Posted on 11/01/2009 7:20:58 PM PST by kristinn
The Obama administration is considering an almost complete surrender in Afghanistan, if the report this weekend by the BBC's Katty Kay is accurate.
Speaking as a panelist on the Chris Matthews Show, a weekend public affairs broadcast, Kay reported on the internal debate at the White House, "There are real questions being asked, I think, about whether even with a big injection of troops this is a real country, a real war that you can win.
"And there's a new phrase which is floating around the White House which is 'minimum security'. That we're not actually aiming for a country which is stable that we are in control of, but we are aiming for a minimum amount of security and perhaps even a negotiated settlement with the Taliban."
This would tie in with reports that Obama has concluded the U.S. cannot beat the Taliban and that he has requested new studies this week, one of each province to determine which ones may be ceded to the Taliban and another for troop levels other than those requested by Gen. McChrystal over two months ago.
Kay's remarks start at the 19:10 minute in the backward clock on the video. She describes three different views on the situation in Afghanistan that have been presented to Obama: The military needs a large injection of troops to perform the current strategy; even with more troops Afghanistan will never be winnable; and "'we have no choice but to win this war' and that is what President Obama said back in March."
Obama has delayed making his decision such that it most likely will not be announced until the end of November, three months into the twelve month window left to win the war Gen. McChrystal stated in August.
Troop casualties in Afghanistan have skyrocketed in the past three months with over 1000 being wounded, and a reported 58 service members killed this past month making it the deadlist month of the eight-year long war.
On Friday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs bragged Obama has spent almost twenty hours in meetings on Afghanistan since August.
That’s the only word I have for it, “SURRENDER”.
Next he’ll be calling it peace with honor as he withdraws our troops and hundreds of thousands are purged.
The left in the United States learns absolutely nothing from history. Even Iraq is no object lesson to them.
Talk about your stark raving nutter class...
Does this mean that he will stop the prosecution of “honor” killing victims in U.S.
THE mindless idiot in the WH will be legitimizing a 13th century murderous bunch of women haters.
I wonder if Obama will get caught up in negotiations about the shape of the table our diplomats will surrender over.
WILL HE BE HEALD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE DEATHS OF OUR YOUNG PEOPLE BECAUSE OF HIS FAILURE AS CIC????????????????????
will he be held accountable for the deaths of our young people due to his failure as cic????????????????????????
SCREEEEEMIIINNNG
PLEASE Dear GOD..protect our troops
He has just thrown Pakistan to the nightmare of Taliban and AL QUEADA!
And yes, Bam is a poll-driven creature. And now the Dems are cornered and losing numbers daily. Bam doesn't comprehend military strategy...he has devoted less than a day to it since General McChrystal requested the troops. His mind is on the thrust of his wild, liberal spending programs, and on his survival in power. He will do whatever is expedient to these ends, not thinking too hard about the consequences to the country and to the world. Thus, he is not a competent CIC. He is a compromised CIC who is trying to function way above his pay grade.
Because too many were anxious to assuage their white guilt by claiming they voted for the black guy, and too many others listened to him, but never really heard what he wanted to do to this country. They were mesmerized by his fake preacher cadence, and said they didn't hear what he said, but he just made them FEEL so good.
As my brother remarked, after seeing the Zeigler video on how Obama was elected, "Some people should never be allowed near a voting booth!".
I WANT THEM home now. THEY CAN FIGHT THE TALI-AQ. THEY ARE AT THE MERCY OF ZERO AND HIS UNQUALIFIED/IGNORANT/NARCISSISTIC MACHINATIONS.
Depends on who is writing the history books?
And, we’ve been doing such a lousy job in the Afghan AO, that various leaders of the AlQ have been yammering on about needing to pick a safer place to push for the new Caliphate, like western China.
The only jihadiscum that like the idea of fighting American forces are those preemies still sitting in their mosques listening to their degenerate perv of a preacher telling them how glorious it will be.
I wonder what part of “we will convert you, enslave you and’or kill” The Dear Leader does not understand. The Taliban, Al Queda and other Mid-East terrorist murders have said this repeatedly.
American casualties "sky rocketed" (msm term)immediately after "commander zero's" new ROE went into effect. Just a coincidence of course. He just doesn't want them "air raiding villages, killing women and children
I have not heard of a significant decrease in the terrorist casualty rate.
Seems to be the "vietnamization" of "afghanistan" with the US to pull out and leave all that sided with us to be slaughtered.
You thought that vietnam was a bloodbath when the democrats orchestrated the betrayal of our allies? Compared to what is coming to afghanistan, that will look like a Christmas party.
As for karzai you are repeating the msm storyline. Whether it's true or not, I don't know, maybe it is, this time. What I do know is to take anything from the drive bys with a handful of salt.
"A troop surge would be merely to maintain a holding pattern ‘til something good happens."
That good thing may well be victory. That was the same arguments used by the dems in opposing the surge in iraq.
We also need to ask ourselves this...
If we quit now, if we betray, eyes open, all those of our warriors who have fought, bleed, suffered and/or died in that AO...
What do we expect to receive? Both from those who survived the fight and live among us, and those who will be needed to fill the shield wall once the purpose of service gets nulled and voided?
Soldiers fight to win. They don’t fight to appease snivelers, weak sucks, self flagellating defeatists, enemy lovers, etc.
The enemy isn’t going to pull back and waite until we have a Republican President
The Teliban and Al Qaida are supported by countries with nuclear weapons.
It also takes a few with strap-on weapons or bio weapons walking down an American street to take out hundreds or thousands or people.
The terrorists who flew the plane into the Pentagon lived 6 miles from me here in San Diego.
I have several relatives in the Marines and have done several tours. They would like to take out the enemy
there rather than fight them here.
I really don’t have access to the MSM most days. But I’ve heard stories of Karzai’s corruption and his attempt to make piece with Taliban from a well-respected commentator, himself a former military intelligence officer. Problem with maintaining a holding pattern paid for in blood, however, is that the drive-bys tend to turn against that sort of thing, as they did with Dubya. Now if you were President Obama, and a fake, phony fraud and a coward down to your bones, would you risk that kind of a strategy? That’s my bottom line. He will not do it. It might be he ought to. There might be no other way. But he’s not going out on a limb for any so’jers, not if it costs him approval rating points. He’ll just show up to be photographed at Dover, saluting their remains and looking “dignified,” and he’ll have plenty of photo opportunities.
There are millions of collage kiddies who will be glad to enforce along with those from the outside.
When freedoms are stripped the above is doable.
I spent time in East Germany in 1983. I saw first hand how this is done.
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.