Guess that's a question that isn't above his pay grade then...

Obama's decision to approve just over half the full troop request for Afghanistan recalls a similar decision by President Lyndon B. Johnson to approve only part of the request for U.S. troop deployments in a parallel situation in the Vietnam War in April 1965 at a comparable stage of that war. Johnson reluctantly went along with the request for additional troops within weeks under pressure from both the field commander and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Pardon? How is this is a comparable stage? We've been in Afghanistan for 7 years - which would be the early 70s in the Vietnam War.

What the fark is this shiat? He's asking questions instead of just paperwhipping the requests? Fark that. I want a CinC who is a decider, not a thinker.

he is paid to LEAD, not to READ.

If he had only asked the same question about the stimulus bill.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: If he had only asked the same question about the stimulus bill.

What? If only he had asked what they were using the stimulus money for?

The request for 30,000 additional troops.... had been approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as by Defence Secretary Robert Gates before Obama's inauguration.

So...had no one else bothered to ask??????

ragekage: What the fark is this shiat? He's asking questions instead of just paperwhipping the requests? Fark that. I want a CinC who is a decider, not a thinker.

Yeah, one that feels with his gut, not thinks with his head!!

Aw heck, who really cares? The troops only have 15 more months before they leave the Middle East anyway according to Obama's promises, so why does this really matter? By the time they get there and get set up, they will have to pack up to come home!

steelpeg: Aw heck, who really cares? The troops only have 15 more months before they leave the Middle East anyway according to Obama's promises, so why does this really matter? By the time they get there and get set up, they will have to pack up to come home!

Iraq...the 16 month thing is for Iraq.

steelpeg: Aw heck, who really cares? The troops only have 15 more months before they leave the Middle East anyway according to Obama's promises, so why does this really matter? By the time they get there and get set up, they will have to pack up to come home!

I thought that was Iraq, not the "Middle East".

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Meh. Fiddling with troop levels doesn't really mean much. The far more important question is whether or not an American military presence is a constructive influence on the country, which is a question no one seems to seriously be asking. We should start out with the assumption that an active foreign military presence in any country is going to breed hostility and resentment, and then there has to be some other overriding concern to justify intervention. In Afghanistan, for just one example, our insane poppy eradication efforts in particular are understandably embittering people against the US. People don't tend to like it when foreign soldiers come to their family farm and destroy their livelihood.


And this isn't about, as I've heard many people simplistically claim, "going after the people who actually attacked us". The people who attacked us aren't in Afghanistan and haven't been for years. This is just another endless nation-building effort with no clear end goal.

Churchill2004:
And this isn't about, as I've heard many people simplistically claim, "going after the people who actually attacked us". The people who attacked us aren't in Afghanistan and haven't been for years. This is just another endless nation-building effort with no clear end goal.

I am inclined to agree, I just hope we exit responsibly. The last time an invading military force farked with that country and then pulled out, they left a bunch of weapons and tribal powers in their wake, and that didn't turn out so well for us.

I want out, I just hope we can leave it better off then when we started.

vartian: I want out, I just hope we can leave it better off then when we started

A nice and understandable sentiment, but not one that can by itself really justify a continued presence. It's the same fatal conceit that made the Iraq War possible- the idea that buried deep within every third world hellhole is a little Switzerland just waiting to be freed by the application of enough caustic American military might. That simply isn't how it works. Liberal democracy requires a cultural framework of respect for the rule of law that takes generations to build up. You can go into any country and stage a majoritarian election. That in and of itself does nothing to bring the good things we (somewhat inaccurately) lump together under the umbrella of "democracy". What really counts in making free, stable states work is the mindset, and that is much more likely to be undermined by foreign imposition than inculcated by it.

So he still approved more than half of them without knowing what they'd be doing?

I guess we can expect the rest once the generals come up with some good BS.

Churchill2004: What really counts in making free, stable states work is the mindset, and that is much more likely to be undermined by foreign imposition than inculcated by it.

