Do you support sending more troops to Afghanistan?

[MikeinAR]

Originally Posted by Jason

Mike,

are you ever going to lose the Obama-colored glasses and start dealing with reality?

While you're injecting silly political games, I'm dealing with the reality that we lost 8 more soldiers over the weekend because they were ambushed in a valley where the enemy had the far superior high ground. All this while, the General leading the effort is requesting 40,000 more troops to an 8 year war that we've actually regressed in.

[coadie]

Al Qaeda has been dramatically weakened, or so leaks the Obama administration, in an effort to extract the president from the hole he has dug himself on Afghanistan.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...an_really.html

But this is what President Obama -- then nominee -- said just one year ago:


"And in the meantime, they [Bush Admin] weren't going after al Qaeda, and they are more powerful now than at any time since we began the war in Afghanistan. That's going to change when I'm president of the United States."

Mike is drinking koolaid. You are regurgitating what he said a year ago to get in the Whitehouse. Now he claims victory? Too bad our military that is over there can't see what Obama sees from his protected enclave.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by MikeinAR

While you're injecting silly political games, I'm dealing with the reality that we lost 8 more soldiers over the weekend because they were ambushed in a valley where the enemy had the far superior high ground. All this while, the General leading the effort is requesting 40,000 more troops to an 8 year war that we've actually regressed in.

Obama spent more time drinking beer and bashing the cop from Cambridge than with his General on the ground.
We knew Obama would be pathetic in foreign military affairs when he ran for office.
Obama is coming to a teaching moment. Hope he learns.

[n david]

Originally Posted by MikeinAR

You'll have to peddle that bill of goods to some uninformed sheep somewhere. GWB's and the Rumsfeld led defense department were miserable failures and took their eye off of Afghanistan and that's why we actually possess LESS ground now than we did 8 years ago after removing the Taliban from the high offices.

Afghanistan has nothing to do with Democrats inability to lead military operations. That's ridiculous.

Did I not state that Bush failed with Afghanistan? Let me look ... yah I did, but so you can see, I'll state it again .... read this very carefully ...

Bush failed with Afghanistan. It should have ended in Tora Bora. Instead we began a war with Iraq that took our focus off the Taliban in Afghanistan and allowed them to gain strength again.

Again, in case you need glasses...

Bush failed with Afghanistan. It should have ended in Tora Bora. Instead we began a war with Iraq that took our focus off the Taliban in Afghanistan and allowed them to gain strength again.

Now ... since I've put partisan, party politics aside ... be real yourself for a moment.

1. Is it good that BHO only gave his man on the ground in Afghanistan 25 minutes of time to discuss the General's assessment of the war?

2. Do you think BHO is right in taking this long (since August) to consult with party leaders, congressional leaders and others to find out what the best strategy would be? (This is why I say Democrats are terrible at running wars, they forget that in war the only strategy is to win - and win by whatever means necessary ... be it drones, boots on the ground, sending Chuck Norris, etc)

3. Do you believe the war in Afghanistan will be won with BHO as President?

Remember, partisan, koolaide drinking, politics aside. Let's see if you can be non-partisan, or if you're just a BHO yes man.

[n david]

Originally Posted by MikeinAR

While you're injecting silly political games, I'm dealing with the reality that we lost 8 more soldiers over the weekend because they were ambushed in a valley where the enemy had the far superior high ground. All this while, the General leading the effort is requesting 40,000 more troops to an 8 year war that we've actually regressed in.

The General leading the effort, need you be reminded, was chosen by BHO. He's on the ground and has more knowledge than any dumb suit in DC, including BHO.

I would take the Generals word and follow his advice, or end up like we did in Vietnam.

[MikeinAR]

Originally Posted by n david

Did I not state that Bush failed with Afghanistan? Let me look ... yah I did, but so you can see, I'll state it again .... read this very carefully ...

Bush failed with Afghanistan. It should have ended in Tora Bora. Instead we began a war with Iraq that took our focus off the Taliban in Afghanistan and allowed them to gain strength again.

Again, in case you need glasses...

Bush failed with Afghanistan. It should have ended in Tora Bora. Instead we began a war with Iraq that took our focus off the Taliban in Afghanistan and allowed them to gain strength again.

Now ... since I've put partisan, party politics aside ... be real yourself for a moment.

1. Is it good that BHO only gave his man on the ground in Afghanistan 25 minutes of time to discuss the General's assessment of the war?

2. Do you think BHO is right in taking this long (since August) to consult with party leaders, congressional leaders and others to find out what the best strategy would be? (This is why I say Democrats are terrible at running wars, they forget that in war the only strategy is to win - and win by whatever means necessary ... be it drones, boots on the ground, sending Chuck Norris, etc)

3. Do you believe the war in Afghanistan will be won with BHO as President?

Remember, partisan, koolaide drinking, politics aside. Let's see if you can be non-partisan, or if you're just a BHO yes man.

Those are 3 good questions. Firstly, if he's only spent 25 minutes discussing Afghanistan with McChrystal, then obviously that's not enough time. I would think that's doubtful. I'm sure they speak on video conferences regularly. I agree that from a PR standpoint it didn't look good, but I don't think it hurt us operationally.

I don't have any problem with the amount of time he's taken. I wish we'd taken more time in a lot of the decisions the Bush administration made. I realize the hawkish thing to do is to make "gut" calls and go in with guns blazing, but sometimes that spells folly. How much time is too much time when it comes to involving 40,000 more troops? I'm not sure that two months time is too long to ascertain the situation and decide on a new strategy.

On your third question, I'm not sure we will ever win in Afghanistan. That in large part depends on what "winning" is. I'm not sure how winning should be defined. Is it when the Afghan army controls a certain percentage of their land? Is it no safe places for al-qaeda to hide and operate? Is it every member of the Taliban dead? Is it thousands of miles of paved roads with a functioning economy and political stability?

So, I guess the answer to that question is no I'm not convinced Afghanistan is winable.

How do you think we should define winning in Afghanistan, n david?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by MikeinAR

Hey I gave you a shot. Ignore list...incoming.

General McChrystal,

Obama has put him on "ignore"



"you betcha!!"

[coadie]

Originally Posted by MikeinAR

How do you think we should define winning in Afghanistan, n david?

Silly question. Ask Obama. he can't answer the question of why we are even there.

Democrats a liberal are toungue tied in discussing the Middle east. Obama is playing theater. Just to be seen.

[n david]

Originally Posted by MikeinAR

Those are 3 good questions. Firstly, if he's only spent 25 minutes discussing Afghanistan with McChrystal, then obviously that's not enough time. I would think that's doubtful. I'm sure they speak on video conferences regularly. I agree that from a PR standpoint it didn't look good, but I don't think it hurt us operationally.

I don't have any problem with the amount of time he's taken. I wish we'd taken more time in a lot of the decisions the Bush administration made. I realize the hawkish thing to do is to make "gut" calls and go in with guns blazing, but sometimes that spells folly. How much time is too much time when it comes to involving 40,000 more troops? I'm not sure that two months time is too long to ascertain the situation and decide on a new strategy.

On your third question, I'm not sure we will ever win in Afghanistan. That in large part depends on what "winning" is. I'm not sure how winning should be defined. Is it when the Afghan army controls a certain percentage of their land? Is it no safe places for al-qaeda to hide and operate? Is it every member of the Taliban dead? Is it thousands of miles of paved roads with a functioning economy and political stability?

So, I guess the answer to that question is no I'm not convinced Afghanistan is winable.

How do you think we should define winning in Afghanistan, n david?

Thanks for the answers. I would agree that from a PR standpoint, the 25 minutes in Denmark was a bad spot for BHO. I would highly doubt that's the only time he's spoken with the General ... more than likely thru video conference. However, I believe a couple news reports have stated BHO and the General have only spoken the two times ... which isn't good if BHO really wants an accurate assessment from the ground

There is such a thing as taking too much time. We shouldn't rush to war. You and I will disagree on the reason for Iraq. Bush had military and congressional, as well as foreign intelligence saying that Iraq possessed WMDs. In hindsight, we now see everyone - including Bush - was wrong.

Yes, there should be proper assessment. Yes, we should have an exit strategy along with a timeframe. However, there should also be an urgency to implement the strategy as soon as possible. Remember, we still have soldiers on the ground that are, in some cases, outmanned and outgunned.

I'd like to know why it is that BHO was reported to have received the Generals assessment in August, but is just within the past week or so finally beginning to meet with Congress and others on implementing new strategy.

I look back to the Soviets on this one. They had superior power and were locked in an endless war for years until they finally gave up and returned home. Unfortunately, this could well be the scenario we face if we don't 1) ramp up the combat and take it by overwhelming force and 2) spend resources assisting in the rebuilding of Afghanistan, including helping with electricity, water, schools, economy, etc.

In short, honest assessment is there will never be a win there. Hatred for the west and the US is as ingrained as racism here is in the south. They're born and bred to hate the west and US, and that will not change, regardless of who the President may be.

To define winning ... that's harder to define and we could spend years trying to come up with a feasable definition for "win." We don't have that long though. The only way to win is to defeat the enemy. Again, since hatred of us is bred, there will always be an enemy there, so there will be no win.

I stated a long time ago that Iraq and Afghanistan is incapable of having an American-type of democracy. I'm not meaning to be racist or demeaning to the people there, but they simply don't understand the concept.

Sorry took so long, I had to write inbetween calls @ work...

[MikeinAR]

Those are all very good points. I completely agree on the big two you mentioned if we're going to go ahead with a mission, 1. overwhelm the enemy(in both Pakistan and Afghanistan), and 2.) building the infastructure that will hopefully cut back on the "dead-end" Islamic extremist ways of the people in that region.

I just hope that the mission is clearly defined with objectives that can be achieved and an availabe exit strategy. I also hope that we aren't entering into some open ended obligation.