Charles Johnson Poll • Tue Dec 1, 2009 at 6:03 pm PST • Views: 247
Advertisement
519 comments
Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.
A Missouri company said Tuesday its recalled dried cat food has sickened 21 cats and the pet food was distributed in multiple states in the South and along the East Coast.
Diamond Pet Foods recalled certain bags of Premium Edge Finicky Adult Cat and Premium Edge Hairball cat food in September because they could lead to gastrointestinal or neurological problems for cats. They do not contain enough thiamine, an essential nutrient for cats.
If cats fed these foods have no other source of nutrition, they could develop thiamine deficiency. If untreated, this disorder could result in death, said the Meta, Mo., manufacturer.
The company updated information on the recall on Tuesday, saying it has confirmed 21 reports of thiamine deficiency in New York and Pennsylvania and the pet food was distributed in 18 states altogether. These states include Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida.
I don't like war. But, since were going to war; please sir, let's not play politics. Let's win it quick and get my niece back home. May God bless our troops, and may our troops send the enemies of civilization to meet their maker swiftly and surely.
The statement of General Stanley McChrystal,
Commander NATO International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces
Afghanistan regarding the address by The President of the United States:
"The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the President has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task. The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the President’s address are critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security.
I approve of sending in more troops to get the job done if that's what is needed. I disapprove of announcing withdrawal timetables to the entire world, seems that's the kind of information you wouldn't want out there. Kind of a "target date" for enemies to hold out for, but thats just my opinion.
I don't like war. But, since were going to war; please sir, let's not play politics. Let's win it quick and get my niece back home. May God bless our troops, and may our troops send the enemies of civilization to meet their maker swiftly and surely.
Agree with the troop increase; disagree with the troop timetables for withdrawal. It's not a recipe for victory, but one that enables al Qaeda and the Taliban to simply endure and outlast US interest in the region.
re: #11 Killgore Trout
What else was he going to say?
Chris Matthews really has to go.
Suggesting that West Point is enemy ground for the President. I understand what he was trying to say, and it's disgusting.
The web server hamsters collapsed from exhaustion for a few minutes there. Stinky gave them mouth-to-mouth, and believe me, he was NOT happy about doing that.
I'm in for approve. Multilateral. Finish the job-Catch Osama, oversee the establishment then continuation of a sane and stable governance of Afghanistan.
Where else can you go where we'd disagree with Obama on KSM, but agree with him a few weeks later on Afghanistan?
No shit. I do not hate the man - I'm OK with one or two things he is doing. I'm not turning more towards his side - he is actually coming around to MY side.
Agree with the troop increase; disagree with the troop timetables for withdrawal. It's not a recipe for victory, but one that enables al Qaeda and the Taliban to simply endure and outlast US interest in the region.
Couldn't agree more, exactly what I was saying in my #18
I approve of sending in more troops to get the job done if that's what is needed. I disapprove of announcing withdrawal timetables to the entire world, seems that's the kind of information you wouldn't want out there. Kind of a "target date" for enemies to hold out for, but thats just my opinion.
Same here. The withdrawal timetable undercuts the whole thing. But I approve of the surge -- minimal though it is.
No shit. I do not hate the man - I'm OK with one or two things he is doing. I'm not turning more towards his side - he is actually coming around to MY side.
It was reprehensible.
A good number of those future officers will end up in Afghanistan, and all too many will end up in Arlington.
They are sworn to follow the president's orders.
I;m interested to hear from the disapprove crowd. I have some guesses about what they're thinking but I'd like to hear from them.
I would assume there's a few camps:
1) Get the troops out now, what are you thinking!
2) Send in more troops now, what are you thinking!
3) I don't like the president, so whatever he's selling I'm hating.
I'm surprised there's even a 25% Nay rate here (but I'm also surprised at the 45% Yay it's getting at Kos given how everyone's been running around with their hair on fire over there).
I expected to be one of the few Dems supporting it. It's always good to see that the world is saner than you thought.
I'm surprised there's even a 25% Nay rate here (but I'm also surprised at the 45% Yay it's getting at Kos given how everyone's been running around with their hair on fire over there).
What happens to the universe if Kos and LGF behavior yields an apparent consensus?
Same here. The withdrawal timetable undercuts the whole thing. But I approve of the surge -- minimal though it is.
I'm not 100% sure I agree. If the time-table were one that said "All troops will be gone by July 2011," I would agree with McCain: the Taliban could just wait out the Americans. But note what Obama said: in July 2011, the drawdown will begin, and its speed will depend on conditions on the ground. This tells the Afghanis that this is a temporary surge, and that we have no interest in empire. It just might help us chip off some of the more malleable Taliban.
Not sure. I'm not sure of what victory means in this war. Is this war helping keep us safe? I'm really just asking the question because I have no idea. This seems like the kind of place that the U.N. has peacekeepers for.
I guess I'm more confused than anything else because this is something that will not be over in two years.
Thanks so much for the info re cat food. Having two registered Norwegian Forest Cats I am very interested in making as certain as possible their food is good quality stuff.
About the plan for more troops I have mixed feelings and do hope that we do not have another Korea or Vietnam.
Well, I feel better now. For a minute there, I was worried about Afghanistan resenting us, Iran nuking us, and the debt sinking us. Glad that's behind me...
I voted "unsure" not just because I'm a wishy-washy type of guy but because, after reading the prepared speech, I'm still not sure whether to believe we will end up where we think we want to... whatever that is.
Ultimately nation building has proven to be a largely frustrating effort, if the history of the last couple of centuries is perused.
If there is one mistake I do not want to see Obama make, it would be to remain passive with respect to Islamic Jihad. Some things must be met with force.
Not sure. I'm not sure of what victory means in this war. Is this war helping keep us safe? I'm really just asking the question because I have no idea. This seems like the kind of place that the U.N. has peacekeepers for.
I guess I'm more confused than anything else because this is something that will not be over in two years.
The UN doesn't have a standing army of peacekeepers - it'd be American Soldiers anyway.
Well, I feel better now. For a minute there, I was worried about Afghanistan resenting us, Iran nuking us, and the debt sinking us. Glad that's behind me...
Oh, all those options are still on the table, but now we've got New and Improved problems.
If there is one mistake I do not want to see Obama make, it would be to remain passive with respect to Islamic Jihad. Some things must be met with force.
I'm concerned about Pakistan. I don't think Afghanistan can ever be solid unless Pakistan takes control over the tribal regions of it's own country.
I'm not 100% sure I agree. If the time-table were one that said "All troops will be gone by July 2011," I would agree with McCain: the Taliban could just wait out the Americans. But note what Obama said: in July 2011, the drawdown will begin, and its speed will depend on conditions on the ground.
It's still an inconsistent message. When we landed troops at Normandy, we didn't have a timetable for withdrawal. We went in to win the war. I guess I'm obsolete.
Thanks, great pix! We went for "cookies with santa" at school tonight and the kids could not get over how bright the moon was. Quite a nice break from war and its costs.
I think "nation building" is a difficult task. There isn't one set road map, because different nations have different needs. Regardless, what else can we do but the difficult work of helping the Afghans back on their feet? We certainly couldn't let al-qaeda stay there, so we had to go in. Now that we're there, it's a reflection of our national character that we help these people regain their own country. In the end, the best we can hope for is a friend to our country, and a stable enough Afghanistan that they can see better days for themselves and their posterity.
Well yeah, and Pakistan has nukes. It is a nightmare, just from that one thing. One inside switcheroo job with a dummy warhead & the count in the "warehouse" would be the same, and then, unawares somewhere ... Boom!
The timetable for withdrawal is based on President Obama's mandate to have combat troops out of the country by September, and Odierno's assessment on whether the country is secure enough after national elections next year.
"When they tell us to send the rest home, we'll get the rest out of here," Pagonis says.
It's still an inconsistent message. When we landed troops at Normandy, we didn't have a timetable for withdrawal. We went in to win the war. I guess I'm obsolete.
In WWII, "victory" = surrender of Germany and destruction of the Nazi regime. There was clearly a decisive moment even from the beginning.
"Victory" in 2010 is much harder to define. Afghanistan is already an occupied country. Heck, it isn't even a single nation but a construct of the British empire (wrt borders and definition.)
This is not your grandfather's war, and I don't expect that type of "victory".
In WWII, "victory" = surrender of Germany and destruction of the Nazi regime. There was clearly a decisive moment even from the beginning.
"Victory" in 2010 is much harder to define. Afghanistan is already an occupied country. Heck, it isn't even a single nation but a construct of the British empire (wrt borders and definition.)
This is not your grandfather's war, and I don't expect that type of "victory".
I'm not 100% sure I agree. If the time-table were one that said "All troops will be gone by July 2011," I would agree with McCain: the Taliban could just wait out the Americans. But note what Obama said: in July 2011, the drawdown will begin, and its speed will depend on conditions on the ground. This tells the Afghanis that this is a temporary surge, and that we have no interest in empire. It just might help us chip off some of the more malleable Taliban.
Or it could backfire. Worth trying anyway.
Good point. I voted "aprove", but my one worry was a fixed time line. I missed the speech, just getting home, but I skimmed the text. He mentioned conditions on the ground in comparison to our efforts in Iraq.
Well yeah, and Pakistan has nukes. It is a nightmare, just from that one thing. One inside switcheroo job with a dummy warhead & the count in the "warehouse" would be the same, and then, unawares somewhere ... Boom!
I assume the US has a contingency plan to take out all the known Pakistani nuclear sites if it begins to look like there's even a remote risk of them falling into the wrong hands.
Well yeah, and Pakistan has nukes. It is a nightmare, just from that one thing. One inside switcheroo job with a dummy warhead & the count in the "warehouse" would be the same, and then, unawares somewhere ... Boom!
Perhaps someone is thinking that Mullah Omar will be discovered in a cave, and that there will be a big signing ceremony of a surrender agreement, followed by long trials of Taliban leaders for crimes against humanity?
I'm concerned about Pakistan. I don't think Afghanistan can ever be solid unless Pakistan takes control over the tribal regions of it's own country.
I noticed his emphasis on Pakistan. Sounds like he's learned not to threaten to attack them, and instead is talking more like an ally with common interests. Much better than that crap from the campaign. Good to see he's learned some.
This is not your grandfather's war, and I don't expect that type of "victory".
True. Afghanistan is an oddball in history. The Great Powers usually squabbled over it only to keep it out of their rivals' hands. There's no other purpose to fight there. In our case it's the Taliban and the others. It's going to be a long haul, but we have to keep them out. That's victory, and it will last as long as our resolve lasts. Not a day longer. Tough situation, but that's not the game Obama is playing.
I'm not 100% sure I agree. If the time-table were one that said "All troops will be gone by July 2011," I would agree with McCain: the Taliban could just wait out the Americans. But note what Obama said: in July 2011, the drawdown will begin, and its speed will depend on conditions on the ground. This tells the Afghanis that this is a temporary surge, and that we have no interest in empire. It just might help us chip off some of the more malleable Taliban.
Uninspiring, rambling, overly cerebral, to pick a few words.
"I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region."
Not necessarily inspiring, but motivational. That's to the point, and not overly cerebral.
I'm not trying to pick a fight, but if there's one thing the man has proven himself capable of its giving a speech.
If there is one mistake I do not want to see Obama make, it would be to remain passive with respect to Islamic Jihad. Some things must be met with force.
Thanks, great pix! We went for "cookies with santa" at school tonight and the kids could not get over how bright the moon was. Quite a nice break from war and its costs.
Oh, and he blamed Bush a good amount. Guess that's a prerequisite for any Obama speech.
And for good reason! Iraq put Afghanistan on the back burner for over seven years. Of *course* things deteriorated! How can you defend the neglect of our troops in that country for that long?
Here we are. Full moon through some tree branches outside of my apartment. If I put a little more time into it I could probably get something clearer. But this will suffice for tonight.
[Link: www.flickr.com...]
True. Afghanistan is an oddball in history. The Great Powers usually squabbled over it only to keep it out of their rivals' hands. There's no other purpose to fight there. In our case it's the Taliban and the others. It's going to be a long haul, but we have to keep them out. That's victory, and it will last as long as our resolve lasts. Not a day longer. Tough situation, but that's not the game Obama is playing.
There is a reason Bin Laden picked that country for his base. In addition to the damage to our country, he wanted to make this as costly in terms of life and treasure on us as possible. To that extent, regrettably, Bin Laden did achieve that goal.
He's standing up against his own party and popular opinion to do what is right in this case. I think he's becoming a bit of a leader, I dare say.
I wish he thought as much about his health care reform as he did about Afghanistan...he may be dithering, but he seems to come to good solutions when he puts his mind to it! Dither on health care Mr. President...dither!
That's a decent argument to support the President's position. Problem is that each of the various constituencies will hear different things.
The Taliban and al Qaeda hear that they've got to just wait out the US and then they're right back in business.
The Afghans hear that they've got to make improvements or else they lose their support/ backing (and to whom will they turn? China? Pakistan? Taliban?)
The US Democrats hear that they get their timetables and mutter that they've got to put up with troop surge, but there's enough weasel words to get them to go along with it.
Republicans hear that they've got the troop increase but mutter that they've got to deal with timetables and there's enough weasel words to get them to go along with it.
Democrats and GOPers are critical for funding the Afghan operation. The Taliban and al Qaeda will try to work all this to their advantage. The Afghans will do what they've been doing - trying to survive and will side with whoever gives them the best chance for the long run.
Here we are. Full moon through some tree branches outside of my apartment. If I put a little more time into it I could probably get something clearer. But this will suffice for tonight.
[Link: www.flickr.com...]
Love it! I've tried to get photos like that, but I've never been able to do it with my amateur-level camera.
And for good reason! Iraq put Afghanistan on the back burner for over seven years. Of *course* things deteriorated! How can you defend the neglect of our troops in that country for that long?
Ha, ha. You're still on the Bush Derangement angle I see.
Afghanistan has been on "the back burner" because it's been mostly quite there for that period. Now that Iraq is no longer a permissible environment for terrorist attacks the attacks have moved to Afghanistan.
True. Afghanistan is an oddball in history. The Great Powers usually squabbled over it only to keep it out of their rivals' hands. There's no other purpose to fight there. In our case it's the Taliban and the others. It's going to be a long haul, but we have to keep them out. That's victory, and it will last as long as our resolve lasts. Not a day longer. Tough situation, but that's not the game Obama is playing.
Trade routes. Obviously not germane today, but back in the long lost past...
Perhaps someone is thinking that Mullah Omar will be discovered in a cave, and that there will be a big signing ceremony of a surrender agreement, followed by long trials of Taliban leaders for crimes against humanity?
That would be a WWII model of "victory".
It's not going to happen.
Sure won't. But that's my question to people who see setting a date of withdrawal as 'cut and run'. Are we really gonna spend the next millenium in bloody Afghanistan?
And for good reason! Iraq put Afghanistan on the back burner for over seven years. Of *course* things deteriorated! How can you defend the neglect of our troops in that country for that long?
Honestly: Iraq is the more important theater. Afghanistan and its people don't matter except in as far as it can be a terrorist haven. Iraq has a key strategic position and large quantities of oil, which we need to keep flowing.
He's standing up against his own party and popular opinion to do what is right in this case. I think he's becoming a bit of a leader, I dare say.
I wish he thought as much about his health care reform as he did about Afghanistan...he may be dithering, but he seems to come to good solutions when he puts his mind to it! Dither on health care Mr. President...dither!
the far left was not paying attention during the campaign...this is BOs fight, all the way...he said a year ago he had a plan, so now he plops 35k troops into the fray after all these months of R and R for the Talis...he sets a timeline which we all knew he would do...as far as I'm concerned both the right and far left have reasons to be disappointed...this is a life and death game and BO essentially has no stout conviction other than his campaign promises...it's all politics and I am not happy with any of it...wait and see I guess
I noticed his emphasis on Pakistan. Sounds like he's learned not to threaten to attack them, and instead is talking more like an ally with common interests. Much better than that crap from the campaign. Good to see he's learned some.
Honestly: Iraq is the more important theater. Afghanistan and its people don't matter except in as far as it can be a terrorist haven. Iraq has a key strategic position and large quantities of oil, which we need to keep flowing.
"For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for – and what we continue to fight for – is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity."
True. Afghanistan is an oddball in history. The Great Powers usually squabbled over it only to keep it out of their rivals' hands. There's no other purpose to fight there. In our case it's the Taliban and the others. It's going to be a long haul, but we have to keep them out. That's victory, and it will last as long as our resolve lasts. Not a day longer. Tough situation, but that's not the game Obama is playing.
The Taliban are irrelevent to us. The problem is that they shelter al-Qaeda.
Definitely my fav. I know nothing about cameras or photography though but I do like taking pictures, especially of big landscapes. Anything to bring out large proportions works for me.
I wonder why he didn't mention some of the progress we've made. Like the fact that, in a few short weeks, four of the most pivotal planners of the 9/11 attacks will be on trial in New York City, just like any other US citizen criminal? Great work, military! We're going to bring these people to justice!
Honestly: Iraq is the more important theater. Afghanistan and its people don't matter except in as far as it can be a terrorist haven. Iraq has a key strategic position and large quantities of oil, which we need to keep flowing.
Strategically, and long term, I think that is true. It was a war of choice, but I think it will take a long time to really know whether it was a good one--most likely after we either settle our differences with Iran or go to war with Iran.
Not quiet. Becoming more corrupt in government and drug running. The Taliban re surging due to decision for air strikes that kill 'collateral damage". The Taliban growing in the hearts and minds of the Afghan people as their saviors and protectors against the American occupiers.
I wonder why he didn't mention some of the progress we've made. Like the fact that, in a few short weeks, four of the most pivotal planners of the 9/11 attacks will be on trial in New York City, just like any other US citizen criminal? Great work, military! We're going to bring these people to justice!
"Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people."
Actually, a decent portion of the speech almost seemed to be included as a rebuttal to Cheney's criticisms from this morning. Cheney said that his admin had no responsibility for the AfPak deterioration, that Obama didn't believe in american exceptionalism, that the length of Obama's strategy review was having serious consequences on the forces in the field, and that Obama was giving aid and comfort to the enemy (an accusation of treason...?) with his terror trials.
