Presidents Afghan Speach

[Thiebear]

All i wanted him to do was to either put 40k in or take the 60k out. Period.

34k after the 17k in February is fine.

But my part was the sound of the United States taking back over after giving this to Nato in 2006 and France running the show.

NOW, maybe we can get some things done quickly and then get them out.

[Redskins Diehard]

George W. Bush was "committed to winning" in Afghanistan? Really? If troops levels are a good indicator of commitment to the war effort (as your posts imply), Obama is MUCH more committed to winning in Afghanistan than Bush ever was.

They aren't a good indicator

[Burgold]

They aren't a good indicator

Would you say that George W. Bush was committed to succeeding in Afghanistan? Personally, I don't like the word winning because it's too black and white? Did he resource the mission sufficiently to meet his general's needs?

I think that is the starting point to the question you are addressing.

[Redskins Diehard]

I hold similar thoughts to SHF about what we should be doing in Afghanistan. It is pretty clear that we will not take that approach because there is still some misconception that the war in Afghanistan is "going after the people that attacked us on 911".

All that being said I am glad the President decided to give GEN McChrystal at least some of the additional troops he wanted(although if it is giving him half I wonder why he would do that). The only other concern I have with the plan is the fact that we already announced when we will be finished with our renewed commitment. I personally would have preferred the conditions based withdrawal being the public face of the plan and any hard date being discussed behind closed doors with the government of Afghanistan. This set date implies to me that by summer of 2011 we expect the Afghan police and military to be ready to step up and perform the missions that we are currently.

[boobiemiles]

I didn't watch the speech, and I don't approve of war, but I like the strategy. Unlike Bush we are commiting a small number of troops to surpress the Taliban and spark the people in Pakistan (they are nuclear). We can not be nation builders. We don't have that resource. We help the Afghans get there stuff together. And we are giving them the time to do it.

[Burgold]

I personally would have preferred the conditions based withdrawal being the public face of the plan and any hard date being discussed behind closed doors with the government of Afghanistan.

I'm with you on that. I think this is a mistake that Obama makes somewhat often. For example, I thought it was a ridiculous statement to say health reform would not raise the deficit by a dime. It's very much in the mode of "Read my lips. No new taxes" Similarly, it's good to have a goal of x date, but it does cause you difficulty esp if things go awry (and things involving humans almost never go perfectly as planned).

As for why we are there and going there... I think intellectually it only makes sense if it is linked to the bad guys that want to hurt us and have hurt us. Otherwise, the only real reason to be there is "if you broke it you bought it" which is a terribly miserable way to justify a risk to American lives.

[aREDSKIN]

But Chomie was pretty good.

Yep, MJ is not at the same ballpark Chom was.

[Midnight Judges]

He has to. He took so long to make this decision because he had to weigh the political ramifications. Typical Democrat move, make tactical war decisions through polls. I still feel you should have to have prior military service to become president. At least a cook or something, it should be law!

So Lincoln, Jefferson and Reagan never should have been President in your opinion.

[skinfan133]

So Lincoln, Jefferson and Reagan never should have been President in your opinion.

Lincoln very much so, one of the greatest usurpers of liberty and limited government in all of American history. but this is neither here nor there.

Just out of curiosity MJ, why should we still be in Afghanistan?

[sacase]

So Lincoln, Jefferson and Reagan never should have been President in your opinion.

I thought you did truefacts?

Reagan served in the Army during WWII. He made CPT.

Lincoln was also in the Military as well and was a CPT.

[Ax]

Staying in Afghanistan was the correct choice. Therefore, the increase was the correct choice. Time will tell if the amount was correct, but behind closed doors, I'd bet the number was the true minimum request, at the very least. Maybe even the recommended number, for now.

Announcing a soft exit date is pure politics. I don't think it helps the cause one bit, but all Presidents choose to play to their choir from time to time. I think it's a mistake that is more harmful than helpful. But, the President hasn't blazed a new trail here. We'll stay beyond 2011 if it's necessary. He knows that.

I don't see the President as being the intellectual genius he's portrayed as, but I was confident that after having full access all to the information, that he would be in agreement with most of the evaluations of his predecessor, and keep much of the strategies and tools in place to fight terrorism abroad, and, here at home. Which he has done, much to the dismay of many of his supporters. Good for him.

Iran is next. And, it's a much bigger fish to fry. Made easier now that Iraq has US forces on one side, and Afghanistan on the other. Having all these troops on both sides of Iran is necessary. Whether the majority were in Iraq, or Afghanistan, is not important. Having Iran between them is the important thing.

Bush knew it. And so does Obama.

Now, if the President will drop the begging Iran to play nice routine, and start supplying support to the Iranian opposition movement, openly, with the overthrow of the current regime as our officially announced objective, then we can get the ball rolling. IMO, conflict with Iran is unavoidable, IF, we are not going to allow them to go nuclear. They can't be stopped peacefully.

So, either do something about it, or STFU about it.

The clock is ticking a little faster now.

[twa]

Nice post Ax

on a somewhat related note Matthews proves he's a idiot yet again

Chris Matthews calls West Point the "Enemy Camp"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTbJcixsLq8&feature=player_embedded

[SkinsHokieFan]

Iran is next. And, it's a much bigger fish to fry. Made easier now that Iraq has US forces on one side, and Afghanistan on the other. Having all these troops on both sides of Iran is necessary. Whether the majority were in Iraq, or Afghanistan, is not important. Having Iran between them is the important thing.

Bush knew it. And so does Obama.

.

I keep forgetting about Iran. Although I think attacking Iran will be one of the biggest mistakes in the history of this country.

Lets see the game that is played there. It is obvious though, based on news reports, Iran is still up to its games that it was during the Bush era

[Burgold]

on a somewhat related note Matthews proves he's a idiot yet again

Chris Matthews calls West Point the "Enemy Camp"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTbJcixsLq8&feature=player_embedded

Eh, you know what he meant. (It was still dumb, but you know what he meant) He wasn't calling them the "enemy."

I did think somewhat the same thing that there was not a lot of support for the President in that venue. Then again, it wasn't a rah, rah speech and I hate all those partisan phony ovations you get all the time in most political speeches.

[Henry]

Eh, you know what he meant. (It was still dumb, but you know what he meant) He wasn't calling them the "enemy."

I did think somewhat the same thing that there was not a lot of support for the President in that venue. Then again, it wasn't a rah, rah speech and I hate all those partisan phony ovations you get all the time in most political speeches.

I dunno Burg. I thought it was a pretty dumb thing to say period. Obama's reception was warm enough. His speech got fairly tedious toward the end. I don't think blaming the blinking eyes on the partisanship of the audience is all that fair.

[Prosperity]

The US probably won't attack Iran. It certainly won't invade Iran, so the troop presence in Afghanistan and Iraq is more of a liability than a boon (as far as Iran goes).

[twa]

Eh, you know what he meant.

Yeah I know what he meant,and it is irresponsible and idiotic.

But that is just Mr Tingles being himself

Honor,duty and sacrifice are alien terms for him.

[nonniey]

Anyone notice the timing of how Obama's planned troop withdrawal coincides with the next election ?

And telling everyone the time limit is actually a bigger mistake than shortchanging the troop levels. Bottomline, he is trying to please everyone and will end up pleasing virtually no one (Midnight will still be for him). The President thinks the time limit and sending less than required will placate the extreme left while actually sending troops will placate the center. Weak.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I'm not really sure what I think of the decision for a few reasons.

First, Obama did say all along that he was going to increase troop levels in Afghanistan, so I can't blame him there like some crazies do.

But, my concern is that I don't know that we can achieve even the "lesser" goals that Obama has put out there. Maybe we can, I'm not saying its impossible, I'm just saying its unknown.

All in all, I am behind the decision mostly because he seems to have a rational basis for his decision. I appreciate it when someone makes decisions based on all the known factors and then exercises judgment.

And just to throw a little jab in there, for all the "conservatives" or "republicans" or whoever that think we need more troops than Obama is sending, just remember that that is spending. A lot of spending on the budget that is not paid for. That is deficit spending. It seems Obama made several attempts to point out that the cost in dollars is something he has to consider. It seems that a lot of Obama's "opponents" are against spending only when its spending they don't want, and not just because it increases the deficit.

[nonniey]

George W. Bush was "committed to winning" in Afghanistan? Really? If troops levels are a good indicator of commitment to the war effort (as your posts imply), Obama is MUCH more committed to winning in Afghanistan than Bush ever was.

I don't imply that at all. Giving the commanders what they request and more is what shows commitment. I'm not a big Bush fan (or big critic) but anyone could tell he would not quit either campaign without a victory. Can you honestly say the same thing about Obama?

[Henry]

I don't imply that at all. Giving the commanders what they request and more is what shows commitment. I'm not a big Bush fan (or big critic) but anyone could tell he would not quite either campaign without a victory. Can you honestly say the same thing about Obama?

The problem with Bush was anyone could tell he wasn't sure what a victory was, exactly.

I can't honestly say the same thing about Obama.

[nonniey]

This is a really interesting Bizzaro thread. Throughout much of it the conservatives sound much like the liberals and dems of about 5-6 years ago while sorry to say, but MJ does read quite like a Neocon in a few of his posts.

As for troop levels, I'm almost positive the General went by the theory- If you shoot for the stars at least you'll land on the moon. They never expected that 60-80K number they were kind of hoping for 40, the former number was used to try to get the latter. It's a typical tactic...............

...............

It is crazy how easily and swiftly many of us change roles as exemplified by this thread. Crazy and more than a little sad.

I don't know where you get the impression Conservatives on this board sound like the Dems 5-6 years ago (Maybe Snydershrugged?). If we did we would be criticizing him for sending any troops at all and not withdrawing immediately.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I don't imply that at all. Giving the commanders what they request and more is what shows commitment. I'm not a big Bush fan (or big critic) but anyone could tell he would not quite either campaign without a victory. Can you honestly say the same thing about Obama?

You can't say that Bush was committed to winning in Afghanistan based on your own criteria. The commanders in Afghanistan begged him for more troops for years. His response was that Iraq, not Afghanistan, was the center of the war on terror.

It was a tactical decision he made, but he decided to focus on Iraq and let Afghanistan's own people and general deal with the mess.

[Kilmer17]

If those on the far right and the far left are both upset, maybe it's an okay idea.

I hate the fact that he gave a firm deadline, that just stinks of trying to placate the looney left. But other than that, I thought it was rather boring and not that different than what we've been doing or expecting to do.

[nonniey]

You can't say that Bush was committed to winning in Afghanistan based on your own criteria. The commanders in Afghanistan begged him for more troops for years. His response was that Iraq, not Afghanistan, was the center of the war on terror.

It was a tactical decision he made, but he decided to focus on Iraq and let Afghanistan's own people and general deal with the mess.

I asked Midnight to post a report (any report) that the Commanders in Afghanistan were requesting/begging for additional resources that were denied, he has been unable to do so so far. However, Bush did prioritize Iraq no question there, and once that fight was won I have no doubts the former president would have shifted whatever was needed for the fight in Afghanistan (If he had still been in power). Additionally the fight in Afghanistan didn't start to escalate until his last half year in office. Look, Bush screwed the pooch with the initial invasion of Iraq and went way too light. Now the current admistration is going too light in Afghanistan and also putting a withdrawal plan publically in place (Which tells everyone right there there is a lack of commitment).

I guess what I'm trying to get at (and apparently poorly) is that the current President just isn't committed to winning this fight and will quit if this surge fails, I don't think his predecessor would.