Troops Die While Obama Dithers

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ohhhhh-Bammy. Show Ohhhhh-Bammy's posts

    Troops Die While Obama Dithers

    Troops Die While Obama Dithers

     

    The Obama White House seems to have adopted Scarlett's decision-making process for the war in Afghanistan. Note to the O-Team: Kabul isn't Tara and Americans are dying while the commander in chief dithers.



    At the conclusion of the 1939 movie, "Gone With the Wind," Vivian Leigh, playing Scarlett O'Hara, defers decision on what to do about the major crisis in her life with the phrase, "After all, tomorrow is another day." Unfortunately, the Obama White House seems to have adopted Scarlett's decision-making process for the war in Afghanistan. Note to the O-Team: Kabul isn't Tara and Americans are dying while the commander in chief dithers.

    On Wednesday, September 30, a full month after General Stanley McChrystal submitted his "assessment" of the situation in Afghanistan, President Obama convened a three-hour meeting of his "national security team" in the White House Situation Room to "discuss next moves." According to information subsequently provided by the White House press office, General McChrystal "participated in the meeting" via an encrypted video link and no decisions were made.

    Less than 24 hours later, the commander in chief boarded Air Force One and headed, not to meet with his commander on the field of battle, but to Copenhagen, Denmark, to meet with the International Olympic Committee. His mission: Convince the IOC to select Chicago as the site for the 2016 summer games. Apparently, winning Olympic gold for Chicago is more important than winning a war.

    That's not just my opinion, that's the sense of many who have put their lives on the line in Afghanistan. On Wednesday, as the "Sit Room" meeting was ongoing, I was with a grievously wounded Navy SEAL at the National Regional Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. His concern was not for his own life-threatening injuries, but on his mates, carrying on the fight without him.

    Later that evening a military officer in Kabul offered this evaluation: "This is only the second time that the president has talked to General McChrystal. We still don't have any decisions. We don't know what we're going to get or when we will get it. What we do know is that what we have isn't enough to win." According to press reports, General McChrystal told the meeting participants that the situation in Afghanistan is "serious" and "deteriorating."

    The White House press secretary now says that Wednesday's meeting is the beginning of a "thorough review of the options and strategy" for Afghanistan and that at least "three more strategy sessions have been scheduled." That's not good news. Time is not an ally in this fight. Indecision is an enemy in every war. The trip to Copenhagen is an unnecessary distraction.
    The O-Team's vacillation is proving costly on the battlefield and politically damaging here at home. The primary opponents to doing what needs to be done in Afghanistan are leaders in Obama's own party — on Capitol Hill and in Vice President Joe Biden's office.

    On the eve of this week's belated White House "review session," 50 Democrats in the House of Representatives signed a letter urging the president not to send any additional troops to Afghanistan until he crafts "a well-defined military exit strategy." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, already on record opposing any troop increase in Afghanistan, says there is "no appetite" in Congress for "escalation."

    Vice President Biden supports a "less is more" counterterrorism campaign using Special Operations troops, air strikes and unmanned aerial vehicles to attack Taliban targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Unfortunately, this is precisely the "offshore" approach pursued by the Clinton administration after the 1993 Al Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center. The effectiveness of this strategy was evident on September 11, 2001.

    On March 27, following a "careful policy review," Obama proclaimed Afghanistan and Pakistan as "the central front in the War on Terror," announced a "comprehensive new strategy" for the region and ordered 21,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan; increasing the number of Americans there to 68,000 by the end of this year. A month and a half later, he made General Stanley McChrystal — an advocate of pursuing a counterinsurgency campaign — the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan. On August 17, the president declared, "This is not a war of choice; it is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which Al Qaeda could plot to kill more Americans."

    Those statements were true then and they are true today.

    The counterinsurgency strategy for how to win in Afghanistan has been carefully prepared by General McChrystal. If Obama wants to be remembered for something other than playing politics with the Olympics, he needs to bring General McChrystal to Washington and have him testify before Congress — and soon.

    In "Gone With the Wind," Scarlett O'Hara's hesitancy and uncertainty made her an engaging character. Those qualities don't work in the role of commander in chief.

    As for whether Chicago gets the Olympics, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

    I relate the dithering self proclaimed Messiah more like... Nero with Rome burning.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ohhhhh-Bammy. Show Ohhhhh-Bammy's posts

    Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers

    Just to be "Fair and Balanced".. Author was Oliver North.

