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.
Guess the Generals know more than the Ambassador, who was a commander in Afghanistan.
Eikenberry, who once commanded forces in Afghanistan, resigned his Army commission to take the job as U.S. ambassador in Kabul earlier this year, and his is an influential voice among those advising President Barack Obama on Afghanistan.
Eikenberry sent multiple classified cables to Washington over the past week that question the wisdom of adding forces when the Afghan political situation is unstable and uncertain, said an official familiar with the cables.
He's right, people seem to have a strange view on Afghanistan.
It has not been a nation-state for at least half a decade, even longer than that.
It's a failed state that has been under constant civil war between various factions. Adding more troops will not add more stability to the region.
Obama won't accept any of the war options before him without changes, as concerns soar over the ability of the Afghan government to secure its own country
Classic spin. "Obama Calls for Revised Afghanistan War Options" does not mean "Obama Rejects All War Options."
And oh look.
"....[Obama is] pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government....
That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry....
In strongly worded classified cables to Washington, Eikenberry said he had misgivings about sending in new troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai....
Eikenberry made the point that the administration should step cautiously in planning for any troop buildup while there are still so many questions surrounding Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the official said. Eikenberry is the front line U.S. official dealing with Karzai...."
When I was hearing about his wanting to change the option he decided on in March this is what entered my mind,. Whenh the Bu8sh administrtion decided to do the surge in Iraq ;Obama and clinotn with most democrats said it would not work.then thqat it wasn't working but then we saw that it did work, Since he has drawn down the trops security is worse again. I think that was a political decision then and he might be making one now to appease the liberal wings of the party by doing a half measure. I'd rather get out than not give pour troops the number of boots they need on the ground to do the job.
When I was hearing about his wanting to change the option he decided on in March this is what entered my mind,. Whenh the Bu8sh administrtion decided to do the surge in Iraq ;Obama and clinotn with most democrats said it would not work.then thqat it wasn't working but then we saw that it did work, Since he has drawn down the trops security is worse again. I think that was a political decision then and he might be making one now to appease the liberal wings of the party by doing a half measure. I'd rather get out than not give pour troops the number of boots they need on the ground to do the job.
Or, maybe he's listening to and processing the information from people who are actually in Afghanistan and know what's going on, and making the best decision.
Has anyone thought of training some of our prisoners for duty in the wars? We spend tax dollars in the thousands each year for criminals. Couldn't we train them, the non-violent youthful ones, to fight for their freedom and their country?
Non-violent to me means non murderers. I really want us to avoid the draft.
Obama won't accept any of the war options before him without changes, as concerns soar over the ability of the Afghan government to secure its own country
He must be drawing on his deep well of experience in making executive decisions. 0bama does not trust his own judgment on important matters, you think he would trust those of the military? Looks like time for another summit meeting.
Has anyone thought of training some of our prisoners for duty in the wars? We spend tax dollars in the thousands each year for criminals. Couldn't we train them, the non-violent youthful ones, to fight for their freedom and their country?
Has anyone thought of training some of our prisoners for duty in the wars? We spend tax dollars in the thousands each year for criminals. Couldn't we train them, the non-violent youthful ones, to fight for their freedom and their country?
Non-violent to me means non murderers. I really want us to avoid the draft.
Has anyone thought of training some of our prisoners for duty in the wars? We spend tax dollars in the thousands each year for criminals. Couldn't we train them, the non-violent youthful ones, to fight for their freedom and their country?
Non-violent to me means non murderers. I really want us to avoid the draft.
You do understand that the primary skills that the army teaches it's soldiers is how to destroy things and kill people? Because of the volatile nature of a soldier's job, convicted felons are purposely eliminated from serving.
Has anyone thought of training some of our prisoners for duty in the wars? We spend tax dollars in the thousands each year for criminals. Couldn't we train them, the non-violent youthful ones, to fight for their freedom and their country?
Non-violent to me means non murderers. I really want us to avoid the draft.
Like The Dirty Dozen?
They're all too valuable as cheap labor, anyway -- the owners of this country cant spare them. Terrific article here:
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.