GOP freshman: Bring the troops home

posted at 6:58 pm on November 30, 2009 by Allahpundit

I thought of writing about Michael Moore’s cri de coeur instead, just to give you something to beat up on in the comments, but (a) Moore hasn’t been relevant for five years and (b) his screed clunks along with so many anti-war cliches that it reads more like an attempt to start a drinking game than a serious argument. The “graveyard of empires” is mentioned, as is MLK, as is the war-is-a-racket-to-scam-the-poor meme, and on and on; the only things missing are a reference to the “brutal Afghan winter” and the realization that Obama’s “landslide victory” was built in part on promises to win the war in Afghanistan, not abandon it. But then, that’s all part of Moore’s schtick. He’s forever being betrayed by the Democrats (his open letters to Obama always have a treacly Sullivan-esque “don’t break my heart” tone to them), even on matters where they’ve explicitly campaigned against his position. If you care enough to read it, follow the link.

I’d rather talk about Jason Chaffetz. This is now the third prominent conservative voice in two weeks to call for getting out of Afghanistan because Obama won’t “fight to win” or some variation thereof. Fred Thompson led the charge, and then Glenn Beck chimed in with his free advice to vets about how maybe they shouldn’t reenlist. Now here comes Chaffetz advising Obama to “go big or go home” by defining the mission specifically and relaxing the rules of engagement — before proceeding to this:

Mr. President, it is time to bring our troops home.

If our mission in Afghanistan is simply to protect the populace and build the nation, then I believe the time has come to bring our troops home.

We have successfully rooted out Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan. Fewer than 100 Al-Qaeda operatives are operating in Afghanistan according to Retired General James L. Jones’ assessment of the situation. “I don’t foresee the return of the Taliban,” he said in an October 4 Associated Press report. Jones, who is President Obama’s National Security Advisor, continued: “Afghanistan is not in imminent danger of falling. The al Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.”

Mr. President, we all recognize that we will still have to fight Al-Qaeda around the globe. So let’s bring home the tens of thousands who have fought so valiantly to protect America.

Let’s instead use the best human and electronic surveillance available to allow our special forces to target and kill those who actually threaten us.

I don’t know where to begin. For starters, if he thinks it’s time to go home, why even preface this with the “go big” option? That smacks of CYA, as if he’s afraid to fully commit to his pullout position and is trying to fob off some of the blame for it onto The One because he won’t “fight hard enough” or whatever. If you want out, say so; I have few kind things to say about Ron Paul, but at least when he wants to quit, he doesn’t try to pretend it’s because Obama’s too soft. As for the specifics, where else around the world does he think we need a significant troop presence to fight Al Qaeda? Does the Chaffetz plan call for an invasion of Yemen or Somalia or something? (Bonus irony: While he’s busy demanding that we free up tens of thousands of troops to fight AQ around the globe, he insists that we can handle AQ in Afghanistan and Pakistan with a small number of hunter-killer teams).

As for his dismissal of the threat still posed by AQ in that region, I’ll let lefty Fred Kaplan — who’s also ambivalent about the war, but not prepared to deceive himself about the consequences of withdrawal — handle it:

As with confronting most messes in life, the initial impulse is to flee. But if we simply pulled out, it’s a near-certain bet that the Taliban would march into Kabul, and most other Afghan towns they’d care to, in a matter of weeks. True, the Taliban are not the same as al-Qaida, but there’s little doubt that they would provide sanctuary and alliance (as they did after the Soviets were ousted), and this would strengthen al-Qaida in its struggle against Pakistan, the United States, and others.

One might dispute the significance of this, at least for its direct danger to the United States. Al-Qaida, after all, can plan attacks on U.S. territory from other sanctuaries, even from apartments in Western cities. But it’s naive to claim that leaving Afghanistan would have no broader effect.

Another problem with withdrawing is that it would signal, correctly or not, a huge victory for anti-American forces generally. If we left Afghanistan to the Taliban (and, by extension, al-Qaida), especially after such a prolonged commitment (at least rhetorically), what other embattled people would trust the United States (or the other putative allies in this war) to come in and protect them from insurgents? None, and they could hardly be blamed.

Beyond all that, after reading Chaffetz and listening to Thompson and Beck, I’m still not sure what it would mean to “go big” or “fight to win.” Those phrases are tossed around a lot as catch-all reasons to be skeptical of Obama, but rarely are they precisely defined. Assume he surprises us all tomorrow night by giving McChrystal the full complement of 40,000 troops that he requested. Good enough? Kaplan notes that a counterinsurgency strategy in line with the Army field manual would require 400,000 troops. Is that the new conservative position, and if so, are we prepared to support a draft to realize it? Also, how specifically should we relax the rules of engagement? The One, to his credit, continued Bush’s policy of drone attacks on AQ leaders even though the risk of collateral damage is high; he doesn’t seem strikingly more squeamish about civilian casualties than Dubya was, and yet conservative support for the war in Afghanistan was rock solid until this year. And yet the ROEs come up a lot in righty critiques of the war, even though none of the chief strategic challenges of Afghanistan — the government is weak and corrupt, the Taliban is hard to find and pin down, and we lack enough boots on the ground for a robust clear-and-hold counterinsurgency strategy — would seem to change dramatically by relaxing them. But then, my military ignorance got me in trouble last week so I may well be stepping in it again. How am I wrong here?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3

If Obama is not going to fund and support the troops with the reinforcements they need, and he’s just going to continue to dither and leave them hanging, then yes–he just needs to end it now and bring them all home.

Enoxo on November 30, 2009 at 7:00 PM

If Obama is not going to fund and support the troops with the reinforcements they need, and he’s just going to continue to dither and leave them hanging, then yes–he just needs to end it now and bring them all home.

Right. But how many reinforcements? He’s sending 30,000; McChrystal wants 40,000. You’re saying unless he gets the full 40K, it’s time to pull out? I’m just trying to get specifics here.

Allahpundit on November 30, 2009 at 7:02 PM

The “full complement” that McChrystal asked for was alot more than 40K, it was more like 80 to 90K.

Jason Coleman on November 30, 2009 at 7:02 PM

I agree, fight all out to win, or don’t bother. Of course the troops want to finish it, they are warriors.

But who can argue they’ll be permitted to? We just courtmartialed 3 Seals for one fat lip.

