If I am correct, the President didn’t say it would be over in 18 months, he said that the increased troop level would be reduced in 18 months, that we would be back to where we are right now in 18 months.

The majority of our troops in AfPak will be there indefinitely either way.

Wow…..obama places a dollar figure on our natl security. After all he has spent on BS, he wont spend even a fraction of that to deal with radical islamic killers.

I just can’t help thinking: “why did it take him so long to come up with this weak crap?”

If I am correct, the President didn’t say it would be over in 18 months, he said that the increased troop level would be reduced in 18 months, that we would be back to where we are right now in 18 months.

I really don’t know if anyone knows for sure what President Obama meant. That worked really well campaigning, because he could just be this blank template people would stick whatever they wanted on to. Its not so great for policy.

It seems to me what he was trying to do was send the troops that were needed – clearly – yet also have a back door he could use to get out, those “off ramps” that were talked about last week. So if things go wrong or aren’t what he wanted he could yank everyone and abandon the place in craven surrender, or if they go well he can leave them longer.

If I am correct, the President didn’t say it would be over in 18 months, he said that the increased troop level would be reduced in 18 months, that we would be back to where we are right now in 18 months.
The majority of our troops in AfPak will be there indefinitely either way.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-02 14:16:25

If you’re correct, that isn’t a good strategy IMO.

That we would hopefully be at that level, NC. Nothing is guaranteed.

D-Vega,

It’s heartening that Gates today made it clear that any drawdown is contingent on conditions on the ground. That begs the question, though, What was the point of even setting a “withdrawal deadline” to begin with? Just because Bush refused to set one in Iraq? The lack of one in Iraq doesn’t seem to have hurt the outcome there.

I would have thought Obama would have learned to avoid unrealistic deadlines after his debacle with “closing” Gitmo.

Beyond that, I have to say my main reaction to Obama’s speech was how much he sounded JUST LIKE BUSH. I mean… We were attacked… the threat is real… we have caught people plotting recently… we know they seek weapons (of mass destruction).

What was Obama’s beef with Bush, again? Heh.

Oops.

The 18 month deadline strikes me as pretty foolish; its the same problem that the Democrats have always had, even in Iraq. They kept trying to force President Bush to set a deadline and they kept being told: the deadline is victory, to do anything else simply gives the locals no reason to back us and the bad guys reason to just wait until we’re gone.

No military operation works well on a deadline. You can’t say “fight until tuesday” you have to say “fight until you win” but then… President Obama did say he’s not interested in victory, didn’t he?

What would you consider victory in AfPak, CT? That’s the problem.

Look at Iraq. That’s what I consider victory: peaceful, stable, the terrorists on the run, the people not supporting or protecting them, there are elections, commerce, and normal behavior. Afghanistan was headed that way, then it started to go sour and we’ve not changed strategies to face that shift; until (hopefully) now.

Is that really so hard to figure out? Seriously?

There’s an editorial up at Der Spiegel which echoes a dichotomy similar to that which Ms. Clouthier notes. It’s an interesting piece and one that is not particularly flattering for Mr. Obama. The opening line is:

Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America’s new strategy for Afghanistan.

and it goes downhill (from Mr. Obama’s perspective) from there. You can find the piece at:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,664753,00.html

Let’s also remember that on the campaign trail, Barack Obama also called for attacking Pakistan. If he ends up doing this, the number of our troops in that region is going to go way up.

The more that I think about it, the 18 month thing was just a bone he threw to the lefties. He will let the situation on the gound determine his troop level actions and not some arbitrary preset plan.

Obama never called for an attack on Pakistan, BIG. Sorry.

Look at Iraq. That’s what I consider victory: peaceful, stable, the terrorists on the run, the people not supporting or protecting them, there are elections, commerce, and normal behavior. Afghanistan was headed that way, then it started to go sour and we’ve not changed strategies to face that shift; until (hopefully) now.

Its not as simple as that, CT. Afghan is not Iraq. It’s never been as cohesive as Iraq was under Sadam even.

The “terrorists” as you call them? We are not even sure who they are. And Iraq had some powerful people that we could rely on, like Ayatollah Sistani and the Sunni & Shiite leaders.

Afghan is more of a collection of trial warlords. More a kin to areas of Africa than of the Arab Middle East.

And we have not achieved victory in Iraq as of yet. When we see large drawdowns of US troops, and no ensuing violence then I think we will be closer to what we could consider victory.

But there is no guarantee any policy will work in Afghanistan. Even if we were to clear out all “terrorists”, and have a more stable gov’t, we would still have to contend with Pakistan, which has problems with all you list above.

Vega, get back to me when you can stay on topic. I laid out what “victory” entails because you asked what that was. You responded with “it will be hard.” So? It really is simple to lay out what victory would consist of.

I just can’t stop laughing over leftists repeating the same “its not the same as (previous successful effort), this nation is tribal and cannot be treated the same, the plans are not sufficient to the challenges, yadda yadda.

