an option.
As we will see over the next few months, the democrats have anything but a commitment to win this war and it will show in there words and actions.
The consequences of losing in Afghanistan would be disastrous and 100% on Obama’s watch.
The buck stops at the President’s desk and all the “smart power” we keep hearing so much about but seeing so little of:
The towers fell in New York on 9/11/01, Kabul fell to American led forces on 11/14/01. That’s 65 days.
President Obama’s hand-picked replacement commander in Afghanistan, GEN McChrystal, delivered his Afghanistan war plans to President Obama on 8/30/09, and President Obama hasn’t acted on his General’s recommendations as of today, 11/24/09. That’s 86 days, and waiting.
Baxter Greene on November 24, 2009 at 10:46 AM
I am not explaining to him how to fight; I am sure he will kick my butt any day of the day. I am merely explaining to him what COIN entails in terms of larger strategy since he claimed that troops were handicapped in terms of ROE.
rightistliberal on November 24, 2009 at 10:47 AM
“Sir, merely serving in a war theatre makes you no expert in COIN. That’s like a assembly worker claiming he knows all about cars because he turns one screw.”
That very same assembly worker knows a helluva lot more about cars than a community organizer knows about prosecuting a war!
Obama is a politician with absolutely NO military training or experience. And, he’s putting more weight on political opinions than he is the professional military opinions.
That, my friends, is totally assbackwards and 100% WRONG.
GoldenEagle4444 on November 24, 2009 at 10:47 AM
In the future the democrats should at a minimum for qualification to run for president insist that one has at least served with the boy scouts to insure that this never happens again.
bluegrass on November 24, 2009 at 10:47 AM
This answer, if coming, will be interesting…
right2bright on November 24, 2009 at 10:47 AM
And, being a community organizer does not make a person qualified to be the commander in chief.
Johan Klaus on November 24, 2009 at 10:49 AM
And we are still there after 8 years. Calculate the number of days too.
rightistliberal on November 24, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Keep talking tard. I’ve got you pegged for a High School sophomore, fast approaching Middle School dropout status.
fogw on November 24, 2009 at 10:50 AM
I agree. Obama was/is unqualified. But we have him for another 3 years, unfortunately.
rightistliberal on November 24, 2009 at 10:50 AM
anyone notice that boy king didn’t invite any Afgan activist to tonights gala at the economy so good White House.
bluegrass on November 24, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Not in his own home state of Tennessee. Had he not been rejected by the people who’d been sending him to Congress for 20 years, he would have never needed to win Florida to become President.
Del Dolemonte on November 24, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Yes, it did. And it had nothing to do with Saddam.
OldEnglish on November 24, 2009 at 10:52 AM
I’ve been deployed for about 4 of the last 8 years in both theaters. I’m a field grade officer. I’ve worked under both the old and new ROE. Let me explain my discomfort with the new ROE.
Before, PID was granted on any of the following reasons. Dude digging in the road at two in the morning. Dude placing HME and or a 155 round in the hole at two in the morning. Dude laying wire to said hole, Dude covering hole. Any of those activities was PID to attack said bad guy. Now, he has to exhibit all of those activities at the same time to warrant PID. That would be all fine and dandy, but they almost never emplace like that. They do it in teams and they do it in phases. So, long story short, though to kill bad guys, easy for them to kill my kids on the roads.
School me as to why I should be in love with COIN and the spiffy new ROE.
hawkdriver on November 24, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Why should my military credentials matter? I am not saying anything new. I am just laying out the strategy General Petraeus followed in Iraq and is now the basis for COIN strategy in Afghanistan. One of it’s key elements is winning hearts and minds which means your ROE’s have to be much stricter.
rightistliberal on November 24, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Of course, with all of your vast military knowledge, you do know that you cannot win a war only from the air.
Johan Klaus on November 24, 2009 at 10:54 AM
The answer won’t be coming. He’s too cowardly for that.
AsianGirlInTights on November 24, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Get a new gig. Your talking points are 9 years old, like your mental capacity.
fogw on November 24, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Back in 2002, did you actually read the entire Authorization to Use Force against Iraq? You know, the one that many Democrats happily signed off on?
It listed almost 20 reasons to go in. Not just 1 or 2.
Do yourself a favor and read it some time. Might help.
Del Dolemonte on November 24, 2009 at 10:56 AM
I have Kurdish friends in Northern Iraq who think otherwise. Oh, right, liberal America completely ignored the praise heaped on US Forces from the Kurds.
I’d love to stay and get schooled on war more by the liberals on Hot Air, but I’ve got a mission to fly.
rightisliberal, you’re not a bad guy guy but you are way off base in your assessment.
Bleeds Blue…you can kiss my ACU clad 4th point of contact.
hawkdriver on November 24, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Yeah, Obama’s sort of shown his hand with this.
ProfessorMiao on November 24, 2009 at 10:57 AM
In the basement and far from the bitchslapping he richly deserves.
katy the mean old lady on November 24, 2009 at 10:58 AM
So “rightistliberal” thinks that a soldier who has served in the Afghan theatre is no more capable of understanding the war than a worker in a factory.
Oh, where to begin? As though soldiers in wartime don’t have access to the same information that this densely packed idiot does? As though they don’t have all the tools of information he has.. and more?
Of course for a leftist who understands nothing more than false memes, a soldier is a victim, a loser, someone who failed at life and ended up in the military. You betray yourself as a pathetic loser, “rightistliberal.” A shallow, uneducated, unthinking and pompous windbag who struts across the internet stage like a buffoon, parroting platitudes and thinking yourself to be intellectual and instead, proving yourself instead to be nothing more than a fool.
bonnie_ on November 24, 2009 at 10:58 AM
President Affirmative Action is waving the white flag of surrender and trying not to look too much like a pu$$y while doing it.
“How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” – John Forbes Kerry, 1971
omnipotent on November 24, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Stay safe Hawk!
AsianGirlInTights on November 24, 2009 at 10:59 AM
hawkdriver,
God Bless, stay safe, and have a Happy Thanksgiving!
Christien on November 24, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Godspeed Driver
ronnyraygun on November 24, 2009 at 11:00 AM
That is exactly why the roe matter.
Johan Klaus on November 24, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Translation: I have no military credentials. But that’s irrelevant.”
Del Dolemonte on November 24, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Sure. But then you are questioning COIN it self. It certainly places greater burdens on the Army so it is easy enough to understand why you would not like it.
But correct me if I am wrong, was it not the entire basis for General Petraeus success in Iraq? The adoption of a COIN strategy? Are you saying that approach is wrong? Because Gen McChrystal is drawing his inspiration precisely from that. And in that case, absence COIN, there would not be the same need for additional troops.
Actually, that makes you closer to Biden–not entirely, of course–that we don’t need COIN but special forces and air operations in Afghanistan.
rightistliberal on November 24, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Why should my military credentials matter?
rightistliberal on November 24, 2009 at 10:53 AM
You’ve spent the thread attempting to show your intimate knowledge of the art of war. You even had the audacity to tell a career military man, a veteran and respected poster around here, who is serving our country in Afghanistan, that he is not as learned as you in the prosecution of said war. We just want to know how you acquired this knowledge you believe you have.
kingsjester on November 24, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Still waiting, liar.
fogw on November 24, 2009 at 11:02 AM
Tell us how you really feel.
Johan Klaus on November 24, 2009 at 11:02 AM
No need to thank me, I was just doing my small part.
ladyingray on November 24, 2009 at 11:03 AM
But we never needed to. Keep destroying one palace a day.
rightistliberal on November 24, 2009 at 11:03 AM
This is now the fourth time we have heard of an Obama decision on Afghanistan. I will wait until Obama says something before I will believe any more stories.
Meantime, whatever this decision is, Obama has taken a year to make it. This does not bode well for military decisions in the future. IF we had another 9/11 type of attack, how many weeks, months or even years would it take Obama to figure out what to do? Let’s hope we never need to find out.
Freddy on November 24, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Bye Hawk. Take care of yourself.
ladyingray on November 24, 2009 at 11:03 AM
hawkdriver on November 24, 2009 at 10:57 AM
We’re praying for the safe return of you and your squad right now, my brother…as we continue to pray for oour best and brightest in harm’s way.
kingsjester on November 24, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Were you for the Surge in Iraq from the beginning?
AsianGirlInTights on November 24, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Dude, check the latest budget. It is like $680 billion for defense and the wars in a $3 trillion + budget. That makes my figure approx right.
In fact, it was higher before Obama send spending shooting.
rightistliberal on November 24, 2009 at 11:05 AM
My, he really is the smartest guy on the planet to be able to surgically determine that in this particular instance
40,000 would be too much and 30,000 would be too little.
“No, in this instance, and given the latest outputs of the lengthy quadratic equations I’ve been doing in my head…the precise number is 34,039 troops but lets just round it down to 34,000″
And it only took a year to “revise” the basic game plan handed to him by Bush. Truly a Courage Under Mire moment.
R Square on November 24, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Darn it! I was ready to be dazzled by his brillance…
ladyingray on November 24, 2009 at 11:08 AM
lol.
regale us with your knowledge of ROEs, parasite.
Fact pattern for the leftist military “expert”:
US patrol in unsecured area comes under small arms and RPG fire from a ridge. They are pursued into deserted village where intelligence has confirmed prior insurgents activity and the scene of a recent ambush. Insurgents are spotted in 3 buildings near the center of village they are using as strongpoints.
Question: how should our patrol respond under the old ROEs and how has that changed under the new ROEs.
Bonus: based on this fact pattern how will the new ROEs influence COIN strategy?
P.S. No points if you use the word “bush” or “iraq” in the answer.
enlighten us parasite. giddyup.
elduende on November 24, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Once we went in there, we needed to win. Period.
But I am not sure what being for surge from beginning means. I would have thought a competent administration would have gone in with enough number of troops from the beginning.
But yes, if you mean from 2006? Yes. And McCain deserves the eternal gratitude of this nation for pushing for it.
But then if you are a true conservative, you are probably rooting for him to be replaced by some radio talk host.
rightistliberal on November 24, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Dude, check the latest budget. It is like $680 billion for defense and the wars in a $3 trillion + budget. That makes my figure approx right.
In fact, it was higher before Obama send spending shooting.
rightistliberal on November 24, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Iraq and Afghanistan are not the entire military budget, dude. Theyre about 1/3 of it.
Chuck Schick on November 24, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Barry needs to gin up the ACORN for Afghanistan program and go organize some communities.
R Square on November 24, 2009 at 11:10 AM
And let’s not forget quantum mechanics. Oh heck, I forgot this administration does not like nuclear power.
Johan Klaus on November 24, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Hi Lady!
Anyway, that’s just his shiny tin head, not brillance.
AsianGirlInTights on November 24, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Hawkdriver=Huckleberry
Libs=pwned
Crimefyter on November 24, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Wow..liberals need to get their stories straight.
CNN’s leading authority on the mideast and super liberal hero Zakaria disagrees with this assessment:
What Failure in Afghanistan?
By Fareed Zakaria
Monday, October 12, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/11/AR2009101101552_pf.html
Enemy deaths have risen dramatically since Obama took over and the Taliban have made a major infusion of manpower and attacks since Obama took over.
Spin it all you want,this is not Bush’s fault.
We heard for 8 years that the buck stops at the Presidents desk.
That would be Obama now….not Bush.
The fact that Afghanistan has been deteriorating has been well documented and understood for the past few years.
The defeat of al-qaeda and the militias in Iraq sent the terrorist scurrying back to their safe havens and to reinforce the front in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The problem with Obama and the democratic party is that they yelled and screamed over and over and over and over about how important winning in this theater was and that they were “smarter” and had a better plan.
We now know that was not the case:
Obama WH bought COIN without understanding the cost: WaPo
posted at 9:30 am on October 8, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/08/obama-wh-bought-coin-without-understanding-the-cost-wapo/#comment-2810309
Obama has not shown the seriousness of this mission the way they bragged about they would.
Even after bringing in his own General and putting out his own strategy, Obama had no face to face meetings with McCrystal and only one teleconference between March and August.
The Obama administration also cut off the two teleconferences a month with Karzi in relation to their push to oust him from power(how did that work out genius).
