General Petreus is the best soldier in the history of armed conflict

[Baculus]

What really made a difference was a paradigm shift in Iraqi policy via the formation of Awakening Councils and negotiating with Iraqi insurgent groups, especially after they turned on Al Qaida In Iraq. THAT'S what made the difference. After all, for several years, the US government wouldn't even acknowledge the existence of insurgents, let alone think about making common ground with them of them. It was the same sort of bungled policies we saw, post invasion, for the five years leading up to 2007.

Democrats had reason to be skeptical of the Surge. After all, did they have any reason to be confident or to support it, after an invasion and occupation that was supposed to last for a few years, cost a hundred billion dollars, and whose purpose was to seize and recover WMD?

[Predicto]

what facts?

Afghanistan was the epicenter for terrorist activities leading into 9/11...how is this Bush's war? Obama is the Prez. HE ESCALATED. HE NOW OWNS IT. HE SANCTIONED THE CURRENT STRATEGY AFTER 3 MONTHS OF DILATORY PLAY PRETEND STRATEGIZING. he's now in charge. whatever happens - it's on his watch. that's how these things work. just as he will claim credit (Biden already has) for successfully winding down Iraq.

and you missed my probe (intentionally obviously).....factual guy that you are. I parsed through your harrangue on Iraq and wondered...since the poster never addressed the objectives...how can he claim complete failure? in the end, your self deception notwithstanding, just another cliche laden sermon.

Yep. Everything I said was another self-deceptive, cliche laden sermon. You caught me. What can I say?

I retire from the field in shame.

[Predicto]

We all know Afghanistan won't be "won" until Pakistan is resolved.

Short of invasion/coup, I have no idea, short of solving Kashmir, that the Pakistan situation can be stabilized

Even solving Kashmir won't fix things, not as long as the Pakistan civilian government is unable to control the ISI and the Army.

[Baculus]

what facts?

Afghanistan was the epicenter for terrorist activities leading into 9/11...how is this Bush's war?

First of all, Bush made the decision to invade Afghanistan. That makes it his legacy -- Obama entered the picture after we had already been in that country for 3/4 of a decade. Secondly, Afghanistan was NOT the "epicenter for terrorist activities" -- the Taliban were not international terrorists, and you can find more terror connections from Saudi Arabia (whose citizens made up the bulk of 9-11 attackers) and Somalia than Afghanistan.

Your post represents a wholesale rewriting of the situation.

Obama is the Prez. HE ESCALATED. HE NOW OWNS IT. HE SANCTIONED THE CURRENT STRATEGY AFTER 3 MONTHS OF DILATORY PLAY PRETEND STRATEGIZING.

I am sorry to point out, but you just made a very loaded statement. On one hand, you are criticizing him for escalating the war. On the other hand you are criticizing him for "DILATORY PLAY PRETEND STRATEGIZING." Your statement conflicts with itself, IMO.

We are partially in a mess because the past administration didn't want to take their time, whether it was the rush to war, or the planning for the occupation. Everything had to be NOW, which is why the post-invasion situation in both Afghanistan and Iraq are such messes.

What's even more bizarre are these sort of criticisms, where Obama is criticized for taking a period of time to make a decision on Afghanistan, but his administration is criticized as "rushing" health care reform after a year of deliberation.

I don't think the President's critics can ever get their story straight.

BTW, planning time is a GOOD thing. Everyone can't be a cowboy and shoot from the hips.

he's now in charge. whatever happens - it's on his watch.

That is true -- whatever happens from this point, it is his decision and his responsibility.

that's how these things work. just as he will claim credit (Biden already has) for successfully winding down Iraq.

Since that was Obama's objective, I think that is only fair.

[fansince62]

First of all, Bush made the decision to invade Afghanistan. That makes it his legacy -- Obama entered the picture after we had already been in that country for 3/4 of a decade. Secondly, Afghanistan was NOT the "epicenter for terrorist activities" -- the Taliban were not international terrorists, and you can find more terror connections from Saudi Arabia (whose citizens made up the bulk of 9-11 attackers) and Somalia than Afghanistan.