Why?

rightwingyahooo on November 30, 2009 at 7:02 PM

If you’re not going to fight to win, why even fight? Why go for half measures, which not only includes boots on the ground but also the rules of engagement. Let our boys win this. Don’t hamstring them in a mission to ensure our security from external threats. And for God sakes don’t announce a surge along with an exit strategy!

milemarker2020 on November 30, 2009 at 7:03 PM

Enoxo on November 30, 2009 at 7:00 PM

agreed. Re-deploy the troops to Venezuela, and then maybe New England.

You go where the Enemy is……..

Janos Hunyadi on November 30, 2009 at 7:05 PM

Assume he surprises us all tomorrow night by giving McChrystal the full complement of 40,000 troops that he requested. Good enough?

He won’t do it…we know that. He’s just not that into America winning anything. That’s why these calls are happening. Obama is burying us…we can’t even begin to dig out until he is gone. These guys know he won’t crap on his lefty, anti-war/pro-jihad buddies on the left. Do you really think Obama really wants to ‘win’ this war?

AUINSC on November 30, 2009 at 7:05 PM

No we are saying that whatever the surge level, fully fund the troops, let them fight to win, i.e. allow our soldiers to engage the enemy and have the testicular fortitude to see this thing through to victory and actual say victory in your speech tomorrow. Don’t come tomorrow with an exit strategy at the same time you’re announcing a surge!

milemarker2020 on November 30, 2009 at 7:05 PM

Does Allah believe we should continue to fight halfassed? Would he pick up a rifle under these rules?

rightwingyahooo on November 30, 2009 at 7:05 PM

Right. But how many reinforcements? He’s sending 30,000; McChrystal wants 40,000. You’re saying unless he gets the full 40K, it’s time to pull out? I’m just trying to get specifics here.

Allahpundit on November 30, 2009 at 7:02 PM

McChrystal gave three options: 80k for low risk, 40k for medium risk, and 20k for high risk.

He should have sent the full 80k three months ago rather than stalling.

On top of that, whatever Obama is sending (34k…30k), he’s not sending them immediately but rather in a phased deployment over a period of 12 months. McChrystal stated we had 10-or-so months to win the war, and that started three months ago.

This is not a strategy to win, but try to delay and put off political pressure.

Enoxo on November 30, 2009 at 7:05 PM

GOP? What’s his explanation. A love of all things Beckian.

Mr. Joe on November 30, 2009 at 7:06 PM

Under Obama’s hand, this is a lost cause. Please tell me if you have any confidence at this point regarding his handling of this war. Obama’s not gonna win it.

Apologetic California on November 30, 2009 at 7:06 PM

I agree, fight all out to win, or don’t bother. Of course the troops want to finish it, they are warriors.

Yes, we all agree on that. No one wants troops in the field with no possibility of victory. But again: I’m asking for specifics here. Give me numbers or specific rules of engagement that would qualify as “fighting to win.” If the right is going to oppose Obama’s build-up, let’s be more specific than “he’s not fighting right.”

Allahpundit on November 30, 2009 at 7:06 PM

Look what Marcus Lattrell said on Beck today: The USmil is throwing away three million dollar assets over one fat lip.

Conclusion: We have no intention of winning, let alone fighting.

rightwingyahooo on November 30, 2009 at 7:07 PM

I’d rather talk about Jason Chaffetz. This is now the third prominent conservative voice in two weeks to call for getting out of Afghanistan

Never heard of him.

portlandon on November 30, 2009 at 7:07 PM

I’m just trying to get specifics here.

Allahpundit on November 30, 2009 at 7:02 PM

Why–you can’t get them from the Obam-admin? Or they have lotsa specifics, only they’re lies which change with the telling?

Okay, pull the troops out. That sh-thole is not worth either of my son’s lives, and most American fathers probably think the same thing

Janos Hunyadi on November 30, 2009 at 7:07 PM

Does anyone who has read the McChrystal Report have an opinion on General McChrystal’s describing the Taliban’s attacks as “anti-Islamic”? How can this view..which is basically the same as Jacqui Smith’s…be reconciled with victory? How will x amount more troops help?

aengus on November 30, 2009 at 7:07 PM

The “full complement” that McChrystal asked for was alot more than 40K, it was more like 80 to 90K.

Jason Coleman on November 30, 2009 at 7:02 PM

And the original request was based upon a speedy decision and mobilization, wasn’t it? So, because of the dithering of the CiC, I’d expect if asked, General McChrystal would revise his numbers upwards.

SPCOlympics on November 30, 2009 at 7:08 PM

I remember reading last week that McChrystal was okay with 35,000 troops if he got them ASAP. If things change from that reported number, and McChrystal’s not happy… and it takes months to get the troops deployed then I’m not happy.

This was Obama’s battle which he claimed he wanted won with his “new direction” he spoke about in March. He better give McChrystal what he needs.

WhoU4 on November 30, 2009 at 7:08 PM

If you go into war with an “exit strategy” mindset, you’ve already lost.

In war…it’s victory or defeat. Our president doesn’t like the V word so what point is there to send troops over to fight a war without a plan to win?

powerpro on November 30, 2009 at 7:08 PM

All in to win. If we are going to dither around with halfway measures, and can’t even reinforce the troops without promising we’ll soon be pulling out then all we are doing is getting people killed.

I can’t see what is so conceptually difficult about the “if you are going to fight, fight to win” meme. Enough troops, supplies, and equipment. A vigorous and aggressive strategy. Bush barely had that, Obama was doing ok until he got the request from McChrystal for additional troops and the demand from MoveOn that we lose the war again.

DaMav on November 30, 2009 at 7:09 PM

If Obama is not going to fund and support the troops with the reinforcements they need, and he’s just going to continue to dither and leave them hanging, then yes–he just needs to end it now and bring them all home.

Enoxo on November 30, 2009 at 7:00 PM

That says it.
Our troops are sitting in the middle of a war zone while their Commander in Chief is giving lavish White House parties, posing for People and other magazines,, basically, doing nothing. By his own words, our troops are just a good photo op.

JellyToast on November 30, 2009 at 7:09 PM

Right. But how many reinforcements? He’s sending 30,000; McChrystal wants 40,000. You’re saying unless he gets the full 40K, it’s time to pull out? I’m just trying to get specifics here.

Allahpundit on November 30, 2009 at 7:02 PM

40K troops when McChrystal actually asked for them (months ago) would have gone alot farther winning Afghanistan.

30K troops now that Afghanistan has nearly gone off the rails….