Don’t you have anything new to say? Do you just repeat the same nonsense over and over again, hoping eventually you’ll be right, or are you not even aware of what you’re doing?

Obama never called for an attack on Pakistan, BIG. Sorry.

Are you really still going with this pathetic denial?

He promised to perform military actions in Pakistani territory, whether the Pakistanis give him permission or not (and with the way he’s bungled the US/Pakistani relationship so far, the smart money is on not). Where I come from, that’s an act of war.

I’m not necessarily opposed to military action against Pakistan, especially if they’re harboring terrorists within their borders. But then, I’m also not part of the political spectrum that got all up in President Bush’s face about “illegal wars of aggression”.

The “terrorists” as you call them? We are not even sure who they are.

Actually we’re pretty sure they’re the guys setting IEDs and shooting at American soldiers. I know that might not immediately stick out as “enemy terrorist” to you, given that so many people on your end of the political spectrum hate the troops and would probably be happy as clams if they were doing exactly that, but it seems like a pretty solid standard to me.

Obama never called for an attack on Pakistan, BIG. Sorry.

Really? Then I wonder how this nugget of his slipped through:

In an August 1, 2007, speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said “he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission if warranted … [Obama warned] Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.”

Can we at least agree that on several occasions during the campaign, Mr. Obama talked specifically about entering Pakistan for military purposes with or without permission from the Pakistani government. Please don’t say that he never said anything about attacking in Pakistan. He did, and he did so on a number of occasions.

Vega, get back to me when you can stay on topic. I laid out what “victory” entails because you asked what that was. You responded with “it will be hard.” So? It really is simple to lay out what victory would consist of.

I didn’t say “it will be hard”, I said its not that simple. We may have some of those elements, or something else entirely, because its Afghan, not Iraq.

I just can’t stop laughing over leftists repeating the same “its not the same as (previous successful effort), this nation is tribal and cannot be treated the same, the plans are not sufficient to the challenges, yadda yadda.

Don’t laugh. Because its true. We have all of those things now in Germany & Japan, but we are still there. And Germany was not Iraq, and Iraq was not Japan.

There still may be pockets of Taliban in Afghan and we are still able to consider it a victory, and able to remove our troops because the Afghanis have their own army to handle it or contain it. We may not have elections. As a matter of fact, we won’t have true elections. The best we could hope for is a stable tribal council that can at least agree that the Taliban should not be included.

What if they want the Taliban to be included in the gov’t (as the Baathists were eventually included in Iraq)? What would you say then? Would that be victory?

Don’t you have anything new to say? Do you just repeat the same nonsense over and over again, hoping eventually you’ll be right, or are you not even aware of what you’re doing?

Don’t lecture someone on having something new to say when the right has cited ambiguous terms for consideration in victory in Iraq for years. We’ve acheived victory about six times in Iraq as far as I’ve counted. And yet, they still haven’t “stood up” so we can “stand down”.

While (thank goodness) it has quieted down, Iraq is no model for success because its still unfolding.

Don’t laugh. Because its true. We have all of those things now in Germany & Japan, but we are still there. And Germany was not Iraq, and Iraq was not Japan.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-02 17:08:11

This is why under your criteria we cannot claim victory over Japan and Germany because we still have troops there. That seems to be your criteria for victory in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He promised to perform military actions in Pakistani territory, whether the Pakistanis give him permission or not (and with the way he’s bungled the US/Pakistani relationship so far, the smart money is on not). Where I come from, that’s an act of war.

That’s not attacking Pakistan, Dude. We’ve discussed it before. Not only is it NOT attacking Pakistan, but it is also not new policy, as Bush did the same thing within a few months of Obama saying.

Also, at least some of the attacks by the US in the Pakistan took off from within Pakistan, according to Congress. So Pakistan agreed to attack itself? Agreed to let the US attack it from within itself? Pakistan tacitly supports these attacks, because they cannot do it themselves.

That’s not attacking Pakistan,
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-02 17:16:49

Yes it is.

Posted by martinhale 2009-12-02 16:58:33

Nice trick martin. Using a citation that has quotes where quotes shouldn’t be. Obama never said “Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion”

He said, exactly:

I understand that President Musharraf (of Pakistan) has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

That’s not an invasion. Those are airspace incursions. Something that we’ve done under Bush, and continue to do under Obama.

Yes it is.

Then Bush attacked Pakistan numerous times.

And Pakistan is attacking itself by letting the US use their airbases.

And Pakistan is attacking itself by letting the US use their airbases.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-02 17:25:23

No the difference is gaining permission or not. So if a terrorist was in the U.S. and a squad of Israli soldiers came in to the US without permission and took him out that would not be an attack on the U.S.?

That’s not an invasion. Those are airspace incursions.

