- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
President Obama urgently looked for a way out of the war in Afghanistan last year, repeatedly pressing his top military advisers for an exit plan that they never gave him, according to secret meeting notes and documents cited in a new book by journalist Bob Woodward.
Frustrated with his military commanders for consistently offering only options that required significantly more troops, Obama finally crafted his own strategy, dictating a classified six-page "terms sheet" that sought to limit U.S. involvement, Woodward reports in "Obama's Wars," to be released on Monday.
According to Woodward's meeting-by-meeting, memo-by-memo account of the 2009 Afghan strategy review, the president avoided talk of victory as he described his objectives.
"This needs to be a plan about how we're going to hand it off and get out of Afghanistan."
snip
Woodward's book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger."
Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan war
This weak stick President is not concerned with winning anything concerned with the War's we are in, only how can we cut and run. Also, callously that further attacks on this country and the loss of civilians in this country are acceptable to him.
It's very difficult to attack those you sympathize with.
“We are fighting to destroy the enemy. We are dealing with evil at its roots and its roots are America.”
So said the Pakistani Sheikh Muburak Gilani, leader of the jihad terrorist group Jamaat ul-Fuqra. And the way that he and his organization are “dealing with evil at its roots” is to set up jihad terror training camps all over the United States -- often under the noses of government and law enforcement officials who are either indifferent or too hamstrung by political correctness to do anything about it.
Sheikh Gilani is no shrinking violet, and Jamaat ul-Fuqra is a force to be reckoned with both in the United States and elsewhere. Journalist Daniel Pearl was on his way to interview Gilani when he was kidnapped and beheaded in 2002. The following year, a member of Jamaat ul-Fuqra, Iyman Faris, pled guilty to plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. In 2005, the Department of Homeland Security included the group among “predicted possible sponsors of attacks” on American soil. And in 2006, the Department of Justice reported that Jamaat ul-Fuqra “has more than 35 suspected communes and more than 3,000 members spread across the United States, all in support of one goal: the purification of Islam through violence.” That means, of course, violence against unbelievers.
Yet despite the fact that Justice and the DHS are obviously aware of what is going on, Jamaat ul-Fuqra continues to operate, relatively unhindered, in the United States.
Terror Training Camps On American Soil - HUMAN EVENTS
How exactly do you envision a victory playing out? Afghanistan simply isn't going to become a stable, liberal democracy anytime soon, REGARDLESS of what we do. The country is just too underdeveloped and too fragmented.
Hmmm....That doesn't sound defeatist at all, nooooooo. Wake up man, this is a war. We didn't start it, but what do ya say we win it?
If you can't even imagine what a victory would look like, how on earth do you expect to win it? How will we know when we've won?
If you can't even imagine what a victory would look like, how on earth do you expect to win it? How will we know when we've won?
Well, the first thing toward a victory I would think would actually being able to say that is what we want. Obama, and most libs can't do that.
Sadly, you won't, because it'll take generations to win it.
When you're fighting inhuman cockroaches, they just keep coming out of the cracks. But if you don't keep stepping on them, they'll eventually run you out of your own house.
Apparently neither can you, since you can't define what victory would look like. Do you envision Afghanistan becoming a free, stable, prosperous democracy modeled on American values and free of terrorists? That's not going to happen. Or did you have some lesser vision of victory in mind? If so, what is it?
No matter how many times you shriek "ZOMG WE NEED TO WIN LOL," unless you can clearly explain what victory looks like and how our military presence in Afghanistan will help us achieve that goal, you aren't really saying anything substantive.
It would be a lot cheaper to just make sure they aren't in our house in the first place, instead of traveling halfway around the world and spending hundreds of billions of dollars to step on them.
We are still in Europe, Japan, and approximately 170 other places in the world. What's the difference?
yet another person who learned nothing from the malaise that was vietnamWell, let me start by saying to not only you but to all libs, current, past, present, hiding behind the cover of some "Indy" label, or out in the open and proud of it. Victory in a war against the Taliban, and AQ is a different thing from nation building Afghanistan.
I'd love to see the Afghany's prosper from their own natural resources, and have stable government elected by the people, and a military that can root out extremism, and abide a rule of law. I guess that means showing the majority of people in Afghanistan a higher standard of living to combat extremism.
