Obama’s Dithering Puts Troops (and Nation) at Risk
By Larry Johnson on October 27, 2009 at 8:30 AM in Current Affairs
(Bumped up from Monday afternoon.)
Running a kick ass presidential campaign is not the same as being President, especially when it comes to being Commander-in-Chief. The inexperienced clown now installed in the White House would be a legitimate butt of jokes were it not for the fact that our soldiers are dying in part because he cannot make a decision. The laughable notion that Barack is being “wise and deliberate” in trying to decide what to do next in Afghanistan might make sense were it not for his March announcement of a “new” strategy in Afghanistan. In what bizarre universe does the leader of a superpower announce to great fanfare a “NEW STRATEGY” and then, six months later, go into hiding to decide what the strategy should be?
It is this simple–Obama is pandering to domestic political concerns rather than deal with the substance of the challenge Afghanistan presents to the security of the United States and the World. And many in the press (shocking surprise) are giving him a free pass. But not all.
Clive Cook of the Financial Times has a terrific piece:
After eight years of government by gut instinct, most Americans welcomed the arrival of a deliberative president. Yes, get the experts in. Reflect, weigh their advice. What a good idea.
And so it is if you are attempting, say, to reform the healthcare system. (A shame it was not tried.) There is even more to be said for taking your time if you are contemplating going to war. But when you are already fighting one, it has drawbacks. The US has been at war in Afghanistan for eight years – and it is losing. On this issue, Barack Obama is giving deliberation a bad name. He needs to make his mind up.
The White House is touchy about this and is deflecting critics by blaming the previous administration. Mr Obama is asking hard questions his predecessor ignored, goes the line. True enough, Mr Obama inherited a wretched situation – but the recent dithering is all his own.
The new president declared the fight a “war of necessity” and ordered an extra 20,000 soldiers to Afghanistan in March. That was the outcome of his own, supposedly fundamental, review of strategy. Since then Mr Obama’s chosen commander, Stanley McChrystal, has said that the Taliban is winning and is rumoured to have asked for as many as 80,000 extra troops, with 40,000 as a compromise. Suddenly the White House is rethinking “necessity”. The strategy adopted just six months ago – an adequately resourced counter-insurgency – is again under review.
The situation has worsened lately. There are new facts to consider. But notice that one of the biggest setbacks – the shambles of the recent Afghan election – is itself partly the administration’s fault.
The newest excuse for delay, advanced last week by Rahm Emanuel, White House chief of staff, is that deciding anything would be improper until the US has a legitimate partner in Kabul. This is puzzling. If the US commitment to Afghanistan was conditional on the outcome of a fair election, why did the US and its allies not ensure the vote was clean? The scale of fraud was staggering. The US saw it happening and did nothing.
In any event, Mr Emanuel’s view on the need for delay was instantly contradicted by Robert Gates, defence secretary. The administration’s new strategy cannot wait for a fully legitimate government, he said. Whatever the outcome of the run-off election on November 7, it is not going to persuade Afghans to trust their government. If it goes well, he said, it is just one small step in the right direction. The US has to choose a strategy “in the context of that evolutionary process”.
The New York Times’ Elisabeth Bumiller also provided a nifty piece outlining the growing rancor in the ranks of the military over Obama’s fiddling:
Only nine months ago, the Pentagon pronounced itself reassured by the early steps of a new commander in chief. President Obama was moving slowly on an American withdrawal from Iraq, had retained former President George W. Bush’s defense secretary and, in a gesture much noticed, had executed his first military salute with crisp precision.
But now, after nearly a month of deliberations by Mr. Obama over whether to send more American troops to Afghanistan, frustrations and anxiety are on the rise within the military.
A number of active duty and retired senior officers say there is concern that the president is moving too slowly, is revisiting a war strategy he announced in March and is unduly influenced by political advisers in the Situation Room.
“The thunderstorm is there and it’s kind of brewing and it’s unstable and the lightning hasn’t struck, and hopefully it won’t,” said Nathaniel C. Fick, a former Marine Corps infantry officer who briefed Mr. Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign and is now the chief executive of the Center for a New American Security, a military research institution in Washington. “I think it can probably be contained and avoided, but people are aware of the volatile brew.”
Last week the national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Thomas J. Tradewell Sr., gave voice to the concerns of those in the military when he issued a terse statement criticizing Mr. Obama’s review of Afghan war strategy.
“The extremists are sensing weakness and indecision within the U.S. government, which plays into their hands,” said Mr. Tradewell’s statement on behalf of his group, which represents 1.5 million former soldiers.
Last August, in a speech to the V.F.W., Mr. Obama defended his strategy, saying, “This is not only a war worth fighting; this is fundamental to the defense of our people.”
A retired general who served in Iraq said that the military had listened, “perhaps naïvely,” to Mr. Obama’s campaign promises that the Afghan war was critical. “What’s changed, and are we having the rug pulled out from under us?” he asked. Like many of those interviewed for this article, he spoke on the condition of anonymity because of fear of reprisals from the military’s civilian leadership and the White House. . . .
Two weeks ago, after Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, rejected calls for the Afghan war to be scaled back during a question-and-answer session in a speech in London, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned not only General McChrystal, but also the military as a whole, to keep quiet in public as the debate progressed.
“It is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations — civilian and military alike — provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately,” Mr. Gates told the annual meeting of the Association of the United States Army, a private support group, in Washington.
Andrew M. Exum, a former Army officer in Afghanistan, an adviser to General McChrystal and a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, said that the change in style from one administration to the next had led to some of the military’s discontent. “The Bush administration would settle on a strategy and stick to it, and you could argue often to ill effect,” he said, referring to the president’s decision not to send more troops to Iraq until 2007, after years of rising violence.
The Obama administration, he said, is not afraid to go back and question assumptions. “There’s a value in that,” Mr. Exum said, “but that can be incredibly frustrating for those trying to operationalize the strategy.”
Part of the strain comes from lessons learned from the generals who acquiesced to former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s demands for a small invasion force in Iraq, then faced criticism that they had not spoken up for more troops to secure the country during the occupation.The retired general who served in Iraq said that today’s senior officers had decided, “I won’t be so quiet, I won’t be a lap dog.”
