rcl on November 25, 2009 at 1:55 PM

Public education math skills. Let’s see:; 40,000 more troops needed in one year or we lose the war. 4,500×3=40,000. Ya I guess your correct.

hawkdriver on November 25, 2009 at 7:09 AM

+++ Semper Fi.

Fighting is cycled down over the winter so they’ll probably plan to have a decent buildup in time for the spring offensives.

rcl on November 25, 2009 at 1:55 PM

Really? Please tell the AAF in the Helmand this.

PS Thanks for volunteering us. If I get extended again I’ll be looking to kick someone’s ass.

So Gen. McCrystal says three months ago that if he didn’t get 40,000 troops within a year (by August 2010) the war would be lost. Obama says, I will give the general 34,000 (maybe) troops, but I can only send 4,500 every three months due to logistics. So in the next nine months, assuming the troops start packing now, there will only be 13,500 additional troops during the period that the general said 40,000 was absolutely required, or only one third of the needed soldiers.

You’re letting your political bias shade your predictions.

Looking at the Petraeus surge you’ll see a similar problem. I’m sure the commanders will solve the problems with this surge by the same methods as in Iraq. There are troops being cycled to the theater in January and February. They can extend the rotations back to bump up the numbers until the surge troops start showing up.

Fighting is cycled down over the winter so they’ll probably plan to have a decent buildup in time for the spring offensives.

When I began this blog, I wrote a post offering a defense, albeit a lukewarm one, of Glenn Beck.  So what do I think about his recent call for troops to not reenlist under Obama? Well, when I first read Ed Morrissey’s analysis, I assumed that Bec…

Report: McChrystal satisfied with additional 34,000 troops

Well, if he is smart (which I am sure he is) that was the origional number of troops he thought he needed. He just started off asking for 40,000 ’cause he knew TOTUS (we all know who the reeeaaaal power is) would cut some off whatever number he requested.

I’m not sure anymore if America will be safe under Socialist Obama, especially in the case of any major international conflict.

We’re all screweeeeeeeeeeed.

Palinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn! Where are you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know canopfor, makes you wonder what part of his political sentiments is “rightist”.

hawkdriver on November 25, 2009 at 2:45 AM

hawkdriver:Yup,Hawk,if there was no US Military,the world
would truly be,

H*LL on EARTH!!:)

How about: Not doubting motives?

I’ll do that when you stop doubting my proficiency in my chosen career.

Obama has done exactly what folks on this website wanted him to do.

No, someone released comments on a proposed plan to supply lest than half of the troops that Gen McChrystal asked more going on 4 months after the president knew about the conditions of the request and there has be no formal statement. Plus, if the 34,000 includes the 7,000 that were already slated for the NATO Bridging plan which was already committed under the Bush Administration, then the number is even smaller. About 27,000.

If Palin had done that, they would have been dancing; because Obama has done it, it is because of poll numbers; or he is still trying to shortchange mission, he is going to run away. And what is the evidence for that? None what so ever!

Palin is not the president. I never discussed nor did anyone discuss what her possible discussion on the request might have been.

The man is pushing 50000 more troops into Afghanistan for Lord’s sake.

No he’s not. Plus, for someone who claims to have voted for “The Old Man”, you are one of obama’s biggest defenders on this site. Color me skeptical. Especially when you insinuate and generalize our disrespect for Senator McCain and you use a derogatory term yourself. Color me skeptical twice.

I think that is wrong. That is what the Left did to Bush for 8 years. If that was wrong then, it is wrong now. Note, I think Bush was incompetent but that does not mean he let Katrina happen because he did not care for Black people.

lol, You haven’t stopped doing it to Bush. You are part of the left that you’re talking about. From my point of view and the majority of the servicemen and women that I work with, President Bush was in no way incompetent in the manner he prosecuted the war. Was it perfect? Nope. It never is in war. But I’m sure you could school me on some war your vast experience of martial subjects describes as being conducted perfectly. Do you know how many men died in just the train-up to the evasion of Europe? BTW, when you impugn Mr. Bush, it only makes me want to point out more shortcomings for you guy. Funny game, huh?

Look at your ROE stuff: Is that something which is decided entirely by Obama? Or more like leaders on the ground? Yet, who will people blame here? Obama!

You lefties blamed Bush for every step of Iraq and Afghanistan until obama took over. Are you now saying that people beneath the president are culpable for theater decisions now? Let me answer, yes, you are. And this is why military folks “hate” lefties. We are your pawns under a Conservative Administration. We’re your poor under-supplied, under-appreciated and betrayed little stooges send to be slaughtered by the evil, evil Republicans. Now, we’re the freaking problem and your boy in the WH can absolve his soul of any responsibility for anything done or in his case, anything not done. What a marvelous game of Calvinball you guys play with our lives. Again, any person I know, work or serve with would rather have, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or even Ari Fleischer over this dithering man. He is an epic fail as CinC and you’ll never convince me otherwise. I know because I carry the bodies around from time to time that are a result of his handling of the war and his ROE. So yes, my answer to you is it’s his ROE, in case you didn’t pick up on that. No biggie, he’s just more concerned with his scripted image of him saluting a few flag draped coffins with men that I worked with. Men I know would be absolutely repulsed at his behavior.

And they will ad: It’s because he wants to lose …or wants to set KSM free. I am sorry. I don’t need to subscribe to that kind of nonsense to be a Rightist.

I don’t know what you are, but I do know that if he truly wants to win this war, he going about it in a queer manner. BTW, his buddies on HuffPo seem to be pretty upset. I’m sure they don’t want us to win. More of your friends?

I think there are more than enough legitimate grounds to criticize Obama who I never thought was qualified and is really a Palin-like character.

Then let’s hear some.

My vote was for the old guy who all “true conservatives” hate

See comment above my “rightist” friend. (sure)

and would rather replace by some radio talk show who probably can’t identify Iraq on world map.

Who are you talking about, Rush? He’s visited the troops’ which is more than I can say for Murtha. Who BTW wanted us to fight the war from Okinawa. And also BTW, what map would obama look at to find 57 states?

rightistliberal on November 25, 2009 at 4:20 AM

Color me skeptical thrice.

He already did – saying he was going to fix (the failure?) he was handed.

I was sort of hoping we’d have a doz3en top Generals resign under lack of faith in the POTUS who seems more concerned with caring for the terroists. (Can we still call them that?)

How about: Not doubting motives? Obama has done exactly what folks on this website wanted him to do.

Technically speaking, he hasn’t actually done anything yet; all we have here is unconfirmed rumors for 34k, which may or may not be confirmed or denied sometime next week. This is where we’ve been for at least the past few weeks.

Onto the whole issue about people not being happy about a 34k decision, even though it was what was asked for. There is an army saying that it is better to make the wrong decision decisively, than make the right decision indecisively. In a war there are a lot of bad options, and a lot of ways for any option to go wrong, but if you let yourself get paralyzed with trying to find the best one, the other guy’s just going to walk right up to you and shoot you before you can figure it out.

The current administration has a real problem with dithering, and not just on this. At some point he’s going to have to start making some decisions, or appointing people to make them in his place, or large swaths of the government are going to grind to a halt. That doesn’t seem to me to be the way to take out the garbage, let alone win a war.

I know canopfor, makes you wonder what part of his political sentiments is “rightist”.

hawkdriver on November 25, 2009 at 2:45 AM

How about: Not doubting motives? Obama has done exactly what folks on this website wanted him to do. If Palin had done that, they would have been dancing; because Obama has done it, it is because of poll numbers; or he is still trying to shortchange mission, he is going to run away. And what is the evidence for that? None what so ever! The man is pushing 50000 more troops into Afghanistan for Lord’s sake.

I think that is wrong. That is what the Left did to Bush for 8 years. If that was wrong then, it is wrong now. Note, I think Bush was incompetent but that does not mean he let Katrina happen because he did not care for Black people.

Look at your ROE stuff: Is that something which is decided entirely by Obama? Or more like leaders on the ground? Yet, who will people blame here? Obama!

And they will ad: It’s because he wants to lose …or wants to set KSM free. I am sorry. I don’t need to subscribe to that kind of nonsense to be a Rightist.

I think there are more than enough legitimate grounds to criticize Obama who I never thought was qualified and is really a Palin-like character.

My vote was for the old guy who all “true conservatives” hate and would rather replace by some radio talk show who probably can’t identify Iraq on world map.