As for the Taliban, and AQ, they must be crushed physically wherever they are. To win a war is to inflict enough damage to the enemy that they lose the will to continue. Currently we are not doing that. And Obama doesn't have the stomach to do it, that much is clear.
j-mac
this is a tribal society, which shows no desire to leave the 16th century, much less enter the 21stprosper from their own natural resources
again, this is a tribal society which seems comfortable living as a tribal society. we cannot want democracy for them. the afghans must want it for themselevesand have stable government elected by the people
do the afghans see eradicating their nation of outsiders they view as occupiers really that extreme, if viewed from their perspective?and a military that can root out extremism
haven't the afghanis been living under their own rules of law for ages prior to the very existence of the USA?and abide a rule of law.
we could do that by engaging in commerce with them - not by warI guess that means showing the majority of people in Afghanistan a higher standard of living to combat extremism
How exactly do you envision a victory playing out? Afghanistan simply isn't going to become a stable, liberal democracy anytime soon, REGARDLESS of what we do. The country is just too underdeveloped and too fragmented.
yet another person who learned nothing from the malaise that was vietnam
this is a tribal society, which shows no desire to leave the 16th century, much less enter the 21st
it is a nation governed by religious ideals rather than secular values
they have natural resource riches, but are without the means to extract them
the afghanis will have to recognize the potential wealth is worth the risk to allow outside interests to join with them to exploit the opportunities the natural resources provide
we cannot do that for them
again, this is a tribal society which seems comfortable living as a tribal society. we cannot want democracy for them. the afghans must want it for themseleves
do the afghans see eradicating their nation of outsiders they view as occupiers really that extreme, if viewed from their perspective?
i know if the afghanis were over here, weapons in hand, trying to force their islamic law, tribal ways and rules of conduct on American citizens, i would fight to rid our country of such undesirable foreign influence. would that be viewed as extremism to them?
haven't the afghanis been living under their own rules of law for ages prior to the very existence of the USA?
maybe you meant to abide by the rule of American law
how would we feel if they came to our shore insisting that we adopt their islamic law?
we could do that by engaging in commerce with them - not by war
there can be no victory in afghanistan
the best we can hope for is not unlike the result in vietnam ... declare victory and bring our troops home
now, if we have a group of afghanis who want to oppose an afghan government our nation also opposes, then by all means let us train and provide support to those who want to bring a better government - one we can abide - to that nation
but they must want it enough to fight for it. then let us help them so they can fight for their own better government
that is not what is happening now
Europe and Japan aren't third world ****holes where insurgents are shooting our troops on a daily basis. We long ago accomplished our original missions in those places. We mostly stay there for other reasons now. For diplomatic goodwill (in the case of Germany) or to keep an eye on potential threats outside of the country in which our base is located (in the case of Japan). We don't need to worry about stabilizing Germany or Japan, or squashing any terrorist movements in those countries.
Afghanistan, on the other hand, is arguably the least developed nation in the entire world. It is poorly educated, tribal, and has been war-torn for decades. In other words, it is exactly the type of place where extremism breeds. And nothing we can do can change that. You say that defeating the Taliban and al-Qaeda is different from nation-building...but as long as Afghanistan remains the way it is in terms of development, it will be a hotbed for extremism. Killing some al-Qaeda folks doesn't eliminate the problem, because more will just take their place. At a certain point, we simply need to recognize that American power is not infinite and this is simply not a problem that we are capable of solving...and certainly not the best use of our limited resources.
yet another person who learned nothing from the malaise that was vietnam
"During the past year our nation has dealt with the most significant developments in the terrorist threat to the Homeland since 9/11," Leiter told the committee. "The attack threats are now more complex, and the diverse array of threats tests our ability to respond, and makes it difficult to predict where the next attack may come."
Obama should have thrown the book at the brass for being insubordinate. Being the president means being the commander in chief.
What we all should have learned from Vietnam is that trying to win a war while at the same time handicapping your own military will only end in disaster. If we had fought that war the same as we did WWII the end would have been completely different. Politicians micromanaging the military is not a very good idea. AS have been proven more than once.
yet another person who learned nothing from the malaise that was vietnam
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?