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.
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.
Did he not run his campaign on the fact that he DID have a strategy and the reason that Iraq was such a "failure" is because Bush lacked one?
When he sent those troups back a few months ago, what was that? Was that not part of his strategy? What's changed?
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.
Yes, not to mention Bush took three months to decide on the surge. It is ok to take time and make sure you do the right thing. Besides McCrystal said he needs 10-40K troops in the next 12 months, not today, so I don't see how any action could have prevented the deaths of the 43 servicemen. And I think it is amazingly naive to think that they would not have died if there had been 10-40K more troops on the ground. Our commanders in Vietnam kept asking for more troops, and more troops they got, and casualties went up. And people go on and on about CIC flying to Copenhagen, but they are ignorant of the fact that the CIC met with McCrystal while he was there. They are also ignorant of the fact that the CIC is not isolated from communications while he on the road.
Yes, not to mention Bush took three months to decide on the surge. It is ok to take time and make sure you do the right thing. Besides McCrystal said he needs 10-40K troops in the next 12 months, not today, so I don't see how any action could have prevented the deaths of the 43 servicemen. And I think it is amazingly naive to think that they would not have died if there had been 10-40K more troops on the ground. Our commanders in Vietnam kept asking for more troops, and more troops they got, and casualties went up. And people go on and on about CIC flying to Copenhagen, but they are ignorant of the fact that the CIC met with McCrystal while he was there. They are also ignorant of the fact that the CIC is not isolated from communications while he on the road.
Excellent point and this had crossed my mind...glad you posted this.
Do you know people who have loved ones fighting in Afghanistan? Why don't you ask them if they either want more troops sent now or their loved ones brought home now. They sure don't appreciate any delay in attempting to make their loved ones safer in Afghanistan.
I do have loved ones serving in the Middle East right now.
I want them to be safe and to have the resources they need.
I want the current administration to take a little time (as they are) to come up with a plan based on the facts of right now (not 8 months ago) rather than rushing into a military intervention or withdrawal.
Action without thought does not make my loved ones safer - it actually could put them at greater risk, in my opinion.
Yes, not to mention Bush took three months to decide on the surge. It is ok to take time and make sure you do the right thing. Besides McCrystal said he needs 10-40K troops in the next 12 months, not today, so I don't see how any action could have prevented the deaths of the 43 servicemen. And I think it is amazingly naive to think that they would not have died if there had been 10-40K more troops on the ground. Our commanders in Vietnam kept asking for more troops, and more troops they got, and casualties went up. And people go on and on about CIC flying to Copenhagen, but they are ignorant of the fact that the CIC met with McCrystal while he was there. They are also ignorant of the fact that the CIC is not isolated from communications while he on the road.
You mean Obama met with the General without Rush there?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by obo
First of all Obama is not planning ANY strategy, he has no clue about that stuff. His Generals have a strategy and he's not listening. I think it's foolish if you think Obama knows ANYTHING at all about military strategies.
Apparently the previous CinC knew less, in Gen McChrystal's 60 Minutes he basically said he's now attempting to correct the past 7 years which were at best a debacle.
Did he not run his campaign on the fact that he DID have a strategy and the reason that Iraq was such a "failure" is because Bush lacked one?
When he sent those troups back a few months ago, what was that? Was that not part of his strategy? What's changed?
Ah, no what Obama ran on was refocusing attention on Afghanistan, he said that he would send more troops (which he did) he never stated that he had The Plan!
And even if he had The Plan®, the plan during the campaign isn't the plan for today. As McChrystal has pointed out, Afghanistan if far worse than even he imagined prior to taking command.
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.
