Ask Me Help Desk - The President's Afghanistan strategery

The President's Afghanistan strategery

The King of France went up the hill With 30,000 men, The King of France came down the hill, And ne'er went up again!

July 4,2011 Mark it on your calendar Mullah Omar . That is the artificial date when the President says that US troops will begin their withdrawal from Afghanistan . Then he threw out a bone to those of us who don't believe in timetables by saying that the date wasn't set in stone ;but that conditions on the ground would dictate further action .The immediate question that comes to mind is ,why place a deadline in the 1st place? All positive reports I'm hearing is that the Afghan National Army (ANA) will require a minimum of 3-4 years training to be able to stand up... not 18 months.

POTUS still doesn't get that announcing things like exit strategy has reprecussions beyond the theater of operation. How do shaky allies like Pakistan read it ? What will the rogue NORKs and the usurpers in Iran think of it ? How about AQ ? Can they wait out US pressure ? If I am them ,I'm game planning for post July 2011 . Is it a coincidence that the summer of 2011 is the time that the 2012 campaign begins in earnest ? Hardly.

When President Bush announced his Iraq surge he spoke with an air of certainty despite all the domestic pressure he was under . There was no talk of exit ;he told everyone he was taking the action because he had victory in his sights. In contrast Obama's rally cry could've been To the exit all ....full speed to the rear !

Ralph Peters calls it like it is "just plain nuts"

Quote:

Our president is setting up our military to fail -- but he'll be able to claim that he gave the generals what they wanted. Failure will be their fault.
He's covering his strong-on-security flank, even as he plays to our white-flag wavers. His cynicism's worthy of a Saddam.
Obama's right about one thing, though: The Afghans "will ultimately be responsible for their own country." So why undercut them with an arbitrary timeline that doesn't begin to allow adequate time to expand and train sufficient Afghan forces? Does he really believe that young Afghans are going to line up to join the army and police knowing that we plan to abandon them in mid-2011?
Does the 2012 election ring a bell?
What messages did our president's bait-and-switch speech just send?
To our troops: Risk your lives for a mission I've written off.
To our allies: Race you to the exit ramp.
To the Taliban: Allah is merciful, your prayers will soon be answered.
To Afghan leaders: Get your stolen wealth out of the country.
To Pakistan: Renew your Taliban friendships now (and be nice to al Qaeda). This isn't just stupid: It's immoral. No American president has ever espoused such a worthless, self-absorbed non-strategy for his own political gratification.

Setting up our military to fail - NYPOST.com

Hello tom:

I agree. We should have told 'em that we'll be there FOREVER... They'll believe that too.

Really. They will. I mean, our history bears that out, no?

excon

Imagine Truman saying... by 1955 we will be out of the Koreas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

imagine Truman saying ....by 1955 we will be out of the Koreas.

Hello again, tom:

I agree with you again, tom. But, not for the same reasons...

War isn't something you dabble in. If it's a fight worthy of sacrificing our young, then we should be ALL IN, to borrow a poker phrase. If we can't decide, as a nation, whether we're ALL IN or not, we'd better be ALL OUT.

George Bush dabbled in Afghanistan for 8 years with the predictable outcome. Looks like Obama is doing the same thing.

excon

But he sounded tough. After handpicking his commander, asking for a plan, sitting on it and squirming over it for 8 months, the media's shtick is "Obama wants to move quickly on Afghanistan."

The Union Army is still in Atlanta; look it up: Fort McPherson, named after a blue belly.

If I were a competitor or enemy of the USA, I would give Obama the Nobel Prize, or any other award he wants.

If he was as smart as the MSM thought he was, he would defer any prizes or awards; but he loves the adulation. Lol He's a sucker for himself.

Btw: I thought the students at West Point looked irritated with being a prop for the pres. Can't say as I blame them: we used to study when I was in college, and I expect they still do at West Point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by George_1950

I thought the students at West Point looked irritated with being a prop for the pres.

I noticed that too. Did you see the one guy who was asleep sitting up?

Quote:

Originally Posted by George_1950

I thought the students at West Point looked irritated with being a prop for the pres.

Hello George:

So, I suppose you're going to tell us that the dufus just happened to be flying around the Atlantic Ocean when he spotted an aircraft carrier and decided to drop in to give a speech...