Your post represents a wholesale rewriting of the situation.

I am sorry to point out, but you just made a very loaded statement. On one hand, you are criticizing him for escalating the war. On the other hand you are criticizing him for "DILATORY PLAY PRETEND STRATEGIZING." Your statement conflicts with itself, IMO.

We are partially in a mess because the past administration didn't want to take their time, whether it was the rush to war, or the planning for the occupation. Everything had to be NOW, which is why the post-invasion situation in both Afghanistan and Iraq are such messes.

What's even more bizarre are these sort of criticisms, where Obama is criticized for taking a period of time to make a decision on Afghanistan, but his administration is criticized as "rushing" health care reform after a year of deliberation.

I don't think the President's critics can ever get their story straight.

BTW, planning time is a GOOD thing. Everyone can't be a cowboy and shoot from the hips.

That is true -- whatever happens from this point, it is his decision and his responsibility.

Since that was Obama's objective, I think that is only fair.

1) revisionist verbiage. Bush didn't invade AF...he responded and counter-attacked the location from which the attack was planned/launched. yea...minor detail that OBL operated out of AF and that that was the lcoation of the training camps. Having seen some of the material...never mind.

2) Who said Taliban were the terrorists..speaking of revisionism? strawmen.

3) Obama emphaisized right up to the election that he had the secret potion for AF...that Iraq was the wrong place....that Petreus' strategy was an abysmal failure...ooops...I digress. He laid out a strategy. He is now executing it - it aint workin. He owns it.

4) you are conflating a temporal concept - 3 months - with a scale concept - escalating. this is common sense and flows directly from his pre-election assertion that SWA wars were being fought in the wrong place. not even gonna bother with this one any further.

5) I note with satisfaction none of you have answered a previous post - since we're talking about "taking his time". If the RS article demonstrates anything the current National Security planning team - all appointed by the CiC - is dysfunctional and conflicted. That's where one of the key C2 problems lie.

6) Having probably sat in more planning sessions of this nature than you have....I might care to distinguish that there is bad planning and good planning.

nope....per Time Mag (or whichever)...it's his war now. he has made the decisions. he selected McC while undermining him at the same time with the brilliant strategic decision of announcing a timetable for withdrawl. as CiC he ultimately approves ROE. HE TOOK OWNERSHIP IN THE OUTCOME AND THE CASUALTIES/DEATHS THE MOMENT THE OATH WAS COMPLETED ON THE CAPITOL STEPS.

we are learning that this likable man is in over his head. how sad for the troops in the field....and every other "CRISIS" this admin is in the process of botching up.

[Baculus]

1) revisionist verbiage.

No mater the cause, it was still an invasion. That is technically what you call it. "Revisiionist verbiage" is calling it "Obama's war" when it was already a festering conflict when he entered office. Even worse, you call it his "war" before criticizing him for taking too long to make a decision.

Bush didn't invade AF...he responded and counter-attacked the location from which the attack was planned/launched.

Too bad that conflict played second fiddle to a subsequent invasion for Iraq, eh? BTW, did we ever capture Bin Laden? No.

Isn't it amazing how both Afghanistan and Iraq have exceeded the bounds of their supposed original objectives? We have not captured Bin Laden nor did we find large amounts of WMD.

yea...minor detail that OBL operated out of AF and that that was the lcoation of the training camps. Having seen some of the material...never mind.

I am familiar with the pre-invasion situation in Afghanistan, but that doesn't change the reality of international terrorism based elsewhere in the world. Also, much of Al-Qaeda has been based outside of Afghanistan, including Iraq, the Arabian peninsula, and northern Africa.

2) Who said Taliban were the terrorists..speaking of revisionism? strawmen.

Considering your previous statements, what a strange thing to say.

