nonniey Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 What no threads yet? This proposal basically reinforced my perception that we have a weak indicisive leader. Worst decision he could have made was to go in half-assed and that is what he picked. Either your serious about winning or your not and his choice to give less than requested plus advertising an 18 month limit confirms his heart is not in this struggle. He sent the wrong message to our enemies. Lets hope this minimalist surge works. Fire away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD5 Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 I have always believed he was a great speaker. He was boring tonight. It went on too long. He was literally putting some of the military in the audience to sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Half assed? I thought that 40,000 was the recommended number, and he's sending 34,000. Is that wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 9 out of 10 war mongers will agree with you. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 I heard bits and pieces. The rationale for his decision was sound, even though I disagree with it. I am on board, and hope this works out very well And honestly, anything less then, oh, 500k troops for 30 years in occupying and trying to stabilize that country is half assed But thats unrealistic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 I don't see the problem with the strategy. Try to suppress the enemy in Afghanistan which also helps out Pakistan but also light a fire under the people there that they need to step up and take responsibility for their country immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Half assed? I thought that 40,000 was the recommended number, and he's sending 34,000. Is that wrong? I believe 40k was the minimum in the request I actually approve of going lighter,though I do have some concerns on ROE rumors...for now I'll await facts and results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Doesn't speech have 2 "e"'s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 The speech was all business. Obama clearly articulated the strategy, the rational, and the plan. His words were powerful and patriotic. Opposing Obama right now over this issue simply ain't gonna play well. I hope Republicans go there. I always find it interesting when Republicans advocate a US foreign policy that is shaped by what our enemies think rather than what our allies' and our own principles demand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanleys Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Half assed? I thought that 40,000 was the recommended number, and he's sending 34,000. Is that wrong? 60,000 was the recommended number, 40,000 was the bare minimum required to properly implement the plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted December 2, 2009 Author Share Posted December 2, 2009 Half assed? I thought that 40,000 was the recommended number, and he's sending 34,000. Is that wrong? First of all 40K was the minimum recommended. Gen McChystal recommended up to 80K. So yeah the President failed to provide what his commander stated was the minimal resources. Additionally, advertising that we would begin a draw down in 18 months undermines the mission (If that is the constraint he made, bad one imo, he should have kept it classified). And finally you listed the wrong number it is 30K not 34K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 First of all 40K was the minimum recommended. Gen McChystal recommended up to 80K. So yeah the President failed to provide what his commander stated was the minimal resources. Additionally, advertising that we would begin a draw down in 18 months undermines the mission (If that is the constraint he made, bad one imo, he should have kept it classified). And finally you listed the wrong number it is 30K not 34K. Oddly enough, I don't seem to recall you ever having a problem with your boy Bush over the troop levels in Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD5 Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 It was interesting to hear him avoid the word "surge." He doesn't want to admit the prior surge was correct. It was also interesting that he avoided "WMD", and instead chose to use "tools of mass destruction" as a threat to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 These people are not happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 First of all 40K was the minimum recommended. Gen McChystal recommended up to 80K. So yeah the President failed to provide what his commander stated was the minimal resources. Additionally, advertising that we would begin a draw down in 18 months undermines the mission (If that is the constraint he made, bad one imo, he should have kept it classified). And finally you listed the wrong number it is 30K not 34K. are you willing to have American troops there indefinitely and spend whatever it takes? and what is a victory in Afghanistan and how to you get there? Not bashing, just wondering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Oddly enough, I don't seem to recall you ever having a problem with your boy Bush over the troop levels in Afghanistan. Seriously, is there ever a moment you actually take off your partisan hat and glasses? Everyone understands what side/where you are coming from. We may as well call you Chomerics Part 2 :hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 These people are not happy :hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Seriously, is there ever a moment you actually take off your partisan hat and glasses?Everyone understands what side/where you are coming from. We may as well call you Chomerics Part 2 :hysterical: But Chomie was pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 So what I'm hearing is that 40k was the minimum recommended, 60k was the recommended number, and McCrystal said up to 80K. I wish Obama would have committed some more troops to Afghanistan, somewhere in the neighborhood of 50K. If we're doing this it should be done right. Hopefully his 34k will work though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 We may as well call you Chomerics Part 2 :hysterical: Naah Chom was much more erudite and expansive...I kinda miss him Why yes ....I am a bit of a masochist;) Added SHF, I don't think the DU kids are ever happy,even when they celebrate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 :hysterical: Gotta love this thread... http://www.democraticunderground.com//discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=29134&mesg_id=29134 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted December 2, 2009 Author Share Posted December 2, 2009 Oddly enough, I don't seem to recall you ever having a problem with your boy Bush over the troop levels in Afghanistan. Changing subjects? The former President was committed to winning in both campaigns but I'll concede he didn't adequately resource either initially (He eventually got Iraq right). I'll also concede my focus was on Iraq as Afghanistan was relatively calm until very late in Bushes 2d term so I don't even recall having a problem with the troop level there at the time. Bottomline though, is the previous President was set on winning, the current one you can tell just doesn't have his heart in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Gotta love this thread...http://www.democraticunderground.com//discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=29134&mesg_id=29134 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Changing subjects? The former President was committed to winning in both campaigns but I'll concede he didn't adequately resource either initially (He eventually got Iraq right). I'll also concede my focus was on Iraq as Afghanistan was relatively calm until very late in Bushes 2d term so I don't even recall having a problem with the troop level there at the time. So to summarize: When Bush had 34,000 troops in Afghanistan as the Taliban stepped up their offensive in Afghanistan and Pakistan while Bush was ignoring requests for additional troops for years from his generals, that was all good by you. Not a peep. When Obama triples that number to over 100,000 at the behest of his generals, that makes him weak, he's going to lose the war, sending the wrong message to our enemies, indecisive, worst thing he can do, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted December 2, 2009 Author Share Posted December 2, 2009 are you willing to have American troops there indefinitely and spend whatever it takes? and what is a victory in Afghanistan and how to you get there?Not bashing, just wondering. The victory condition is this: The Taliban (or any government that would provide Al Qaeda a sanctuary) can't regain control of Afghanistan. You accomplish this by establishing an Afghan government that is hostile to the Taliban and strong enough to defeat any Taliban efforts at regaining control. And that is doable. Difficult yes, but doable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.