Barry doomed these 30k troop surges to failure by his dithering.

portlandon on November 30, 2009 at 7:10 PM

I am at a loss. If we stay the troops are picked off one by one with low moral and deteriorating local support. If we leave the country will fall to the Taliban and eventually so will Pakistan. I’m for all in and wipe the area clean.

faol on November 30, 2009 at 7:10 PM

I don’t want to lose any more soldiers while the president plays Sit Room. I don’t want to throw my hands up and quit on Afghanistan. I’m unsure of what to do.

However, I am sure that I did not vote for Obama to be the CinC. I am also sure that before today I only kinda-sorta knew that Chaffetz existed, but today he’s getting talked about a lot.

myrenovations on November 30, 2009 at 7:10 PM

Never heard of him.

He beat Chris Cannon, R-UT3, he of the “we give illegals drivers licenses around here” famous quote….

rightwingyahooo on November 30, 2009 at 7:10 PM

Is he up for re-election next year and figure he`ll win by going democrat-lite?

ThePrez on November 30, 2009 at 7:11 PM

portlandon on November 30, 2009 at 7:07 PM

was thinking the same thing…prominent?

cmsinaz on November 30, 2009 at 7:11 PM

Good lord! He looks like a freshman — in High School.

S. Weasel on November 30, 2009 at 7:11 PM

Remember Obama has stated he has a problem with “Victory”. He does not want to win, so bring them home.

kemg on November 30, 2009 at 7:11 PM

People act as if Afghanistan exists in a vacuum. We can not just boogy on home, no foul. AlQaida will see us as weak, and they will come back at us. Count on it. We have been down this road before and by now we should know where it leads to. Rubble.

I think that Beck and this guy and Thompson are mostly just beating Obama over the head, but the fact is that they are playing politics with the war. That is exactly what they are doing.

Terrye on November 30, 2009 at 7:12 PM

Yes, we all agree on that. No one wants troops in the field with no possibility of victory. But again: I’m asking for specifics here. Give me numbers or specific rules of engagement that would qualify as “fighting to win.” If the right is going to oppose Obama’s build-up, let’s be more specific than “he’s not fighting right.”

Allahpundit on November 30, 2009 at 7:06 PM

In this “war of necessity”, Obama promised to listen first and foremost to his men on the ground.

McChrystal said he needed 40k to win…and even then it had to be sooner rather than later.

Obama’s dithering, his golfing…touring the world etc…showed us what a priority the war really was to him (as if we didn’t know).

The fact that he’s doing his own about face and is ignoring McChrystal’s requirements is just another sign that this is about politics to him. He’s trying to split the baby to try to appease both sides, rather than focusing on the only goal he should as CoC: WINNING.

powerpro on November 30, 2009 at 7:12 PM

I would like to see the USmil fight WWII rules. We kill them, and we don’t stop until they come over with their hands up, and if they’d rather die, we oblige them.

Let the staff work out the details.

Flame on.

rightwingyahooo on November 30, 2009 at 7:12 PM

I don’t see the problem.

We pull out — then nuke the place. Which we should have done around 2P ET on September 11, 2001 without ever sending in a single precious Western troop.

We — I’m Canadian — are building schools for people with no written culture, who are tribal low IQ child molesters (both sexes) who only care about growing drugs that…also kill Americans. The Afghans will never be grateful or helpful to us “infidels.” If you think they will you are thinking as a Judeo/Christian Westerner; they don’t think the way we do.

We’re not talking about Japan or Germany here. There is no Afghan tea ceremony or Beethoven; they have no living memory of high culture they can aspire to return to.

The war I — an ex-peacenik — supported involved breaking stuff and killing people.

Instead, our guys are getting killed and maimed (Canadians in esp. high numbers in terms of our committment) and for what?

fivefeetoffury on November 30, 2009 at 7:13 PM

Remember Obama has stated he has a problem with “Victory”. He does not want to win, so bring them home.

kemg on November 30, 2009 at 7:11 PM

And then what? This is just away for conservatives to get away with doing the same crap the Democrats did to Bush for years.

Terrye on November 30, 2009 at 7:13 PM

I meant CinC not CoC. Whoops.

powerpro on November 30, 2009 at 7:13 PM

Give me numbers or specific rules of engagement that would qualify as “fighting to win.” If the right is going to oppose Obama’s build-up, let’s be more specific than “he’s not fighting right.”

Allahpundit on November 30, 2009 at 7:06 PM

You don’t need that…you know his approach already. It’s the LBJ approach to Vietnam…sacrifice the lives of troops for your personal, political CYA. We lost Afghanistan and the war on terror the day this idiot was sworn in. It’s up to him to show he’s serious about winning it like he said he was…not the American people.

AUINSC on November 30, 2009 at 7:14 PM

Never heard of him.

portlandon on November 30, 2009 at 7:07 PM

He’s the gay looking guy in the picture in this thread./J
Never heard of him either.

Itchee Dryback on November 30, 2009 at 7:14 PM

An excerpt from the McChrystal report:

A more forceful and offensive StratCom approach must be devised whereby INS [insurgents] are exposed continually for their cultural and religious violations, anti-Islamic and indiscriminate use of violence and terror, and by concentrating on their vulnerabilities. These include their causing ofthe majority of civilian casualties, attacks on education, development projects, and government institutions, and flagrant contravention of the principles of the Koran. These vulnerabilities must be expressed in a manner that exploits the cultural and ideological separation of the INS from the vast majority of the Afghan population.

aengus on November 30, 2009 at 7:15 PM

We pull out — then nuke the place.

Which is never going to happen, under either a Democrat or a Republican. Why even suggest it? I’m asking for a real solution here.

If the answer is “more troops,” where are they coming from?

Allahpundit on November 30, 2009 at 7:15 PM

If the answer is “more troops,” where are they coming from?

Allahpundit on November 30, 2009 at 7:15 PM

Tell the Iraqis “Well, look at the time. We gotta go, it`s been real!”

Or we raise a clone army.

ThePrez on November 30, 2009 at 7:18 PM

You don’t need that…you know his approach already. It’s the LBJ approach to Vietnam…sacrifice the lives of troops for your personal, political CYA. We lost Afghanistan and the war on terror the day this idiot was sworn in. It’s up to him to show he’s serious about winning it like he said he was…not the American people.

AUINSC on November 30, 2009 at 7:14 PM

The VietNam approach also included convincing the American people that the war could not be won thereby destroying their will to fight. I think that there some folks on the right who are doing some of that themselves right now, just because they hate Obama. I don’t like the guy either, I did not vote for him and I would not vote for him.