Another source of tension within the military is the view that a delay is endangering the 68,000 American troops now in Afghanistan. “McChrystal has troops out there who are risking their lives more than they need to, partly because we have not filled in the gaps and we have not created a safe zone in southern and eastern Afghanistan,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a national security expert at the Brookings Institution.
A military policy analyst, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing senior Pentagon leaders, said that “the military lives in a very rarefied environment,” and that “they are not out there every day having to meet citizens who say, ‘What the hell are we doing?’ ”
Senior military officers, the analyst said, “are smart guys, but they do not have the daily pulse of the American public in their face. They tend to interpret politicians who give voice to it as being weak, but none of this works if the public gives up on it.”
Barack Obama is not the first leader to play politics with the lives of our soldiers. George Bush, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld did it too. Remember when General Sinseki warned that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to subdue Iraq and was repeatedly and viciously smeared by the Bush crowd. Remember when some officers tried to warn about the exploding insurgency in Iraq and were savaged by Rumsfeld as out of touch? So this is not a partisan attack on Obama. He is failing his duty as the Commander-in-Chief and, as a consequence of his inaction, putting the lives of our soldiers at risk as well as jeopardizing our nation’s security.
I have some unsolicited advice for Obama–Get off the damn golf course, put down the fucking basketball and do your job, you jerk off!!
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
People must, by this time, see through Obama’s ‘deliberative decision making process’. It is past time to call it what it is: cowardice. He hasn’t the courage to make a bold decision. He needs to listen to his 300 advisers in order to choose which toothpaste to use.
In this case, Americans are dying on a daily basis, but Obama, during his ‘deliverative process’ plays golf, shoots hoops with his ‘boys’, appears on talk shows, trots off to fund raisers and takes yet another vacation. It’s almost as if he is willfully working to make Americans hate him.
It’s working just fine, thank you very much.
snort, snort, snort, chuckle, chuckle, cha, cha, cha!
HAhahahaha! YEA WHAT LARRY SAID!!
Why do you not think his dithering is deliberate?
You can’t possibly think he’s so undisciplined as to not be able to resist his past-times in order to do his job. No way.
You ALL know he’s dithering to get soldiers killed, he waited til winter will set in when US soldiers must engage the terrorists the Pakis have swept into the mountains to get soldiers killed, his ridiculous rules of engagement are to get soldiers killed.
His PURPOSE is to get as many US soldiers killed as possible and to totally demoralize the military and CIA he loathes so completely.
The US Marine morale is at an all time low, leaders are resigning the tension in the military is building.
What’s even more demoralizing is that there are people so willing to cut this criminal slack that they will continue to explain away deliberate murder as some king of “funzie obsession” Obama has. Are you hellbent on giving Obama a pass, so determined that he “succeed” that even in the light of his obvious disdain for Americans you make cute quips about it?
It’s time to wake up, he’s a British citizen usurper who is looting demoralizing deconstructing the USA. It’s time for you ambivalent fence-riders to get real, wake up and smell the coffee—inasmuch as you wanted things Obama promised, it’s just never going to happen and we can’t wait for America to hit rock bottom before y’all wake up to that!
terminu,
I think you’re on to something here. I know several of the ultra-lib-progressive types who absolutely hate our troops. They think that people who agree to sign up for military service are evil, stupid, or too “lazy” to get real jobs (by their definition, of course).
As an example, I know one who got very angry when the company she worked for allowed the company-wide email of the wife of a serviceman in Iraq who asked for donations for a cause her husband was working on in Iraq to clothe, and provide other things for, children in Iraq. She and her husband were willing to pay for the shipping; they just wanted stuff to ship.
It was simple out-right I’m right/you’re totally wrong thinking. There was no concern for the families of soldiers or any belief that those young men and women serving in the military were worth her concern. Her only thought was that you serve world peace by not joining the military.
It might work–but only IF there aren’t crazy people in the rest of the world willing to take the same approach. And since that is not going to happen, I couldn’t get her to understand that if it happens here, we’re totally lost as a country. We can not be Switzerland. There was no thinking about the fact that it is impossible to find a time in recorded history when war, maiming, pillaging, etc. did not occur.
Thank you Larry!
O doesn’t have a deliberate bone in his body that doesn’t first tend to his own needs. The only time he considers soldiers worthy of his attention, is if he can get a photo op or a story out of it.
Further, the facts as I see them, he hasn’t a clue what to do, and won’t until he finds his way clear of trying to make a decision mired in political benefit instead of functioning as a commander of the military. He consulted McChrystal, but apparently needs more gratification and subservience, hence the relying on the pandering drooling Kerry, and a man who has masturbatory fantasies about himself, Rham.
How about taking military advice from the military guy? Imagine.
you said it all Larry! We in our homes and on the phone have been screaming at him….. He’s deaf to the people…… My grandson is now in the army, I am not happy, my nephew, maybe another soon. I want someone paying attention and not just for them, but for the welfare of the country and Afganistan, everyones’ welfare and NOT for obamas next election
This commentary of yours, Larry, is even better than yesterday’s. I am so glad you took the gloves off. The supporters of That One confuse deliberateness with recalcitrance; thoughtfulness with an inability to decide; and intelligence with ego. They were had and NQ and its bloggers and commenters get all the flak for calling a shovel a farm implement.
If they are so supportive of him, they should don a uniform and prove it.Strike that, we don’t need a bunch of unicorn-loving, rose-colored-glasses wearing ignoramuses within miles of military weaponry of any kind.oh HAIL no we don’t need them holding an M16
but I’d LOVE to watch them FLUNK out of BASICS like the losers they are! well MOST of them!
I know Einstein was right when he said “generalizations are always wrong” but damn it’s getting pretty hard to tell the difference between a donkey and an elephant anymore!!
But Einstein had to be wrong when he generalized “generalizations are always wrong,” but that would make him right, and uh-oh, steam is starting to come out of my ears . . . This statement is false. I cannot lie.
Sort of like my favorite - “Suppose there were no hypotheticals.”
I still marvel at Rumsfeld’s gobbledegook, “There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”
Yeah and there are excusable excuses and inexcusable excuses, and inexcusable inexcusables. I don’t know how he got into the position he did without knowing an unknown no one or else having unknown pictures in an unknown safe for known reasons. It makes my head hurt.
That was truly of quote of quotes, Ferd. I remember listening to that bit and saying:
Whhattt???
It not only made our heads hurt, it made the Nation hurt.
Often referred to as: “gobbelty-gook.” Or perhaps, political-speak.
Indeed. It was also his way of completely speaking around an issue without ever touching the actual subject of the question. This administration also does a bang-up job when evading a question. I often wish the questioner would say at the end of the question, “a yes or no answer will suffice, Gibbsie (or whoever is obfuscating).”
You have just described perfectly ‘political-speak’.
Shouldn’t we stop our Congressfolk dead in their tracks when they spout this meant to obfuscate nonsense, tell them to start again and speak in intelligible English? No one holds anyone to account anymore.
I learned a long time ago that, like lawyers, when people are trying to think on their feet, but don’t have the thought fleshed out yet, they stretch out their answer with lots and lots and lots and lots of words.
OH KAY! U got ME! LOL
or as my X used to say
“ur consistent with your inconsistency”
I just said, “a Girl is allowed to CHANGE her mind”
oowawawawaaaaaaaa! lol
As Charles Krauthammer wisely stated, it’s time for barack to act like a leader and not play Hamlet on tv.
Hamlet is certainly the most applicable allusion. A ruling Prince who dithered while bodies piled up around him.
One difference: Hamlet entered into his part with great reluctance–only after circumstances made his part in the cosmic drama inevitable; Thee One auditioned and crusaded for the role and is overjoyed to be center-stage and in the spotlight.
I don’t know - Hamlet only became motivated by his own hallucinations. That might be interpreted as self-motivation.
And Hamlet wanted everyone to know his story. He told Horatio:
If thou didst ever hold me in thy heart,
Absent thee from felicity awhile,
And in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain,
To tell my story.
Love discussing with you, oowawa.
Ellen, you mean that ghost wasn’t real? But he appears right on stage! How gullible can I be? Next thing I’m liable to believe that somebody named Barack Hussein Obama was actually elected POTUS. Isn’t it odd that a “fictional” character named Hamlet seems more genuine, real, and likable to me than the President of the United States.
luv you oowawa!
Hamlet also had “Mommy” issues, just like Barky.
Larry
Amen to your post! If we had a honest press holding Obama accountable, the WH would be in damage control. Instead, the criminal media complex continues to make excuses for Barky.
No Quarter, BBC, Bretbart, Fox News, Rush, Washington Times, the WSJ are on the frontlines exposing Obama’s deceitfulness and cowardice.
speaking of Rham, last week on that tingling-leg man’s “show”, he was giggling about how gibbs accidently called Kerry Mr. secretary and made some reference to Hillary… they were saying how kerry was on top of things and how he had been talking to Kharsid I am not sure if they are highschool boys or what ..they were so tickled by this, it scares me to think they influence people.
Great we have “adults” in charge playing lets snap each others jock strap. Rejoice. Wow, I feel so safe. Potholes, that’s what they are.
The “adults” we have in charge appear to be named Larry, Moe, Curly, and Shemp.
With Joe Besser as “That One”. “Hey, you guys are too mean”.
I guess his first thougths and questions when he goes into the strategy meetings are
“Will the Nobel Committee pull the rug from under me? can I stall this until January when I get my just reward from them? Will Michelle bitch slap me (again) if I cave in to the general? Can I get Rahm and Axlerod to invent some more excuses for me?
Yes that’s it, I need more excuses! Healthcare, executive salaries, chamber of Commerce, Fox News, that should distract those dumb-asses.
I’ll go and give another one of my pretty speeches and go raise some funds for my cronies (after all I do get a kick-back from them).
Well, there’s always basketball, frat-boy parties at the WH, jet-setting, speechifying, late-night talk shows, keeping Me-chelle in antique divan fabric, and lots of other ways to fritter away his time.
What the hell is that stupid S&M black belt with the metal spots Michelle wears?
Good Lord. It looks like high school.
I think it’s for That One–it keeps him docile and helps him decide in a hurry.
To those who want Obama to be other than what he is, I say: I sure hope you didn’t vote for him.
IMO, he doesn’t care about us at all. He doesn’t feel American’s pain or suffering. In some strange scenario of Obama and his mentors and those who pull his strings, I believe he wants us to fail. He is trying to do what he can to bring America to its knees.
In the Wizard of Oz, the Lion needed Courage, the Tin Man, a Heart, the Scarecrow, a Brain. Obama needs a SOUL.
I’d just settle for him getting Courage, a Heart and a Brain.
Remember, the three in Wizard of Oz got the SYMBOLS of the qualities they sought. Obama became a U.S. Senator, A U.S. President and got the Nobel Peace Prize without ever displaying anything close to the necessary qualities needed for these honors.
Susan h: I think you’ll find few regular posters at NQ who voted for Barack Obama. That includes Dems, Indies and Republicans. But I predicted earlier that the day will come when the majority of 2008 voters will deny they ever pulled the lever for The One and people will shrug and say: we don’t know how he got elected.
Of course, I wondered exactly that last November!
Yeah, all 69,000,000 of them.
The majority of those 69,000,000, Ferd. They’re peeling off as we speak and write. The Independent flight is quite impressive.
And the Indies are the number to watch!
Agreed. They’ll also feel sheepish and might actually make better voters, as in “informed” in 2012. The hard-core supporters, on the other hand, will just shift all the blame to those of us who refused the blue grog.
Don’t be surprised if that is exactly what happens..LOL My father was a Vice Consul in Germany in 1951, and he told me years later that he wondered what it was about Hitler that got people to vote for him. He tried to ask around, but couldn’t find anyone in Germany who would admit voting for him, even in the first election. Dad used to grin a wry grin and say that all the people who voted for Hitler apparently died in the war, since none of the survivors had. Or so they said. Heh. I am sure it will be the same scenario when The One crashes and burns…no one will remember having voted for him. For the record, I voted for Cynthia McKinney. A woman, and black too..got all the bases covered. There was no where to write in Hillary on my ballot, and I could not vote for McCain.
Spot on. And correct, a good piece.
LJ”I have some unsolicited advice for Obama–Get off the damn golf course, put down the fucking basketball and do your job, you jerk off!!”…just worth repeating. Can I use it?
sadly that’s all he knows how to play “games”
.