3) Obama emphaisized right up to the election that he had the secret potion for AF...that Iraq was the wrong place....that Petreus' strategy was an abysmal failure...ooops...I digress. He laid out a strategy. He is now executing it - it aint workin. He owns it.

Again you contradict yourself. The "Obama strategy" hasn't even been fully implemented yet! Troops are STILL going into country, and summer offensives have YET to be launched.

Like many Obama detractors, you are criticizing him for policies that will take time to blossom. What's even more ridiculous are your criticisms: You don't seem bothered or concerned with nine years of missteps by the last administration, but you're seemingly up-in-arms over a policy that was decided just last December -- not even a half year ago..

4) you are conflating a temporal concept - 3 months - with a scale concept - escalating. this is common sense and flows directly from his pre-election assertion that SWA wars were being fought in the wrong place. not even gonna bother with this one any further.

I am sorry -- come again?

If you can't explain yourself any better, than maybe it's best that you don't bother with it "any further."

5) I note with satisfaction none of you have answered a previous post - since we're talking about "taking his time".

If the RS article demonstrates anything the current National Security planning team - all appointed by the CiC - is dysfunctional and conflicted. That's where one of the key C2 problems lie.

You "note with satisfaction"? Note WHAT? The time it took to make the decision was spent in intelligence gathering and meetings with the generals in charge of the situation. I have no idea why you are interpreting this as "dysfunctional and conflicted." But considering the messy situation in Afghanistan, it wouldn't be surprising if opinions vary without the US government.

6) Having probably sat in more planning sessions of this nature than you have....I might care to distinguish that there is bad planning and good planning.

I work in IT, and I have worked in the corporate environment for years. I know this all too well. Don't pat yourself on the back too quickly. FAST, non-deliberative planning does not necessarily make for good planning. Are you the annoying guy in the meeting that always wants a decision NOW and TODAY, even if more planning stages are necessary?

nope....per Time Mag (or whichever)...it's his war now.

What do you mean, "nope"? I already agreed with that sentiment -- that anything from now on are his responsibilities. That is why he took some time to make a decision. You would be screaming that "he didn't take enough time to make a decision!" if he rushed into things. This doesn't change history leading up to 2009.

he has made the decisions. he selected McC while undermining him at the same time with the brilliant strategic decision of announcing a timetable for withdrawl.

McChrystal agreed to the timetable. Otherwise, the President and his administration has given the military and McChrystal a lot of support -- more money, troops, expanded drone missions in the region. etc.

I doubt if Obama randomly picked a date, either. Obviously this figure was based upon a number of factors, including consultation with experts in the region. After all, how long are we going to commit ourselves to a heavy military presence in that country? 2011 is starting to creep on a decade, after all, for our involvement there. Don't we need SOME sort of withdrawal plan, or do you expect it be open ended, both fiscally and materially?

as CiC he ultimately approves ROE. HE TOOK OWNERSHIP IN THE OUTCOME AND THE CASUALTIES/DEATHS THE MOMENT THE OATH WAS COMPLETED ON THE CAPITOL STEPS.

Then WHY are you criticizing him for taking time to make a deliberative decision?! Your opinion contortions just do not make any sense.

we are learning that this likable man is in over his head. how sad for the troops in the field....and every other "CRISIS" this admin is in the process of botching up.

I don't see you offering any solutions at all. Your criticisms don't even jibe with each other. You want the President to take the best course of action, but (1) you don't want to give him any decision-making time, and (2) you don't want to give his solutions any time to develop.

It's the same sort of nonsense I hear about the BP-oil situation. Obama's detractors have been screaming about Big Government for months, but now they're hoot and hollering when the government response isn't adequate in their estimation . . . all the while saying we need less government regulation over the Big Oil's industry, and that Obama should quit "sharking down" BP for "a slush fund."

[Predicto]

I don't see you offering any solutions at all. Your criticisms don't even jibe with each other... Your criticisms just don't make any sense...

They flow better if you read them aloud in Glenn Beck's voice.

[thebluefood]

That's why the two party system needs to go. It might not solve all our problems, but this kind of partisan flip-flopping pisses me off something fierce.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Even solving Kashmir won't fix things, not as long as the Pakistan civilian government is unable to control the ISI and the Army.

You pull the rug out from underneath both those institutions.

The ISI and the Pak Army simply do not get the mandate that they have from the people if there is no Kashmir issue

[Predicto]

You pull the rug out from underneath both those institutions.

The ISI and the Pak Army simply do not get the mandate that they have from the people if there is no Kashmir issue

I guess eventually that would be true. But that could take decades.

Besides, India isn't going to give up Kashmir (though I agree with you that it should be part of Pakistan, not India). Hindu nationalism would never allow it today. So it's kind of a pipe dream, at least for now.

Absent that unlikely turn of events, what do you think of the idea that a pullout date in Afganistan clearly harms (or helps) the situation over there?

[SkinsHokieFan]

Absent that unlikely turn of events, what do you think of the idea that a pullout date in Afganistan clearly harms (or helps) the situation over there?

Honestly, maintaining some sort of status quo/drone attack regime is probably the most realistic best bet.

AQ doesn't have the capacity anymore to strike in America, and Americans are too diligent to allow an attack to take place (I'd like to see what would happen to a group of hijackers on a plane today)

The Taliban are only able to exist now because there is an enemy to fight. The quicker we pull out the better, and as much as I think the drone attack strategy has dire blowback, its really the only one that is any effective in killing people, even though for every major target we kill we kill something like 30 civilians and a major attack happens on civilians in Pakistan.

This is no longer Obama's war, or America's war, it is truly Pakistan's war and the people of Pakistan are the ones who will win or lose it.

[Predicto]

Honestly, maintaining some sort of status quo/drone attack regime is probably the most realistic best bet.

AQ doesn't have the capacity anymore to strike in America, and Americans are too diligent to allow an attack to take place (I'd like to see what would happen to a group of hijackers on a plane today)

The Taliban are only able to exist now because there is an enemy to fight. The quicker we pull out the better, and as much as I think the drone attack strategy has dire blowback, its really the only one that is any effective in killing people, even though for every major target we kill we kill something like 30 civilians and a major attack happens on civilians in Pakistan.

This is no longer Obama's war, or America's war, it is truly Pakistan's war and the people of Pakistan are the ones who will win or lose it.

Oh dear. Looks like we have another Obamanailure on our hands.

In the end, your self deception notwithstanding, just another cliche laden sermon.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Oh dear. Looks like we have another Obamanailure on our hands.

In the end, your self deception notwithstanding, just another cliche laden sermon.

Obamanailure? I think you misunderstood me

Na, I am not going to pin this on the POTUS. I was dissapointed he chose to escalate there, I have been for a while on the "lets end this thing quick" bandwagon.

Really, the only thing that seemingly gets results are drone attacks there, but those have consequences as well.

Essentially, until the people of Pakistan choose to eliminate the AQ/Taliban threat within its own borders, there isn't a whole hell we can do. Its simply not in the hands of our President

[nonniey]

Honestly, maintaining some sort of status quo/drone attack regime is probably the most realistic best bet.

and as much as I think the drone attack strategy has dire blowback, its really the only one that is any effective in killing people, even though for every major target we kill we kill something like 30 civilians and a major attack happens on civilians in Pakistan......

QUOTE]

The large civilian casualties myth from drone attacks is becoming as widespread and believed as the 1 million civilians killed in Iraq myth. The actual ratio is likely closer to 10-1 (Ten Militants/AQ versus one civilian). And that ratio has been improving.

See link below

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/19-civilian-deaths-in-drone-attacks-debate-heats-up-950-hh-11

".....There is little doubt civilians have been killed in the air campaign. Though the first attack occurred in June 2004, the vast majority of the 130 strikes have taken place over the past two years, following a change in American strategy: the previous focus on ‘high-value targets’ was abandoned in favour of a broader campaign that includes lower-value targets. 85 strikes have occurred on President Obama’s watch.

With more missiles being fired in the hunt for a wider range of targets, analysts have attempted to determine the impact on civilians. But the significant differences in the estimates of civilian fatalities indicate the difficulties involved in such assessments.

What is fairly clear is that the air campaign has grown increasingly accurate. Amir Rana, who runs the Pak Institute for Peace Studies, claimed, “Since late 2009, the targeting has improved. Before, in late 2008, early 2009, there was high collateral damage.”

The lowest estimate of civilian fatalities is 94 — less than 10 per cent of estimated total fatalities — made by the Long War Journal, a blog which tracks drone strikes.

Bill Roggio, managing editor of the LWJ, explained his methodology: “The numbers I use are primarily from Pakistani press reports … given that there is more ‘incentive’ to report on civilian casualties. Yet casualties have been low regardless. Oddly enough, I don’t see many reports of the Taliban disputing the casualties; in fact they more than often confirm the reports.”

A widely-quoted study released by the New America Foundation in February estimates that between 830 and 1,210 civilians have been killed by drones since 2004, 30 per cent of estimated total fatalities...."

Click link above for entire article.

[Baculus]

They flow better if you read them aloud in Glenn Beck's voice.

Aha, so is that how it works?

BTW, your Frosty the Snowman Yeti image messes with me every time I look at it. Heh.

[Predicto]

Obamanailure? I think you misunderstood me

Na, I am not going to pin this on the POTUS.

No, you misunderstood me. I was pointing out that you are clearly an liburl apologist for our failure of a President, the one who is intentionally dragging us down to failure. Quit feigning objectivity - clearly you are an Alinskyite with nothing to offer but empty rhetoric and talking points.

I didn't have the vocabulary to properly label you, so I used the wise words of someone else on this board.

[Predicto]

The large civilian casualties myth from drone attacks is becoming as widespread and believed as the 1 million civilians killed in Iraq myth. The actual ratio is likely closer to 10-1 (Ten Militants/AQ versus one civilian). And that ratio has been improving.

I'm not sure that those estimates are that much more reliable, but really, it doen't matter that much.

What matters is what the Afgan citizens believe is happening, and that is the problem with staying there too long. As long as it seems to the average uneducated village Pushtun Afgani that there are foreign troops on their land and worse, that they blow up innocent citizens all over the place, the villagers will continue to tolerate the Taliban and terrorists in their midst whom they see as "freedom fighters" against foreign occupation, and they will continue to blame us foreigners for anything bad in their lives.

If, however, they see things as their own government taking control of criminals anf gangsters in their midst, it might go much better, and we will not be taking the blame.

Or so the theory goes.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

Obamanailure? I think you misunderstood me

Na, I am not going to pin this on the POTUS. I was dissapointed he chose to escalate there, I have been for a while on the "lets end this thing quick" bandwagon.

Really, the only thing that seemingly gets results are drone attacks there, but those have consequences as well.

Essentially, until the people of Pakistan choose to eliminate the AQ/Taliban threat within its own borders, there isn't a whole hell we can do. Its simply not in the hands of our President

We would be brainless if we withdrew from Afghanistan the Taliban would come back and reassert their authority within the Country at this point in time or in the next year or so. The war in Afghanistan is going to take a lot longer than many think. Not only do you have to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda you have to stabilize their infrastructures to limit the corruption and we have to make sure that their Police and Military is self sufficient to maintain their borders and fight off what remaining Taliban and Al Qaeda is left in the country. The biggest problem in Afghanistan is corruption and no fault to the Afghans it is how their culture is and how many were raised like that. It will take at least a generation break that trend.

Pakistan's Intel agency is so corrupt that they will never win the fight along their borders. Why do think we have been doing the dirty work along the border for so long.