Military growing impatient with 0bama on Afghanistan

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cerise

Cerise

Well-Known Member



The-Community-0rganizer-in-Chief needs to decide to dedicate the troops and try and win the war or pull out and let the Taliban run A-stan and point out how weak America is.


McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure'

The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict "will likely result in failure," according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal says emphatically: "Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."

McChrystal concludes the document's five-page Commander's Summary on a note of muted optimism: "While the situation is serious, success is still achievable."

But he repeatedly warns that without more forces and the rapid implementation of a genuine counterinsurgency strategy, defeat is likely. McChrystal describes an Afghan government riddled with corruption and an international force undermined by tactics that alienate civilians.

He provides extensive new details about the Taliban insurgency, which he calls a muscular and sophisticated enemy that uses modern propaganda and systematically reaches into Afghanistan's prisons to recruit members and even plan operations.
Click to expand...

1trever7-23-08.gif


WASHINGTON — Six months after it announced its strategy for Afghanistan, the Obama administration is sending mixed signals about its objectives there and how many troops are needed to achieve them.

The conflicting messages are drawing increasing ire from U.S. commanders in Afghanistan and frustrating military leaders, who're trying to figure out how to demonstrate that they're making progress in the 12-18 months that the administration has given them.

Adding to the frustration, according to officials in Kabul and Washington, are White House and Pentagon directives made over the last six weeks that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, not submit his request for as many as 45,000 additional troops because the administration isn't ready for it.

In the last two weeks, top administration leaders have suggested that more American troops will be sent to Afghanistan, and then called that suggestion "premature." Earlier this month, Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that "time is not on our side"; on Thursday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urged the public "to take a deep breath."

The White House didn't respond to requests for comment. Officials willing to speak did so only on the condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly.

In Kabul, some members of McChrystal's staff said they don't understand why Obama called Afghanistan a "war of necessity" but still hasn't given them the resources they need to turn things around quickly.

Three officers at the Pentagon and in Kabul told McClatchy that the McChrystal they know would resign before he'd stand behind a faltering policy that he thought would endanger his forces or the strategy.

"Yes, he'll be a good soldier, but he will only go so far," a senior official in Kabul said. "He'll hold his ground. He's not going to bend to political pressure."
Click to expand...
 
We need to figure out whether we're actually accomplishing anything worthwhile in Afghanistan. What have we accomplished since we've been there?

We can't just be endlessly burning down farmer's poppy fields and having them grow back.
 
Spike remember, if Obama ousted the Taliban and made Afghanistan the 51st state, Cerise would be pissed. If a Repugnantcant got 50,000 Americans killed in a vain attempt to kill JUST Osama Bin Laden, and he was sending in 3 video threats a day afterward, Cerise would be waving her false patriot flag and thinking we need more of the same!

ANYTHING a Repugnantcant does, Cerise is behind, no matter how crooked deceitful, or detrimental to this country and EVERYTHING a Demorat does no matter how great or beneficial, she will find a way to be against, and cast a shadow on! She is completely irrational and biased to the point of psychosis!

Like I said it's like watching a 20 car pileup or a train wreck, horrific, but impossible to look away!
 
In other words we support our troops either by:


1) giving them the resources they need to succeed


2) i get them the hell out of Harm’s way.


:shrug:
 
The point is Cerise, if you personally drew up a plan for what to do, submitted it to Obama and he followed it to the letter, you would still bitch about his handling of things! The sheer hatred blinds you to reality itself. If conservatism can become a mental illness your posts make you a case study!
 
spike said:
We need to figure out whether we're actually accomplishing anything worthwhile in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

The last time we bailed, we lost. The territories were turned into an Al Qaeda training ground.

This time, we went here with an agenda, one that Obama said be backed. One that we accomplished. Unfortunately, much like the North Vietnamese, the folks can look at our own left & see they have an ally. Wait long enough & we'll turn tail & leave.

Do we clean up or do we bring everyone, and I do mean everyone (from all nations) home?
 
Gonz said:
This time, we went here with an agenda, one that Obama said be backed. One that we accomplished.
Click to expand...

Sounds like we're done.

Really we need to figure out what our goal is there. Is it getting rid of all Taliban? Nation building?

How long should it take? How much will it cost?

I'm not sure how much progress we've made so far.
 
spike said:
Really we need to figure out what our goal is there. Is it getting rid of all Taliban? Nation building?

How long should it take? How much will it cost?

I'm not sure how much progress we've made so far.
Click to expand...

not good progress lately, unless they are hearding them.

Make a bunch of glass, help who's left in a strictly humanitarian way, and
GTFO
How much cost? What ever is currently in stock.
 
spike said:
Really we need to figure out what our goal is there. Is it getting rid of all Taliban? Nation building?

How long should it take? How much will it cost?

I'm not sure how much progress we've made so far.
Click to expand...

Our goal is to move them out of the 2nd century. Killing taliban is just an added attraction. Cost? Less than planes into US buildings.