This was made abundantly clear in reading the report by Gen. McCrystal. In the context of the role that the US is playing, in my humble and completely non-expert opinion, it should not matter who is in power in that country. Ya’d think after talking with the caddie (NSC) six times BO would take the shot, instead he is BAT-29 gone horribly wrong.
Abdullah Abdullah, who was a lieutenant of the Lion of Pasher, I saw on the ticker was asking for a “dramtic” build up of forces.
The article points to 80k troops requested. What I find alarming is the rise in “Anonomus sourcing” and the number of people who will state only off the record for fear of repriasal from 1600. I keep a running mental tab on it and it is getting worse by the day.
At the risk of repeating myself;
Nancy Pelosi summed it up best, when she said, “There will be a public option, we just don’t know what form it will take.”
Which I translate as, “We know there will be a public screwing, we just don’t know what orifice will be used.”
And there won’t be any mouth kissing; Pro’s that they are in Washington.
I was told it was too personal, but there hasn’t been anything BO won’t kiss.
I offer an awkward apology for being “blunt as a spoon”, as my source would only speak under the condition of anonymity.
Prayers to your kids serving.
Whoa, Larry. Tell us how you really feel. Sadly, I agree.
Someone up thread mentioned Krauthammer’s words: It’s time for Obama to act like a leader and not a young Hamlet [might be one of the best lines I've heard in a while].
The Afghanistan question is really troubling and the delay and excuses for the delay is nothing short of gross negligence. If he wants to pull the plug then do it. Get our guys out of there and bring them home. But the idea of leaving those men vulnerable without a decent chance to complete any mission at all is appalling.
Btw, what “is” the mission in Afghanistan?
That might be a starting point. We’re now led to believe this is “not” a war of necessity [which it was 6 short months ago]. So what it is now?
And yeah, put the golf clubs down Mr. President. Start doing the job. Or step aside and let someone else do it, someone with the stomach for the job.
Agree with all your points. Personally, I am opposed to continuing the occupation of Afghanistan, although I was also opposed to going there to begin with. Nevertheless, I think the reason that Obama is biding his time (I don’t think he’s dithering, btw), is that the puppet regime of Karzai has just folded in the face of embarassing corrupt national elections.
My guess is that Obama was planning on easing out of Afghanistan. After the national elections, he was going to continue to pay Karzai a fortune for keeping up a good front–just as we’ve done with many other corrupt dictators over the years. The problem is, Karzai didn’t legitimately win the recent election. So now Obama’s in a box.
Supporting Karzai at this point is tantamount to supporting the Shah of Iran; and we know what happened in Iran. With Karzai’s international credibility having just been flushed down the toilet, if Obama continues to commit major US forces to this crook, he’s political toast. That’s why he’s desperately looking at other options, by my guess.
So what would you have the US do? Ignore the thousands who were killed at the hands of Al Qaeda, a group that was harbored by the Taliban? You know them, those wonderful people who liked to destroy Buddhist statues and force women to wear moving prisons in the forms of burqas.
It seems to me that if those types want to live in the 7th century, we should oblige them by forcing them to live that way–without the ability to spread their ante-medieval philosophies past their own borders.
I’m not in favor of nation building–other than our own nation. We have enough repressive laws and attitudes against women here that we could be working on. IMHO, when we become a model for the rest of the world, we won’t have to fight spurious wars to force change, because change will occur from within.
By the way, the Taliban now controls a greater percentage of all regions in Afghanistan than they did eight years ago–approximately 80% of the country, by recent estimates. Yet there doesn’t seem to be any inclination on its part to allow Al Qaeda back into the country. I have no admiration for the Taliban, but it wasn’t the Taliban who attacked the U.S.
Because GWB took his eye off the ball and sent us on on a wild-goose chase in Iraq, which was an unnecessary war. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan first. I stand by my comment.
Read my post again–I never said that. I said, “Al Qaeda, a group that was harbored by the Taliban.” Big difference, which you conveniently left out in your response. Because they harbored Al Qaeda, we had to go there to bring those vermin to the bar of justice. That Bush failed is no excuse for That One to shirk a necessary duty.
BTW: This isn’t about nation-building but about destroying a safe haven for animals.
I agree with your assessment about Iraq, Ferd. However, I, personally, don’t favor vigilante justice or wild-west shoot-outs. We invaded a sovereign nation who didn’t attack us. There are other alternatives for dealing with rogue bandits like Al Qaeda. We just want an excuse, it seems, to constantly employ a ridiculously large, WWII-style military for any action, whether or not it’s the correct approach. That’s my opinion. I don’t think wars and invasions are solutions to terrorist thugs. You may think differently, and I respect that.
I was ambilvalent at best about Afghanistan. What I wanted was our guys to go in, get Osama and his henchmen and hang them from the highest tree.
What we’re doing now makes no sense. Bush screwed the pooch when he made a U-turn into Iraq. I never supported the invasion or the occupation. Though once we were in, wrecked the whole place, the idea of simply picking up our marbles and leaving was repulsive at best.
If we had any chance of catching Osama [which I'm beginning to think Bush&Co deliberately screwed] that’s long gone. I’ve read that any “real” success in Afghanistan would take 15+ years to turn around.
I can’t imagine many Americans supporting that timeline. Plus where would we get the money? Financially, we’re on our knees. How can we afford to “nation build?”
But put all that aside. Make a damn decision! Our young men are getting sliced and diced and this Administration is “thinking about it, deciding a strategy, taking it all into consideration???”
Sorry, it rings false. Make a decision then live or die by it. That’s what leaders do for God’s sake.
vigilante justice or wild-west shoot-outs
So which is it? Richard Perls head cut off; vigilante justice
or or young men stuck out in an under manned firebase on the border with Pakistan? ; wild west shootouts?
These turds were asked politley at first, in no uncertian terms, to hand over these criminals and refused. Next.
All I am saying is there are times when one gets to choose. Live or Die. Many are not that fortunate, espesially those put their asses on the line for the well being of those who feel as you do.
And while I agree with you as Rumsfield said “pounding rocks” is not effective, what would you suggest in the current absense of leadership at 1600?
“They [the military] tend to interpret politicians who give voice to it as being weak, but none of this works if the public gives up on it.”
Wrong. The public had turned against the Iraq War when Bush decided on the surge.
Backwards. Obama’s confusion undermines public support for the war, not vice versa. Overwhelmingly, the public thinks Obama is unclear about the war mission.