Oh, yes. Land wars in Asia, and all that jazz. Enough, already.

MorrisBird: Churchill2004: What really counts in making free, stable states work is the mindset, and that is much more likely to be undermined by foreign imposition than inculcated by it.

Oh, yes. Land wars in Asia, and all that jazz. Enough, already.

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to communicate.

Churchill2004: Meh. Fiddling with troop levels doesn't really mean much. The far more important question is whether or not an American military presence is a constructive influence on the country, which is a question no one seems to seriously be asking. We should start out with the assumption that an active foreign military presence in any country is going to breed hostility and resentment, and then there has to be some other overriding concern to justify intervention. In Afghanistan, for just one example, our insane poppy eradication efforts in particular are understandably embittering people against the US. People don't tend to like it when foreign soldiers come to their family farm and destroy their livelihood.


And this isn't about, as I've heard many people simplistically claim, "going after the people who actually attacked us". The people who attacked us aren't in Afghanistan and haven't been for years. This is just another endless nation-building effort with no clear end goal.

I have to disagree, if anything Petraeus understands that we can't blow up these people to smidgens. We are going to have to work with them, make some consolidations and try to get a stable working government. Similar to Iraq, he is going to have to get some of the good Taliban guys (if you can believe it) on our payroll as well as the warlords.

There are plenty of Al-Qaeda camps within the region its just damn near impossible to get them partly because of the public's mistrust. We are just going to have to restart our efforts in getting some of that back and Petraeus is the best guy for the job, the man is a bad ass.

It's going to be ugly, mistakes will be made, and when we leave it won't be the best democratic government. But they will have a functioning government. Obama is going to have to articulate this to the public and hope for the best but brace for the worst.

Churchill2004: I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to communicate.

I'm agreeing with you. You'll get over it.

SeismicJizzer: I have to disagree, if anything Petraeus understands that we can't blow up these people to smidgens. We are going to have to work with them, make some consolidations and try to get a stable working government. Similar to Iraq, he is going to have to get some of the good Taliban guys (if you can believe it) on our payroll as well as the warlords.

There are plenty of Al-Qaeda camps within the region its just damn near impossible to get them partly because of the public's mistrust. We are just going to have to restart our efforts in getting some of that back and Petraeus is the best guy for the job, the man is a bad ass

Being more Machiavellian and less bellicose might getter somewhat better results, but it's still a situation where armed foreigners are trying to manage Afghan politics. Just try to imagine if someone was doing this to you country- you'd hate it regardless of what the motives were.

And it's my understanding that neither Obama nor Patraeus have come out in favor of ending poppy eradication, which is probably the number one thing pushing people into the arms of the Taliban at the moment.

MorrisBird: Churchill2004: I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to communicate.

I'm agreeing with you. You'll get over it.

Oh.

Churchill2004: SeismicJizzer: I have to disagree, if anything Petraeus understands that we can't blow up these people to smidgens. We are going to have to work with them, make some consolidations and try to get a stable working government. Similar to Iraq, he is going to have to get some of the good Taliban guys (if you can believe it) on our payroll as well as the warlords.

There are plenty of Al-Qaeda camps within the region its just damn near impossible to get them partly because of the public's mistrust. We are just going to have to restart our efforts in getting some of that back and Petraeus is the best guy for the job, the man is a bad ass

Being more Machiavellian and less bellicose might getter somewhat better results, but it's still a situation where armed foreigners are trying to manage Afghan politics. Just try to imagine if someone was doing this to you country- you'd hate it regardless of what the motives were.

And it's my understanding that neither Obama nor Patraeus have come out in favor of ending poppy eradication, which is probably the number one thing pushing people into the arms of the Taliban at the moment.

I agree, I think it was on 60 minutes where they interviewed Patraues and they took a detailed look on how he somewhat kept Iraq together. His background in communications helped a lot, here's to hoping he can turn it around in Afghanistan. I hope America is ready to turn a blind eye on the poppy fields and warlords.

Its the Chairman Obama Vietnam war now

Churchill2004: And it's my understanding that neither Obama nor Patraeus have come out in favor of ending poppy eradication, which is probably the number one thing pushing people into the arms of the Taliban at the moment.

Well starving the people wouldn't help our cause much. Destroying poppies at this point (good work, W!) would do precisely that. There is no way that we can match what Poppies produce money wise, and even if we did buy it dollar-for-dollar, the minute that stops it must end. So our best option is to get a stable government going, so they can be the ones to end it.

Just send in Tony Stark to find Bin Laden.

But seriously, I'm starting to think Afghanistan is as much of a lost cause as Iraq. I think we're even more unpopular with the Afghani people.

If only Obama was that picky regarding tax cheats in his administration.

McCain knows how to get Bin Laden, he said so. Obama should deploy his ass or put him on trial for treason for witholding information.

NYZooMan: If only Obama was that picky regarding tax cheats in his administration.

How long you going to harp on that.

The dude paid it back and they both took a hit in credibility, give it a rest.

Churchill2004: The far more important question is whether or not an American military presence is a constructive influence on the country, which is a question no one seems to seriously be asking.

it's a question a lot of people are asking, a question obama himself has spoken about numerous times (and answered, for that matter), and a question inherent in this very story.

NYZooMan: If only Obama was that picky regarding tax cheats in his administration.

If he did would that cure your butthurt?

Shaggy_C: McCain knows how to get Bin Laden, he said so. Obama should deploy his ass or put him on trial for treason for witholding information.

Holy shiat can you imagine McCain back on the battlefield? The man's previous PTSD still hasn't been addressed.

Most likely he would just be cradling his gun in a fetal position crying for Palin.

Damned if we do,
damned if we don't

Rudyard Kipling described the dilemma best.

The big question is what this will do to heroin prices?
Why does Obama hate junkies?

SeismicJizzer: Holy shiat can you imagine McCain back on the battlefield? The man's previous PTSD still hasn't been addressed.

Speak for yourself but I definitely wouldn't want to see a dude looking like this weilding an M16 and running at me:

torquestripe: The big question is what this will do to heroin prices?

Don't worry, there's an offset built into the stimulus.

Obama is sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

It's kind of old news. He knew before he took office that he would not honor the 30,000 request that was in place by McKiernan. CNN reported that previously. Gates wants 'several' reviews of 'strategy' in Afghanistan as CNN reported.

It's a NATO Operation and our generals aren't the only ones in the game. 17,000 means he is second guessing what is needed without clear answers or his own teams review of the Strategic Plan of NATO.

He's walking a fine line here, if he starts micro managing and second guessing or denying requests just for the sake of undercutting #'s then he's making a mistake.

I said on another site that if he is giving the generals the tools they need.... then no complaint. He said he would prior to taking office.
But it seems now he may be hedging and trying to manipulate, and if that turns out to be the case then.........we probably risk over analysis. Even paralysis by analysis.

IMO the Stryker Brigade to the South is a perfect deployment. As well as the Marines. It's the right force to the right region.

But as Maggie Thatcher once said.... "now's not the time to go all wobbly..."



We'll see what he does, its a phased deployment.
He's talked the talk...now we'll see if he walks the walk.

Someday, somewhere, somehow, sometime, someone will recall why Afghanistan was dubbed "The Graveyard of Empires."


(HINT: Eleven different conquerors have sent armies into the region through the millennia. So far, none have succeeded in pacifying the Afghani people. Odds on America being the one to do it? Not good.)

Shaggy_C: Speak for yourself but I definitely wouldn't want to see a dude looking like this weilding an M16 and running at me:

I think he might be wielding something a little heftier than just that:

Sen. Biden referred to how Jack Kennedy was tested in the Cuban Missile Crisis. My friends, I had a little personal experience in that. I was on board the USS Enterprise. I sat in the cockpit of a flight deck on the USS Enterprise off of Cuba. I had a target. My friends, do you know how close we came to nuclear war? America will not have a President who needs to be tested. I've been tested my friends. (John McCain)

I'm not sure that we had tactical nukes that would fit on his plane back then, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't going to drop origami peace swans on downtown Havana.

If we were going after the people that attacked us, then we would be in Saudi Arabia beating up Bush's friends.

Do we even have a plan for Afghanistan? Hasn't history shown that no one wins there?

Obama should just bomb the F out of the hostile areas in Pakistan and get the F out.

Then get out of Iraq. Then Germany, Italy and Japan.

Let's let the UN be the force of maintaining the peace in the world and for erradicating terroists for a while.

the war terror is a business and business is booming!

Sigh....

Here we go again...the______ step explanation for liberals about how the war is always winnable.....

1- Fact: we could nuke Afghanistans tribal regions into a white hot flaming hell.

2-Fact: We could religiously profile all the Muslims in America and cordon them into camps and detain them until the threat is over.

3- Fact:We could destroy the majority of Islamic Culture in less than 30 minutes if we were willing to sustain losses from Pakistan's Nuke response(if they are capable of getting them to US targets.)

So there you have it, the war is winnable.

The FACT that we are not evil is what prevents us from making the easy decisions. The FACT that we are not evil is what requires us to fight messy complicated ground wars when we are the planets premier nuclear power.

Welcome to the good guys side, we have to give them a fighting chance or we get called evil.

Hell we get called evil when we carpet bomb them with free food and leaflets. Damn Americans and their Damn free food.

hellbilly: If we were going after the people that attacked us, then we would be in Saudi Arabia beating up Bush's friends.

Instead of going to Iran and beating up Obamas Friends?

NYZooMan: If only Obama was that picky regarding tax cheats in his administration.

How long you going to harp on that.

The dude paid it back and they both took a hit in credibility, give it a rest.

That never goes away. So It will never rest, sry.

winterwhile: Its the Chairman Obama Vietnam war now

This coming from someone whose party leader is Sarah Palin.

Next.

archichris: cordon them into camps

Could we just cordon bleu them instead?

archichris: Sigh....

Here we go again...the______ step explanation for liberals about how the war is always winnable.....

Give it a rest, most liberals are ok with the war in Afghanistan it was Bush's detour in Iraq that got everyone fired up.

archichris: Instead of going to Iran and beating up Obamas Friends?

haha lol wut? You do know the Ayatollah and his administration hate Obama with a passion because of one reason only - the Iranian people like him.

archichris: hellbilly: If we were going after the people that attacked us, then we would be in Saudi Arabia beating up Bush's friends.

Instead of going to Iran and beating up Obamas Friends?

Care to reveal information connecting Obama to Iran the way Bush is connected to Saudi Royal family through oil companies. Is there any pictures of Obama giving the Iranian president a kiss on the cheek?

archichris: Sigh....

Here we go again...the______ step explanation for liberals about how the war is always winnable.....

1- Fact: we could nuke Afghanistans tribal regions into a white hot flaming hell.

2-Fact: We could religiously profile all the Muslims in America and cordon them into camps and detain them until the threat is over.

3- Fact:We could destroy the majority of Islamic Culture in less than 30 minutes if we were willing to sustain losses from Pakistan's Nuke response(if they are capable of getting them to US targets.)

So there you have it, the war is winnable.

The FACT that we are not evil is what prevents us from making the easy decisions. The FACT that we are not evil is what requires us to fight messy complicated ground wars when we are the planets premier nuclear power.

Welcome to the good guys side, we have to give them a fighting chance or we get called evil.

Hell we get called evil when we carpet bomb them with free food and leaflets. Damn Americans and their Damn free food.

The fact that you think any of those things would actually end the war is absolutely laughable.