In tonight's speech. the President framed the deterioration as a side effect of the demands the Iraq war put on our military and our alliances, gave a lengthy defense of american exceptionalism, and pointed out that the review process wouldn't delay the deployment time tables McChrystal had put forward and, in fact, that the President was even accelerating that deployment schedule. The only accusation he didn't address tonight was that final one.
I wonder why he didn't mention some of the progress we've made. Like the fact that, in a few short weeks, four of the most pivotal planners of the 9/11 attacks will be on trial in New York City, just like any other US citizen criminal? Great work, military! We're going to bring these people to justice!
Again he can't win with that one either. Half the country is angry there is a trial and the other half wants permanent detention. Half the country wants more troops half wants out now (actually its probably more than half that wants out now, really).
Well, Obama has pushed in on a busted flush in Afghanistan.
Between this huge misstep, and the NYC civilian terror trials huge misstep, and the moribund Cap & Tax huge misstep, and the "force government health care down the throats of half the country" huge misstep...
I would confidently say we are looking at one term for The One.
It's still an inconsistent message. When we landed troops at Normandy, we didn't have a timetable for withdrawal. We went in to win the war. I guess I'm obsolete.
Unfortunately, guerrilla warfare is with us to stay. The Vietnamese in the 1970's, the Afghanis in the 1980's, and the Iraqis and Afghanis in the 2000s learned that they didn't have to win conventionally.
Our army, which has never been good at counter-insurgency, is learning it on the fly. That will mean doing things differently than in Normandy.
Much as I love Band of Brothers, for good or for ill, Vietnam is the closer parallel to our current situation. This is why Army officers are reading books like Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife by John Nagl or A Better War by Lewis Sorely to try to learn what went wrong and what went right in Vietnam. Finesse and a light touch are sometimes more effective than brute force.
"For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for – and what we continue to fight for – is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity."
We don't need to claim Iraq's oil and I have never suggested we should do so. What was saying is that we need Iraq to produce oil for the world market and we do need that. Keeping access to a strategic resource is not the same as laying claim to it.
An EU document stressing that East Jerusalem should be the capital of a future Palestinian state brought a sharp response today from Israel, which claimed Brussels was damaging the prospects of peace talks restarting.
There is a reason Bin Laden picked that country for his base. In addition to the damage to our country, he wanted to make this as costly in terms of life and treasure on us as possible. To that extent, regrettably, Bin Laden did achieve that goal.
Assuming he thought that far ahead. I suspect that bin Laden has always been less interested in what we were doing than we think.
I wonder why he didn't mention some of the progress we've made. Like the fact that, in a few short weeks, four of the most pivotal planners of the 9/11 attacks will be on trial in New York City, just like any other US citizen criminal? Great work, military! We're going to bring these people to justice!
"Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation’s Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and – although it was marred by fraud – that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and Constitution."
I have a Robert Stacy McCain joke, and I can't hold it in for the next RSM thread, so I'll tell it here.
Stacy McCain was walking along the beach when he found an ancient lamp washed up on shore. He rubbed, and sure enough, a huge genie appeared and said, "You are my master! I am here to grant you three wishes!"
Stacy thought about this and said, "I want to go back in time, to the Old South."
"We can do that," said the genie.
"And, I want to live on a big plantation, full of cotton fields!"
"Your wish is granted," said the genie.
"And, I want the South to win!"
"Done!" said the genie. He snapped his fingers, and Stacy McCain felt himself change. He was on a huge plantation, standing in the cotton field. He felt the chains on his ankles and the burn of the whip as the overseer flayed his back.
"Wait, wait, wait!" cried McCain.
He heard the genie's voice, "You got three wishes, sucka, and you didn't wish to be the master!"
"Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people."
Why didn't he tell that crowd of hard-edged military heroes about how we are bringing them to trial? That's good, right? The bad guys are standing trial in NYC. Why not say that?
Ha, ha. You're still on the Bush Derangement angle I see.
Afghanistan has been on "the back burner" because it's been mostly quite there for that period. Now that Iraq is no longer a permissible environment for terrorist attacks the attacks have moved to Afghanistan.
Are you nuts? That's not Bush Derangement. That's a simple statement of fact. Try this little quote on for size:
Why provide a timeline at all. You can achieve the same without putting a specific date in play. After all, once that date is in play, it becomes a political decision (even more than it already is - but it can be an albatross for the 2010/2012 election cycles).
You can work with benchmarks - the more you achieve, the closer you can get to a point where you draw down troops.
The faster you reach the benchmarks, the faster troops come home - and when you put together the benchmarks, it can resemble something like victory. It can mean securing the border and setting up a process by which border crossings are not tolerated - and denies Taliban/AQ safe havens. It can mean setting up a government that simultaneously denies warlords the ability to constitute a threat to a functional government, but brings them into a political process. It can mean reducing reliance on opium, but gives people hope for an economic opportunity. It can mean the Afghan gov't building some roads and infrastructure that can be a tangible proof for the Afghan people that the Afghan government functions.
Allying with Pakistan is critical--he made that point himself. Maybe Obama has come around since he is correct in that Pakistan has turned on the extremists after being victims themselves. As long as Pakistan was not fully engaged in fighting terrorism on their border, the mission in Afghanistan was doomed to fail.
Good for you, and keep your strength up, you have three more years to struggle to put all the blame for Obama's Afghan cock-up on former President Bush
For those saying that this is a minimal re-enforcement/surge you need to try looking at the actual numbers.
This is more troops than were sent to the "surge" in Iraq (20,000) where we already had almost 130,000 troops on the ground. Since we only have about 68,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan this is roughly a 50% increase in our commitment of troops. As a percentage increase this is one hell of a re-commitment to the war, now lets see if it can work.
Sure won't. But that's my question to people who see setting a date of withdrawal as 'cut and run'. Are we really gonna spend the next millenium in bloody Afghanistan?
Honestly: Iraq is the more important theater. Afghanistan and its people don't matter except in as far as it can be a terrorist haven. Iraq has a key strategic position and large quantities of oil, which we need to keep flowing.
Also, proximity to Pakistan and their nukes, and Pakistan's proximity to India and THEIR nukes. And some other stuff. But I agree.
"Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation’s Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and – although it was marred by fraud – that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and Constitution."
Again, no mention of one of the major victories - the conspirators behind 9/11 being brought to justice. Getting the bad guys is one of the biggest moral victories, if nothing else. If he's so happy about putting them on trial in New York, why not bring it up?
Sure won't. But that's my question to people who see setting a date of withdrawal as 'cut and run'. Are we really gonna spend the next millenium in bloody Afghanistan?
It's one thing to decide that there will be a time when enough is enough. It's another to provide the enemy with the details of just exactly when you'll fold.
I think pretty much everybody agrees that as a nation the strategic importance of Afghanistan is based on the countries they border. It's a place on the map where Pakistan, Iran, and China would collide if Afghanistan wasn't there.
I think pretty much everybody agrees that as a nation the strategic importance of Afghanistan is based on the countries they border. It's a place on the map where Pakistan, Iran, and China would collide if Afghanistan wasn't there.
If this were a game of Risk, there'd be some serious dice rolls on that stretch of real estate.
Again, no mention of one of the major victories - the conspirators behind 9/11 being brought to justice. Getting the bad guys is one of the biggest moral victories, if nothing else. If he's so happy about putting them on trial in New York, why not bring it up?
Because it would throw the conversation off topic. We should be talking about our commitments going forward today. If he said that, because you and many on the right are rabid over it, it is a controversial topic so it would dominate the news over the coming days. They like controversy.
Honestly: Iraq is the more important theater. Afghanistan and its people don't matter except in as far as it can be a terrorist haven. Iraq has a key strategic position and large quantities of oil, which we need to keep flowing.
Could not disagree more. Iraq in 2002, when the plans were being generated to invade, was no more a geopolitical threat to the US, nor had as much to do with Islamic Fundamentalism and terror, as Iceland. Are you now saying we invaded for oil? Uh oh...
And as far as "except as far as it can be a terrorist haven"???
Really, DF, wasn't that the freaking point after 9/11? Remember that day? Where it was planned? Where they were?
Obama ran on an Afghan Surge, so it's good that he's finally going through with it. Not that I give a rat's ass about his political career/"legacy"/whatever - the important thing is that we get enough people (and helicopters!) in there to squash enough of the bugs.
It's one thing to decide that there will be a time when enough is enough. It's another to provide the enemy with the details of just exactly when you'll fold.
extremely bad move...it really fucks up the whole escapade...I think we need to withdraw and take the hit...it ain't gonna work
Or Germany, Japan. We're still there. Obama could scare the batshit out of the entire free world. Tell everyone that ALL troops are coming home in 2011.
We must secure Afghanistan. If the Taliban took over again, it would ban the national sport, one currently being lobbied to the International Olympic Committee. No joke. Hey, if ping pong is in, why not?
Afghanistan is not going to transform into something even remotely posing as modernity anytime soon. If ever. We should bomb the shit out of the bad guys if they get out of hand again, but not one American life should be lost in that pathetic country.