But I don’t think that anyone is really talking about leaving Afghanistan altogether anyway. And if we did, that would not be the end of it. There would be repercussions beyond making Obama look bad.

Terrye on November 30, 2009 at 7:18 PM

They don’t call ‘em freshmen for nothin’

faraway on November 30, 2009 at 7:19 PM

And then what? This is just away for conservatives to get away with doing the same crap the Democrats did to Bush for years.

Terrye on November 30, 2009 at 7:13 PM

What do you want us to say? We want to win in A-stan. We want our President to want that too. We want him to make national security a bigger issue than passing his radical socialist agenda.

It’s clearly not the case.

So what then? Do we advocate leaving troops there without the tools and support they require for victory? They’re just fish in a barrel right now. So why leave them there if Obama isn’t interested in winning? How is that good for us as a nation? How is that good for the troops who are stuck there without the support their general requires?

The one playing politics is the president. He announced the strategy to win in March…he got McChrystal to tell him what he needed to make that strategy work…and now, after months of doing anything other than making a decision, he’s making a purely political decision that has nothing to do with securing victory in the battlefield.

Thompson, Beck and others didn’t make Obama a gutless coward with no heart for victory who uses troops as a photo op. Obama did. They’re just calling it as they see it.

powerpro on November 30, 2009 at 7:19 PM

Chaffetz is the John Edwards of Utah .

borntoraisehogs on November 30, 2009 at 7:20 PM

Give me numbers or specific rules of engagement that would qualify as “fighting to win.” If the right is going to oppose Obama’s build-up, let’s be more specific than “he’s not fighting right.”

Allahpundit on November 30, 2009 at 7:06 PM

I believe the ROE limiting ability to engage hostiles if they retreat into a dwelling may be the most significant. There may be others. HA poster, hawkdriver, who is a helicopter pilot over there, has made references to being unable to fire on guys implanting IEDs roadside unless certain requirements are met. I suspect it has to do with getting brass authorization which may come much too late.

a capella on November 30, 2009 at 7:21 PM

They will come from Iraq and if not from their, then we get them from Europe. If not from there Korea/Japan. Really we need to go to win. It will probably require twice the surge level of Iraq, so 60,000. But as the previous commentators have suggested its not just the troop level. Its how fast you get them in theater, how committed are you to the mission, and whether you will let these soldiers fight. This is what victory requires and if he is not willing to give all in these areas don’t fight at all. We don’t want our soldiers fighting for a lost cause, i.e. Vietnam.

milemarker2020 on November 30, 2009 at 7:21 PM

fivefeetoffury on November 30, 2009 at 7:13 PM

You are hereby directed to report to PC camp. Until you rid yourself of reality and are able to coombyya with the world. And have a Coke.

faol on November 30, 2009 at 7:22 PM

If the answer is “more troops,” where are they coming from?

Allahpundit on November 30, 2009 at 7:15 PM

If you wanted a real answer one could only be given after reviewing the “specific needs” as defined by McChrystal. And then after that is known we would need the unit roster’s and rotations from all branch of services to select where they would come from.

WhoU4 on November 30, 2009 at 7:22 PM

If the answer is “more troops,” where are they coming from?

Allahpundit on November 30, 2009 at 7:15 PM

Well, I doubt they’re coming from NATO. Do we even have enough troops to send?

Knucklehead on November 30, 2009 at 7:22 PM

If the answer is “more troops,” where are they coming from?

Allahpundit on November 30, 2009 at 7:15 PM

Allah:

My understanding is that it will take some time to get these troops over there. Months at the very least, maybe longer. We are supposed to be moving some troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011. I am sure we will be leaving people there, but tens of thousands will be deployed out of there. Hopefully, the situation in Afghanistan will stabilize and there will be more troops from NATO, but perhaps in the future we can move some troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.

But right now, the commanders on the ground are not asking for hundreds of thousands of men. Hopefully, they won’t.

Terrye on November 30, 2009 at 7:22 PM

I’m still not sure what it would mean to “go big” or “fight to win.”

How about this: We want our troops to be allowed to DO THEIR JOBS and fight for VICTORY, instead of getting court-marshalled for giving terrorists a FAT FUCKING LIP.

This is the backwards mindset they’ve had to fight under, and precisely why we’re in this position, with no end in sight.

Or how about this, for those of you who support the status quo:

What Beck and the rest are saying is the ONLY moral way to fight a war: You go all out, destroy the enemy as soon as you can by all means necessary. To do anything otherwise prolongs the horrors of war — with far more civilians dead, more heroes lost, and a more emboldened enemy. Sound familiar?

To NOT disagree with the way we’re fighting this war, is to say you have no problem with putting our troops at unnecessary risk (apparently valued below terrorists now), in a situation set up for failure, and thrown under the bus at will to maintain a PC image. Oh, and apparently, not even for our own security, but for nation-building a shithole full of people who hate our guts, and work against us with impunity.

All of this undermines support for the overall war (a struggle our leaders don’t seem to grasp even the basics of), weakens our military, and strengthens the enemy in a TRUE quagmire.

I’m as hawkish as they come. And every conservative hawk who understands the importance of winning this war, should stand right with me in criticizing how we’re waging it. Because to support the status quo is to support FAILURE.

jjraines on November 30, 2009 at 7:23 PM

SPCOlympics on November 30, 2009 at 7:08 PM

Agreed! Have to be careful, I am still active duty, but if our CINC got those troops over there when Gen McChrystal first requested them, it would have said 2 things, first, he wouldn’t look so weak and indecisive to us and the world. And, two, we would be that much further w/ operations over there. 6-8 months is a huge amount of time while talking about military ops…

Static21 on November 30, 2009 at 7:23 PM

The VietNam approach also included convincing the American people that the war could not be won thereby destroying their will to fight. I think that there some folks on the right who are doing some of that themselves right now, just because they hate Obama.

I think the American Armed Forces are asked to complete impossible tasks. The fact is that the Taliban, or whatever you want to call them, are just tribal Pashtuns. The word ‘talib’ just means student i.e. someone who has studied the Koran.

A strategy that involves winning the loyalty of one groups of Pastuns from another group of Pashtuns to a foreign army is not realistic.

Pretending that the Taliban are heretics by teh standards of the Koran (is McChrystal an Islamic scholar?) is not realistic.

