• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Official: Obama wants his war options changed

Can I vote present?
 
Could this be Obama's way of pulling out without losing face or, like, blatantly reneging on his campaign promises?
 
1069 said:
The Associated Press: Official: Obama wants his war options changed


What say you? :confused:
Click to expand...

He's certainly done an excellent job of strategically leaking information so as to gauge public opinion and manage expectations. At this point, I'm not believing anything until it comes from a named individual.

edit:
Meanwhile, two major U.S. newspapers reported the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, expressed his reservations about deploying additional troops to the country.

The Washington Post and The New York Times quote senior U.S. officials as saying Ambassador Eikenberry sent two classified cables to Washington last week, in which he expressed his opposition to the plan.

His position puts him in stark opposition to General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, who has requested 40,000 more troops.

Eikenberry served as the commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2006 and 2007 and retired from the military earlier this year. He was appointed ambassador to Afghanistan by Mr. Obama.
Click to expand...

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-11-12-voa3.cfm

Beautiful ass-covering if I've ever seen it.
 
Last edited:
Rachel Maddow interviews the AP reporter who broke the story:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FQsjJq4-m4"]YouTube- Rachel Maddow: Obama Rejects All Military Options For Afghanistan[/ame]
 
1069 said:
What say you? :confused:
Click to expand...
I'm fine with Obamas approach to what seems to be him taking the time to weigh all the options regarding the troops increase. So far all I'm reading about in the news is speculation.
 
**** or get off the pot time, and Obama asked for more TP.
 
There are so many ways you could take this.

I'll settle on this one: Robert Barack Hussein Obama-McNamara.

He is initiating the Flexible Retreat Strategy (F****RS) aka cut-and-run.


Although he was a prime architect of the Vietnam War and repeatedly overruled the JCS on strategic matters, McNamara gradually became skeptical about whether the war could be won by deploying more troops to South Vietnam and intensifying the bombing of North Vietnam, a claim he would publish in a book years later.

In the same interview he states, "Kennedy hadn't said before he died whether, faced with the loss of Vietnam, he would [completely] withdraw; but I believe today that had he faced that choice, he would have withdrawn."

In early November 1967, McNamara's recommendation to freeze troop levels, stop bombing North Vietnam and for the US to hand over ground fighting to South Vietnam...
Click to expand...

F****RS.

Obama, the King of Bait-and-Switch.

.
 
Last edited:
EpicDude86 said:
I think one of them is going to be right in the ass, by way of the wallet...



:lol:
Click to expand...

With an infected, smelly, rusty rod... ohne Kondom.

Enjoy America. This is what you voted for.

Change.

.
 
msnbc's way too early with willie geist just reported senior administration officials have divulged that obama has rejected every option for afghanistan so far presented to him in those eight somber and serious meetings he's held around that crowded conference table, each of which made for great news copy

this, after all last week the white house leaked it was now leaning towards sending some 34000 additional warriors to the theater

meanwhile, ambassador to afghanistan karl eikenberry came out publicly yesterday calling for zero reinforcements for our overplied forces in the mountains on the moon

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/us/politics/12policy.html?_r=2&hp

the ditherer's petal pulling approach---i'll send more troops, i'll send more troops not---has apparently resulted in a daisy suddenly denuded of leaves

he has no clue what he's doing, he's only there because he campaigned so hard on the region as the "right war"

our troops are being sacrificed to provide political cover for obama's skinny butt and for no other reason

obama WANTS OUT, everyone knows it

but he's chicken livered

so he dithers while soldiers die in record numbers

afghanistan is killing this president

and it's going to get a lot worse, even if/when he does pull out
 
I believe Ambassador Eikenberry is raising urgent and relevant questions.

