Posted on 11/12/2009 4:06:27 AM PST by DeusExMachina05
President Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.
That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official.
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, the official told the AP.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Seems like it was the same in iraq. the surge gave the new govt strength.
So politics gets in the way, and also moves to the front of the line ... ahead of saving troops and winning the war, a winnable war.
Hello McNamara/Johnson.
SSDD
He’s looking for a way out I’d say. IMO, we need to fight to win, or leave. A “politically correct” war just gets people killed - for nothing.
Obama’s killing our troops!!!!
Well, it looks as though Junior once again is learning that managing is a lot different than loud mouth criticizing. Stay tuned for a few more “its Bush’s fault”.
just a stall tactic.
Apparently none were "Present".
It read: Just something that occurred to me today while trying to cross Fifth Ave in Manhattan during the Veteran’s Day Parade:
The towers fell in New York on 9/11/01, Kabul fell to American led forces on 11/14/01. That’s 65 days.
President Obama’s hand-picked replacement commander in Afghanistan, GEN McChrystal, delivered his Afghanistan war plans to President Obama on 8/30/09, and President Obama hasn’t acted on his General’s recommendations as of today, 11/11/09. That’s 73 days, and waiting.
It seems they have discovered what the name Barack means in Arabic: "He who dithers."
1) Is this an ambassador that Obama appointed? 2) How convenient that Obama now has this cover to hide behind if he is forced to send troops and things don’t go well!
Translation: "The liberals are holding Obamacare hostage and will vote it down if I don't kowtow to their demands."
It comes down to Commander’s Intent.
If the commander cannot clearly articulate his intent, then his troops can neither present nor execute a well-planned mission consistent with the intent for the mission. If a commander cannot articulate his intent, he needs to delegate the task to his command and then support their actions with resources and sponsorship. Zero and his ‘advisors’ can’t and won’t do this.
NET: Zero is not up to the task of being CINC.
WEre My kid to get killed serving our great country in Afghanistan due to this marxist p.o.s. “dithering” while trying to placate who ever I would go after his sorry marxist ass.
While Obama waits on his decision to send more troops, is he doing anything to protect the “uderstaffed” troops that are already there?
LLS
It sounds to me like its time for some creative, out of the box, thinking and some real leadership rather than a seminar on how to make a decision. Where is Bush when we need a military leader? Dr Utopia isn’t in on this one.
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...
If he's so opposed to Karzai, why did he couple this with a request for millions of dollars more in aid? Isn't he afraid Karzai will steal it?
The terrorists, who never have exit strategies love to hear Americans say when they promise to leave.
The Islamic terrorists have a 500 year plan, and we’re agonizing over how to get out in a couple of years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.