Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess you're deeply in denial about Bush's 7+ years of responsibility, but are seething over Obama's 8 months.
Exactly. Bush had 7ish years to start and finish this war. Obama is on the plate now and everybody is asking what Obama is doing and whether he is qualified to be CinC. The better question is what was Bush doing and was he qualified to be Cinc?
For all of those who are slamming Obama on this, do you also want to slam Bush appointed Robert Gates on this as well? He is also calling for weeks to review the current strategy in Afghanistan.
Only a Republican would think it a bad thing that the President takes time to plan a strategy. To really think it out well. W did not have an exit strategy for Iraq because he did not PLAN well.
Where in my post did you get that? It has ALREADY BEEN WEEKS SINCE HE SHOULD HAVE PLANNING A STRATEGY. The statement from the general was on August 30th.
Where in my post did you get that? It has ALREADY BEEN WEEKS SINCE HE SHOULD HAVE PLANNING A STRATEGY. The statement from the general was on August 30th.
Please provide a link to your posts expressing concern over Bush having seven years to not take decisive action.
WASHINGTON, Sept 30 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama will take several weeks to review U.S. strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan, the White House said on Wednesday after a meeting between top U.S. officials about the region.
"When it comes to decisions as important as keeping this country safe and putting our troops into harm's way, the president has made it clear that he will rigorously assess our progress," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement.
what is it about the words review, strategy and assess that do you not understand?
This statement was on Sept. 30th. The general stated on AUG. 30TH that more troops were needed.
Why wasn't this statment made on August 30th? Why wasn't this review done 1 month ago?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,298 posts, read 54,147,563 times
Reputation: 40621
Quote:
Originally Posted by bls5555
What is good news about it? The guy is clueless. If a general needs something you probably should give it to them. It shouldn't take "weeks" to realize this.
Right, after of seven years mismanagement by a clueless CinC let's RUSH into something, eh?
What is good news about it? The guy is clueless. If a general needs something you probably should give it to them. It shouldn't take "weeks" to realize this.
The only person who is clueless is one who starts a thread that is no deeper than the headline that use to base their knowledge upon.
This argument seems to be the talking point of week, so let's review what is actually being discussed.
First, U.S. troops and the casualties being throw about, are not the result of allied forces being overwhelmed, this isn't the Afghan version of the Little Big Horn.
Second, theater commanders are focused on the task they are assigned, not the political issues which civilian leadership must contend with.
Third, there is a thread, which I have yet to weigh in on about the lessons not learned from Vietnam, apparently the White House has learned them and is weighing, necessarily, how to avoid the same mistakes.
As for McChrystal's leaked report a few things.
First, McChrystal hasn't called for immediate reenforcements as you assume. According the Bob Woodward, who came into possession of the assessement, McChrystal is calling for an increase of 10,000 to 40,000 troops over the course of the next 12 months, not today, not tomorrow, over the course of the year.
“In his Aug. 30 classified assessment, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the U.S. and International Security Assistance Force commander, said he urgently needs more troops within the next year…”
Second, McChrystal is calling for the additional forces in order to completely revamp U.S. strategy:
“McChrystal makes clear that his call for more forces is predicated on the adoption of a strategy in which troops emphasize protecting Afghans rather than killing insurgents or controlling territory. Most starkly, he says: "[i]nadequate resources will likely result in failure. However, without a new strategy, the mission should not be resourced."
Third, McChrystal’s accessment is that unless this change in strategy is adopted the U.S. effort in Afghanistan will fail. Herein lies the rub, his accessment doesn’t state that the new strategy will guarantee success. As a result Obama must weigh the ramifications of deploying over 100,000 troops to a open ended commitment, against a backdrop of the declining support of the American people for the war in Afghanistan. And, if that weren’t enough, the use of adding those forces to support what McChrystal himself describes as:
"The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power-brokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials, and ISAF's own errors, have given Afghans little reason to support their government,"
Not to mention a completely fraudulent election which has left resulted in a greater lack of confidence on the part of the Afghan people for a government that controls no more than a few blocks of the capital Kabul!
Yet, you and other’s, only gleening what you wish to gleen from headlines think that the issues do not rate being thoughtful consideration?
Perhaps those who argue that the U.S. learned nothing from Vietnam, not to mention Iraq, are correct.
Bush didn't dawdle. He was always there for the troops. Obama has "bigger fish to fry" like getting the Olympics for Chicago. He disgusts me.
Really? Really? Bush was always there for the troops?????
No, Bush didn't dawdle and here was the result:
"Congress has allocated funds for allU.S. troops to wear 16-pound, ceramic-plated Interceptor body armor (search), but as many as 51,000 American soldiers and civilian administrators in Iraq have not yet been equipped with the gear, and have been asking friends and families at home to purchase and send them off-the-shelf models for protection.
...
Pentagon sources said that in the initial phase of hostilities with Iraq, all American combat forces were equipped with the Interceptor, but the Defense Department was not prepared to equip so many occupying forces. Reservists and troops recently rotated to Iraq have particularly suffered from the lack of gear"
This is why actually taking the time to plan makes sense. I am very glad the President is not rushing into any decision - lessons well-learned from his predecessor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