Granted that nuking is out of the question, is there some way that an achieveable realistic goal can be set and then achieved? If not then they might as well pull out because they’re only wasting time and lives otherwise.

aengus on November 30, 2009 at 7:24 PM

But I don’t think that anyone is really talking about leaving Afghanistan altogether anyway. And if we did, that would not be the end of it. There would be repercussions beyond making Obama look bad.

Terrye on November 30, 2009 at 7:18 PM

That would be almost convincing if a) Obama had followed through with his March 2009 plan…where he promised he would commit whatever resources he needed to promise to win the war and b) Obama wasn’t the biggest, narcissistic liar we’ve ever had in the White House…bar none. The solution is obvious…but he won’t do it. He keeps negotiating downward.

And…to set you straight on one point…I want to win there more than anything…but I don’t trust Obama to carry us to victory…whether from incompetence (abundant) or lack of will (abundant)…he will not win…that is clear. I don’t want any more of our troops dying there as a result. We’ll have to restart the war after he is gone…but if you think this buffoon will win anything beyond his ‘Nobel Prize’…then you are kidding yourself.

AUINSC on November 30, 2009 at 7:24 PM

Not bad,Obama is in power less than one year,and somehow,
in some way,the Liberal Party seems to have triangled itself
on the war!

The Left has absolutely ROYALLY F**KED THIS UP REAL GOOD!

The Left have skillfully,and so far politically have allowed others,including the RIGHT to make the hard
decisions,

and,

this has been the Liberal narrative,stall and let The War on
Terror collapse on its own,by politically ignoring it!!!!

The entire Liberal Party,stated they had a plan prior to
Hopey/Changeys Presidentcy on the WAR,

they lied!!

Impeach,and charge the entire LEFT WITH TREASON!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on November 30, 2009 at 7:24 PM

If the right is going to oppose Obama’s build-up, let’s be more specific than “he’s not fighting right.”

Allahpundit on November 30, 2009 at 7:06 PM

Do you really need a list of rules?

How Wars Are Won: The 13 Rules of War from Ancient Greece to the War on Terror Bevin Alexander $10.85 Amazon

portlandon on November 30, 2009 at 7:24 PM

If the answer is “more troops,” where are they coming from?

Allahpundit on November 30, 2009 at 7:15 PM

Well, we could draw from Europe; if this link is correct, we have over 73,000 troops in Germany alone. That’s one solution. We shift troops from Europe, let them take responsibility for their own defense for a change, and focus on Afghanistan. Of course, the problem with that is we’re worried about Russia, so we may need to maintain some sort of European presence. In that case…maybe we do need some sort of a draft. Or at least better recruitment benefits, more incentive for people to join up, which in turn would require a Commander-in-Chief worthy of the title, and not a dithering little twit who cares more about his image and his Peace Prize than winning the war.

TheQuestion on November 30, 2009 at 7:24 PM

Give me numbers or specific rules of engagement that would qualify as “fighting to win.”

Allahpundit on November 30, 2009 at 7:06 PM

Kill em all and let God sort em out.

In other words, fight with overwhelming force. Not just enough to win. Not being a military tactician, the numbers escape me. But if McCrystal asks for 90K, I’d give him 150K.

csdeven on November 30, 2009 at 7:25 PM

Fight to win. If you don’t have the stomach for that, then don’t even try.

Six months have gone by since the number of troops was suggested, to go all in. In the meantime, events on the ground have changed. While the White House dithers, the Taliban, AQ, and every other faction in Afghanistan have come to believe that we are pulling out, or are just going through the motions.

Thus…a lot more than 30k troops spread out over several months until next Spring are needed.

All the rest…the possibilities of fighting from both sides of the Afghan-Pak border, the increase of NATO troops, the possible coalition of other nations in the region to root out the Taliban and AQ, and keep Iran in check, establishing a stable government in Kabul, establishing the rule of law in the provinces, and quite a few other things are all dependent on the resolve of the United States to get in there, do it right, do it right now, and then look to getting out.

Tomorrow night, Obama will hold a prime-time presser, stating that he is looking to send 30k troops, and also at the same time laying out a timetable for us to get out.

Imagine FDR telling Berlin or Tokyo what we’d do, what sort of losses we’d be willing to endure, when and where we’d deploy troops, what our game plan was, and all the rest?

Obama and his “war council” apparently haven’t a clue other than the usual community organizing shtick.

Tell me just one thing Obama ever started that he completed on his own? Just one? None of his Chicago “projects” are viable, and all have cost far far more than the original price tag. And Obama pretends to understand the rudiments of successful war fighting?

Gimme a break.

I’d much prefer to pull out and let Afghanistan and the rest of the world figure this one out if we do not have the stomach to do what is clearly necessary to get the job done right and soon.

coldwarrior on November 30, 2009 at 7:25 PM

What do you want us to say? We want to win in A-stan. We want our President to want that too. We want him to make national security a bigger issue than passing his radical socialist agenda.

It’s clearly not the case.

powerpro:

What do I want you to say? I don’t want you to say that the war is lost like Thompson did or that soldiers should refust to reenlist like Beck did, or that we should pull out like Chavetz did. These people have all taken positions that will definitely lead to a loss because they say they are not convinced that Obama wants to win. So what does that mean?

Terrye on November 30, 2009 at 7:26 PM

I can understand why these guys would say that. I mean, if you aren’t going to fight to win, why fight at all?

But should they say it this loudly? Should this really be the talking point of the Right? The same right that took the left to task over them saying something similar(The difference being the left didn’t care about winning, and wanted the U.S. to lose)

Maybe I could understand this if many of these republicans believed that by saying this, Obama would be childish enough to go against the GOP and actually fight to win this. But I’m not sure that’s what Obama is gonna do.

Trov on November 30, 2009 at 7:27 PM

If the answer is “more troops,” where are they coming from?

Allahpundit on November 30, 2009 at 7:15 PM

Easy. Relax the enlistment standards.

csdeven on November 30, 2009 at 7:28 PM

Meh, did my message really not go through…

jjraines on November 30, 2009 at 7:28 PM

Send the troops, but with a major change to the Rules of Engagement to include only the following rule:

“Fu%k Political Correctness. Do what ever it takes to win and save American lives!”

Seven Percent Solution on November 30, 2009 at 7:28 PM

Does anyone who has studied US military history come to a different conclusion than “fight to win”. Is there a legitimate strategic reason to fear the “Arab Street” 1.3 billion strong?