Dude! If you want to criticize Obama for his policies, go for it... But, if you accuse him of doing exactly what your buddy, the DUFUS did, I'm going to call you on it.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello George:

So, I suppose you're going to tell us that the dufus just happened to be flying around the Atlantic Ocean when he spotted an aircraft carrier and decided to drop in to give a speech....

excon

I would love to see Obama land on an aircraft carrier; I would pay to see that. Lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello George:

So, I suppose you're going to tell us that the dufus just happened to be flying around the Atlantic Ocean when he spotted an aircraft carrier and decided to drop in to give a speech....

excon

Upon further consideration, why don't you send this up to your pals at the White House? Suggest President Obama land on a carrier (do we have one called Benedict Arnold), and apologize to the sailors for Bush's misdeeds and statements of victory... surely, they will agree with him and cheer him as well.

Hello again, Steve:

speechlesstx agrees: They all use props, but Obama is the prop master. But which has more cred as a CIC?

I don't know. Seeing the dufus with his parachute straps all tight, revealing his package for all the world to see, wasn't too presidential. But, what do I know?

excon

1 Attachment(s)

You progressives can find the silliest things to gripe about.

Quote:

War isn't something you dabble in. If it's a fight worthy of sacrificing our young, then we should be ALL IN, to borrow a poker phrase. If we can't decide, as a nation, whether we're ALL IN or not, we'd better be ALL OUT.

He could've decided it wasn't worth it ;but he knows that we are engaged in a war with jihadistan or radical Islam(whatever you call them) and a retreat is viewed as a weakness that they are more than willing to exploit. Adding additional troops and giving them an impossible mission is worse. But as with most things ,the President makes decisions based on HOPE .

Quote:

btw: I thought the students at West Point looked irritated with being a prop for the pres.

Quote:

noticed that too. Did you see the one guy who was asleep sitting up?

And Chris Matthews thought Ike Hall was enemy terroritory .

Quote:

The president chose to address tonight and I thought it was interesting. He went to maybe the enemy camp tonight to make his case. I mean, that's where Paul Wolfowitz used to write speeches for, back in the old Bush days. That's where he went to rabble rouse the "we're going to democratize the world" campaign back in '02. So, I thought it was a strange venue."

Matthews on Obama's Speech at West Point: He 'Went to Maybe the Enemy Camp Tonight' | Video Cafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

I dunno. Seeing the dufus with his parachute straps all tight, revealing his package for all the world to see, wasn't too presidential. But, what do I know?

Bush was after all an F-102 pilot and he was riding in the co-pilot's seat of a Navy S-3B Viking. I think his dress was appropriate (and I'm sure required) for the ride.

I've noticed that the libs have a catch-all response to criticism of Obama.

"Bush made him do it." Or similar equivalent.

That is becoming a tired old dog that just ain't going to hunt anymore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by galveston

I've noticed that the libs...

That is becoming a tired old dog that just ain't gonna hunt anymore.

Libs/progressives don't hunt anyway; they take.

Strategy, the only strategy implicit in this latest move is a logical withdrawal from Afghanistan and unless the enemy should become emboldened there will be more troops to facilitate it. Let us hope that Obama's withdrawal from Kabul doesn't finish in the same way the British retreat from Kabul finished.

Obama said it all when he said the only country he is interested in developing is his own. A recognition of two things; America is in dire need of addressing its own internal problems, and Afghanistan is a backward society that resources should not be wasted on.

Quote:

Let us hope that Obama's withdrawal from Kabul doesn't finish in the same way the British retreat from Kabul finished.

I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Quote:

Obama said it all when he said the only country he is interested in developing is his own. A recognition of two things; America is in dire need of addressing its own internal problems, and Afghanistan is a backward society that resources should not be wasted on.

He also said Afpakai is a national security concern of the United States worthy of our continued effort.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

He also said Afpakai is a national security concern of the United States worthy of our continued effort.

Which means he is willing to put money into it, to provide Pakistan with military and economic aid. You have to tread a fine line when you are dealing with paranoid people and the Pakistani's are very paranoid. Pakistan is a breeding ground for Muslim terrorists and very close to being a failed state. We have to remember that Pakistan is a factor in the Taliban, they fostered their development. Their President is a Taliban sympathiser.

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

...

Obama said it all when he said the only country he is interested in developing is his own. A recognition of two things; America is in dire need of addressing its own internal problems, and Afghanistan is a backward society that resources should not be wasted on.