Dead wrong. Overwhelmingly, the public trusts the military over Obama 62-22 on war strategy.
I wonder whether the White House is deliberately trying to drive down public support for the war — by undermining McChrystal, sending mixed messages and passing the buck to Karzai.
FROM : http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1009/Kerry_Too_far_too_fast.html
Apparently Kerry has decided they (the dems)will either run cover or support how ever long it takes o to get his act together on Afghanistan. Now, the blood of our soldiers is on your hands Democrats! The only thing the dems know about survival is their own skin they could give two craps about the soldiers already in harms way in Afghanistan. And, Kerry as the one to speak to military plans as follows:
Kerry in 2004 debate #1
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134152,00.html
KERRY: I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are.
But we also have to be smart, Jim. And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Usama bin Laden and taking if off to Iraq where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein, and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein.
This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president of the United States of America.
I’m proud that important military figures who are supporting me in this race: former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili; just yesterday, General Eisenhower’s son, General John Eisenhower, endorsed me; General Admiral William Crown; General Tony McBeak, who ran the Air Force war so effectively for his father — all believe I would make a stronger commander in chief. And they believe it because they know I would not take my eye off of the goal: Usama bin Laden.
Well, some say Usama
And some say Osama
But let’s not take our “eye off of the goal,”
Which is to dig him out of his hole
In Afghanistan or Pakistan
And unplug his dialysis machine
And let him slowly die of blood poisoning
While we all dance and sing
Die Osama! Die! Die like a dog!
Hail Obama! Rule! Rule like a god!
(Just in case Kerry was becoming hazy on the original battle-plan, I thought I’d spell it out for him.)
Well, he was for the war before he was against it or was is that he was for the bill before he was against it or was it Heintz or Hunt’s he put on his Freedom Fries. I forgot the question.
Can’t believe I ever voted for that phony goose-toting prick.
Don’t feel bad, I did too, it was a vote against Bush; and am I glad Kerry lost.
Oowawa:
Don’t be down on yourself, oowawa. I voted for that IGIT, too. I could not vote for Bush. As a matter of fact, the only person I’ve ever voted for who actually won was WJC–twice. I voted for Ford in 1976, threw away a vote for John Anderson in 1980 and voted for loser Democrats after that, with the exception noted. Of course, my McCain also lost.
Maybe I should start voting for the one I don’t want.Strike that-my luck would suddenly “change”. Yikes.Hey Ferd & Katmoon–we must have identical voting records over a long period of time. “Born to loooooze” . . . Oh well! I can take heart in the Tom Petty song “Even the losers get lucky sometimes . . . ” But then this little voice chimes in–”But not in your lifetime, dweeb!”
LMAO. Yep, the world is a tuxedo and I’m a pair of brown shoes (paraphrased from a George Gobel line on the Tonight Show).
Hey, the club is getting bigger. Been voting since ‘72. Clinton was the only one who won. So, I guess we’re not responsible for this mess. Remember the turn of the century surplus? And now, after a multi-year delay, we’re concentrating on Afghanistan. Or should be. It’s almost like Obama is stalling, hoping for the Taliban version of the Tet offensive so the Left can declare defeat and force a withdrawal. Obama really isn’t a fighter. And certainly not for the USA. He’s never run anything but his mouth. And now it shows. Can’t make a decision.
It sure is oldmediatype, it sure is.
Me, too, oowawa. I voted for John Kerry [husband did, too] not because I loved Kerry but I thought Bush&Co was beyond dreadful.
But how many elections have come up where we’ve voted for the lesser of two evils?
That’s the sad part of it.
Fourteen dead in the helicopter crashes and an additional two killed by a bomb today.
When the commanders planned and executed the D-Day invasion, they surely understood the carnage that would follow.
It took courage to face that, but they had duty and their oath of office to fulfill.
With the bombings in Iraq, the entire area may go up, and there is no leadership in sight. Disgraceful and dishonorable!
Between Kerry and Obama they are undermining the General. Let them command the troops and answer to the families.
Karzai is a puppet. From what I’ve read even his own people believe that.
Is it more important to protect Karzai or our troops in the field?
If Kerry is running foreign diplomacy then let him.
My goodness what a mess.
candymarl: the fact that Kerry is now headline news says volumes about the Obama phenomenon. Kerry is a total has-been who never would have had a second look if he hadn’t fronted Obama.
Actually yes, but look to the climate treaty. Kerry will be the mouthpiece for helping sell this. We already know what he thinks about this nation. He may throw medals if he wants to, but the sovereignty of this nation isn’t his to throw away.
By now it is clear that everything Obama does is to pick the choice that he feels will benefit him politically in his party. You have a top general telling him what is needed and Obama doesn’t have the guts to do it. Meanwhile our troops are waiting and dying…Obama is no commander in chief…he is a coward in chief and I hope people will hold him responsible for what is now happening. Everyone should be outraged that he spends more time playing golf than he does supporting and backing up our troops. I hope in 2010 and 2012 the citizens of this country will take a damn hard look at what is going on and vote these useless idiots out before they really destroy OUR COUNTRY
USA Proud: That’s the latest headline on Yahoo News. Obama playing golf while Rome burns.
Part I-Making it real: Check each day then just pick one and look at the national news and see what Obama was doing that day.
On September 8, 2009, President Barack Obama delivered a national address to the students of America. During this special address, the president spoke directly to the nation’s children and youth about persisting and succeeding….
I wish he would succeed in making a decision but instead, he persists in appearing thoughtful.
Administrator: My comment was purged for no apparent reason. Can you rescue it, please?
September 09, 2009-Remarks by the President at Memorial Service in Honor of Walter Cronkite
September 9th and you guessed it–another speech, this time to Congress.
September 10, 2009-yep-Remarks by the President honoring the Stanley Cup 2009 Champion Pittsburgh Penguins
September 10, 2009-wow-Remarks by the President on Health Insurance Reform
September 23rd-yep (sigh)–another speech, to the UN of all places.
There are pages and pages consisting of lists of his off-gassing (just the places and themes).