    Guess it's time to shoot both the messenger AND the author.

    Time to SPIN... Take it away libs..
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from dexter67. Show dexter67's posts

    Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers

    In Response to Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers:
    [QUOTE]Just to be " Fair and Balanced ".. Author was Oliver North. Guess it's time to shoot both the messenger AND the author. Time to SPIN... Take it away libs..
    Posted by Ohhhhh-Bammy[/QUOTE]

    What's funny is the Lefties on the Murtha threads emphatically state that Murtha has the right to do/say whatever he wants because he was in the military. Hmmm, let's see if they feel the same towards North. I suspect not.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ohhhhh-Bammy. Show Ohhhhh-Bammy's posts

    Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers

    So much for fair and balanced.
    I wouldn't think of comparing the contributions of Murtha vs North
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from easydoesit2. Show easydoesit2's posts

    Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers

    In Response to Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers : What's funny is the Lefties on the Murtha threads emphatically state that Murtha has the right to do/say whatever he wants because he was in the military. Hmmm, let's see if they feel the same towards North. I suspect not.
    Posted by dexter67[/QUOTE]

    Murtha has no such right, and now, so many years later, I still know people who refer to the office shredder as "Ollie". And we all know what Karl Rove did to the "unpatriotic" 'Nam multi-amputee veteran from Georgia: it's not becoming of any of them.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from GreginMedford. Show GreginMedford's posts

    Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers

    In Response to Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers : What's funny is the Lefties on the Murtha threads emphatically state that Murtha has the right to do/say whatever he wants because he was in the military. Hmmm, let's see if they feel the same towards North. I suspect not.
    Posted by dexter67[/QUOTE]

    Ka - BOOM!

    Run away lefties, and try and sound like Eric Idle,
    while running.

    McChystall supports his CinC, and he's a patriot and one hell of an American

    But when Patreaus did the same, he was a TRAITOR.

    Just get out of the room leftys, you look like idiots.

    Again....
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers

    North’s biggest flaw in reasoning is he hasn’t, nor have any other detractors offered a sensible alternative.  The commanders want more troops.  Fine.  But lets be clear more troops isn’t strategic objective it is a tactical objective, i.e. they want to saturate more areas and conduct more offensive operations.  The question then becomes what is the end game and how do these additional resources affect that outcome?  This isn’t a criticism of the commanders on the ground as they have a defined mission to some degree, win the war, but I am hard pressed to find anyone Democrat or Republican that can define what constitutes “victory”.  Furthermore, I don’t see a whole lot of hands in the air when the question arises of where do we get these forces from?  How does a potential conflict with Iran play into this decision making and do we undermine our leverage of a military option versus Iran when we commit still more troops to a conflict that is less “war” and more “hide and seek” in the mountains of Afganistan? 

     

    The idea that President’s IOC appearance is indicative of screwed priorities is simply GOP messaging.  GWB attended the Bejing games for more than half a week while both the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts were ongoing.  Are we to believe that GWB was so out of touch that he could not conduct state business while away?  Of course not.   The entire question is a stupid talking point that lacks realism or merit. 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ohhhhh-Bammy. Show Ohhhhh-Bammy's posts

    Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers

    Sorry Damian.. you only scored a 3.4 on the spinometer. Better luck next time.
    Johnny.. tell him about his parting prizes.

    Our next contestant is a lefto pinko radical from the BDC.

    LTOWN1... C'mon downnnnnn
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from dexter67. Show dexter67's posts

    Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers

    You don't think tactic plays into strategy??? Adding more troops most certainly can play into a strategy. To view it as just tactic is nonsense. I believe North has a much more solid background on military strategy than someone on BDC. No offense but I'll go with Norths' opinion on this every day of the week and twice on Sunday over a BDC armchair quarterback
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ohhhhh-Bammy. Show Ohhhhh-Bammy's posts

    Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers

    I was going to let him play the colsolation round but the Bush Peking spin had no meat.

    Looking back a bit.. Obama has a SOLID TRACK HISTORY of NOT making decisions, not being accountable and not leading (excpet the poo0 folks in Chicago). We need not look further than his stellar voting record in the senate.. PRESENT.
     