In contrast to this…Obama has fit in more than 10 rounds of Golf and sees the SEIU union head more than twice a month at the White House.
Obama was also able to fit in a bunch of campaigning and “date nights” to.
Priorities…priorities….priorities.
Just like on the economy democrats had just as much a hand in destroying as the Republicans,when it has become time to “put up or shut up” the democrats are showing their “smart power” to be nothing but a bunch of over hyped bullsh!t.
Baxter Greene on November 24, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Yep, when the man wants us to stop wearing body amour to implement it.
Ya think? We have had ANA commandos I fly for who are dead because of COIN already.
I’ll try, but it would be better if you just came back when you knew what you were talking about.
It didn’t involve changing the ROE in Iraq.
Wrong again. We already needed an additional 7,000 for the NATO Bridging Strategy to replace the command here in Kandahar. Also the additional soldiers are needed in RC West because of the growing influence from foreign fighters there. All the last units send here, were sent there.
Biden is an ass and a fool. He thought we could do what I do from Pakistan. Great, where do I get gas? How do I fly all the extra hours it would take to get to my AO from Pakistan? Who comes and gets me if I get shot down? WHere do we build these covert bases in the Pakistani Frontier? His idea was logistically impossible from the start and meaningless by the new ROE standards.
Again, I don’t think you’re a bad guy, you’re just badly informed.
Later
hawkdriver on November 24, 2009 at 11:13 AM
What do you think about Obama’s socialist take over.
Johan Klaus on November 24, 2009 at 11:13 AM
BUT, BUT, BUT and another BUT.
The Times is reporting President Obama to announce Afghanistan surge next week (25,000)
President Obama will next week announce a surge of at least 25,000 new US troops to Afghanistan in a speech to the nation, according to US officials today.
Mr Obama will make the announcement in an address on Tuesday, December 1, after weeks of deliberations over his Afghan strategy and a tenth session with his war council in the White House on Monday night.
The final session was dominated by an issue that has been the focus of Mr Obama’s thinking in recent weeks: how to get US troops out of Afghanistan. The exit strategy for the US military has been as important an element of the strategy review as how many additional troops to send.
“It’s not just how we get people there, but what’s the strategy for getting them out,” said Robert Gibbs, Mr Obama’s spokesman.
Clyde5445 on November 24, 2009 at 11:14 AM
No it doesn’t. Liar.
Here’s what you said ….
Seven years in Afghanistan consuming 20% of the budget. Your words, not mine. Prove it. Provide a link. Liar.
fogw on November 24, 2009 at 11:14 AM
How about Bush for ordering it? What about Obama opposing it?
AsianGirlInTights on November 24, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Hi AsianGirl!
Sorry, my mistake…now that I put my shades on, I can see you are correct.
ladyingray on November 24, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Notice how Bleeds Blue disappears just as rightistliberal arrives with similar talking points. Sockpuppet?
AsianGirlInTights on November 24, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Which political party accuses the other of wanting to cut medicare and social security, of failing miserably and LOSING wars, of raising taxes on the middle class and then once entrusted with power immediately DOES SO?
dhunter on November 24, 2009 at 11:20 AM
It seems anywhere between 25,000 to 34,000 troops will be sent.
Clyde5445 on November 24, 2009 at 11:20 AM
You are wrong. I am merely pointing out that ROE’s would need to change if we are following a COIN strategy. That strategy was not obviously devised by me. But it brought us success in Iraq. Will that work in Afghanistan? I don’t know. But that is what we have gone for.
Hawkdriver thinks COIN is not great. That’s fine. And I am sure lot of people agree with that. But that’s different from your argument.
rightistliberal on November 24, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Or “Cheney”, or “Palin”.
Johan Klaus on November 24, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Maybe you can enlighten us on how many days it is supposed to take to win a war.
Please show us where the democrats that voted unanimously for this war stated on the record that they will support going into Afghanistan for _______ number of days.
The fact we are still there has nothing to do with the fact Bush was able to put a plan together and eradicate the Taliban in less time than it has taken Obama to make a decision on how to supply HIS OWN STRATEGY in Afghanistan after spending more than 2 years bragging about having a “smarter plan”.