I don't care if they get to have purple fingers voting for corrupt primitives wearing hats made from aborted lamb fetuses on their heads like Hamid Karzai. Get out. Now. This is a lose lose.
To me Obama took the responsibility to get it done out of his hands and put it where it belongs and in an institution that has earner our trust, our military. Even if Obama is only politically motivated our military will get it done regardless (I really believe he wants to win it, personally). The troops have already successfully transitioned Iraq to self rule and most things are easier the second time around. Even though Afghanistan is a much different place I think it will be manageable.
No. The attack is the raison de guerre. Iraq is all about putting blame on others.
Reading back on the speech he talked about several different factors which influenced the position we are in now and the outcome. The fact of the matter is we were in a war in Iraq and troops were diverted there from Afghanistan. He never went into a diatribe calling the decision dumb or misguided it was a statement of what happened. You can call it "blame bush" because any reference to the past will make you feel that way, but truly it was just an accounting of went on.
He also said that Iraq was stabalized and we're handing it back over to the Iraqi people. That was a result of President Bush, so should you say that it was more giving credit to bush? No because it doesn't fit into the story of "Obama blames bush" that you've seemingly etched into your mind.
Again, no mention of one of the major victories - the conspirators behind 9/11 being brought to justice. Getting the bad guys is one of the biggest moral victories, if nothing else. If he's so happy about putting them on trial in New York, why not bring it up?
Tell you what. Get in touch with your cerebral side and then offer yourself as a speechwriter.
extremely bad move...it really fucks up the whole escapade...I think we need to withdraw and take the hit...it ain't gonna work
That's worse yet. Something may turn up in the meantime. We may as well play out the damned hand. Perhaps Pakistan will break its own Taliban in the meantime. Our surge gives them that chance, anyhow. They won't be facing a lot of cross-border infiltration.
Oh, never mind. Just say it in German: "Wir wollen den Endsieg!" You'll feel much better.
fuck German...BO needs to figure this stuff out and tell uswhat his concept is...stick 35k troops over there then pull everybody out is hardly a superior notion...delayed cut and run
It's one thing to decide that there will be a time when enough is enough. It's another to provide the enemy with the details of just exactly when you'll fold.
Good Evening LGF.
What a crappy speech.
18 months is virtually nothing.
No mention of individual liberties, democracy, infrastructure development or poppies.
I fear the POTUS views the war as lost, and that the exit strategy is a surge to cover defeat with feigned honour.
Again, no mention of one of the major victories - the conspirators behind 9/11 being brought to justice. Getting the bad guys is one of the biggest moral victories, if nothing else. If he's so happy about putting them on trial in New York, why not bring it up?
This speech had a few target audiences and goals.
1) Anti-war US citizens that oppose troop increases here. He had to sell them on this by reaffirming mission and setting timelines for progress. The right half are generally on board.
2) US troops. Inspire them and let them know they have CIC support to get the job done.
3) Regional players: Let them know we mean business and are committed to the theater.
The only part of that audience that would have been swayed by discussion of trial are anti-war US citizens. I would argue that the marginal gain in support you get from that group isn't worth the hit you would take w/ troops, who probably think the trials undermine their work, the regional players, who would associate the trials with Guantanamo and stir up anti-US feelings.
fuck German...BO needs to figure this stuff out and tell uswhat his concept is...stick 35k troops over there then pull everybody out is hardly a superior notion...delayed cut and run
Crap.
Apparently you believe in everything promised in speeches and campaign stops.
I, on the other hand, hear implied conditionals where you seem to infer promises.
The only part of that audience that would have been swayed by discussion of trial are anti-war US citizens. I would argue that the marginal gain in support you get from that group isn't worth the hit you would take w/ troops, who probably think the trials undermine their work, the regional players, who would associate the trials with Guantanamo and stir up anti-US feelings.
You better believe they think it undermines their work. And yet he will stand up in front of them and lecture them.
Actually, Obama made it pretty clear in his speech that :
Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.
So he's left himself the caveat of "conditions on the ground". I'd call 18mo more of a goal than a deadline.
That's worse yet. Something may turn up in the meantime. We may as well play out the damned hand. Perhaps Pakistan will break its own Taliban in the meantime. Our surge gives them that chance, anyhow. They won't be facing a lot of cross-border infiltration.
I don't consider this decision a surge, in the same sense of the Iraqi surge...it's just not enough troops to hold the ground
It's one thing to decide that there will be a time when enough is enough. It's another to provide the enemy with the details of just exactly when you'll fold.
That made sense in Iraq for sure, while it was still in great flux, but consider that if Karzai and friends let the Taliban beat them, guess who gets executed first with no Americans to the rescue? that is a good date driven incentive in my mind.
And we can always bomb them back to where they have always been if called for.
Frankly, I have little sympathy for Afghanistan. It is a primitive culture with no incentive to change and it never will change in our generation or the next.
I'm also very lucky to have a job that lets me travel around the state frequently. Early this year for a few months I drove every mile of every state route in Utah (in both directions!). Bryce Canyon, Zions National Park, Monument Valley, Moab and all the mountains up north gave me plenty to look at. Wish I had taken more photos, however.
Check out the Street View of this road going down a stretch of road known as Moki Dugway. It's a nail biter. I can't believe the Street View guy did this in the snow.
Good Evening LGF.
What a crappy speech.
18 months is virtually nothing.
No mention of individual liberties, democracy, infrastructure development or poppies.
I fear the POTUS views the war as lost, and that the exit strategy is a surge to cover defeat with feigned honour.
You really think he could get more from the peacenik hard left in the House or the Senate? As it is, spending for this call for more troops will have a hard enough time getting through the congress.
Apparently you believe in everything promised in speeches and campaign stops.
I, on the other hand, hear implied conditionals where you seem to infer promises.
I believe in the life of our troops...I don't give a rats ass about Afghanistan...flood the country with Marines or go home...BOs half measures will prove fruitless...if we don't control the entire country, what's the point?
I believe in the life of our troops...I don't give a rats ass about Afghanistan...flood the country with Marines or go home...BOs half measures will prove fruitless...if we don't control the entire country, what's the point?
While President Obama is committed to a troop surge into Afghanistan, the question becomes how exactly are they going to get there? Supply lines in Pakistan remain troublesome. We've had to deal with the Russians every step of the way in the -stans, and have found our supply lines crimped several times in the past year (including bombings of our supply lines through Pakistan). With a massive troop surge, we're going to have that many more troops pushing into the region relying on the same supply lines. Airlifting can do only so much, so this has to be done knowing that we've got the secured supply lines, or else force protection for the supply lines will divert troops from the tip of the spear to providing the means to get them into the field.
You really think he could get more from the peacenik hard left in the House or the Senate? As it is, spending for this call for more troops will have a hard enough time getting through the congress.
You ain't seen the peacenik hard left, kiddo. They ain't NOTHIN' like those bourgeois soft-centered liberals we got in the House and the Senate.
I'm also very lucky to have a job that lets me travel around the state frequently. Early this year for a few months I drove every mile of every state route in Utah (in both directions!). Bryce Canyon, Zions National Park, Monument Valley, Moab and all the mountains up north gave me plenty to look at. Wish I had taken more photos, however.
Check out the Street View of this road going down a stretch of road known as Moki Dugway. It's a nail biter. I can't believe the Street View guy did this in the snow.
Good grief! My palms got all yucky just looking at that! I can't imagine being there and driving.
Where I live (and learned to drive) is very flat. I was grown before I ever knew what the lower gears were in a car with automatic transmission. I don't think I would ever get the hang of driving downhill on those sorts of roads.
You better believe they think it undermines their work. And yet he will stand up in front of them and lecture them.
I took your bait (that you repeatedly and sarcastically offered) and gave the likely (if obvious) political reasons why he wouldn't discuss the trials tonight. S
The man is trying to build a coalition of support on the home front, re-motivate international allies, inspire troops, and win a war. Of course he isn't going to bring up a severely contentious issue that could undermine many of those goals.
Why are you so concerned about that distracting issue right now?
They should be sent but it should be made clear that if things don't work out the way they did in Iraq, withdrawal is the only reasonable option left with the right to intervene in the future reserved. And if Karzai starts acting more like an asshole then no American should die protecting his regime.
Could not disagree more. Iraq in 2002, when the plans were being generated to invade, was no more a geopolitical threat to the US, nor had as much to do with Islamic Fundamentalism and terror, as Iceland. Are you now saying we invaded for oil? Uh oh...
And as far as "except as far as it can be a terrorist haven"???
Really, DF, wasn't that the freaking point after 9/11? Remember that day? Where it was planned? Where they were?
This selective memory is disturbing to me.
To answer that: I did not say we invaded for oil. What I said is that Iraq has something we need and that makes it more important than Afghanistan. Afghanistan is only important in as far as its strategic position and its danger if it is a failed state. Simply put:
Iraq is a more important theater because it is a more important country.
You mean heir? Though I suppose Kim's hair is kinda goofy. Why were waiting for it to turn, though, I'm not sure :)
No, I mean the bouffant. It's a secret agent, trained by the Japanese, Mossad, and the CIA. Specially programmed. When it senses the time is right, it's gonna take out Kim, and everyone close to him.
re: #310 albusteve
At home doing meals on wheels or knitting. Ya gotta remember, most of the EUs military is basically crap. All their money is tied up in domestic welfare programs.
You really think he could get more from the peacenik hard left in the House or the Senate? As it is, spending for this call for more troops will have a hard enough time getting through the congress.
Bah, it's chickenfeed if he really wanted it. Stimulus for the military industrial complex. Probably less than a trillion.
I believe in the life of our troops...I don't give a rats ass about Afghanistan...flood the country with Marines or go home...BOs half measures will prove fruitless...if we don't control the entire country, what's the point?
How does 30,000 troops (out of 40,000 asked for by Gen. McC., who, like all generals, was setting a high limit and hoping for half) come out to be a half-measure in your tiny brain?
I believe in the life of our troops...I don't give a rats ass about Afghanistan...flood the country with Marines or go home...BOs half measures will prove fruitless...if we don't control the entire country, what's the point?
See my post at #225 and then come back when you have a clue what your talking about. It doesn't matter what Obama had announced, if it was 500,000 more troops you'd still be bitching, don't bother denying it, I have read enough of your posts to know better.
Fine you hate the government, you hate Obama more, and the democrats in congress even worse, what the heck ever.
I'm very close to just that...we need more than those numbers and ROEs that we can cut loose on full auto...I'm not happy
I'm a little perplexed then. Would it make better sense to talk to the guys on the ground and get their opinion first?
Because I never thought I would see anyone here say its OK to wave the white flag of defeat and walk away from Afghanistan. Never. Not after what those assholes did to us on 9/11.
You ain't seen the peacenik hard left, kiddo. They ain't NOTHIN' like those bourgeois soft-centered liberals we got in the House and the Senate.
Well, maybe Barbara Lee is a little hard left.
A number of Dems announced today opposition to increased troops, nomatter what the number. Feingold and Obey from my state have gone on record opposing the increases.
Also, bear in mind that this is merely the President's plan. Congress still has to authorize and fund the troop increase. I hope the President has counted his votes to make sure this gets done. Or else, things are going to get ugly in more ways than one.
I took your bait (that you repeatedly and sarcastically offered) and gave the likely (if obvious) political reasons why he wouldn't discuss the trials tonight. S
The man is trying to build a coalition of support on the home front, re-motivate international allies, inspire troops, and win a war. Of course he isn't going to bring up a severely contentious issue that could undermine many of those goals.
Why are you so concerned about that distracting issue right now?
In reality, it's for purely emotional reasons, and if what I said meant a shit, I wouldn't bring it up. But it doesn't, and so I can't help point this out: He has to look these marines in the eye and ask them to put their lives on the line. They deserve better.
Well.. At least we don't have John "We're all Georgians now!" McCain saber rattling them.
OT, mostly: I hate Putin. I absolutely hate Putin. I want bad shit to happen to him. Eternity isn't long enough and hell isn't hot enough as far as that cold-hearted bastard is concerned.
My biggest concern is the supply line. 30,000 more troops to a landlocked hostile location.
we either OWN that country or need to leave...it's a hostile environment and the Talis will outlast us...35k more troops is not gonna get it done, mark my words...it will be so long and expensive that you have to be in for the long haul...we aren't
You really want the U.S. to call it quits today? Pack up all our shit and leave now? Really?
Yep. The war was over years ago, as soon as the Taliban got kicked out. Then the nation building and babysitting crap started. The only working strategy I see is to keep them in their beloved 7th century state of mind and infrastructure. This entire charade of building a "modern" democracy there is pure insanity and will fail. Guaranteed. Bush failed. Obama will fail. And everyone else has as well who tried their hand at it for that matter.
I want them kept in a state that makes it impossible for them to be threat to our national interests. Period. Eight years and we're still fighting people in caves and caring for a bunch of cultural infants. Time to go with the caveat that we'll be watching and will annihilate them if they dare to fuck with us again. All or nothing. This middle ground shit hasn't worked out too well for us over the past six decades or so in case you haven't noticed.
The Russians find themselves in a win-win solution here.
If the US eradicates (significantly) the Taliban/AQ system, all the better for Russia as they are fighting Islamic terrorists too (and work with the US on that.)
If the US loses face and world prestige from not being seen as a "success" in Afghanistan, all the better for Russia as it plies its foreign policy in Asia.
How does 30,000 troops (out of 40,000 asked for by Gen. McC., who, like all generals, was setting a high limit and hoping for half) come out to be a half-measure in your tiny brain?
See my post at #225 and then come back when you have a clue what your talking about. It doesn't matter what Obama had announced, if it was 500,000 more troops you'd still be bitching, don't bother denying it, I have read enough of your posts to know better.
Fine you hate the government, you hate Obama more, and the democrats in congress even worse, what the heck ever.
35k will not subdue the Taliban permanently...your rant is pointless
NO, I'm not cutting and running. Unlike some here want to do.
Fuck me.
I'm with you. Finish the job strong and don't hesitate during the tough times. I fear our president doesn't have the will to win. I would love to hear him say we are seeking victory but I won't hold my breath.
They interfered in our basing of troops at a staging area in Kyrgyzstan. I foresee them trying to do more of the same, since it would be a low-risk method of entrapping and knocking down the US a notch or two.
To answer that: I did not say we invaded for oil. What I said is that Iraq has something we need and that makes it more important than Afghanistan. Afghanistan is only important in as far as its strategic position and its danger if it is a failed state. Simply put:
Iraq is a more important theater because it is a more important country.
Again, you miss the point. Oil exports today from Iraq are about what they were in February 2003. That supply was secure because Saddam's regime depended on it to stay in power. His teeth were pulled after Desert Storm. He was no longer a threat to our interests in the region.
If it was *really* a war on terror, Afghanistan was The Front. Unless you wanted to invade and destroy Salafism in the Kingdom. Iraq? Pfft.
You keep dancing around your original statement. Iraq is "a more important country". It "has something we need". What would that be?
I'm a little perplexed then. Would it make better sense to talk to the guys on the ground and get their opinion first?
Because I never thought I would see anyone here say its OK to wave the white flag of defeat and walk away from Afghanistan. Never. Not after what those assholes did to us on 9/11.
Afghanistan did something to us? Don't blame the rat-hole. Blame the rat. We'd have gone to Sudan if it had happened some earlier.
What do you want? A stable democratic Afghanistan? Possibly unachievable. The total destruction of al-Qaeda? We'll keep working on that in or out of Afghanistan. Bin Laden's head in a basket? Hell, I'd like that too, but he may well be buried in a cave on Tora Bora. If leaving because we don't see a purpose to staying is defeat, what would winning look like?
No, I mean the bouffant. It's a secret agent, trained by the Japanese, Mossad, and the CIA. Specially programmed. When it senses the time is right, it's gonna take out Kim, and everyone close to him.
I wonder when we have all these new troops in Afghanistan and there is some new evidence found of Iran supporting the Taliban how Obama will respond. What will it take to call it an act of war.
He said constantly that Afganistan was the war of necessity and we should focus on it. We're getting out of Iraq. Also as he said he would do. Where's the waffle?
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when credit is due." - I forget who, but I saw it in Modern Warfare 2 which was pretty fun but kinda short compared to the first one. :B
I'm a little perplexed then. Would it make better sense to talk to the guys on the ground and get their opinion first?
Because I never thought I would see anyone here say its OK to wave the white flag of defeat and walk away from Afghanistan. Never. Not after what those assholes did to us on 9/11.
fine...lets get down to the business of killing Talis then...will BO see this out?...will he win it for all practical purposes?...reduce the Taliban and AQ to a rag tag insignificant few?...we'll see...how can that happen when he gave them a timeline to simply wait us out?
Again, you miss the point. Oil exports today from Iraq are about what they were in February 2003. That supply was secure because Saddam's regime depended on it to stay in power. His teeth were pulled after Desert Storm. He was no longer a threat to our interests in the region.
If it was *really* a war on terror, Afghanistan was The Front. Unless you wanted to invade and destroy Salafism in the Kingdom. Iraq? Pfft.
You keep dancing around your original statement. Iraq is "a more important country". It "has something we need". What would that be?
That thing is oil. I've never shied away from that. Oil is not the reason we went in, but it is a major reason why we have to win there.
I'm with you. Finish the job strong and don't hesitate during the tough times. I fear our president doesn't have the will to win. I would love to hear him say we are seeking victory but I won't hold my breath.
Define "victory". Please. Or go back to playing World of Warcraft.
I wonder when we have all these new troops in Afghanistan and there is some new evidence found of Iran supporting the Taliban how Obama will respond. What will it take to call it an act of war.
It will cause a strongly worded letter to be sent with a threat of sanctions. Obama don't play.
I know! Pass a law in Kabul making terrorists wear armbands. That'll do it.
Simpleton.
Oh bite me.
If you expect that any military action against the Taliban should exclude any potential civilians who are being used as shields by the animals, then you are the simpleton.
35k will not subdue the Taliban permanently...your rant is pointless
BTW the military commanders are already whining about how they can't put as many troops in there as fast as Obama wants them to. They have no staging area and everything pretty much has to be flown in. We will be lucky to see even the increase in troop levels that Obama called for within the next year much less more.
The military commanders have apparently said that they ideally need almost 3 months for each increase in the troop level of 3,000 soldiers. At that rate this would take almost three full years just to add the 34,000 troops Obama approved.
fine...lets get down to the business of killing Talis then...will BO see this out?...will he win it for all practical purposes?...reduce the Taliban and AQ to a rag tag insignificant few?...we'll see...how can that happen when he gave them a timeline to simply wait us out?
Got news for you. In Afghanistan, they already are a "ragtag insignificant few" - at least AQ is.
Also, bear in mind that this is merely the President's plan. Congress still has to authorize and fund the troop increase. I hope the President has counted his votes to make sure this gets done. Or else, things are going to get ugly in more ways than one.
He said constantly that Afganistan was the war of necessity and we should focus on it. We're getting out of Iraq. Also as he said he would do. Where's the waffle?
I'm sure the Russians have at least some schadenfreude tinted thinking that it serves us right for what we did to the Russians in Afghanistan.
Undoubtedly. And I feel for the poor bastards that got sent out there, but Russia was fighting a purely ugly war out there, and that was one of the few times that Cold War tit for tat approached mitzvah status.
About the sixth thing I thought when I realized what was going on 9/11 was 'well, now the Chechens are totally screwed'. I was correct.
If you expect that any military action against the Taliban should exclude any potential civilians who are being used as shields by the animals, then you are the simpleton.
It works for the Israelis. I guess we're to dumb for that.
The military commanders have apparently said that they ideally need almost 3 months for each increase in the troop level of 3,000 soldiers. At that rate this would take almost three full years just to add the 34,000 troops Obama approved.
Well fuck then, what's the point of setting July 2011 as the goal?
BTW the military commanders are already whining about how they can't put as many troops in there as fast as Obama wants them to. They have no staging area and everything pretty much has to be flown in. We will be lucky to see even the increase in troop levels that Obama called for within the next year much less more.
The military commanders have apparently said that they ideally need almost 3 months for each increase in the troop level of 3,000 soldiers. At that rate this would take almost three full years just to add the 34,000 troops Obama approved.
So by dialing up a surge...does he have to give the peace prize back?
That's for the Norwegians to decide. They were stupid enough to give it to a man presiding over two shooting wars--they might have figured something just like this might happen.
Define "victory". Please. Or go back to playing World of Warcraft.
Smash the terrorists. Go into their area and destroy them. Squish them like the cockroaches they are. Coordinate with Pakistan to chase them to the border where we are waiting for them. They will have no place to go.
I don't believe killing a handful of them once in a while with drones do much good.
The military commanders have apparently said that they ideally need almost 3 months for each increase in the troop level of 3,000 soldiers. At that rate this would take almost three full years just to add the 34,000 troops Obama approved.
That's what happens when you drop the ball and go play another game in Iraq, based on bogus lies and fraud. You use up your troops.
Ex-Lizard, went to our crosstown rivals--well, our crosstown wannabe-rivals. Has a prayer list for them. Used to run ours. But Hoosier Hoops does ours now. Ours is better.
Bragging on your superior prayer list seems kind of dopey, no?
For AQ and the Taliban, the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is merely a line on the map. It holds no special relevance to them. If they get pressure from Afghanistan, they move to Pakistan. All the same, pressure from the Pakistani government in the frontier provinces sends 'em back the other way.
The US needs the troops there, so that when there's a significant push by the Pakistanis, they run the Taliban right into the anvil of US force.
re: #371 MandyManners
I think the speech was political in focus, and was designed to get enough in Congress on board with the surge. I think the votes are there, but there will be a vocal bunch of Democrats complaining about the troop increase.
No way he won't get the votes, with a few defections from either side. The right can't seem weak on the national defense, it's their best card. Who wants to risk not supporting the troops ?
It's not that simple, but it's been policy for pretty much every government since...probably even before WWII.
Well... It's not the case here. It isn't Muslim world versus Us. Al Quaeda and Taliban are Sunni. They don't like Shiites such as the persians in Iran and, now that we've gotten rid of Saddam, Iraq. They are enemies of each other as well. You see the world too black and white.
I don't see your problem...take over the country, exterminate the Talis and their AQ bretheren, or leave it to them...
Right and the "Talis" and "AQ" are easily identified from the rest of the population by...uhh...their beards? Your just spouting BS without any kind of thought or reasoning for it. That is one idiotic statement, I know you can do better because I have seen you do it.
"I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.”
Smash the terrorists. Go into their area and destroy them. Squish them like the cockroaches they are. Coordinate with Pakistan to chase them to the border where we are waiting for them. They will have no place to go.
I don't believe killing a handful of them once in a while with drones do much good.
BTW...I never played World of Warcraft.
Hmm. You'd think, if all that were possible, that Rummy the Red-Nosed Ranter and Dick "Dick" Cheney would have figured out a way to do it.
But they fucked around with drones for years while waging a war elsewhere for Achmed Chalabi's business interests. Obama is putting more boots on the ground.
Maybe you should play WoW, it might give you a basic clue about army stuff.
Ex-Lizard, went to our crosstown rivals--well, our crosstown wannabe-rivals. Has a prayer list for them. Used to run ours. But Hoosier Hoops does ours now. Ours is better.
Bragging on your superior prayer list seems kind of dopey, no?
Deciding that the folks on your prayer list are no longer worthy of your prayers is even dopier, imo.
Shiite and Sunni set aside their differences when it comes to waging war on 3rd party infidels.
Just look at Iran's support of Hamas.
That's also a lot more complicated.
Either way... the point I was making is worrying about the Taliban and Iran is missing the point. Al Queda and the terrorist is who we need to focus foremost on.
Well... It's not the case here. It isn't Muslim world versus Us. Al Quaeda and Taliban are Sunni. They don't like Shiites such as the persians in Iran and, now that we've gotten rid of Saddam, Iraq. They are enemies of each other as well. You see the world too black and white.
Actually no, otherwise I wouldn't have said it's been everyone's policy (including the myriad different 'factions' within the Muslim world). It would be black and white if they were really following ideology. But really, as long as it provides some benefit to them in the long run, they'll do it.
In reality, it's for purely emotional reasons, and if what I said meant a shit, I wouldn't bring it up. But it doesn't, and so I can't help point this out: He has to look these marines in the eye and ask them to put their lives on the line. They deserve better.
Agreed. The detainees do not deserve constitutional rights or a civilian trial. That said, keeping them permanently in Cuba, without sentencing, executing, or releasing them gives significant political ammo to our enemies and tarnishes the idea of American exceptionalism.
Beyond that, I think the marines can and will still find purpose in Afghanistan. Whether or not it is in Obama's words and actions, or even if it is despite some of those words and actions. I tend to give the marines more credit than to be significantly de-motivated or disheartened by that kind of political transgression at home. There are many truly important things to put your lives on the line for--freedom, the constitution, the safety of your friends, family and neighbors, and the idea of America itself--its exceptionalism.
And what's the problem there? Is Mullah Omar or bin Laden gonna sit down and surrender to McChrystal? Seems like a reasonable thing to say, seeing how that image isn't gonna happen.
Smash the terrorists. Go into their area and destroy them. Squish them like the cockroaches they are. Coordinate with Pakistan to chase them to the border where we are waiting for them. They will have no place to go.
[...].
Ok, so you would kill all the adult and adolescent males on the wrong side of the Pashtun civil war in Afghanistan. But what of those in Pakistan, kill all of them as well?
If John McCain had made that same speech tonight - timetable and all - would there still be Lizards calling for a total surrender? Turn our tails and run away? Wave the white flag - sorry not enough troops for me, lets go home?
Either way... the point I was making is worrying about the Taliban and Iran is missing the point. Al Queda and the terrorist is who we need to focus foremost on.
Iran will deal with anyone killing Americans and Israelis.
They are already recovering Iranian arms and explosives in Afghanistan.
[Link: www.nytimes.com...]
we took out alot of bad guys in Iraq, a good thing...now we move ahead and do the same in Afghanistan...if people think that this violence breeds more terorists, then so be it, that's the world we live in until the paradigm changes...I don't like it but who would?...we are committed and have to make good on our promise to these people over there...if we can't or won't then to hell with it
That thing is oil. I've never shied away from that. Oil is not the reason we went in, but it is a major reason why we have to win there.
Thank you. Honest question asked and answered. I will just respectfully disagree that invading Iraq was worth losing any momentum we could have had in Afghanistan, where 9/11 was planned and the planners existed.
Ok, so you would kill all the adult and adolescent males on the wrong side of the Pashtun civil war in Afghanistan. But what of those in Pakistan, kill all of them as well?
Smash the terrorists. Go into their area and destroy them. Squish them like the cockroaches they are. Coordinate with Pakistan to chase them to the border where we are waiting for them. They will have no place to go.
I don't believe killing a handful of them once in a while with drones do much good.
we took out alot of bad guys in Iraq, a good thing...now we move ahead and do the same in Afghanistan...if people think that this violence breeds more terorists, then so be it, that's the world we live in until the paradigm changes...I don't like it but who would?...we are committed and have to make good on our promise to these people over there...if we can't or won't then to hell with it
What have we been doing in Afghanistan for all these years if not taking out bad guys? I seem to recall we got several.
Clinton agreed - WMD's were there, and must be dealt with.
It didn't help that Saddam was trying to convince his neighbors very badly that he did have WMDs, to appear strong when he had very little control over his economy and his grip on power was shaky.
Something to keep very, very, very firmly in mind when worrying about Iran...
Thank you. Honest question asked and answered. I will just respectfully disagree that invading Iraq was worth losing any momentum we could have had in Afghanistan, where 9/11 was planned and the planners existed.
I've never really thought it was anything other than oil, and I've never had a problem with it. I'm sure we've gone into it before, but there are plenty of oppressed people the world over. No US troops, Senate debates, or presidential elections being decided over them. These particular oppressed people are sitting on an unbelievably important resource.
Fewer than you seem to find acceptable in Afghanistan.
Now you are moving the goal posts. When I posted this..
If you expect that any military action against the Taliban should exclude any potential civilians who are being used as shields by the animals, then you are the simpleton.
Which pointed out how it is impossible to fight a war against an enemy that hides out among civilians and not kill some civilians. To which you replied...
It works for the Israelis. I guess we're to dumb for that.
Which says that somehow the Israelis can do just that. But now you admit they can't, just that they are somehow better at it than us, but you provide no metrics to prove your point. Just Cato being Cato.
30,000 more troops. I wonder just how many of those will be front line?
I seam to recall that in WW2 for every 1 in the front line there were 10 behind needed to supply the that one. Any one know if that ratio still holds today?
Looks like I said kill the terrorists. What's wrong with that? Should we get a court order from a judge to search their homes then arrest them instead?
I've never really thought it was anything other than oil, and I've never had a problem with it. I'm sure we've gone into it before, but there are plenty of oppressed people the world over. No US troops, Senate debates, or presidential elections being decided over them. These particular oppressed people are sitting on an unbelievably important resource.
well we don't use it...so how valuable is it to the US?
Looks like I said kill the terrorists. What's wrong with that? Should we get a court order from a judge to search their homes then arrest them instead?
Thank you. Honest question asked and answered. I will just respectfully disagree that invading Iraq was worth losing any momentum we could have had in Afghanistan, where 9/11 was planned and the planners existed.
Fair enough. We often don't agree, but we always stay civil, and we always listen. And that is best way to interact. It's also one of the reasons I respect and like you.
30,000 more troops. I wonder just how many of those will be front line?
I seam to recall that in WW2 for every 1 in the front line there were 10 behind needed to supply the that one. Any one know if that ratio still holds today?
For AQ and the Taliban, the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is merely a line on the map. It holds no special relevance to them. If they get pressure from Afghanistan, they move to Pakistan. All the same, pressure from the Pakistani government in the frontier provinces sends 'em back the other way.
The US needs the troops there, so that when there's a significant push by the Pakistanis, they run the Taliban right into the anvil of US force.
Right, and Obama is putting the troops there. So what is all the pissing and moaning about here tonight?
30,000 more troops. I wonder just how many of those will be front line?
I seam to recall that in WW2 for every 1 in the front line there were 10 behind needed to supply the that one. Any one know if that ratio still holds today?
Probably even higher. Considering the "front line" now consists of things like predator drones, Cruise missiles etc.
It also depends on your definition of "front line." There's no clear eastern/western front in this kind of a war.
Looks like I said kill the terrorists. What's wrong with that? Should we get a court order from a judge to search their homes then arrest them instead?
Who's a terrorist? How do you know who's a terrorist? Are all Taliban terrorists? Is anyone who's related to a Taliban a terrorist? Are terrorists on our side terrorists? What is the dry, unladen weight of an African swallow?
OK I mean infantry not the supply troops. Definately the supply troops are in danger.
Guess my WW2 background does not reflect modern word meaning. I was in infantry and then supply.
About as honest as Hillary Clinton's "misspeaking" when she lied about flying into Bosnia under heavy fire.
Moreover, Bush was able to get the world's major intelligence agencies to cover for him AND made Clinton retroactively address the issue years before Bush became President. He is the king.
Do you know who they are? What group are they? Which side of the 300 year old civil war they are on?
It's the ones who are sending children with bombs strapped to them into areas to explode and kill civilians. The ones we read about every day who bomb hotels, schools, office building to cause mass casualties. Don't you read the news?
I don't see your problem...take over the country, exterminate the Talis and their AQ bretheren, or leave it to them...
The country is as big as Texas with 28 million people in it. 100,000 troops? It's a stop gap. We are praying for the miracle we got in Iraq, where as the surge was beginning, the decision was made by various Sunni tribes in Iraq that they were tired of being whipsawed by the Shiia on one side and the whack Sunni Fundies on the other that was getting them killed. They formed a partnership with the Allied troops that secured their villages and cities to an extent that our troops, even with the surge, could not have done. This allowed our surged troops to secure Baghdad, which put the lid on the insurgent pot.
Hope it works in Afghanistan. We have to give it a shot.
30,000 more troops. I wonder just how many of those will be front line?
I seam to recall that in WW2 for every 1 in the front line there were 10 behind needed to supply the that one. Any one know if that ratio still holds today?
Generals don't really request by number. They request by unit types (ie. combat infantry, air cavalry, artillery, civil affairs, military police, etc.)
The requested troop number was based on the type of troop mix requested.
I've never really thought it was anything other than oil, and I've never had a problem with it. I'm sure we've gone into it before, but there are plenty of oppressed people the world over. No US troops, Senate debates, or presidential elections being decided over them. These particular oppressed people are sitting on an unbelievably important resource.
As long as you are OK with over 4,000 dead and half a trillion dollars (and counting) I suppose that works for you. I think it has been a travesty.
It's the ones who are sending children with bombs strapped to them into areas to explode and kill civilians. The ones we read about every day who bomb hotels, schools, office building to cause mass casualties. Don't you read the news?
I see, so we are fighting "the ones". From what population or ethnic group do they come from? Where are they located? Which side of the 300 year old Afghan civil war are they on?
Does anyone arguing for pursuing the war know this answer?
The country is as big as Texas with 28 million people in it. 100,000 troops? It's a stop gap. We are praying for the miracle we got in Iraq, where as the surge was beginning, the decision was made by various Sunni tribes in Iraq that they were tired of being whipsawed by the Shiia on one side and the whack Sunni Fundies on the other that was getting them killed. They formed a partnership with the Allied troops that secured their villages and cities to an extent that our troops, even with the surge, could not have done. This allowed our surged troops to secure Baghdad, which put the lid on the insurgent pot.
Hope it works in Afghanistan. We have to give it a shot.
we do...anything is possible I guess...otherwise the loss of life is not worth it
I've never really thought it was anything other than oil, and I've never had a problem with it. I'm sure we've gone into it before, but there are plenty of oppressed people the world over. No US troops, Senate debates, or presidential elections being decided over them. These particular oppressed people are sitting on an unbelievably important resource.
We don't need it, we hardly use middle eastern oil anymore, we get most of our imports from Canada and South America nowadays. We could sever all ties with middle eastern oil tomorrow if we wanted to and barely feel it.
We are fighting and dieing and spending trillions we don't have because we are playing world policeman again. A couple of our allies need the oil to flow, our stock market needs the oil to flow, we don't really need it anymore ourselves for domestic use.
This isn't really about oil, it really isn't, it is about money.
Moreover, Bush was able to get the world's major intelligence agencies to cover for him AND made Clinton retroactively address the issue years before Bush became President. He is the king.
I heard he also secretly orchestrated the 9/11 bombings, and nobody except Charlie Sheen knew anything about it. Amazing.
can you be more precise about your definition of security?
How about my definition of "insecure"? A whole landmass of people governed by insane, America-hating, Israel-hating radicals having control over untold wealth in natural resources.
BTW the military commanders are already whining about how they can't put as many troops in there as fast as Obama wants them to. They have no staging area and everything pretty much has to be flown in. We will be lucky to see even the increase in troop levels that Obama called for within the next year much less more.
The military commanders have apparently said that they ideally need almost 3 months for each increase in the troop level of 3,000 soldiers. At that rate this would take almost three full years just to add the 34,000 troops Obama approved.
Got any links backing that up? I'm not arguing with it, I just might want to use it in argument in the future.
How about my definition of "insecure"? A whole landmass of people governed by insane, America-hating, Israel-hating radicals having control over untold wealth in natural resources.
Yeah that's pretty insecure. Can we agree to at least try to take a combo approach?
1) Secure resources.
2) Reduce America hatred.
3) Devalue their "untold wealth" (or at least our dependency on it) by outmoding oil as a necessary natural resource.
Got any links backing that up? I'm not arguing with it, I just might want to use it in argument in the future.
I'll try to find you one but that was based on a supposedly direct quote from a "military source" as used by a reporter on CBS. If it really is a direct quote it will surface in a day or so if it hasn't already.
Since there's a precedent set for pumping ungodly amounts of money into circulation in order to help "stimulate" an economy, I doubt I'll be too happy.
Since there's a precedent set for pumping ungodly amounts of money into circulation in order to help "stimulate" an economy, I doubt I'll be too happy.
Yeah that's pretty insecure. Can we agree to at least try to take a combo approach?
1) Secure resources.
2) Reduce America hatred.
3) Devalue their "untold wealth" (or at least our dependency on it) by outmoding oil as a necessary natural resource.
Interesting that in a thread of 492 comments and 58 users online, no-one can answer my question as to who we are fighting in Afghanistan, who are our allies, who are their allies among the varies groups.
Should we be fighting a war in which we do not know whose side we are on and who are our allies?
Should we be committing another 30 thousand troups to the slaughterhouse with a "Clear Mission" that is impossible in the time frame proposed?
Interesting that in a thread of 492 comments and 58 users online, no-one can answer my question as to who we are fighting in Afghanistan, who are our allies, who are their allies among the varies groups.
Should we be fighting a war in which we do not know whose side we are on and who are our allies?
Should we be committing another 30 thousand troups to the slaughterhouse with a "Clear Mission" that is impossible in the time frame proposed?
I don't know if 58 users on a blog, some of which weren't directly discussing your topic, are a sufficient sample to use the royal "we" for ignorance.
I think you need to look at the nuances of the plan. Obama did not say "bomb the bastards," or take on the slightly toned down view of that staement that NJDevils was going with for a while.
I voted a tentative approve...(I'm guessing that the Leftist wing of the Democrats are really, really angry about a surge. CNN had on Dennis Kucinich...that alien-looking critter...he was angry. He felt that all troops should be withdrawn now and that any "rebuilding" should be done in America, not in Afghanistan or Iraq.)
Because its a failing idea that will help cripple the prosperity of mine and future generations.
As opposed to printing money to pay for the war?
Sorry that I'm being so contrarian. My point is that there are two very analogous situations going on here, and its unfair to lambast one and defend another on their economics or stated goals.
1) Large deficit spending to finance military actions with a noble stated goal.
2) Large deficit spending to finance economic/healthercare actions with a noble stated goal.
Attack inefficient government and deficit spending on both, but you can't attack one for those and defend the other.
Should we not first know who we are fighting, who their allies are, and who is fighting on our side, and who their allies and troops are?
How can we talk in terms of a "plan" until we know who our enemy is and who are allies are?
Do you want to know?
Was Obama supposed to get on the TeeVee tonight and go province by province outlining the local issues? Cause really, the problem is that this entire war is being fought neighborhood by neighborhood, and macro scale thinking will only get you a nicely wrapped speech.
You want to know who are allies and who are enemies are? Lets get you on the horn with the captains in the tribal areas. You can talk to all of them and then let us know what you think.
Or, if that's not feasible, they can report to their superiors, who can report to their superiors, who can report to Obama and request more troops based on his aggregated assessment on the ground. Then Obama can cautiously consider that recommendation, seek alternative opinions, and come to a final, reasoned decision about what to do.
I wouldn't say I have blind faith in our military and elected leaders (that would be, in a word, insane), but I trust them, to an extent, to make the right call here.
David Gergen made a number of interesting comments. He said that given the current state of politics in America (divisive), the audience will tend to focus on that aspect of the speech which he/she doesn't like. So the Left will focus on the "surge" aspect (increasing troop levels), while the Right will focus on giving a time-table (it's 18 months). (Ironically, of course, Obama attempted to keep both sides happy -- give both a portion of what they wanted, but not give one side everything asked for -- but in doing this, David Gergen suggested, it would probably end up not pleasing anyone. In other words, Obama was proposing a middling ground, when in wars you need to be either "all in" or "all out.")
David Gergen made a number of interesting comments. He said that given the current state of politics in America (divisive), the audience will tend to focus on that aspect of the speech which he/she doesn't like. So the Left will focus on the "surge" aspect (increasing troop levels), while the Right will focus on giving a time-table (it's 18 months). (Ironically, of course, Obama attempted to keep both sides happy -- give both a portion of what they wanted, but not give one side everything asked for -- but in doing this, David Gergen suggested, it would probably end up not pleasing anyone. In other words, Obama was proposing a middling ground, when in wars you need to be either "all in" or "all out.")
how is a 34,000 troop increase by May (when General's asked for 40k by August) not all in?
NO, I'm not cutting and running. Unlike some here want to do.
Fuck me.
No need to cut and run. Just leave in an orderly fashion and then bomb the crap out of them from time to time if and when needed. And it will be needed most assuredly. The same objective will be achieved as staying there now, with a much lesser chance of loss of American life, unless you really believe that we are going to install a stable democracy in Afghanistan and leave in less than two years. Ain't gonna happen if we stayed 100 years. My pet fish have a better chance of walking upright than Afghanistan has transforming into anything remotely resembling a modern nation state.
So you don't know then, is that your answer? You allege they have no other affiliation than their particular "neighbourhood"?
And yes, I would expect those arguing for or against the war in Afghanistan to know who we were fighting and who we were allied with if they wish their views to be taken seriously.
The very suggestion that we can intervene in a civil war that has been going on for 300 years and have an "exit strategy" when we don't even know whose side we are on is ridiculous.
So you don't know then, is that your answer? You allege they have no other affiliation than their particular "neighbourhood"?
And yes, I would expect those arguing for or against the war in Afghanistan to know who we were fighting and who we were allied with if they wish their views to be taken seriously.
The very suggestion that we can intervene in a civil war that has been going on for 300 years and have an "exit strategy" when we don't even know whose side we are on is ridiculous.
Fine, lets assume you get me and everyone to agree with your main thesis.
What is your plan? The "we need to plan this out and pick a side to do this right" ship sailed. It left 8 years ago. We're there with 30,000 troops. Their stated goal is not to "win a war," but to suppress terrorism and create sustainable local ability to continue to suppress terrorism.
Do you think leaving right now is going to solve problems?
Fine, lets assume you get me and everyone to agree with your main thesis.
What is your plan? The "we need to plan this out and pick a side to do this right" ship sailed. It left 8 years ago. We're there with 30,000 troops. Their stated goal is not to "win a war," but to suppress terrorism and create sustainable local ability to continue to suppress terrorism.
Do you think leaving right now is going to solve problems?
What is my thesis? At this point I just want to establish if anyone knows who the combatants are and what the war is about.
Without having read the 500+ comments above my own, let me just simply say... you anti-war types need to understand a few things from the mind of an enlisted Marine.
1) You anti-war types are not more anti-war than I, or any of my fellow warriors for that matter. We answer a higher calling, and simply because we answer the call of the warrior does not make us "pro-war." What it reveals is that we are willing to sacrifice our lives and the happiness of our loved ones for the safety, security, liberty, and happiness of others. This is our goal: the security of a free nation.
2) You anti-war types need to stop thinking of "sending 34,000 additional troops in terms of "placing 34,000 more Americans in harm's way." This couldn't be further from the truth. We are pack hunters. There is safety in numbers. You can not tell me that safety of troops is not improved by having more barrels pointed down range at the scum we are trying to wage vicious war with. When we are with each other, with greater numbers, we are better able to close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver. This means less of us die horrible deaths in lands far from our families and far from our natural time.
3) You anti-war types need to remember that although this was not "technically" a war due to the lack of a Congressional Declaration of War, we face an enemy far more vicious than most people even begin to understand. Consider just for a moment, how do you think it feels to have a commander-in-chief so out of touch with our customs and traditions that he does goofy things like hand-shake a young Marine rendering a salute, or hold his hands over his genitals AT the TOMB OF THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER, while flanked by military officers rendering salutes on each side, AS THE NATIONAL ANTHEM PLAYS??? This might seem small potatoes to many, but to anyone who earned the uniform they wear, this is an absolute disgrace to be lead by a man who claims to have his finger on the pulse of military morale, and wants to improve it by telling the world that the military he commands cannot handle the mission so inconveniently handed to him by his predecessor almost a year ago that he was aware of over a year ago by campaigning for the position.
The reason I voted no, is because I don't think 34,000 troops (most of which will be support troops) will be enough to bring things to an "end" in 3 years.
I wish the troops and the President the best. I am concerned that giving a time table will help the enemy although I can understand the President 's political reasons at home.
Wars are horrible and tough to fight, like a cancer! As Andrew Coyne said, if we only fought wars we were sure of winning, we should never have fought any wars at all.
It saddened me to see the faces of the troops Obama was addressing. They did not look too confident. God Bless Them!
The way the question is phrased, yes, I approve of the Obama's plan to deploy additional troops. The whole telling-the-bad-guys-when-we're-leaving thing, not so much.
Interviewer: The notion of a "guitar solo" has preconceptions based on it; people automatically refute it because it's supposed to be self-indulgent or "for musicians." It's almost like things become iconographic and somehow lose their value for outsiders.
Zappa: Well, whose fault is that? That's what writers do. Musicians don't do that. The average person doesn't sit around thinking about the "iconographic problems of a guitar solo." -- Interview for Musician magazine, by Matt Resnicoff, November 1991. Reprinted in July 1995 Issue.
Frank says: