Categories:
Afghanistan,
America,
Democrats/Liberals,
In Case You Missed It,
Obamassiah
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Album Of The Month
Rush
Fly By Night
Pick Up Your Own Copy
Links
Search
About
If You Can't Do Something Smart, Do Something RightFreedom
The Alliance to Restore the Republic
We Have Assumed ControlWednesday Hero
What Is Wednesday Hero?
Get A Copy Of The Post
3/5 Darkhorse Memorial
14 comments:
Are you saying the President is not allowed to have any free time, Chris?
No he is only pointing out the media hypocrisy. They roasted Bush every time he played golf or spent time in Crawford. Now Obama is playing golf more often than Bush did, having elegant parties every week at the WH, zipping around the world to lobby for his Chicago cronies, taking in a Broadway show, having pizza flown in from Chicago to DC, and so on, and we only hear about how wonderful Obama and his family is from the press. If Bush was doing all of the above he would have been crucified by the press corps, and rightly so. Instead they just cheer him on.
Actually, guys, I'm not saying either one of those. Of course the president is allowed free time and I'd actually forgotten all about the criticism of Bush playing golf while we were at war in Iraq. My point was that Afghanistan is getting worse with each day, so President Obama needs to hurry and make a decision. He's had Gen. McCrystal's letter since, what, August? Bush waited something like three months to decide on the surge, if he'd made up his mind sooner maybe a few more lives could have been saved.
Chris said: My point was that Afghanistan is getting worse with each day, so President Obama needs to hurry and make a decision.
I disagree. I don’t want the President to “hurry.” As I understand it, part of the reason for the delay is because of the disputed election in Afghanistan (which happened in August). You can’t run a successful counter-insurgency unless you have a legitimate government to work with. Otherwise, what’s the point? The President is rightly using this review of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan as leverage to force Karzai to accept a run-off election. That won’t solve all the problems with the central government but it’s certainly a start.
As for President Bush, he was right to order the surge but he had several years of an obviously deteriorating situation in Iraq before he made the call (not three months).
SSG E, I agree with you that the criticism of Bush regarding his free time was unfair. I wouldn’t wish the job of President of the United States on anyone so I can hardly begrudge them some much needed time off.
I have a unique point of view on this because I am still a soldier, albeit reserves, and I know people that are there or have been to Afghanistan. There is no coherent strategy coming from the WH. The generals on the ground cannot execute their plan until they know which way Obama is going to go with this. In the meantime people are dying because of the lack of clarity and lack of action. If the general on the groud says we need the troops now then they should be there ASAP. Bush's generals in Iraq kept telling him that they didn't need new troops, for whatever reason. It wasn't until we got Petraeus in there that the surge finally happened and we turned that mess around. The Afghans want to fight and they love us over there. Like Iraq, they just need stability to get the roots in the ground and start building a relatively organized country out of a backwater region that has been at war for centuries. I say either go in and win or get us home. This waffling sends the wrong message to the enemy, to our troops, and to the world. You can be cautious and deliberate without being indecisive. Obama appears to be indecisive and unconcerned.
Send them in, or pull'em ALL out, but do it now! If Obama wants to play general, he should go to Afghanistan and fight along side the troops - if not, leave the strategies up to the generals. Obama can make a decision while swinging, body-surfing, dancing salsa - but he's got to make an actual "decision."
I also have a unique perspective because my husband is about to deploy to Afghanistan and I want the President to get this right. Again, the delay has to do with a disputed election in August and the need for either a run-off election or some kind of power-sharing agreement. Yes, General McChrystal has asked for more troops but he also stressed the importance of a legitimate government partner in Afghanistan and his strategy relies on this.
SSG E said: If the general on the groud says we need the troops now then they should be there ASAP.
Within a month of taking office President Obama did send more troops to Afghanistan (adding 17,000 to the 36,000 already there) and he ordered a complete review of the strategy there. The election in Afghanistan was so badly marred by allegations of fraud that it has prompted the President to reconsider that strategy.
Bush's generals in Iraq kept telling him that they didn't need new troops, for whatever reason.
Not true. Remember General Shinskeki? There were many generals who said we needed more troops. The Secretary of Defense just didn’t want to hear it.
But perception is reality. Obama looks weak and indecisive from the point of view of those to whom it matters most. He could send more troops to stablize the situation and ensure the safety of our people there while waiting to craft a new strategy or decide on an existing one.
I thought it was great that more troops were sent earlier this year, but we needed more then and we need them now.
Yes, you are right that from the beginning there were generals saying that we needed more troops in Iraq. Unfortunately, their voices were not heard. After we were there for a while, and things started looking bad, the generals who were on the ground kept insisting that we didn't need more troops.
This is from a CNN transcript, Wolf Blitzer interview in 2006:
WOLF: The president keeps saying he relies on you and general casey, the commander in iraq, for advice. That if you say to him, we need more troops, he will give you more troops. Are you ready to tell the president you need more troops?
ABIZAID: No, I just talked to general casey about it the other day. We’ve got a reserve formation that’s down in the kuwait area. We’ve got additional reserves that belong to me in the arabian gulf area. We don’t see a need to commit them to the fight yet, and until they’re committed, he don’t see ae need to ask for more you should the present circumstances. On the other hand, this notion that troop levels are static is not true. Never has been true, and it won’t be true. We’ll ask for what we need when we need it, but it’s key, wolf, that the iraqi military take on more and more responsibility. It’s a hard thing to do. It’s hard to have a u.S. Formation in the same area that could do the job and an iraqi unit that’s not quite as ready doing the same job, and letting them get through it.
WOLF: If you asked for more trpz — if you asked the defense secretary, donald rumsfeld, or the president, for more troops, have they ever turned you down?
ABIZAID: No. There’s certainly been staffing actions that have taken place where certain types of units weren’t available, but by and large, any amount of troops that we’ve asked for have shown up on the battlefield.
Obama looks weak and indecisive from the point of view of those to whom it matters most.
He looks weak and indecisive to those who didn’t like him to begin with. I didn’t hear anything from Chris about President Bush in the first seven years of the war in Afghanistan. And you are both completely ignoring the effect of the elections on our situation there.
He could send more troops to stablize the situation and ensure the safety of our people there while waiting to craft a new strategy or decide on an existing one.
That’s what the first 17,000 were for but before we send more troops we owe them a clear and realistic objective with a legitimate Afghan partner. And as I’m sure you know, more troops does not necessarily equal more safety. As with the surge in the initial months, more troops meant more combat operations which meant more casualties. Things also got much better with the Awakening in Iraq, which reinforces the point that successful counter-insurgencies require support from the population you are trying to protect.
"He looks weak and indecisive to those who didn’t like him to begin with."
No he looks weak and indecisive to our enemies, our allies, and the soldiers he has ignored while trying to push his diastrous domestic agenda. There is a consistent pattern to this guy's behavior and it is not reassuring. His lack of action and lack of leadership is disturbing. Obama clearly does not like dealing with these foreign policy issues because they distract from his domestic agenda and Afghanistan has caused him a lot of problems, particularly from his kook base.
BTW, I applaud Obama for sending the 17,000 troops earlier this year despite the wishes of his kook base. Now he needs to do the right thing again.
"And you are both completely ignoring the effect of the elections on our situation there."
No, the elections would constitute another reason to send additional assets. More troops could help ensure the safety and legitimacy of the next election. If we have more people on the ground we could run the Afghan elections more like the Iraqi elections where we had guys at the polling places preventing the kind of fraud that is purported to have occurred in Afghanistan.
"...we owe them a clear and realistic objective..."
Amen, that is what I have said all along. Go win it, or get out.
The thing is we already have the support of the population. What is happening now though is the people do not know if we are committed because Obama has so bungled this situation from the perspective on the people on the ground there. They don't know if we are serious about Afghanistan so they are reluctant to help us because they fear we will leave and they will have to live with the Taliban again. They do not want to rat out the Taliban if they are eventually going to return to power if we leave. The Afghan people didn't have to be awakened like the Sunnis in Iraq. We have always had popular support that hovered around 80% until it looked like we were not serious about our commitment there. That perception is not solely Obama's fault, but he has done nothing to help the situation or instill confidence in the people there.
I understand a need for caution and I see what you are trying to say. You might be right, but the perception is clear. In my mind, and the mind's of the vast majority of US troops, Obama is showing indecision and a lack of urgency. The whole of NATO has endorsed McChrystal's plan. They want to implement it and take action. Only Obama and the Dems are dragging their feet (minus a few good eggs like Joe Lieberman). This is beginning to sound like Vietnam when Johnson and his administration were micromanaging the war. We need to be allowed to do our job without a lot of interference from a bunch of slimebag politicians who know nothing about this conflict. If we are not going to commit to Afghanistan, it is time to come home.
SSG E said: Amen, that is what I have said all along. Go win it, or get out.
That’s not a clear objective, that’s a subjective wish.
In my mind, and the mind's of the vast majority of US troops, Obama is showing indecision and a lack of urgency.
In your mind, perhaps, but not in mine. And I wouldn’t presume to speak for the majority of US troops, since in my experience they don’t generally call their Commander-in-Chief weak and indecisive.
If we are not going to commit to Afghanistan, it is time to come home.
The fact is we finally are committing. Nobody is coming home any time soon and we are finally turning our focus to Afghanistan. I’m sorry it’s not fast enough to suit you but I would rather the President keep the pressure on the Karzai government to get their act together before giving him a blank check written in our soldiers’ blood.
"That’s not a clear objective, that’s a subjective wish."
I know that's the problem. Obama won't provide clarity about the mission or what strategy he thinks we should pursue. He's just leaving the troops on the ground OTF while he takes his time figuring it out.
"I wouldn’t presume to speak for the majority of US troops,"
I wouldn't either, but I talk to ALOT of fellow soldiers. Almost all NCOs though- maybe its a sample bias. We like to go in, kick ass, and get the job done right. This sitting on our hands and waiting crap is asinine.
"The fact is we finally are committing"
Really? If we were committed then there would already be clarity, established objectives, and well defined goals- regardless of the electoral proceedings in Afghanistan. Strategy can be reevaluated and altered to allow for those variables. The longer we wait to make a decision, the more difficult it will be to undo the damage done and more people will die in the long run. The longer we do nothing, the stronger the Taliban will get.
"...keep the pressure on the Karzai government to get their act together..."
Agreed. We can do that without signalling indecision or lack of commitment.
"... before giving him a blank check written in our soldiers’ blood."
Kind of melodramatic don't you think. Additional troops do not give Karzai a "blank check" to do anything. If it were up to me the focus would be on destroying the enemy rather than nation building. Karzai would be irrelevant.
SSG E said: Obama won't provide clarity about the mission or what strategy he thinks we should pursue.
He already did…just two months into his Presidency and shortly after sending 17,000 troops:
“So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That is the goal that must be achieved.
...
At the same time, we will shift the emphasis of our mission to training and increasing the size of Afghan Security Forces, so that they can eventually take the lead in securing their country. That is how we will prepare Afghans to take responsibility for their security, and how we will ultimately be able to bring our troops home.”
http://www.cfr.org/publication/18952/
We like to go in, kick ass, and get the job done right.
Damn right! No one does it better than the U.S. Army. :-)
If we were committed then there would already be clarity, established objectives, and well defined goals- regardless of the electoral proceedings in Afghanistan.
There are, but the flawed election was a game-changer. Any success we hope to achieve in Afghanistan is tied to a legitimate government partner. There’s nothing “regardless” about it.
If it were up to me the focus would be on destroying the enemy rather than nation building. Karzai would be irrelevant.
It sounds like you favor a limited counter-terrorist strategy focused on killing al Qaeda (which is what we are currently doing) rather than a broader counter-insurgency strategy focused on fighting the Taliban and protecting the population – which is what McChrystal is recommending.
"...but the flawed election was a game-changer."
If we allow politics to dictate tactics we will lose. If we play the game by other people's rules, we cannot win. The election does not have to be a game changer. It would not be if we had a clear strategy and implemented it with the neccessary resources.
The Afghan people themselves are a legitimate partner. If the people don't have faith in their gov't then we must ensure they have faith in us. They don't have faith in us right now b/c of Obama's apparent dithering. Political concerns should be secondary to the larger strategic goals. We can adjust our fire when those political concerns pan out and partner up with a legitimate gov't later on. Right now we need to stabilize the country so that the people do not turn to the Taliban.
I do not neccessarily support one strategy over the other. I just want it to be clear, decisive, and implemented effectively. That means having more than enough resources available to get the job done. Several election workers were killed today preparing for the run off election. If we had placed enough troops in Afghanistan months ago when the General asked for them, then we could be protecting those workers and polling places. The election might not be as susceptible to fraud and intimidation if we had more people on the ground providing support to those elections.
Again, good discussion. This is fun. I don't usually get into this stuff very often these days.
Post a Comment