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.
Obama more pro-war than Bush. LOL!
You’re right. Arguing with somone who has a “don’t confuse me with the facts attitude” is a total waste of time. Have a nice life.
“I pointed out that Obama has sent more troops to Afghanistan than Bush via the Obama surge.”
This doesn’t develop your contention that Obama is more pro-war than Bush.
Setting aside your loaded expression, “pro-war”, Bush developed a unique foreign and military policy that cleary was aggressive in fighting terrorists.
It stated that countries that harbor, train, and fun terrorists will be considered possible targets. Obama does not come close to this and rejects it.
Bush believed in a stronger more assertive policy to defend America against terrorists. He was correct in doing so.
George Will had it right. Move our forces off-shore and use drones, intelligence, and special forces to continue fighting, while pulling out the rest. But in a nutshell, yes, our troops should come home.
BTW, I don't think Palin is a neo-con. In Alaska, she fought the big oil companies for a bigger share of revenue for her people. She opposes corporatism, and she's pro-energy and has mentioned that we don't need to keep getting involved in the ME when we have our own energy supplies here.
It may have "stated" that but, as our tolerant policy toward Pakistan, a country that shielded both Osama and the Taliban FOR SIX YEARS UNDER BUSH, shows the reality was quite different. Obama is merely continuing, indeed expanding this long-term policy. Please that the Palin, Kristol, Frum, and Boot letter endorses the overall Obama Afghan policy. The criticism is more a matter of details.
And MORE of those are being sent all the time and Palin wants to send even more than Obama!
Well, you have a nice life too...
I think you're missing the picture here.
Would Palin shackle our troops with the silly ROE that the current Administration has hamstrung them with?
She's calling for Obama to support the troops by letting them do their job effectively. It's not just 'more troops'; it's letting them actually, well, fight. If Obama doesn't even let them do that, then 'more troops' ain't gonna cut it. THAT'S the point.
This is an argument about mere details. The key point is that Obama and Palin essentially agree on the need to bail out the corrupt, Islamic, drug lorad, Karzai. In fact, the thrust of the letter urges Obama to stay the course. BTW, I don’t remember that she ever criticized Bush who followed essentially the same policy in Afganistan for six years. Please note that Bush did nothing to fight the Taliban in Pakistan. There ain’t a dime’s worth of different between Obama and Palin on this quagmire. Both are shoulder to shoulder in supporting this exercise in futility.
Question: did Sarah Palin actually write the letter in question, or is she merely one of many people who signed it?
Let me add another point. If the get tough policy Palin apparently recommends didn’t work for the Soviets over entire decade, why does anyone think it will work for us? Also, I think you are missing a larger point: this letter indicates a close alliance between Palin and the neocons. That is highly significant.
I doubt she would engage in nation-building as she implements an America-first energy policy.
I don't have a problem using terrorists for target practice, in the short term...
That's silly. That's like saying Ron Paul is a neo-con if he had dinner with Bush.
Now who;s talking about something that is silly! We’re talking about their shared endorsement of Obama’s Afghan surge (a big ticket budget item) not dinner, No Americans will die if Obama merely has dinner with the neocons. Plenty of Americans will die if we continue the Obama/neocon surge.
I hope she isn’t a neocon; she will probably have to accept more of that influence to get the nomination. I just hope we don’t have to fight another war to defend America 5000 miles from our border. If she recalls G. Washington about avoiding foreign entanglements, maybe she can play along but not get us into war. There really are at least a few other major priorites.
Any conservative who wishes to fight a multi-front political battle risks losing all. The Supreme Court remains a major problem. We MUST defeat national socialism, provide a fair economic environment, and put intelligent people with common sense on the Supreme Court.
Prolonged war thousands of miles of home, ostensibly to defend our country, is NOT politically viable strategy, especially while we continue to rot on the inside.
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.