Personally, I don’t see it. Am I wrong?

rightwingyahooo on November 30, 2009 at 7:28 PM

I like Chaffetz, he is the Congressman in the congressional district next to mine. Pretty strong conservative, but then again, he is representing perhaps the most conservative district in the nation (Rural Utah).

That being said, I think Allah is right about the CYA feel of this statement.

I think the the feeling of some conservatives is that as long as BO is POTUS, the war is lost. Why put our armed forces in a postion where they cannot win? I’d rather pull out now than face a slow detoriartion with a dithering CIC who already told us he “doesn’t believe in winning”.

It’s 3 years until 2012, and that’s too long. Heck, 10 months has been too long.

Norwegian on November 30, 2009 at 7:28 PM

Yep you have to fight to win and that means crushing the Taliban where they live (no safe havens), cutting them off from their sources of money, supplies and recruits, along with systematically destroying their command and control network and aggresivly taking out their leadership. If you remove their capacity to effectively make war then they cease to be a military threat. However to do this means going after them in Pakistan and quite frankly I cant see this happening because Obama doesn’t have the balls and the Pakistanis seem more intent on trying to push the problem into Afghanistan instead of effectively dealing with the problem themselves.

Hellrider on November 30, 2009 at 7:28 PM

AUINSC on November 30, 2009 at 7:14 PM

I agree. This guy is playing his politics. In a war, isn’t that enough for impeachment?

He’ll give some troops..but keep the hands tied ROE’s, prosecute our troops for punching a barbaric animal, and then suggest that maybe if you want this to go on with this battle, you should pay for it with extra taxes, presumably because winning a war is not important enough when compared to capturing carbon, windmills, and “free” health care based on numbers that are a lie. Prosecute ACORN whistle blowers..but look the other way to New Black Panther intimidation, and SEIU hate crimes. Fire a IG when he pokes around too close to home, but steal bond holders shares of companies and give then to special interest group…and lie, lie, lie, lie, lie to the the American people.
When is enough enough??

Itchee Dryback on November 30, 2009 at 7:28 PM

You go where the Enemy is……..

Janos Hunyadi on November 30, 2009 at 7:05 PM

The White House? Maybe we can get three SEALs to give Obama a fat lip!

VoyskaPVO on November 30, 2009 at 7:29 PM

If the answer is “more troops,” where are they coming from?

Allahpundit on November 30, 2009 at 7:15 PM

Too much is already being asked of too many. Too many military personnel are being sent on too many deployments, with not enough time home in between.

Meanwhile, the Af-Pak border leaks like a sieve. How do you ‘win’ against an enemy who never stops coming, and yet runs away from most engagements?

It would take 100, 000 or more to Sorta Win, and 100K are not available. So leave, before more good men die for Too Little

Janos Hunyadi on November 30, 2009 at 7:29 PM

Obama is making a war strategy decision that should have been made 3 months ago. The situation on the ground has changed. He neutered General McChrystal openly and deliberately by stalling him on troop levels.

Why is Obama waiting for the graduation to announce his strategy? Is it because he needs to be center stage with all cameras on him in order to announce a decision that any other President would have done from the Oval office?

His Ego is getting men & women killed and frankly I’m sick of this jerk demanding to have the spot light on him to get anything accomplished.

F Obama.

portlandon on November 30, 2009 at 7:29 PM

coldwarrior:

I understand what you are saying, but this stuff of not even trying will not be an option if the terrorists think they can get away with killing Americans with impunity. That is my point.

Reagan pulled out of Lebanon because he was not into fighting a full fledged war with Iran or Hezbellah. Did they leave us alone and go away?

Clinton spent the 90s lobbing the occasional cruise missile at the stray terrorist here and there…did that keep them at bay?

Clinton messed with Saddam for years because he was not into fighting a real war with him, did Saddam learn his lesson?

The idea that we can just say, well Obama is not really into this so let’s just pack it in and come home and that will be the end of it is naive.

We will end up back over there. And probably with even fewer allies and no local support.

Terrye on November 30, 2009 at 7:30 PM

People act as if Afghanistan exists in a vacuum. We can not just boogy on home, no foul. AlQaida will see us as weak, and they will come back at us. Count on it. We have been down this road before and by now we should know where it leads to. Rubble.

I think that Beck and this guy and Thompson are mostly just beating Obama over the head, but the fact is that they are playing politics with the war. That is exactly what they are doing.

Terrye on November 30, 2009 at 7:12 PM

I agree with you on this. There is no easy button on this one. People can rail on reasons why that is so, but really that’s just how it is in Afghanistan and how it will always be. It’s not just a matter of sending in hundreds of thousands and overwhelming them.

I think it is reasonable to criticize Obama for his struggles to come to a decision here. Time wasted makes the mission harder, and the backdrop is this is a guy who was arrogantly certain what was needed. Both throughout the campaign and again this spring. So that’s in bounds. Where I have problems is when Thompson and others use a complete pullback as a polical tool. It is disingenuous in that I don’t think he really believes or wants that. And it makes the argument for what he really DOES want (a bigger ramp up) a tougher argument to make. Essentially, it comes down to sounding like “Do anything except what you are doing.” That does sound political, and there is harm in that, but more to the point when you go down that road you’re already losing the ability to argue as effectively for what you really do want.

stldave on November 30, 2009 at 7:31 PM

I’d rather pull out now than face a slow detoriartion with a dithering CIC who already told us he “doesn’t believe in winning”.

It’s 3 years until 2012, and that’s too long. Heck, 10 months has been too long.

Norwegian on November 30, 2009 at 7:28 PM

But, we’ll just have to go back later. Whats the sense in that?

Itchee Dryback on November 30, 2009 at 7:31 PM

It would take 100, 000 or more to Sorta Win, and 100K are not available. So leave, before more good men die for Too Little

Janos Hunyadi on November 30, 2009 at 7:29 PM

That is crazy.

Terrye on November 30, 2009 at 7:32 PM

If this is another half-ass measure by Ogabe then we should just leave; let Afghanistan rot and continue to be the armpit of the world. If some terror groups pop up, they get a MOAB or two and collateral damage is what it is.

The rest of the globe seems more than ready to look the other way while places like A-stan rot away, we might as well too, especially with a President who is more interested in gazing at himself than making hard decisions.

Bishop on November 30, 2009 at 7:32 PM

This is just away for conservatives to get away with doing the same crap the Democrats did to Bush for years.

Terrye on November 30, 2009 at 7:13 PM

I sincerely hope not but you are probably correct. There are some things that are much too important to politicize.