Although I agree that additional manpower is needed, I believe a full discussion needs to examine, among other things, the past experiences concerning Czarist, British, and Soviet forces in Afghanistan, the failure of earlier "surges" to bring about a stable outcome, and Afghanistan's historically decentralized framework in which tribal leaders/local institutions play a larger role than its central government. Former Soviet President Gorbachev's warning, while unpleasant, goes to the heart of the convergence of Afghanstan's history and lack of governance structure. The Soviets had much greater manpower and much freer operating constraints and still failed to pacify Afghanistan.

Currently, Kabul is defined by corruption, cronyism, and incompetence, if not leadership that may not adequately represent all of Afghanistan's various ethnic or tribal groups. Afghanistan remains closer to a failed state than a viable national unit. The leadership issue is one that the military planners need to address. In the wake of previous failed strategies, they have a genuine burden to address the issues as to why the previous troop surges in Afghanistan, including one from earlier this year, proved ineffective, why their earlier plans failed to foresee how events unfolded to date, why one should have confidence that the outcome this time around will be different given Afghanistan's historic experience and current dynamics. They need to identify who specifically will be the key tribal leaders whose efforts will be leveraged in implementing the plan and how reliable have they been in the past. They need to identify what local institutions will be relied upon to complement the efforts of the additional troops, among others.

The historic experience, failure of earlier troop surges, and, arguably worst of all, previous strategies' failure to come close to anticipating the overall evolution of events does not inspire much confidence. Neither do the realities associated with failed or failing states. As a result, difficult questions need to be raised and addressed.

The assumptions on which the strategy is based must fit reality. Those assumptions need to be sober, not excessively optimistic. The new strategy cannot simply be a "patch" that changes one or two variables but does not fit the current environment nor address issues raised by the historic and recent experience, otherwise it will rapidly become obsolete well short of achieving its goals as happened with the previous strategies. It also needs to specifically identify and address a wide range of contingencies.

Experience with failing or failed states with a history of highly fragmented leadership/multiplicity of tribal leaders with widely varied interests e.g., Somalia, illustrate the enormous difficulties involved in Afghanistan. Historic and recent experience in Afghanistan demonstrate the reality of those difficulties.

In the end, it seems to me that Ambassador Eikenberry is asking the difficult questions that need to be asked. It would be prudent for the President to give those questions and issues a thorough review in the planning exercise, even if the exercise requires some additional time.
 
donsutherland1 said:
The historic experience, failure of earlier troop surges, and, arguably worst of all, previous strategies' failure to come close to anticipating the overall evolution of events does not inspire much confidence. Neither do the realities associated with failed or failing states. As a result, difficult questions need to be raised and addressed.
Click to expand...

This latest surge, last spring, included a significant strategy change, along the lines of the change that occurred when the Iraqi surge was implemented. We switched to a full COIN strategy, and US forces (perhaps other NATO forces) changed posture out of FOBs and into outposts. The casualty rate increased.

I was going to point out a province that had seen an increase in troop strength and a corresponding decrease in Taliban attacks and that things looked like they were turning around. I found this article, which isn't nearly as rosy as the article I had originally read several weeks back: Zabul moves front and center in fight against the Taliban | Stars and Stripes.

I recall that in the initial stages of the Iraqi surge, we didn't get that much help for similar reasons, but the longer we stayed the more intel we got. I wonder if that is the case in Afghanistan. It may well be if we had enough forces to really do COIN. If the central government is our partner...It seems the core problem is that there isn't a credible replacement for the Taliban.

donsutherland1 said:
In the end, it seems to me that Ambassador Eikenberry is asking the difficult questions that need to be asked. It would be prudent for the President to give those questions and issues a thorough review in the planning exercise, even if the exercise requires some additional time.
Click to expand...

I agree. It is a failing state with no central control over the provinces and the enemy has a sanctuary.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
With an infected, smelly, rusty rod... ohne Kondom.

Enjoy America. This is what you voted for.

Change.

.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We finally have a president intelligent enough to listen to his advisors and take charge when he doesn't like the options. I am enjoying the change.
 
