Posted on 12/01/2009 7:43:51 PM PST by Bigtigermike
Three months ago, I joined a number of Americans in urging President Obama to provide the resources necessary to achieve our goals in Afghanistan. Tonight, I am glad he mostly heeded that advice........
Her response was to the substance of the decision, not the words used. She criticized the delay in making the decision, and the mention of withdrawal while saying that we’ll be watching to make sure that he holds to his commitments. Had her response been a total negative, she would have defined herself as opposed from the start and wishing for a failure. A smart response.
We all know what he really said was that he caved in and agreed to send more troops but that he will pull them out if they don’t get the job done right away (McCrystal’s fault) or if the Afghans play games (Karzei’s fault), or if there are too many casualties (he’ll blame that on Bush).
Sarah Palin is our country’s shadow president right now.
Only in your mind!! You have one vote!!
It's not just that.
If we hand Afghanistan back to Al Quaeda and the Taliban ( which is what we will be effectively doing), we are going to get another attack on this country that will make 9/11 look like child's play.
What can we do is we withdraw and they attack us again? We'd have already effectively told them that we are not going to do much about it by withdrawing.
Thank you.
I agree with her.
But perhaps, she should have reversed the order of her phrases in her last sentence. The last phrase carried more weight than the set up.
Your right. We have to kill every Taliban and Al Qaeda, because if we don’t, all they will do is regroup and attack us again. They are constantly thinking of new ways to kill us, we have to kill them. They probably already have biological weapons, nothing they have would surprise me
Yeah I agree
Nateman - THAT is REALLY gross!!!! Seriously.
She is off base on this one: She admits that setting a timetable is not a good idea yet she supports Obama’s overall approach. That doesn’t make sense. Sorry, Sarah - you lost me on this one.
I agree with those who say she’s missed the boat on this one; however, so have all the other politicians whose statements I’ve seen. I want to hear Sarah Palin articulate what our national interest is in that regions of the world. Its got to be something along the lines of insuring that Afghanistan is never again used as a base for launching attacks against, or trying to destabilize, us or our allies. The strategy for achieving that follows.
She “boxed” him in with this Machiavellian statement.
And that is relevant how? It's like Cindy sheehan claiming her son died in Iraq so therefore she has the right to tell this country what to do about Al Queda terrorists, namely is surrender to them.
Meanwhile, how do I even know you have served in ANY war or even been in the military at all?
You posting record here says the exact opposite of that.
Anyone van be a King on the internet.
“And the day the last man pulls out of Iraq, Iran will drive in bet on it.”
I wouldn't bet on that.
In fact, I'd be on the exact opposite of that.
How do you even know if the genocidal Iranian regime that wants to wipe Israel off the face of this planet, will even be in power 4 years from now?
They don't seem to be having an easy time of it even keeping their own citizens under control right now.
Read it again. Slowly. Especially the entire last sentence. She does not support his approach at all and states it.
Easy.
Supports the troop increase.
Against the timetable.
She is NOT agreeing with Obama’s “speech”. She is NOT agreeing with him on the time limits.
She IS agreeing with him, and commends him for adding more troops. (Actualy, her comments come across more like “Thank you Mr. President for finally seeing it our way). And, she goes on to say what adding more troops has meant in the past, and why they SHOULD be added today. (Well, 3 months ago, but you know what I mean.)
More troops to clear, keep and build territory. SHE explained the reasons. Even if Obama just added them because he figured he needed to do SOMETHING - she explained what the rest of us want to see come from it.
I think she made some good comments.
1970-1976 Since you asked. And I still remember walking through Atlanta airport in A’s and having a Delta stew stop me and drop a cigarette butt in my hand and laughing at the gesture. So we have some things in common.
I do not support nation-buiiding in the sense that we make a long-term commitment to a regime.
You have to admit, this is a different type of war than what we’ve faced in the past. There are no nation-states that are combatants. We are facing a bunch of religious zealots that are aligned with an ideal, not a nation. This is going to have to be fought in a different way. Frankly, the war in Iraq was still against a nation-state, the Taliban is not. Al-Quida is not.
But what sense does it make to announce to our enemies that we are going to send 30,000 more troops and then start to withdraw them in 18 months. There has to be SOMETHING to use as a guage. I don’t want to withdraw our guys in 18 months to have to re-deploy them again in another 18 months. If the “mission” is to break the back of the Taliban, then that is the mission.
Since you think this is “nation-building”, what guage would you use?
I have a questions for Sarah - which military commanders recommended an 18-month timetable for Afghanistan? I think she came across as sounding, dare I say, a politician, on this one.
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.