Making and Keeping it Real-Part II
Here are the soldiers who have died so far in October 2009, in Afghanistan only. (43)
October 01, 2009- Army Sgt. Roberto D. Sanchez, 24 of Army Airfield Ga.; died Oct. 1 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan,
- Army Spc. Russell S. Hercules Jr., 22 of Murfreesboro, Tenn.; died Oct. 1 in Wardak province, Afghanistan,
October 02, 2009 - Army Capt. Benjamin A. Sklaver, 32died Oct. 2 in Murcheh, Afghanistan
- Army Pfc. Alan H. Newton Jr., 26, of Asheboro, N.C.; died Oct. 2 in Murcheh, Afghanistan,
- Army Sgt. Ryan C. Adams, 26 of Rhinelander, Wis.; died Oct. 2 in Logar province, Afghanistan,
- Army Pfc. Brandon A. Owens, 21, of Memphis, Tenn died Oct. 2 in Wardak province, Afghanistan,
- Army Sgt. Aaron M. Smith, 25, of Manhattan, Kan.; died Oct. 2 in Wardak province, Afghanistan
October 03, 2009
- Army Staff Sgt. Thomas D. Rabjohn, 39, died Oct. 3 in Wardak province, Afghanistan
- Army Sgt. Justin T. Gallegos, 27, of Tucson, Ariz died Oct. 3 in Kamdesh, Afghanistan,
- Army Spc. Christopher T. Griffin, 24, of Kincheloe, Mich.;; died Oct. 3 in Kamdesh, Afghanistan, .
-Army Sgt. Joshua M. Hardt, 24, of Applegate, Calif died Oct. 3 in Kamdesh, Afghanistan,
-Army Sgt. Joshua J. Kirk, 30, of South Portland, Maine; died Oct. 3 in Kamdesh, Afghanistan,
-Army Spc. Stephan L. Mace, 21, of Lovettsville, Va.; died Oct. 3 in Kamdesh, Afghanistan,
- Army Staff Sgt. Vernon W. Martin, 25, of Savannah, Ga.;; died Oct. 3 in Kamdesh, Afghanistan
- Army Sgt. Michael P. Scusa, 22, of Villas, N.J.; died Oct. 3 in Kamdesh, Afghanistan,
- Army Pfc. Kevin C. Thomson, 22, of Reno, Nev.; died Oct. 3 in Kamdesh, Afghanistan,
October 04, 2009-Army Spc. Kevin O. Hill, 23, of Brooklyn, N.Y.; died Oct. 4 at Contingency Outpost Dehanna, Afghanistan,
October 07, 2009 - Army Sgt. 1st Class Kenneth W. Westbrook, 41, of Shiprock, N.M.; died Oct. 7 at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C., of wounds suffered Sept. 8 when insurgents attacked his unit in Ganjigal Valley, Afghanistan
October 09, 2009 -Marine Staff Sgt. Aaron J. Taylor, 27, of Bovey, Minn.; died Oct. 9 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.
October 10, 2009 - Army Spc. George W. Cauley, 24, of Walker, Minndied Oct. 10 in Bagram, Afghanistan,
–Marine Lance Cpl. Alfonso Ochoa Jr., 20, of Armona, Califdied Oct. 10 while supporting combat operations in Farah province, Afghanistan.
October 15, 2009 - Army Staff Sgt. Glen H. Stivison Jr., 34, of Blairsville, Pa.; died Oct. 15 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan,
- Army Spc. Jesus O. Flores Jr., 28, of La Mirada, Calif.; died Oct. 15 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan,
- Army Spc. Daniel C. Lawson, 33, of Deerfield Beach, Fla.; died Oct. 15 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, • Army Pfc. Brandon M. Styer, 19, of Lancaster, Pa.; died Oct. 15 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan
October 16, 2009 — Army Sgt. Christopher M. Rudzinski, 28, died Oct. 16 near Kandahar, Afghanistan,
- Army Staff Sgt. Chris N. Staats, 32, of Fredericksburg, Texas; died Oct. 16 in Wardak province, Afghanistan,
- Army Spc. Anthony G. Green, 28, of Matthews, N.C; died Oct. 16 in Wardak province, Afghanistan,
October 17, 2009 - Army Spc. Michael A. Dahl Jr., 23, of Moreno Valley, Calif.;; died Oct. 17 in Argahndab, Afghanistan,
October 20, 2009 - Marine Lance Cpl. David R. Baker, 22, of Painesville, Ohio; died Oct. 20 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.
October 21, 2009 - Army Spc. Kyle A. Coumas, 22, of Lockeford, Calif., died Oct. 21 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan,
October 23, 2009 - Army Spc. Eric N. Lembke, 25, of Tampa, Fla.; died Oct. 23 in Afghanistan,
Army Pfc. Kimble A. Han, 30, of Lehi, Utah; died Oct. 23 in Afghanistan,
October 25, 2009 (14 spaces)- 1.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Such a sad list! So many barely more than kids.
May God rest their souls.
May God bless and comfort their families.
May God have vengeance on those responsible.
Thanks Katmoon for keeping it up front, read each name and said a prayer for each of them and a thank you too. These are my kids and my friend’s kids and my kid’s friends. If they are not going to get what they need to win, let them come home.
Thank you MBC, that is good of you and thoughtful and appreciated.