Here is my take on the situation. More than enough time to make a decission has expired. President Obama refuses to give the generals the troops they have requested. He is just as spineless as a president as he was as a senator. In the mean time our troops are paying the price for Obama's indecission. Either give the Generals the troops they have requested or get out of Afghanistan. Obamas half stepping is getting our guys killed.
 
SgtRock said:
Here is my take on the situation. More than enough time to make a decission has expired. President Obama refuses to give the generals the troops they have requested. He is just as spineless as a president as he was as a senator. In the mean time our troops are paying the price for Obama's indecission. Either give the Generals the troops they have requested or get out of Afghanistan. Obamas half stepping is getting our guys killed.
Click to expand...

Rock, he has time. The snows are in the Kush and all activity is winding down as the Taliban go to their sanctuary. No ops on our side in the mountains. The first unit to go to AFG will leave in Feb I think, so he has weeks to make up his mind.

Bush took months as well.
 
WillRockwell said:
Exactly. We finally have a president intelligent enough to listen to his advisors and take charge when he doesn't like the options. I am enjoying the change.
Click to expand...

Bush did the same thing when he decided on the surge and COIN strategy. He took charge as well. Give credit where credit is due.
 
reefedjib said:
Rock, he has time. The snows are in the Kush and all activity is winding down as the Taliban go to their sanctuary. No ops on our side in the mountains. The first unit to go to AFG will leave in Feb I think, so he has weeks to make up his mind.

Bush took months as well.
Click to expand...

You just pointed out the problem without realizing it. Why does the Taliban have a sanctuary? We have got to put pressure on Pakistan to eliminate the Taliban from within thier borders. There should be no rest for them, only death.
 
SgtRock said:
You just pointed out the problem without realizing it. Why does the Taliban have a sanctuary? We have got to put pressure on Pakistan to eliminate the Taliban from within thier borders. There should be no rest for them, only death.
Click to expand...

I TOTALLY agree. I've been saying it since I got here to DP. That and the corrupt Afghan government are the two big challenges.
 
reefedjib said:
Bush did the same thing when he decided on the surge and COIN strategy. He took charge as well. Give credit where credit is due.
Click to expand...

Bush made decisions from his gut. He didn't accept advice, and didn't examine options or consider consequences. No credit is due to Bush or his disastrous command decisions.
 
SgtRock said:
Here is my take on the situation. More than enough time to make a decission has expired. President Obama refuses to give the generals the troops they have requested. He is just as spineless as a president as he was as a senator. In the mean time our troops are paying the price for Obama's indecission. Either give the Generals the troops they have requested or get out of Afghanistan. Obamas half stepping is getting our guys killed.
Click to expand...

You must understand that generals have only one priority, prosecuting the conflict. They are unable to balance the cost of conflict over national priorities. No disrespect intended, but the military is like an attack dog. When you tell it to attack it will not stop, and (if it could) would report that victory is at hand, it just needs more time. That's why we don't let generals have the last word on war, they will always choose conflict over other options.

By the way, our troops are not getting killed waiting for Obama's decision. They are fighting the war the same way they have for eight years. They do not become more vulnerable because a new strategy is being discussed.
 
WillRockwell said:
Bush made decisions from his gut. He didn't accept advice, and didn't examine options or consider consequences. No credit is due to Bush or his disastrous command decisions.
Click to expand...

Bollocks!!
 
WillRockwell said:
Bush made decisions from his gut. He didn't accept advice, and didn't examine options or consider consequences. No credit is due to Bush or his disastrous command decisions.
Click to expand...

Really? Because for 8 years all we heard was the Cheney pulled the puppet strings. It's almost odd at this point to hear you say otherwise.

Topic? While I can appreciate a president exploring options, good leadership calls for decisive and sometimes swift action. If Obama was this unsure of the situation, he should have made that a bit clearer on the campaign trail instead of presenting himself as the man with the answers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom