Posted on 09/07/2009 12:21:39 PM PDT by MaxCUA
Washington, DC – A distinguished group of Americans active in the foreign policy debate expressed support today for the U.S. effort in Afghanistan, and called upon President Obama to continue to provide the necessary resources requested by his commanders on the ground to ensure success. In an open letter organized by the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), the group offered its appreciation for the president’s decision earlier this year to deploy 21,000 additional U.S. troops to the country, and urged him to continue to properly resource the war effort. Given increasing public concern about the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan, the letter also suggests that the President make it a priority to explain to the American people why it is important to remain committed to winning in Afghanistan, and why such a victory is feasible.
Is it feasible? What would it look like?
Palin is the only one hitting Obama on so many issues.
I don’t know if ‘hitting’ is the right word in this context; rather , like Margaret Thatcher to George H. W. Bush, she is reminding him that now is no time to go wobbly. Afghanistan and Iraq (IMHO) are both critical fronts in the WOT, and no matter what the extent of Obama’s juvenile miscalculation of the efforts made to date, an American failure in Afghanistan would be just as bad as failure in Iraq. He will require Republican support to counter the wailings of the idiot Left, which will be perhaps irreparably fractured if Obama actually does something in America’s self-interest.
Not a good sign. It looks like Billy Kristol, Sarah’s debate coach, has captured her for the cause of neoconservatism. It looks like a President Palin will continue Obama’s war.
Are you saying conservatives should continue to give Obama a blank check on this issue?
It is the war the IslamOfascists declared on America.
Your Anti War, 9/11 truther Third Party must be in
in great sadness that your Anti War, 9/11 Truther Van Jones was exposed.
There is a serious problem in the region. It is one the US can’t solve, but might be able to mitigate before getting out of there. But the emphasis has to be on a type of stability that will maintain itself after we are gone.
The numbers speak for themselves. NATO commitment, mostly US: about 100,000 personnel. Population of Afghanistan, 30 million. Population of Pakistan, 110 million people.
This means only one thing will work. That we have to put the majority who don’t want to fight us in control, and they *must* stamp out the minority that does want to fight us—and will leave their country to do so.
In effect, once we decide to leave, for a very long time, we cannot permit *anyone* from Afghanistan or Pakistan to come to the US, or even go to Europe, except leaders and important professionals, until we have some security that they are no longer exporting terrorists.
This will especially impact England, because it has a very large Pakistani community, who want to travel back and forth between the two countries. But there is no way this can continue until Pakistan has self-control. There must be a severance between those nations.
There are a lot of neo-cons who signed that letter but I don’t consider her to be a neo-con but rather a more traditional conservative. I believe she signed the letter because she has a son in Iraq and knows how dangerous and foolish it is if we don’t adequately fund the war effort. She’s basically calling on Obama to dispense with the half measures and fight this to win.
Why is she the only Republican with the stones to confront Obama?
Half measures? He is more pro-war than Bush. If you think we can win there, you might want to read some Afghan history. In more than 2000 years, nobody has conquered that country, nobody. The Russians went all out and even they failed. Besides we are bankrupt. Where do you intend to get the money to pay for all this? Also, what precisely are we fighting for now? Karzai his corrupt and his government is wiling to impose the death penalty on Christian converts.
He owns both conflicts now. He can man up, admit his previous errors, and fight to win - or he can succumb to the siren song of the loser Left. In the first case, he fractures the liberal coalition that elected him; in the latter, he castrates his administration and fractures the coalition.
Honestly, not very good choices, but he is the one that painted himself into the corner...IMHO
Truther? I despise the truthers....but then if you can't refute your opponent, just make something up, right? Besides, you're the one her supporting Obama/Van Jones war, not me. The leading Islamofascist in Afghanistan now who leads a government which imposes the death penalty on Christian converts.
If a deceptive and incompetent character like Obama “owns” both conflicts, on what basis do you want to trust him with our blood and treasure? Besides, please note that this money is being used to bail out a corrupt Islamic regime (Karzai) which imposes the death penalty on Christians.
Let me get this right. If I oppose Obama’s War, I’m an Islamofascist. Look more closely. The leading Islamofascist in that country is Karzai. He stuffs ballots boxes and his government supports executing Christians. I’m not the one in this conversation who wants to give Obama a blank check with our blood and treasure.
She’s basically calling on Obama to dispense with the half measures and fight this to win
Your reply:
Half measures? He is more pro-war than Bush.
Are you insane??!!!??
The day we decided to allow Al Quida sanctuary in Pakistan is the day we decided not to fight to win...and the day we should have initiated an exit plan from Afghanistan.
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.