More troops needed says McChrystal...

[emmett]

but President Obama who is obviously far more qualified than the general he himself appointed to head the effort in Afghanistan, says:

Obama said in a series of television interviews broadcast Sunday that he will not allow politics to govern his decision. He left little doubt he is re-evaluating whether more forces will do any good.

General McChrystal says:

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, said in a confidential report that without additional forces, the war against insurgents there will end in failure,

So...the United States' head general, who is on the ground, that was hired by Obama, says we will fail without more troops, a "surge" so to speak and Barack Obama says he doubts whether it will do any good.

McChrystal also said:

Although considerable effort and sacrifice have resulted in some progress, many indicators suggest the overall effort is deteriorating

And our President and CIC said:

A, I want an unvarnished assessment, but, B, I don't want to put the resource question before the strategy question

Sounds like a bunch of malarky to me. Hmmm. Does this seem like a little da-je-vu to you guys? Does to me! Only problem is now we do not have a CIC that supports his generals or for that matter believe they know more about how to win than he does. Now I don;t iomagine it is any secret that GW clearloy was right about the surge helping the Iraq situation (even though Harry Reid claimed it couldn't be won), so I'm curious now what Harry, Nancy, and some of the kookie liberals are going to say now that they are being put in the almost exact same scenario.

It is interesting that most are quiet as of now. I posted this thread to make it clearer my point about another thread. Can a man who has no military experience be a proper CIC? I think Barack Obama is answering this question for me very well. Politics before the safety of our troops. Politics before admitting one is wrong. Politics and party over the security of our country.

Barack Obama is wrong for our country. Stand up liberals and face this before we all are wearing turbins and praying to Allah. Or...are you...like your messiah, incapable of admitting when you have made a bad choice? But then maybe you just believe President Obama knows more about winning a war than a man with 35 years experience, which would not surprise me.

[Mr. P]

Why are we still in Afghanistan anyway?

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Perhaps since Obama is such an expert in dealing with this war, we can send him over to scrape and bow before the Taliban and Al Quaeda, while pulling out our troops behind his back, then leave him behind. Yep, that's the ticket, I say we send him over there and bring our troops home, seems like a fair trade to me.

[emmett]

Why are we still in Afghanistan anyway?

THAT...is an excellent question.

However...

like Iraq, if we are going to be there....let's win. I'm all for just packing up and coming home personally.

Watching how political parties use their influence over our military in completely different ways when application is nearly identical makes me feel that the value of our most precious resource, our children in the military are being used as pawns in a quest to promote an agenda.

In closing, why ARE we in Afghanistan anyway?

[gabosaurus]

I believe we should take ALL our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and station them along the Mexican border. Let the Iraqis and Afghans defend their own countries. I am more interesting in defending OUR nation.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

The best thing we can do for the Iraquis and Afghans would be to pull out all our troops, get all our contractors out, issue economic and humanitarian sanctions against them and let them get a taste of life in the real world. If they wish to restore economic and humanitarian aid they can trade it for terrorists that THEY capture and hold to be tried as war criminals.

[emmett]

Glad to know you and Gabby are on the same page here. That's a warm and fuzzy moment. lol

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Glad to know you and Gabby are on the same page here. That's a warm and fuzzy moment. lol

Well Mr. El De-Ba-Tor, when I look around I see you and many others on that page too - that makes is especially warm and fuzzy.

How appropriate that our common ground revolves around doing what is right for our troops who serve and protect us, even as our politicians (on both sides) seem to be trying to oppress and destroy us!!!

Me thinks perhaps we need our troops home to protect us from the crime syndicate that has taken over our country.

[Gaffer]

Yeah let's pack up and go home. Forget those guys that died over the last 8 years. Forget about those that were wounded and will be disabled the rest of their lives. There's nothing worth fighting for. We're tired of it and tired of hearing about it. Let's just pull out and let them reestablish their bases and launch more attacks. We have no business there. We are oppressing another country (a major lib talking point).

This is a flare up of the 700 year war between islam and the rest of the world. It's not being fought properly. It's being dragged out. The islamists know that all they have to do is hold out and bide their time. Their war has been going on for over 700 years. They can wait a little longer. They sit in pakistan and iran and send a few troops into afghan to keep things stirred up. Where have I seen these tactics before?

The dark lord is in charge so we have another 4 years of war ahead of us. He can't pull back and he won't move forward. And the casualties will continue to mount.

Everyone likes to remember 911. Well, if we pull out of iraq and afghan we will have more dates we can all remember. Along with more memorials. Maybe get an extra holiday or two where everyone can barbecue and stores can have sales. Yeah lets give up on this war shit and bring the troops home.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Wars are fought on many fronts, some of which have nothing to do with putting combat boots on soil. If our president doesn't have enough respect for our troops and our military leaders to make the tough decisions required of his post, we shouldn't be there at all. A president who blows off the advice of our military leaders only puts our troops and ultimately our country at greater risk. If he is unwilling to heed the advice of McCrystal and others on staff at the Pentagon, those fine gentlemen should just pull everyone back and bomb the place off the face of the planet. I don't want my son to be one of 'a minimum number of soldiers' on the ground. I don't want that for any other soldier's mother either.