Presidential Actions I going From current date back to Sept 1, 2009
To continue now we have what are considered “Presidential Actions”, as per the white house briefing room. Note, speeches and television appearances, campaign fundraising, visiting schools, etc, are not considered “actions”. In other words, many of the other things he does are by choice not by job description. Appearing on television would be a good example of this choice. I did not add that list of appearances to this list, as there is not enough room here to do so, but I can tell you when he gave a speech, and where he spoke on the dates since General McChrystal’s request for more troops. There have been a lot of fundraisers. I also have not added in relaxation time, private time date night nor vacation. Oops or basketball and golf.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions
• October 24, 2009-Declaration of a National Emergency with Respect to the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic-Posted in Proclamations
• October 23, 2009-Presidential Proclamation - National Forest Products Week-Posted in Proclamations
• October 19, 2009-Presidential Proclamation - United Nations Day-Posted in Proclamations
• October 19, 2009-Presidential Proclamation - Character Counts Week, 2009
Posted in Proclamations
• October 16, 2009-Presidential Memorandum Brazil Assistance-Posted in Presidential Memoranda
• October 15, 2009-Presidential Proclamation White Cane Safety Day, 2009
Posted in Proclamations-October 14, 2009-Executive Order - Asian American and Pacific Islander Community-Posted in Executive Orders
• October 09, 2009-Presidential Proclamation - Columbus Day-Posted in Proclamations
• October 09, 2009-Presidential Proclamation - National School Lunch Week-Posted in Proclamations
• October 09, 2009-Presidential Proclamation - General Pulaski Memorial Day-Posted in Proclamations
• October 08, 2009-Presidential Memorandum to the Secretary of State-Posted in Presidential Memoranda
• October 07, 2009-Presidential Proclamation - Leif Erikson Day-Posted in Proclamations
• October 06, 2009-Presidential Proclamation German American Day-Posted in Proclamations
• October 05, 2009-President Obama signs an Executive Order Focused on Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance-Posted in Executive Orders
• October 05, 2009-Presidential Proclamation Child Health Day-Posted in Proclamations
• October 02, 2009-Presidential Proclamation- National Arts and Humanities Month, 2009-Posted in Proclamations
• October 02, 2009-Presidential Proclamation-National Energy Awareness Month-Posted in Proclamations
• October 02, 2009-Presidential Proclamation Fire Prevention Week-Posted in Proclamations
• October 01, 2009-Presidential Proclamation National Information Literacy Awareness Month
Posted in Proclamations-October 01, 2009-Executive Order-Federal Leadership on Reducing Text Messaging while Driving-Posted in Executive Orders
• October 01, 2009-Presidential Proclamation - National Cybersecurity Awareness Month
• Posted in Proclamations-October 01, 2009-Presidential Procamation - National Domestic Violence Awareness Month
That list of the dead against the list of the Presidential schedule of appearances, speeches and fund raisers is a devastating reminder of why we need a leader, a Commander-in-Chief in the White House. Not a salesman.
Very sobering, Katmoon.
Lost post to follow, with matching presidential actions to dates above; it was long, so not surprised.
Abraham Lincoln 1809 - 1865
Mrs. Bixby Letter
Executive Mansion
Washington, D.C.
November 21, 1864
Dear Madam,
I tear up everytime I hear that read when I watch “Saving Private Ryan”. It just happened again.
In five sentences, Lincoln wrote more genuine, heartfelt, and powerful sentiments than Obama has been, or ever will be, able to express. Obama is psychologically unable to have the feelings that Lincoln had that inspired such moving prose. The mere thought of what Obama is doing to this country is making me tear up again. Obama will make the uncounted sacrifices that made this country the shining beacon to have been in vain. And a public that is increasingly ignorant of our history, traditions, and the attitude that brought us here, will unfortunately have no clue what they’ve lost.
I read what Katmoon post and I am still shaking my head. I am stuffed for words.
And from what I can tell, the list Katmoon posted doesn’t keep BO up at night. I ask myself if BO didn’t give to shits about people freezing in his state district how can he possibly care about our troops?
The tears are REAL.
People can say all sorts of nasty things about Bush, but it would be a shameful lie to say he didn’t care deeply about our troops. What do you think McCain would be doing with the current Afghanistan situation? Do you think he’ld be keeping our deployed troops waiting on pins and needles for months while he pondered their fate? Is there a way that we can go around Obama and support our troops? I mean it! Obama needs to be shamed by a highly visible private effort to supply our troops that he seems content to ignore.
McCain would not do such a thing-ever; he cares deeply about the troops, all of them not selecting a specific branch or “type” of soldier; and further, he RESPECTS them, and their families. He considers the full impact of the military personnel on their civilian loved ones. The one cannot gain anything politically on the backs of the troops and I will go as far as I can to say unless the soldier is of a certain ethnicity- o is a bigot even there as far as I am concerned,(I can live with it if I sound racist) based on his previous interactions when he was campaigning.He always takes care of whom he considers his “people”
first; I have seen it time and time again and that particular group is not female,in a uniform, nor lightly skinned. IMHO, not meant to offend, it is only my observation.
Sobering. Frightful. Disgraceful. I’m so full of “ful’s” I will now vomit.
Like the hat, Larry! Keep up the good work!
Larry, you have any friends that can get BOT’s hidden transcripts?
You say:
But you never say what the “domestic political concerns” are that he is “pandering to” by taking a “long” time to decide on his new strategy for Afghanistan. Care to elaborate?
simple, far left liberals in his party that don’t want an expansion of troops.
How is delaying the decision a pander to that group? If he eventually raises troop levels, I can’t think the far left will be please. And if he doesn’t, why did he have to delay?
The delay is hurting our military preparedness. Which part of that don’t you understand? He vacillates, yaps his fool head off contributing enormously to greenhouse gas emissions, and you’re here asking obtuse questions.
Wow.
i don’t think you understand what the word “pander” means.
Then he can straddle the fence and still try to appear as the “anti-war” candidate.
Many on the far left weren’t just against Iraq they were against Afghanistan as well. Obama adding troops may prolong or intensify the war. Not good for an “anti-war” Nobel Peace Prize winning President now is it?
Right on. There’s nothing else is there to say till that happens.
For years into the Iraq war, we studied the faces of the fallen, men and women of all races. We held vigil with them, in support and honor.
Our churches recognize our veterans, restaurants offer free meals and fellowship on Memorial Day and Veterans’ Day, American flags are in abundance in this community.
My point is not that a president must have military service.
It is to note the difference of our background, as compared to that of Obama and his past associates.
The divide is not skin color, but an unbridgeable chasm in philosophy!
Good observation Sassy, quite right.
BO is stalling until after the Virginia, New Jersey and NY elections are final, not the elections in Afpakia. He will continue the delay until more Americans die, then pull out abruptly, to appease the Left. His delay has nothing to do with strategy. Mark my words.
old one,
It is frightening to think about politics being the primary motive, although it is probably naive to think that has not played part in every conflict.
The democrats have always been considered weak on defense. I was a life-long dem, and would have disputed that claim. That is now my biggest regret with that party, with the defeat of Hillary as my second!
Yes, and then Obama will need to make a few three pointers for the T.V. and the press on seeing this will be mystified and won’t be able to talk about anything substantive for days afterward.
Then again Bush used to chop wood and clear brush with the same effect. Same thing really when you think about it.The question isn’t why does the press do this… the question is why does it work? Obama and Bush aren’t so much the disease as they are the symptoms.
You could be right. It wouldn’t surprise me at all. Every single thing he does is guided by political usefullness. I don’t think he has ever done something just because it was the right thing to do.
Lost post, I referred to O as a bigot.
Seen the latest headlines? “Obama gets a pass.” I think he’s toast.
(then this today) grrrr
Afghan bombs kill eight US troops
Eight US soldiers die in attacks in south Afghanistan, making October the deadliest month for the US in the war there.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8328297.stm
Eight US soldiers have been killed in bomb attacks in southern Afghanistan, say Nato-led forces.
An Afghan civilian was also killed by what were called “multiple complex IED attacks” - or improvised bombs.
The deaths make October the deadliest month for American forces in the eight-year war in Afghanistan.
On Monday 11 soldiers were among 14 Americans killed in multiple air crashes. In total this month 55 US troops are said to have died.
Like many deaths in Afghanistan, Tuesday’s bloodshed was blamed on the improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that pose the biggest threat to foreign forces operating in the country.
“Additionally, several service members were wounded in these incidents and were transported to a regional medical facility for treatment,” said a statement from the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf).
The sharp increase in the US death toll in Afghanistan comes amid a review of policy in Afghanistan by US President Barack Obama.
He is under pressure to reinforce the US military presence by tens of thousands of US troops - but many Americans are unlikely to support such a course in light of October’s succession of deadly incidents, says the BBC’s Andrew North, in Afghanistan.
Excellent post Larry. Thank you.
Obama is too busy having a latin dance party then to send reinforcements to our troops. SHAMEFUL!
you wanted it you won it bo now get to work
We might want to consider how the Russian involvement in Afghanistan eventually worked out.
The very first alarm bell I had last year was when I found out Obama had voted present 132 times in the Illinois State Senate. At the time I concluded that Obama was not willing to stick his neck out politically because he had no core political beliefs.
I now believe that he does have a set of core beliefs. (See Karl Marx). But I think this decision has him paralyzed. Dithering is the right word for what he is doing. Under pressure people return to form.
By the way, the new picture of Larry is a big improvement. In the old one he had a Moe Howard Haircut. Now he looks like a guy who used to fly CIA planes in and out of Nicaragua.
I’m not sure that anyone who looks at the current distribution of America’s wealth, understands that the top 5 percent currently holds 95 percent of the total, and concludes that something might be a bit wrong with the picture should automatically be labeled a Marxist.
Somebody is not a Marxist just because they think graduated taxes and higher taxes for the rich are a reasonable idea. Particularly in light of the fact that deficits have been run up year after year to finance enormous tax cuts heavily weighted to favor the wealthiest.
What label should we put on those whose rage about deficits suddenly commenced around the time Obama entered office, and blame it all on a “Marxist” president the laziness and greed of the poor? The bottom 60 percent of Americans own less than one-half of a percent of the wealth of the nation.
There is a flaw in your argument, in my opinion.
The founding fathers had wealth.
They did not live in log cabins or sod huts, but this country offers those who have less the opportunity to succeed.
Philanthropy is alive and well here, and some of the wealthiest do the most!
I don’t object to the accumulation of fairly-gotten wealth. What I object to is plutocracy. The founding fathers didn’t rule because they were wealthy. Nor did they intend a system allowing the wealthy to create in themselves a new, de facto aristocracy, who could bend the rules of the game to their own increasing advantage.
What would the founding fathers have thought about the sort of wealth and power represented by the distribution numbers up above? I’m not sure.
Strikingly….frighteningly ……deja vu Viet Nam. Dithering, controlling without reference to the leadership actually on the ground. It simmers down to an embarrassing final decision point; get out or expend the necessary force. The USSR was unable to make headway even though they had over 120,000 troops in country at times and used a ’scorched-earth’ policy frequently. Are there lessons to be learned in their experience…I believe there may be.
Alternative thought: What the hell is that piece of ground worth to our country anyhow? In the long run….what the hell is it worth. Does anybody really care if that area has a nuclear weapon? They use it….they fry in their own backwash! Sorry….just thinking. So we lose a bunch of people who can help us out of our conundrums about Windows or IE….and Dell has to find some other $0.50/hour slave (hopefully one who can speak English intelligably)…..what else does that region have to offer? Hell, they even have to construct their own beaches!!!
Thomas,I really understand your agonizing!
The Russians eventually dumped their troops there and left them practically starving.
With the bombings in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan, it is apparent that these maniacs will keep coming.
Sadly, we have two choices…keep retreating or stand our ground.
It seems like back when they gave the reins to General Petraus in Iraq, all the naysayers who said the surge would not work came out in force to claim that it was the diplomatic surge, not the miltary surge that made it succeed. Yet if my interpretation of that plan is accurate, both component were part of the plan from Petraus, one of the leading experts on counter insurgencies.
Though the key component was having a substantial prolonged troop presence in the effected neighborhoods so that they could build trust with the locals and provide the required security to let the diplomatic efforts work. Efforts largely conducted by the same troops.
It seem (to me) that it that some crowd of naysayer driving this “put the brakes on McChrystal” campaign. They wan to prove that they we right with their diplomatic surge argument.
Edited: It seem (to me) that it is that same crowd of naysayers driving this “put the brakes on McChrystal” campaign. They want to prove that they were right with their diplomatic surge argument.”
Why is Maj. Gen. Michael T. Flynn is the ONLY named source in this article by the NYT ;Dexter Filkins, Mark Mazzetti and James Risen?
Why are these “secrets” coming out now? The timing sucks and I am wondering what this says about the growing divisions within this administration. Combine this with the other NYT artcle;
.
What a un-believable mess BOO is making of this. it is clear the political considerations are taking presendence over the needs of the our forces deployed. I would thought that this country would have learned about urban warfare by now. Apparently not.
maybe he can just vote “present” as he has done 132 times before , though he is hardly ever present in the WH. in retrospect that might be a good thing since he doesnt know what the hell he is doing. the only thing he knows how to do is campaign but by the next election people will be so sick of listening to his lies and b/s and seeing him on tv 24/7 that we will all go deaf and blind if we have to listen to anymore of it. i can only wonder what achievements jack squat obama will campaign on.
This video, made by a friend of mine, says it all about Obama’s concern for our troops in Afghanistan:
The Phone is STILL RINGING
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9unwjgXSA30