I gotta go with Vega on this one. Obama never said he’d invade Pakistan; he said that he would use our military forces as he saw fit inside a sovereign nation and ally with or without their permission — perhaps even against their express wishes. That about right, Vega? It’s how Obama is “restoring America’s good name” in the opinion of the world, I guess.

Yes, you are correct Cav.

And then Bush either copied the idea, or we were doing it all along and then it became public.

Either way, Pakistan gives tacit permission to do these things, that’s why they complain but don’t do anything really about it.

Either way, Pakistan gives tacit permission to do these things, that’s why they complain but don’t do anything really about it.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-02 17:48:14

Correct me if I’m wrong but the phrase “tacit permission” has the word permission in it. Obama said with or without their permission. By any definition if the military forces of one country operate within the borders of another without permission, that equates to an attack on that country. Logic gentlemen, logic.

We’ve discussed it before.

Yes, we have. And just like before you’re still desperately trying to spin Obama’s clear words away and deny he ever said them.

Obama said he would send the military into Pakistan to capture terrorists, without regard to the wishes of the Pakistani government. When Bush did that in Iraq, you guys called it an “illegal war of aggression”. When Obama offers to do it in Pakistan, you sputter and say “b-b-but that’s totally different!” or “nuh-uh! that’s not what he said at all!”

Also, at least some of the attacks by the US in the Pakistan took off from within Pakistan, according to Congress.

Yes, D-Vega. That’s called “getting permission from the Pakistani government”. Something that President Bush was very careful to maintain and that Obama threw into the garbage within months of taking office.

That’s not an invasion.

This is:

Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them “on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20070536/

You may now kiss my ring.

And then Bush either copied the idea, or we were doing it all along and then it became public.

So what you’re saying is, Obama is acting just like Bush, throwing America’s weight around, acting like a cowboy, bullying other countries and “going it alone.” Is that the “hope and change” you were looking for?

Here’s a more complete quote, for further pwnification:

The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I introduced a plan in January that would have already started bringing our troops out of Iraq, with the goal of removing all combat brigades by March 31st, 2008. If the President continues to veto this plan, then ending this war will be my first priority when I take office.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobamawilsoncenter.htm

Okay, that last sentence doesn’t have anything to do with Obama’s plan to invade Pakistan. I just threw it in there because it’s one more promise Obama made and subsequently broke the moment he was sworn in.

Now you may kiss my ring.

That we would hopefully be at that level, NC. Nothing is guaranteed.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-02 15:19:37

Buzz! Wrong late report from CBS that the 18-month begin troop removal is “etched in stone” and Gibss said he has the chisel.

So regardless of what is happening on the ground we start removing troops in July 2011. That is just plain stupid.

I didn’t say “it will be hard”, I said its not that simple.

And then you followed it up by describing the ways which it would be difficult. Which means you were saying it will be hard. And again, which was irrelevant to the point being made. You acted like it was some vast mystery what victory could possibly consist of – solely because you felt the knee jerk, mindless need to defend President Obama’s indefensible and idiotic statement of not caring about victory.

The pattern here is unmistakably pathetic. The same template used for Iraq is being used again. Except this time you can’t point to some other conflict to justify your position. You can’t use the “its a distraction from the real fight canard because you are trying to get us to pull out of the only conflict we’re in.

All you want is for us to stop fighting terrorism, that’s plain to see. It was true in the past, but you were able to hide it by pretending you were all for the real war on terror. Now there isn’t one to fall back on and all you’re left with is opposing it.

When Cindy Sheehan has more integrity and honesty than you do, its time for a long hard time of self reflection, Vega.

Unless the Taliban is eliminated in Pakistan, we are just playing ‘Whack A Mole’ with an open ended schedule.

Unless the Taliban is eliminated in Pakistan, we are just playing ‘Whack A Mole’ with an open ended schedule.
Posted by Robert_Ingersoll
2009-12-03 09:39:34

Since you libs keep (falsely) claiming that you’re “winning the argument” on this site, what is your timetable for withdrawl on RWN?

I have no problem playing ‘Whack A Troll’ with an open ended schedule because you dumbfucks keep coming back for more.

Iran and Syria were the sources of most of the “insurgency” in Iraq. Their efforts were very effective, but only because the coalition strategy was not up to the task. When that strategy shifted under General Patraeus (plus a very important change which is usually ignored: the people had become sick of carnage and death), the insurgents lost their ability to hide among the public, move safely through the country, hide their gear where they needed it, and thus couldn’t act any longer.

That’s what Afghanistan needs. A people who know they can trust the coalition soldiers to protect them, who understand the soldiers are their friends and are on their side, and who no longer trust or fear the taliban so that that organization loses its ability to move and work in the country. It is a very similar situation with very similar targets.

While I’d love to deal with the sources of these terrorist and deathmongering scum (Syria, Iran, Pakistan, etc) that’s not plausible in a culture which has a shrill and lunatic left who will oppose every single military action taken and call for different actions no matter what are taken.