Meaning no disrespect to you, nothing personal, but you must be living under a rock. If it weren't for the human costs of managing a war, I would much rather have President Dither's attention focused on Afghanistan than the 'internal problems' that Obama might want to face. He is only making those problems worse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by George_1950

Meaning no disrespect to you, nothing personal, but you must be living under a rock. If it weren't for the human costs of managing a war, I would much rather have President Dither's attention focused on Afghanistan than the 'internal problems' that Obama might want to face. He is only making those problems worse.

No rocks here and I didn't crawl out to respond. You may not have observed but I have distinct impression all the rocks are on the other side of the pond. Your President has rightly discerned that there are many things requiring his attention and funding at home and that American money should not be wasted shoring up a regime of doubtful intent. This is a welcome change in foreign policy for the American government. He obviously couldn't say this and as a Nobel Peace Prize winner he could hardly set a course for an unending war. He is thus more discerning than his predecessor, one could even say more intelligent.

Last month the propmaster snubbed the very troops he was visiting at Alaska's Elmendorf Air Force Base. They had "parked a shiny new F-22 fighter plane in the hanger" for his visit and aides insisted they remove it and replace with an F-15 - even though two of the squadrons he praised during his visit both fly the F-22.

Quote:

"White House aides actually made them remove the F-22-said they would not allow POTUS to be pictured with the F-22 in any way, shape, or form," one source close to the unit relayed.

All politics, all the time...

He hate the Raptor. Makes sense... it represents air superiority for the next 50 years.

I could see these Jihadists strategizing; lets get away from Afghanistan [ to the other "stans" ] until July 2011. While the Americans are committing time, money, lives, resources there [ and their economy is going to crapistan ] ; we will continue our jihad elsewhere.

Great job POTUS for showing America's hand, I would want you to come to a poker game with me and my buddies. ;)

G&P

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthebox

While the Americans are committing time, money, lives, resources there

That's what McChrystal wants and needs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthebox

I could see these Jihadists strategizing; lets get away from Afghanistan [ to the other "stans" ] until July 2011. While the Americans are committing time, money, lives, resources there [ and their economy is going to crapistan ] ; we will continue our jihad elsewhere.

Great job POTUS for showing America's hand, I would want you to come to a poker game with me and my buddies. ;)

G&P

They have already signaled they will help the Uyghers in China so no big news there that the Taliban will be left to fight it out. You have to take a long term view here, the Taliban (Pustun) have been there for centuries, and they aren't going anywhere, if they see the invader will leave, they may stop fighting and the war can end, who cares whether it ends on a wimper. The Taliban only ever took over because people like Kahzai were in charge anyway. Obama may be the one President who doesn't want to proclaim victory If the war ends in Afghanistan it might also end in Pakistan.

It may not be a bad thing that a timetable has been set, after all if you can't train the Afghan army in eight years will you do any better in ten?

Clete you make it sound like the Pashtun are monolithic and 100 % behind the Taliban. This is just not true . The Taliban rule by fear. The population will however sit on the fence and cut the best deal with who they think is the winner. Karzai is also an ethnic Pashtun and yet he is losing support because he is perceived as weak.

Quote:

It may not be a bad thing that a timetable has been set, after all if you can't train the Afghan army in eight years will you do any better in ten?

There was no serious attempt until now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Clete you make it sound like the Pashtun are monolithic and 100 % behind the Taliban. This is just not true . The Taliban rule by fear. The population will however sit on the fence and cut the best deal with who they think is the winner. Karzai is also an ethnic Pashtun and yet he is losing support because he is perceived as weak.

There was no serious attempt til now.

Come on, Tom, eight years and no serious attempt, don't you guys ever fire incompetent bastards? Or are you so naiave as to believe in chestnuts. Yes, Kahzai is a Pustun and an opportunist who only fought the Taliban when he thought he could win. Obviously the population sit on the fence, would you do otherwise if you were among them? And They will stay on the fence no matter what the US do, because they have to live there once the US is gone. And get this the US will start to leave in eighteen months, added incentive to sit on the fence. There are no winners, history tells us that. As Imran Khan (Pakistan parliamentarian and one time nominee for President), said, these are a barbaric people. They don't understand modern methods and tactics, they are excellent guerilla fighters

Quote:

They will stay on the fence no matter what the US do, because they have to live there once the US is gone. And get this the US will start to leave in eighteen months, added incentive to sit on the fence.

Exactly.. the reason the surge worked in Iraq was because no artificial timeline was announced . The troops took towns and villages and remained to help the locals secure the are for themselves.The locals didn't need to sit on the fence .They knew they were secure in backing freedom from tyranny .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Exactly ..the reason the surge worked in Iraq was because no artifical timeline was announced . The troops took towns and villages and remained to help the locals secure the are for themselves.The locals didn't need to sit on the fence .They knew they were secure in backing freedom from tyranny .