    What makes anyone think he's going to change now? Politician, dancer, question evader, story teller.. maybe. A leader.. no way Jose.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers

    Of course tactical elements play into a larger strategic objective.  My point was,

    1. What is the strategic objective and
    2  How does more boots on the ground make that objective a reality.

    What we have seen after years of fighting this battle in Afganistan is we aren't signficantly ahead of where we were prior to the invasion.  We uprooted the Taliban and Al Qaeda but we haven't destroyed them and the country isn't stable.  Over the course of the years we have been there we have added troops and still the outcome remains the same.  So again, how does throwing more forces into the mix help acheive the overall strategic objective of the mission.  Ollie hasn't answered the question, nor could Bush, and Obama doesn't seem to have the answer either. 

    Our troops aren't sprites in a Tom Clancy game and this Afganistan conflict deserves consideration but the Zapp Branigan send wave after wave of men strategy has not and is not working so only a fool would blindly escalate the force levels.  This isn't Iraq, and our "surge" has not produced the results that it did there.

    Perhaps you could provide some analysis other than Ollie North ballwashing? 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers

    During the campaign last year, then candidate Obama, said that George Bush and John McCain became too focused on Iraq, a war he contends was wrong, and took their eye off Afghanistan. Obama told us that Afghanistan was the right war, that the bad guys must be defeated and that he would put less focus on Iraq and move the required number of troops to Afghanistan to win a war he claimed we had to win.

    I dont know the right strategy now.... but I do know that just about every last one of Obama's rock solid campaign promises have been shown as meaningless political BS...
    except the one he told Joe the Plumber about about "sharing the wealth"

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers

    In February of this year Obama ordered 17,000 more troops to Afganistan while implementing plans for a troop drawdown in Iraq targeted for 8/31/2010.  So, yeah. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ohhhhh-Bammy. Show Ohhhhh-Bammy's posts

    Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers

    In Response to Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers:
    [QUOTE]Of course tactical elements play into a larger strategic objective.  My point was, 1. What is the strategic objective and 2  How does more boots on the ground make that objective a reality. What we have seen after years of fighting this battle in Afganistan is we aren't signficantly ahead of where we were prior to the invasion.  We uprooted the Taliban and Al Qaeda but we haven't destroyed them and the country isn't stable.  Over the course of the years we have been there we have added troops and still the outcome remains the same.  So again, how does throwing more forces into the mix help acheive the overall strategic objective of the mission.  Ollie hasn't answered the question, nor could Bush, and Obama doesn't seem to have the answer either.  Our troops aren't sprites in a Tom Clancy game and this Afganistan conflict deserves consideration but the Zapp Branigan send wave after wave of men strategy has not and is not working so only a fool would blindly escalate the force levels.  This isn't Iraq, and our "surge" has not produced the results that it did there. Perhaps you could provide some analysis other than Ollie North ballwashing? 
    Posted by DamainAllen[/QUOTE]

    Demon,

    You missed the entire point.... OR.. you're changing topics.. again.

    Point: Obama is stalling. His delays cost American lives and extends the conflict. This is "the right war" (damn I hate to quote HIM).
    He doesn't want to make a decision because he doesn't know HOW to. He has no history of making decisions. This stiff is a handsome smooth talking phoney. 
     
    Somewhere in Kenya a village is missing their idiot..

    We now resume with scheduled programming
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers

    Here's the way I see it.

    Obama is a politician and a community organizer (no offense). He's not a military man he has no executive experience. Therefore he relies on his advisors who it appears cannot agree on a strategy or a strategic plan. Therefore being the politician he is, he does what his experience tells him will have the least political fallout.......he votes "present" (aka does nothing but, buy time) and hopes someone can convince the group on a plan and strategy and get them to come to a consensus on what he should do soon. And, just prays more troops are not ambushed and killed in the meantime.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers

    In Response to Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers : Demon, You missed the entire point.... OR.. you're changing topics.. again. Point: Obama is stalling. His delays cost American lives and extends the conflict. This is "the right war" (damn I hate to quote HIM). He doesn't want to make a decision because he doesn't know HOW to. He has no history of making decisions. This stiff is a handsome smooth talking phoney.    Somewhere in Kenya a village is missing their idiot.. We now resume with scheduled programming
    Posted by Ohhhhh-Bammy[/QUOTE]

    What decision is he "stalling" on?  Sending more troops above the 17,000 he already sent earlier this year, correct?