But you seem to be ignoring the fact that Obama had NO PLAN AT ALL the whole time he was doing this bragging.
Talk about total incompetence.
Baxter Greene on November 24, 2009 at 11:22 AM
Yes, Bush finally got to it…after 3 years.
Obama never did, unfortunately, and he was wrong.
That is why I said, McCain deserves the most credit for it because he fought for it against all odds.
rightistliberal on November 24, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Got that folks? A palace a day keeps your enemies at bay.
Keep it up libtard, you’re making the Bill Ayers, (“we didn’t do enough”) crowd proud.
Rovin on November 24, 2009 at 11:24 AM
You mean the one used in 1903, the Moro Rebellion? That COIN strategy?…you guys see these little words and you pick up on them like you actually know what they mean.
It is a little more complex then just throwing out a word you think you understand….I think Hawkdriver may have more then a little edge on what it means to be the point of the spear.
right2bright on November 24, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Well, they are both cut from the same fithly, rotten cloth…so maybe…
ladyingray on November 24, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Errr. Iran is our enemy right? What we are doing about it? For last 7 years?
Please see the context: All I meant is there was no need for invasion if all Iraq was doing was troubling our air force. We could have smashed them and keep smashing them for ever.
The ground invasion was justified on the basis of WMDs.
rightistliberal on November 24, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Where’s Bleeds Blue?
AsianGirlInTights on November 24, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Very enlightening. A subjective statement, I’m sure.
Johan Klaus on November 24, 2009 at 11:29 AM
It went for a good cry.
Johan Klaus on November 24, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Very enlightening. A subjective statement, I’m sure.
Johan Klaus on November 24, 2009 at 11:29 AM
His arrogance reminds me of our friend from last night. Just like Obama, it will prove to be their undoing.
kingsjester on November 24, 2009 at 11:31 AM
What do you suggest, being our greatest military thinker and all?
AsianGirlInTights on November 24, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Yes, we coordinate closely, once we get the marching orders from Rahm.
This is actually pretty funny. How many years have we been in Afghanistan since the Taliban was “eradicated?”
Not to fight the last Administration or anything, but that paragraph is delusional.
Bleeds Blue on November 24, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Dude, why assume? And for those interested, everything which is not classified is available to read on the internet. I have made no claims of devising COIN. Or even saying it will work or not. All I am saying that if you support our General in Afghanistan, then he is all for COIN. In case you don’t, that’s a different approach.
rightistliberal on November 24, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Over in the headlines “Special Change” thread bragging about what an excellent parent she is–how modest.
Christien on November 24, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Oh, goody, back.
Christien on November 24, 2009 at 11:33 AM
This war is idiotic, and we are doomed to failure. We will not be successful in turning afghanistan into a modern country, much less a modern liberal democracy. The Soviets couldn’t change them, and they were much tougher of the Afghans than us. We gain no security from this operation. The hijackers were from all over the world, the attacks were planned in Hamburg and Spain, and the flight lessons were taken in san diego. Pulling out a massive troop presence in Afghanistan is not the same as just letting the Taliban and AQ do whatever they want and not giving a damn.(or as posters on this site like to say “waiting for AQ to strike again) We keep a small # of special ops and spies, and perform targeted strikes with air power and assisnations of AQ Taliban leadership. When ever they set up a base camp (which we can see with ariel survailence) we attack them with air power/ commandos. But clear hold rebuild??? You have to be kidding me. I don’t care what life is like for an Afghan, that is their problem. I don’t want my money used building a road, school, power plant, or any other nation building infrastructure. Again for everyone that likes to call themselves fiscal cons, how much is too much? 10 years? 20 years? 1 trillion? 10 trillion? Where do you guys draw the line? Oh and please give the the income tax % increase you would be willing to swallow to continue this BS war
foreveruntil we win?snoopicus on November 24, 2009 at 11:34 AM
:)
I have never made any such claim. And I am more interested in Af-Pak theatre.
But overall on Iran: If it goes for a nuclear bomb, then i think we should let the Israel take care of the “business.”
rightistliberal on November 24, 2009 at 11:35 AM
If you start thinking about money, then you want to lose the war.
rightistliberal on November 24, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »