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.
Already armed, Canned food is good to have though. I like Spam myself.
This guy is pure evil. He must be impeached, or removed from office over whatever we can conjure up.
Abso-freakin’-lutely unbelievable. This guy is a man-child. Completely out of his depth. He doesn’t know what to do except turn and run. Which will embolden the Taliban and result in slaughter. Obama’s Vietnam. And what talk like this does to our troops. This man is despicable.
Totally unacceptable.
People have a short memory.
Iraq was worse than AFghn. and the surge
turned around Iraq and many of the issues there.
This could be done in Afghanistan, would be on a different
level but if not, this area will be beyond a staging area for terrorists attacks all over the world on a larger scale.
Iran & Russia will be even larger players.
Americans who have fought there, especially the wounded, and families of the Killed in action rather than know they helped a country, it’s people and stopped a staging area for more terrorism on America will feel, for what, for surrender. There is going to be millions of bitter and
enraged American military and their families if Obama
surrenders.
Anyone with a minimal understanding of the Pakhtuns, the core of the Taliban, knows that is not possible.
They have fought each other for practice, when no foreign enemy can be found.
Nation building? There are no railroad tracks in the entire country, 10% of the population has some form of hepatitis, fewer than that can read.
Stopping the drug trade? After 8 years of military domination, they still grow, transport and sell 92% of the world's heroin, which sells for $3/gram in Kabul.
Their two largest cities never had a connecting road until we built one five years ago and it is a death trap.
A treaty with the Taliban. Why didn’t I think of that?
1 - Defeat of Al Qaeda to where they do not have safe haven there.
2 - yes. If you are asking can we bring them out of the 7th century the answer is no. There are a billion people or more living in the 7th century but they all are not running planes into our buildings. So yes, it is possible for us to change them to the extent that they are not a threat to us.
3 - Yes (see #2)
This is what happens when you elect a jackass with a twelve year-old mind and put him in charge of adult toys. All those mullahs and other raghead dogs must be crying tears of joy in their prayers of thanskgiving to Allah that they have been given a retarded dunce as an enemy.
Having J Fn Kerry on site and then pontificating on the situation was/is too obvious to ignore.
One way or another zerO is going to throw this in the trash bin.
All this drama and assigning the top generals has simply been to tarnish the generals so they will be less influential as public opinion shapers.
The zerO will do what he can to discredit and tarnish the military as a respected entity.
As terrible as this will be and as incompetent as the zer0 has proven to be, the libs will vote for him again.
Expediency. Give ‘em ear candy until you no longer need them. Predictable narcissist move.
Agreed. We need more troops if only to be the anvil to Pakistan's hammer.
We cut and run and we're in essence deserting the Paks.
Obama is simply on the enemy’s side. It’ll take a while before most Americans understand this.
“But a negotiated peace at this juncture would allow the Taleban to claim— with a great deal of evidence— that they humbed “the Great Satan.””
Unfit for command.
Heads up.
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.