Progress was made then we diverted our attention & showed them (the bad guys) that the Cong were right...just keep fighting..our ADD will kick in soon enough
 
Gonz said:
Our goal is to move them out of the 2nd century. Killing taliban is just an added attraction. Cost? Less than planes into US buildings.
Click to expand...

No, the stated goal was never to bring them out of the second century. That is not our responsibility.

This guy might have a decent idea:

"We are their for two reasons and two reasons only: Hunt down Bin Laden. Bring him back DEAD or ALIVE! Second, make sure Al Qaeda can not rebuild bases to train militants that may attack the United States in the future.

Both of these can easily be done by just having a base on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. I mean a big base. At least 30k troops with air support. Launch all searches and predator drones to hunt Bin Laden from this base, while keeping control over the border. Send cruise missiles and predator drones into Pakistan if needed, all from this main base.

What's the point of protecting the rest of the area of the country? Bin Laden can only be in one place at a time and that is where we should be looking. No other mission takes priority, in fact, there is no other mission. Once Bin Laden is captured or confirmed dead, then we can send the troops home while knowing that they accomplished their mission and served their country well. And we'll just keep enough forces to keep Al Qaeda from re-establishing itself."

http://www.gripeoftheday.com/commen...hy-we-went-into-afghanistan-in-the-first.html
 
This gal has an even better opinion:


Condi: The should-be face of the GOP

"The last time we left Afghanistan, and we abandoned Pakistan," she said, "that territory became the very territory on which Al Qaeda trained and attacked us on September 11th. So our national security interests are very much tied up in not letting Afghanistan fail again and become a safe haven for terrorists.

"It's that simple," she declared, "if you want another terrorist attack in the U.S., abandon Afghanistan."
Click to expand...

0bama needs to take a look at his job description: He should turn his attention away from foisting socialism on Americans, pull his head out of his ass and focus on protecting this country from enemies foreign and domestic.
 
Well hell, lets just start invading the whole world in small chunks, I mean we all know that 'merica is the best and we live righter than the rest of the damn fucked up world! Once we rule the entire globe people will be thanking us! 'merican ideals are ALWAYS right and ALWAYS the best. Then we can start selective breeding programs so only those who realize how 'merica is best can breed and we will have a super race of patriotic 'mericans! They will all be christian and the world will finally be right! Anything less makes us pussies! Are you a pussy or are you on board?
 
Is It Amateur Hour in the White House?

The administration's handling of Afghanistan policy has been amateur hour. The leak of General Stanley McChrystal's assessment of the dire situation there faces President Obama with by far his most serious foreign-policy challenge. It's also a challenge to what appears to be his whole approach to foreign policy.

Is Obama running an administration where an analysis required of a four-star general confirmed into his job by the Senate—an analysis drafted by an international civilian and military team of experts recruited for the task—can be second-guessed by some guy someone at State knows in a think tank? What's worrying about this administration is that the answer may be: yes.

In his campaign, Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq but safeguarded his national-security credentials by supporting the war in Afghanistan. A war, he said, America had to win—but to which, he charged, the Bush administration had failed to devote the necessary resources. In office, Obama ordered up a new Afghanistan strategy, and announced this on March 27 as the product of what he called "a careful policy review."

Shorn of rhetoric, the new strategy actually accepted all the Bush administration's goals in Afghanistan—defeating the insurgents; preventing Al Qaeda from reestablishing a sanctuary there; working to set up a democratic and effective government; training Afghan forces to take over from U.S. troops; coaxing the international community to give more help. The review even added a new goal: saving Pakistan—or, as the review put it, "assisting efforts to enhance civilian control and stable constitutional government in Pakistan and a vibrant economy that provides opportunities for the people of Pakistan.

And to accomplish this breath-taking set of objectives? Obama had already agreed to send another 17,000 troops to Afghanistan to safeguard polling in the Afghan presidential election in August. Now, as part of his new strategy, he agreed to send an additional 4,000 troops to train Afghanistan's own forces.


Suddenly, the strategy Obama announced in March is being ditched. Back then, Obama said that Afghanistan had not received (from the Bush administration) "the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently needs." Specifically, he charged, the resources U.S. commanders needed "have been denied." "Now, that will change," he said. As late as last month, Obama was declaring the struggle in Afghanistan "a war of necessity" where victory was "fundamental to the defense of our people."

That, it appears, was then. Now, faced with the bleak assessment of the general he sent out to turn things round, Obama is equivocating, saying: "One of the things I'm absolutely clear about is that you have to get the strategy right, and then make a determination about resources." He has ordered yet another review of strategy, a review which the chairman of the joint chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen, said was going back to "the first principles, if you will."

What's going on? The March 27 "White Paper" laid out what Obama called his administration's "comprehensive new strategy."
Click to expand...

What's going on is that 0bama is not cut out for the job. Plain and simple.
 
Wow Cerise I am stunned! Using a source from a reputable magazine? WOW! I mean it is a blog from a conservative blogger on staff for that magazine but it is a step seemingly in the right direction!
 
Yes, Newsweek magazine.

Even the traditional media outlets are criticizing him.

I'm liking this kind of change. :brow:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top