    Again, for the third time, the issue being hashed out is whether more resources are adequate to solve the issue of the resurgent Taliban fighters.  As we have seen in the last few years the troop levels in Afganistan has ballooned and here we are in 2009 and the commanders are again asking for more troops.  At some point we need to consider whether more soldiers is window dressing for a larger flaw in our objectives, namely whether those objectives can be acheived using the current model. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers

    In Response to Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers:
    [QUOTE]Here's the way I see it. Obama is a politician and a community organizer (no offense). He's not a military man he has no executive experience. Therefore he relies on his advisors who it appears cannot agree on a strategy or a strategic plan. Therefore being the politician he is, he does what his experience tells him will have the least political fallout.......he votes "present" (aka does nothing but, buy time) and hopes someone can convince the group on a plan and strategy and get them to come to a consensus on what he should do soon. And, just prays more troops are not ambushed and killed in the meantime.
    Posted by sk8ter2008[/QUOTE]

    What BS.  So Obama is incompetent because he hasn't won the Afganistan war in  8 months. 

    What does that make the previous adminsitration that managed the war for SEVEN MOTHEREFFING YEARS?  What was that brilliant strategy and why did it not work?  None of you including Bob, Obammy, or yourself have any clue of what you are talking about.  You post some partisan hackery by Ollie "Iran Contra" North and proceed to run around in circles proclaiming it's brilliance like he actually laid out a plan using all of his military experience.  Please.  If the GOP came out tomorrow and uniformly declared that we should withdraw from Afganistan you'd be parroting those talking points too, blindly and without any hint of thought or reasoning.  BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB that is the answer even though it hasn't produced the desired results.  Insane people continue to the same thing over and over again even though it isn't working. 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ohhhhh-Bammy. Show Ohhhhh-Bammy's posts

    Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers

    In Response to Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers : What decision is he "stalling" on?  Sending more troops above the 17,000 he already sent earlier this year, correct? Again, for the third time, the issue being hashed out is whether more resources are adequate to solve the issue of the resurgent Taliban fighters.  As we have seen in the last few years the troop levels in Afganistan has ballooned and here we are in 2009 and the commanders are again asking for more troops.  At some point we need to consider whether more soldiers is window dressing for a larger flaw in our objectives, namely whether those objectives can be acheived using the current model. 
    Posted by DamainAllen[/QUOTE]

    My friends,

    Now you're over simplifying it.
    The situation lies not simply within a number of American soldiers to deploy.. or even how to deploy them. You ignore the Pakistan factor.. to which there is no obvious answer. Considering the high anti American stress in Pak along with the role AQ is playing both countrys.. how can we militarily defeat this.. ghost.

    Any answer MUST involve Pak and they are not willing to make a stand.

    One more thing to consider is the aftermath. If stability (the minimum objective) is attained.. AQ will simply lay low (aka Iraq) until we start to withdraw then kick up sh*t.

    America wants out.. AQ wants to prolong this al long as possible. They are an active and somewhat successful adversary against the US. That is invaluable in the eyes of the Islamo Fascist towelhead mind.

    There is NO military conclusion.

    Hence Mr. Present is stalling. HE has 3 more strategy sessions planned in the next month. Nothing will happen soon.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from aces1. Show aces1's posts

    Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers

    This just in:  There is only 10-20,000 Taliban in existence.  There is only 100 al qaeda in afghanistan.  WE have over 68,000 troops there now.  The problem is strategy.  How can you nation build with a corupt government like afghanistan?  You can not.  Also, the troops there are under no pressure from being overthrown, becasue there are to little taliban left in the afpak region. 
    POINT: When we went into vietnam, there were over 1 million regular mva troops to fight, not including the pesky viet cong.  Tha is a fact, they all are, in retrospect:
    Sorry, righties, you will not get your desired war this time!
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from dexter67. Show dexter67's posts

    Re: Troops Die While Obama Dithers

    Ever think for one second that for STRATEGIC purposes people like North, Bush, and/or Obama aren't going to announce to the world what their strategy is? Kind of works against a military if the enemy knows their strategy don't ya think???
     

Share