Posted on 11/11/2009 7:40:42 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The Associated Press is reporting that President Obama "does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government." It has been obvious for some time that Obama has no intention of fighting to win in Afghanistan, as he promised during the presidential campaign. A battle plan that includes provisions for how and when the U.S. can extricate itself from the field is a blueprint for defeat, not victory.
The pretext for Obama's decision to return to the drawing board is a report from newly appointed ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, who has expressed misgivings about sending in more troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Karzai is, in essence, the mayor of Kabul. The success of our troops is not contingent on Karzai's leadership. The Afghan leadership that matters is that of the local leaders in areas where we are combatting the insurgency. But what matters most is our determination to protect civilians in these areas. Obama, it seems, lacks that determination.
If it were true, however, that Karzai poses the obstacle to success that Eikenberry perceives, Obama should decide not to send in any more troops and should seriously considering bringing home the troops who are in Afghanistan now. But, according to AP, this is not what the president has in mind. Instead, he reportedly is leaning towards adding 30,000 or more U.S. forces. Half would fight and the other half would training and hold ground. And, as noted, there would be some sort of provision to "clarify" when the U.S. would bug out.
So let's get this straight: Karzai is too pathetic to justify sending in the 40,000 troops Obama's hand-picked commander wants, but sufficiently able to justify sending in 30,000.
As weak war leaders go, Karzai takes a back-seat to President Obama.
Viet Nam a la Lyndon Baines Johnson redux!
After what? 3 months?
Screw you, Zero. I hope you’re happy with blood on your hands....you B’TARD.
Want to lose a war? Elect a democrat.
He won’t send in more troops to kill his brothers.
but he told us this was the “good war” and losing wasnt an option
Oh, but he lied, he lied like he always does.
I really don’t like this person, we mistakenly elected as President. He is anti everything I believe in. I will do everything in my legal power to remove him from office. He is anti American to me and I will not sit still for it anymore. Iowa, WTF were you thinking?
the reality is = he probably is.
Does he see it as the blood of infidels?
We need to remember that, in Islam, it is allowed to lie, if it's for a good cause.
His cause: to get control of America...
Obama’s setting up for an ambush on mass scale???
Alright... I’m confused now, are we or aren’t we?
That sounds rather inbred and cyclic to me.
HF
Hey zero, lead, follow, or get the f*** out of the way, you chickensh!+.
Obama is leaving tomorrow for a 9 day trip to China. He won’t make a decision until he gets back according to news reports.
Between this and the altered ROE, our troops are hurting. Happy Veteran’s day.
Obama “Happy Veterans Day guys, screw you!”
“Rahm, Valarie, Jerimiah, Bill Ayers: — How would we do all dis in the Chitown hood????
Les jest knock down another few bottles of Ripple, an make some decisions about tha future of da world!
Michelle? Nah! she be in her garden wit the little folks!
Screw her!
Do you think he realizes that not making a decision is in fact a “decision” to do nothing.
Just when I think my respect could go no lower.....
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.