Ive spent the last 8 years loathing the democrats because they were perfectly willing to lose a war against the islamist pigs who flew planes full of people into buildings full of people so they could politicize that defeat and hang it around Bush’s neck. (Country, as usual, be damned if it means getting what they want.) I have enough loathing left for anyone who wants to do the same thing now at the cost of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines. Treason isn’t OK if the “right” people are advocating it.

Jason Chaffetz is a real RINO and needs to be booted out of office and Fred Thompson needs to go replace Wilford Brimley on the dia-beetus commercials.

Boxy_Brown on November 30, 2009 at 7:32 PM

Could it be this?

71% Angry at Federal Government, Up Five Points Since September
Monday, November 30, 2009

“Seventy-one percent (71%) of voters nationwide say they’re at least somewhat angry about the current policies of the federal government. That figure includes 46% who are Very Angry.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 27% are not angry about the government’s policies, including 10% who are Not at All Angry.

Men are angrier than women, and voters over 40 are more angry than those who are younger. A majority of those over 40 are Very Angry. Only 25% of under-30 voters share that view. ”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2009/71_angry_at_federal_government_up_five_points_since_september

Congress is, well what can one say, “ph$cked”? Americans hate their government.

Merry Christmas.

Cody1991 on November 30, 2009 at 7:32 PM

That is crazy.

Terrye on November 30, 2009 at 7:32 PM

Crazy how? It would take more than 100,000? Less?

Explain, or STFU

Janos Hunyadi on November 30, 2009 at 7:34 PM

stldave on November 30, 2009 at 7:31 PM

So far as I know, no one has seriously talked about complete withdrawal, except Michael Moore and Ron Paul. That is the thing. They can say this, but the question is whether or not to send in more people…not whether or not they are all coming home any day now.

Terrye on November 30, 2009 at 7:34 PM

I don’t want to lose any more soldiers while the president plays Sit Romper Room.

myrenovations on November 30, 2009 at 7:10 PM

FIFY

We don’t see the number of troops killed or maimed any more like we did on a daily basis in the Bush administration.
IMO, Chaffetz is basically saying, “Put up or shut up.”
AP: I DO NOT see this as him (meaning the Congressman) whining we should, “Bring our troops home.” On the contrary, it seems to me he’s calling Bambi’s bluff.
Obama OWNS this war now. His “Exit strategy” has a lot more to do with how he can divorce himself from this theatre–when and if–it goes bad, than it does with winning it. IMO, he isn’t concerned at all, at all with the # of lives it will cost, he is concerned about what the PR implications are for himself…thus all the dithering. It is not only shameful, it is probably a dereliction (sp) of duty, which some could argue, is an impeachable offense…again, just my opinion.

Chewy the Lab on November 30, 2009 at 7:35 PM

This is becoming reminiscent of 1968, some of us feared more for our family, friends and loved ones whose idea was to get out. We were afraid of being stuck on some LZ without a name just because public sentiment was turning. If we had the answers we wouldn’t be blogging about it but for Gods sake lets try not to do more harm with our military by suggesting it is a lost cause or people are dying in vain. Obama is thriving on discourse and using it against us. God Bless America again.

fourdeucer on November 30, 2009 at 7:36 PM

Either the Taliban will be thinking twice about their strategy of a long war tomorrow night. Or they won’t.

Anyone taking any odds?

bnelson44 on November 30, 2009 at 7:37 PM

Assume he surprises us all tomorrow night by giving McChrystal the full complement of 40,000 troops that he requested. Good enough? Kaplan notes that a counterinsurgency strategy in line with the Army field manual would require 400,000 troops.

McChrystal says 40,00 and Kaplan says 400,000 and you’re wondering who to believe? Not a smart-ass question.

jaime on November 30, 2009 at 7:38 PM

But, we’ll just have to go back later. Whats the sense in that?

Itchee Dryback on November 30, 2009 at 7:31 PM

But maybe by that time we will have a commander in chief rather than a salamander in chief.

faol on November 30, 2009 at 7:38 PM

but for Gods sake lets try not to do more harm with our military by suggesting it is a lost cause or people are dying in vain. Obama is thriving on discourse and using it against us. God Bless America again.

fourdeucer on November 30, 2009 at 7:36 PM

Do you really think Obama WANTS to win this war–or could, even if he wanted to?

Janos Hunyadi on November 30, 2009 at 7:39 PM

Terrye on November 30, 2009 at 7:30 PM

I spent all of last week with the US Marines, did Thanksgiving with a number of them. To a man they are ready to go, now. At the same time they question the ever-changing rules of engagement. They also view the support they receive at home to be dwindling. To a man they have no love at all for the present CIC.

Allow our fighting men and women to do the jobs they’ve trained all of their adult lives to do. Give them all what is necessary to accomplish that task.

In the meantime, whilst Washington dithers, those who are deployed or about to deploy are torn between getting out there, doing their chosen jobs, and trying to validate fighting for a “decent compromise” as seen by the White House.

Last time we fought for a compromise was in Korea. We are still there, and the enemy is still at war with us, and far far more dangerous today than over fifty years ago.

Also, it is damn hard to convince our NATO allies, even those in New Europe, to send their sons and fathers off to Afghanistan’s plains if we appear so intent on getting out, or fighting for a draw.

Our men and women in uniform deserve much better than they have been shown since January.

coldwarrior on November 30, 2009 at 7:39 PM

“Moore hasn’t been relevant for five years”

Michael Moore has *never* been relevant, except to his Code Pink base.

KS Rex on November 30, 2009 at 7:39 PM

AP: I DO NOT see this as him (meaning the Congressman) whining we should, “Bring our troops home.” On the contrary, it seems to me he’s calling Bambi’s bluff.
Chewy the Lab on November 30, 2009 at 7:35 PM

What other conclusion is there:

2) Mr. President, it is time to bring our troops home. If our mission in Afghanistan is simply to protect the populace and build the nation, then I believe the time has come to bring our troops home.

We have successfully rooted out Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan. Fewer than 100 Al-Qaeda operatives are operating in Afghanistan according to Retired General James L. Jones’ assessment of the situation. “I don’t foresee the return of the Taliban,” he said in an October 4 Associated Press report. Jones, who is President Obama’s National Security Advisor, continued: “Afghanistan is not in imminent danger of falling. The al Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.”

Mr. President, we all recognize that we will still have to fight Al-Qaeda around the globe. So let’s bring home the tens of thousands who have fought so valiantly to protect America. Let’s instead use the best human and electronic surveillance available to allow our special forces to target and kill those who actually threaten us.

Boxy_Brown on November 30, 2009 at 7:39 PM

janos:

It is crazy, because these idiots are at war with us. We can not just say we are tired of playing and want to go home now. If we leave, the people who have trusted us in the region will probably end up dead or on the other side. Pakistan with its nukes will still be battling people who want to kill us all. India will not just allow that country to fall into the hands of the Taliban and so the war could easily spread beyond that region. The people who want to kill us will be emboldened, as well they should be, and feel confident in attacking us again. After all, we have made it plain that we will not fight, we will not stick it out…kill some of our guys, drag the whole thing out and people will say it is a waste, just like you did. And the idea that it will end there, that we can just leave as if this were a boring dinner party and be done with it is crazy.

Terrye on November 30, 2009 at 7:39 PM

Our men and women in uniform deserve much better than they have been shown since January.

coldwarrior on November 30, 2009 at 7:39 PM

Of course they do. I would not even think of arguing that. But Obama won the election and that makes him our CinC much as it disgusts me to say it. I don’t like the man, but I also don’t think we can abandon this fight just because the American people elected the wrong man.

Terrye on November 30, 2009 at 7:42 PM

Mr. President, it is time to bring our troops home.

If our mission in Afghanistan is simply to protect the populace and build the nation, then I believe the time has come to bring our troops home.

There is no if about it.

We don’t win by destroying the Taliban. We don’t win by body count. We don’t win by the number of successful military raids or attacks, we win when the [Afghan] people decide we win.
- General Stanley “Bridge on the River Kwai” McChrystal (in London some time ago)

Also, how specifically should we relax the rules of engagement?

Are you calling for McChrystal, as he has been going in the opposite direction, to be fired?

Pre-occupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us — physically and psychologically — from the people we seek to protect.
- General McChrystal (from his COMISAF assessment of the war in Afghanistan)

Self-Sacrificial Lambs:

Today’s column is, at root, an expression of horror at the extent to which pandering dhimmitude characterizes our military strategy in Afghanistan. We inferior-minded infidels will do anything, it seems, to win the approval of the Islamic masses. We will sink endless billions into their country; build endless infrastructure; provide state-of-the-art security; train untrainable armies and police forces, and on and on. Now, according to our new commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, in our effort to “protect [the Afghan people] from everything that can hurt them,” we will even ask our troops to think twice under fire. All of this we will do in the effort to win Afghan “hearts and minds,” which, our geniuses (West Point ’76, many of them) have decided, will win this overnight, as one general recently put it. “Winning hearts and minds” — awful phrase with unfortunate connotations — just means making prehistorically-mired Afghans like us a little better than their babaric co-religionists the Taliban, whose idea of a hearts and minds offensive is to behead, maim, extort, blow up, and assassinate in the name of Allah.

Well, some people got it, some people don’t, I guess. Too bad we don’t know when to quit. But not just quit — reconfigure our defenses against expansionist Islam. Big difference.

MB4 on November 30, 2009 at 7:42 PM

If the answer is “more troops,” where are they coming from?

Allahpundit on November 30, 2009 at 7:15 PM

Certainly not from the United States…thanks to overreacting drama queens like Glenn Beck.

This is one instance where Republicans need to shut the hell up and stop with these petty-looking Monday morning quarterbacking comments.

We owe it to our troops to stop undermining their CinC, no matter how incompetent his actions appear.

American soldiers have historically been made to operate with less and still manage to pull out victories.

Any “prominent” conservative who’d rather go the route of Code Pink than give an ounce of benefit to their President is, IMHO, a treasonous rat bastard.

The Ugly American on November 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM

Well, I doubt they’re coming from NATO. Do we even have enough troops to send?

Knucklehead on November 30, 2009 at 7:22 PM

Knucklehead:Good point on NATO,I as well,am dissappointed
in NATO!!!:)

Summary of major troop contributions(over 300,July 23,2009)

ISAF Total’101,000

United States – 68,000
United Kingdom – 10,000 [197]
Germany – 4,245
France – 3,070
Canada – 2,830
Italy – 2,795
Netherlands – 2,160
Poland – 2,035
Australia – 1,550[198]
Spain – 1,000
Romania – 990
Turkey – 820
Denmark – 750
Norway – 600
Belgium – 510
Sweden – 500
Bulgaria – 460
Czech Republic – 340
Croatia – 325
Hungary – 310
============================================================

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

————————————————————

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/index.htm

canopfor on November 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM

Terrye on November 30, 2009 at 7:39 PM

No. Reagan pulled out of Lebanon in 83-84 because there was no way to win and the only result of keeping the Marines there was getting them killed. We just left–for the second time ( 1958 was the first )

Janos Hunyadi on November 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM

powerpro:

What do I want you to say? I don’t want you to say that the war is lost like Thompson did or that soldiers should refust to reenlist like Beck did, or that we should pull out like Chavetz did. These people have all taken positions that will definitely lead to a loss because they say they are not convinced that Obama wants to win. So what does that mean?

Terrye on November 30, 2009 at 7:26 PM

You’re not getting it. We’ve already lost.

Not because our troops aren’t dedicated. They are. Not because we don’t have the best and the brightest and the bravest. We do.

But we have as the decision maker someone who does not believe in the cause, regardless of the empty words he used to trick people into thinking he wasn’t a dove. He doesn’t believe in victory. He doesn’t want America to succeed or prevail and he does not understand or recognize the threat of radical Islam.

We’re not in trouble because Thompson, Beck et al are recognizing that we have a weak president, we’re in trouble because we have a weak president. It’s best we acknowledge that now and deal with the consequences than sweep it under the rug and pretend everything’s fine.

Besides…I asked you what we should say. All you did was once again condemn them for what they did say. What can we say in the face of this disaster of a president and his weak kneed policies?

powerpro on November 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM

…[Moore's] screed clunks along with so many anti-war cliches that it reads more like an attempt to start a drinking game than a serious argument.

Parfait!

And it pains me to say this, but Fred Kaplan is right about the consequences of a hasty departure. One wonders why countries like Poland should trust us either after Barry’s surrender on missile defense, but I digress.

Buy Danish on November 30, 2009 at 7:44 PM

canopfor on November 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM

A guy I know in Afghanistan says ISAF stands for

==I See Americans Fighting==

Janos Hunyadi on November 30, 2009 at 7:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3