Posted on 02/08/2009 8:52:49 AM PST by tobyhill
President Obama has demanded that defense chiefs review their strategy in Afghanistan before going ahead with a troop surge, the Sunday Times reported.
There is concern among senior Democrats that the military is preparing to send up to 30,000 extra troops without a coherent plan or exit strategy.
The Pentagon was set to announce the deployment of 17,000 extra soldiers and marines last week but Defense Secretary Robert Gates postponed the decision after questions from Obama.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
You may be right, but the statement is most likely true. Afghanistan has been the graveyard of empires for 2000 years. There are no natural resources or strategic reason to be there other than to prevent it from being a launching pad against Western countries. The way to keep that from happening is cut deals with the tribal leaders even if you have to pay them off. Afghanistan is the size of Texas and 30,000 or 60,000 troops are not going to be able to secure all the tribal regions and the border with Pakistan.
So much for democracy and elections.
::::::::::
I guess that can be said for anything our Marxist Madmen touch from now on...unless the electorate finally wises up. It is a race between the removal of ignorance and the Marxists spending the “stimulus” money to buy an army of voters.
I know what you mean, but we also know that these rats *do* want results, just not the same results we want. They are "the ends justify the means" kind of people and the only results they want are for the US to crumble as a sovereign nation and bow down to the UN.
What is this obscession that every military attack must be accompanied by an “exit strategy” plan to run away?
How about a good enough plan and effort on our part that the OTHER side needs the “exit strategy”?
They need to turn off the Creedence Clearwater Revival music and realize that everything isnt Vietnam. Hell, even their Vietnam isn’t the real Vietnam.
Because GWB commanded the surge in Iraq.
Zero is in charge now....
I guess our generals didn't go to fortune-telling school like Bammy did.
Someone should advise the Idiot WonderBoy that military action is full of imponderables, and unknowns, which can change without notice. It's not a chessboard where all the pieces are known and the rules and boundaries clear.If you want an "endgame" Bammy, ask Garry Kasparov.
Shorten it to THE AM ALERT.
It would be a daily thread.
True.
LBJ made the mistake that all central planners do and that was to take the military decisions out of the Pentagon and made them at the WH. That is what cost us the war and LBJ was the reason. Hussain is doing the same thing only he is going to run and leave the Afghanis to die.
Pray for America and Our Troops
Soon he'll say that Bin Laden has left and nobody knows where he is (Bush's fault) and so there's no point in maintaining forces there and we might as well spend the money on neighborhood organizing anyway.
A Truism, well stated.
Obama is trying to play 'checkers' with a 'chess' set.
Yes he is.
He is not up to the task of stopping the developing chaos on our supply routes and the predations of our baggage trains.
Putin threw a dog shit stained shoe at him last week in Kyrgyzstan, and Barky took it right between the eyes. Putin then offered him a supply flyover of Russian territory, like a veteran coach putting in his third string and calling the mercy rule on an over matched opponent.
If Obama tries to play General, we're just going to end up with lots of "Jimmuh's rescues in the desert situations". Better just leave and plan for the next attack after he's gone.
It’s all in how you ‘write’ it. (as any reporter knows)
“without a coherent plan or exit strategy.”
without a coherent plan (i.e. exit strategy).
It’s just Obama’s way of saying he wants a clearly defined exit strategy that he can use to make himself look good, at the time he chooses.
LBJs plan was to develop a Korean style truce with the US maintaining permanent bases in Viet Nam. Here's why I think this:
First, if you look at a world map, at the time the US had naval bases in Korea, Japan, the Philippines, friendly docking spaces in Australia, Indonesia, the middle east and land bases in Eastern Europe. With the exception of Viet Nam, we had them totally surrounded. Brown and Root dug five deep water ports in Viet Nam. If we were simply engaged in a police action, there was no need for deep water ports, especially not five. Deep water ports are built to create permanent bases for big naval vessels or for commerce.
Most military plans are obvious if you read a map. Take a look at the "War on Terror." We know where most of the operational funding for terrorism is coming from. The agents are spread out all over the world, but without funding, they're impotent. We tolerate the Saudis because war isn't always ideological. You make deals with people because it's in your best interest, not because they're nice guys. Our first thrust was Afghanistan, our second, Iraq. There are various other initiatives that aren't being reported, but these are too big to keep secret. What's in between these two countries? Iran. Obama will capitulate, so the plan is over, but I know exactly where Bush and Cheney were planning to go before popular support was knocked down and the action became impossible. There's a reason so much Arab oil money went into buying interests in the US press.
Powerful foreign interests use the US press for propaganda purposes, and have since the early sixties. Prior to that, the press was just as slanted, but for the US. The NY Times has, of course, supported the Marxists forever. Remember the Times was the paper that denied the existence of the death camps in Russia during Stalin's purge. The two big contributors to the US press are the marxists and the Islamists. The US continually engages in covert actions in South America, but there are no South American agents putting moles and money into the US press, so, there is no reason for the press to expose or oppose these operations. The press screams the loudest when the operations are damaging the people that are providing their funding; the marxists and the Islamists.
Ping to 57. Agree on the decisions. Political leaders should make policy decisions; warriors should make tactical decisions. Carter was like LBJ in that respect.
Obama doesn't want and 'end game' strategy.
He wants an 'exit game' one.
He's not asking how to win. (otherwise he would go along with a 'surge')
He's asking how to exit.
Yeah, and at this point I don’t know if Obama is actively working for the Islamists, or is just so utterly clueless that he really believes they have no ill will towards us.
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.