The people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and all the fronts upon which the Taliban and Al-Quaeda are allowed to fester have a responsibility to the world to either reveal/deliver the terrorists or face specific and severe consequences. But, I see them as a bunch of gutless sheep, following whichever shepherd smacks them until they submit. Because we don't smack them around, trying instead to act in a humanitarian manner, they don't trust our help. If we pull out and leave them to their own devices, in the end, if the threat grows, and it surely will grow - they should be subject to the severest consequences of all. If they choose to gather up the bad guys and hand them over for justice to be rendered, then economic and humanitarian aid could be reinstated. The mistake is in not making all the people of those nations accountable for the actions of the terrorist that they harbor and aid.

Our forces are being asked to fight an invisible enemy who wears no uniform, one that hides behind women, children and the elderly, in countries where Sharia law keeps the masses oppressed under the thumb of fear and intimidation. My suggestion is not to tuck tail and leave under a legacy of failure, mine is to issue very specific demands and provide highly undesirable consequences for failure to meet those demands.

McCrystal has told our president that without more troops failure is certain, and he was told that would be taken under advisement, but it isn't politically popular. War is rarely politically popular, duh. But, given the answer that political popularity is worth certain failure to Obama, McCrystal has the right to pull every soldier out of harms way immediately. I believe that the soldiers who have given the ultimate sacrifice and those who have been wounded would not want to know that those following in their footsteps are doing so in spite of an anticipated outcome of certain failure.

[maineman]

if the president were required to always heed and approve the advice of military leaders, we really wouldn't have civilian control of the military, would we?

[Joyful HoneyBee]

if the president were required to always heed and approve the advice of military leaders, we really wouldn't have civilian control of the military, would we?

I won't argue that point, but I will say that this is the same man who said this on Face the Nation in July 2008:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sg6InDwaWFc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sg6InDwaWFc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


I take real issue with the fact that the reason he is not listening to his own military advisers is because of the political climate. So...what kind of climate does that create for our troops already committed to that region of the world? Is it okay for him to leave just enough troops there for them to be in severe danger?

[maineman]

I won't argue that point, but I will say that this is the same man who said this on Face the Nation in July 2008:

I take real issue with the fact that the reason he is not listening to his own military advisers is because of the political climate. So...what kind of climate does that create for our troops already committed to that region of the world? Is it okay for him to leave just enough troops there for them to be in severe danger?

First off, it seems as if you are unaware that President Obama HAS already significantly increased troop levels in Afghanistan since his arrival in office.

And I find fault with you claiming that 1. he is not listening to his military advisors, and 2. that you seem to somehow be aware of WHY he is not listening to them. I think both points are flawed and inaccurate.

I am just guessing, but methinks that you weren't around for Viet Nam when our president's military advisors promised him time after time that if only he'd send in MORE American troops, we could win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people... and then, six months later, they'd go in and ask for even MORE troops and promise the same result.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Ah, but I was around for Viet Nam; I grew up watching war on television every night with my dad, who had been an infantry point man in Korea. The strategy problem with Viet Nam still exists today, our troops are being treated as police officers instead of soldiers. They are sent into these zones with one hand tied behind their backs, and at levels inadequate to accomplish their objectives. There is a difference between trickling them in a little at a time and flooding a region with an overwhelming number of troops. That was the chief error in judgment then, just as it is now.

The surge in Iraq created a turning point in that war, even if critics want to say otherwise. If the military advisers ask for that and get less, then we shouldn't even be there at all.

[maineman]

Ah, but I was around for Viet Nam; I grew up watching war on television every night with my dad, who had been an infantry point man in Korea. The strategy problem with Viet Nam still exists today, our troops are being treated as police officers instead of soldiers. They are sent into these zones with one hand tied behind their backs, and at levels inadequate to accomplish their objectives. There is a difference between trickling them in a little at a time and flooding a region with an overwhelming number of troops. That was the chief error in judgment then, just as it is now.

The surge in Iraq created a turning point in that war, even if critics want to say otherwise. If the military advisers ask for that and get less, then we shouldn't even be there at all.

I trust that our president, who has already increased troop levels significantly in Afghanistan, along with Sec'y Gates, is reviewing and revising our strategy in that country and will profide the forces necessary to have that strategy prevail. I have seen nothing from any reputable source that would suggest otherwise. I certainly have seen nothing to suggest that he is not listening to his military advisors, as you suggest, or that he is not listening to them because of politics, which I find insulting.