And in Afghanistan the only way they know they are safe is if they sit on the fence. The day belongs to the americans the night to the Taliban, who do you think they have an alliegence too?

Don't know yet the surge hasn't begun. I just say the President put a big obstacle to the mission by stating a date certain for withdrawal. He did no favors to the troops he's sending .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

don't know yet the surge hasn't begun. I just say the President put a big obstacle to the mission by stating a date certain for withdrawal. He did no favors to the troops he's sending .

I think Obama had an each way bet, No winners here just placings

Yes . When I see him I see a horse's @$$ also. It sends a terrible message to the troops knowing the CIC is not committed to the action he is asking them to take.

The administration was for defeating the Taliban before they were against it...

Quote:

In June, McChrystal noted, he had arrived in Afghanistan and set about fulfilling his assignment. His lean face, hovering on the screen at the end of the table, was replaced by a mission statement on a slide: "Defeat the Taliban. Secure the Population."

"Is that really what you think your mission is?" one of those in the Situation Room asked.

On the face of it, it was impossible -- the Taliban were part of the fabric of the Pashtun belt of southern Afghanistan, culturally if not ideologically supported by a significant part of the population. "We don't need to do that," Gates said, according to a participant. "That's an open-ended, forever commitment."

But that was precisely his mission, McChrystal responded, and it was enshrined in the Strategic Implementation Plan -- the execution orders for the March strategy, written by the NSC staff.

"I wouldn't say there was quite a 'whoa' moment," a senior defense official said of the reaction around the table. "It was just sort of a recognition that, 'Duh, that's what, in effect, the commander understands he's been told to do.' Everybody said, 'He's right.' "

"It was clear that Stan took a very literal interpretation of the intent" of the NSC document, said Jones, who had signed the orders himself. "I'm not sure that in his position I wouldn't have done the same thing, as a military commander." But what McChrystal created in his assessment "was obviously something much bigger and more longer-lasting . . . than we had intended."

Whatever the administration might have said in March, officials explained to McChrystal, it now wanted something less absolute: to reverse the Taliban's momentum, deter it and try to persuade a significant number of its members to switch sides. "We certainly want them not to be able to overthrow the government," Jones said.

On Oct. 9, after awaking to the news that he had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama listened to McChrystal's presentation. The "mission" slide included the same words: "Defeat the Taliban." But a red box had been added beside it saying that the mission was being redefined, Jones said. Another participant recalled that the word "degrade" had been proposed to replace "defeat."

No wonder he never mentioned victory in his Afghanistan speech, he's only planning for a half-a$$ed effort.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

The administration was for defeating the Taliban before they were against it.

No wonder he never mentioned victory in his Afghanistan speech, he's only planning for a half-a$$ed effort.

Hello again, Steve:

Couple things;

Rumsfeld was a supporter of the Taliban before he was against them, too. Your point?

Uhhh, there ain't no victory in Afghanistan. If there was, doncha think vice with all his brave talk and 5 deferments, or the dufus, (a wartime president who failed to understand the meaning of a "mission accomplished" banner), could have, in 8 years time, WON? Doncha?

excon

Isn't it amazing that they gave the General a clear directive and then were confused when he set a strategy based on it ? In fact ;they had no clue that was in fact the policy that had come out of the March directive. Either that ;or they forgot it.

Who are these clueless people running our foreign policy ?

Over the weekend Evita and Gates were all over the news talk shows claiming the President couldn't have been more clear at the same time they had a difficult time explaining the policy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Couple things;

Rumsfeld was a supporter of the Taliban before he was against them, too. Your point?

What's yours? Mine is relevant to the current situation.

Tom made the point quite clear in his last post, I think you got it too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

What's yours? Mine is relevant to the current situation.

Hello again, Steve:

If you're looking for me to support the peace prize winning war president, I don't.

MY stratergy would have been to win in the first place. But the dufus got distracted, and he dithered for a LOT OF YEARS.. Could he have won?? Absolutely! I don't know if you get a second chance to win a war. Oh, I know militarily, you could win a war that you screwed up for 8 LONG years, and WASTED a lot of American boys... But, POLITICALLY, there's no second chance...

That means only one thing.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

But, POLITICALLY, there's no second chance...

Then why is he even trying? Easy, it's all about Obama. His support was a means to an end and his "surge" is no different... election.