[Bigtigermike]

At long last, President Obama decided to give his military commanders much of what they need to accomplish their mission in Afghanistan. In the end, he decided to endorse a “surge” for Afghanistan, applying the counterinsurgency principles of “clear, hold and build” that worked so well in Iraq. Given that he opposed the surge in Iraq, it is even more welcome that he now supports a surge in Afghanistan.

This approach means, as Senator John McCain has noted, that “We now have an opportunity to build a bipartisan consensus in support of a vital national security priority: defeating Al-Qaeda and its violent extremist allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and ensuring that these countries never again serve as bases for terrorist attacks against America and our allies.”

We should be clear, however, that fewer troops mean assuming more risk. Talk of an exit date also risks sending the wrong message. We should be in Afghanistan to win, not to set a timetable for withdrawal that signals a lack of resolve to our friends, and lets our enemies believe they can wait us out. As long as we’re in to win, and as long as troop level decisions are based on conditions on the ground and the advice of our military commanders, I support President Obama’s decision.

- Sarah Palin

[Lakeshark]

Reading other comments, I'm surprised at how many think this wasn't a great statement. She disses him for his past decision and indecision, then welcomes his coming to the realization that she did three months ago. Finally, she clearly asks him to engage a winning strategy proposed by the commanders, while dissing him on the timetable.

All while signing books.......

Pure genius.

The left must be reeling.

[word_warrior_bob]

I’m about 50 posts in and it seems a bunch of you have a hard time reading between the lines or simply have it in for Sarah Palin.

1. Palin said, fewer troops means assuming more risk, alluding to the fact that Obama didn’t give all of the requested troops in the requested time.

2. Talk of an exit date also sends the wrong message, meaning you don’t tip your hand and give the enemy hope of holding out until we leave. I don’t know if Obama is actually tipping his hand or saying something strategic at the behest of the Military. Knowing Obama he’s likely tipping his hand.

3. ...as long as troop level decisions are based on conditions on the ground and the advice of our military commanders... She knows damn well that Obama DID NOT give what was requested, it’s a direct shot at Obama.

I don’t know how anyone could read this and say she’s jumping up and down and thrilled with what Obama did. Some just want to take shots or Palin, didn’t read what she said, or don’t understand what she said.

[JohnBovenmyer]

Excellent choice of words by Sarah. She CAN’T be seen as not supporting a plausible war effort or the left will crucify her with OUR words. How many times since 911 have all conservatives of note, from Rush on down, blasted various members of the left for NOT supporting the President on the war? Yet she slipped in four little words that leave her plenty of room to chide Obama whenever his war support is less than hers, “mostly” and “as long as.” And her title is brilliant. I suspect Obama will come to hate “in it to win it” nearly as much as “death panels!” Obama knows he doesn’t dare deny he’s “in it to win it” as much as he knows he’s not in it to win it. We should strive to pin Sarah’s phrase to Obama’s oratory; make as many people believe he said it as thought Sarah said the Tina Fey “I can see Russia from my house” quote. It would both force Obama to support the war more than he wants and drive Obama and the left crazy.

[VOA]

“
Sarah Palin: Finally, A Decision for Afghanistan: We’re In It to Win It
“

Gov. Palin, I don’t doubt your intent.

But we won’t know if the current President is in it.
Until the EFFECTIVE Rules of Engagement are apparent.

If Obama doesn’t (in polite terms) say: When you confront combatants
that are shooting at you, shoot to kill.

Because we ain’t gonna’ have Gitmo to warehouse them.

Of course, if Obama issues such ROEs, I’ll have a freakin’ heart attack.

[pvoce]

Why all of the fuss? She knows and we know that its half-hearted at best. But we take what we can get, and even she doubted that mentioning an exit strategy was a good idea (of which there have been very few).

If this is based upon the needs of the military leadership in order to achieve mission objectives and win, it beats having done nothing.

[onedoug]

Getting ready to endorse McCain for another Senate run?

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

She's been reading the classics, with respect to political warfare...

In all fighting, the direct method may be used for joining battle, but indirect methods will be needed in order to secure victory. In battle, there are not more than two methods of attack - the direct and the indirect; yet these two in combination give rise to an endless series of maneuvers. The direct and the indirect lead on to each other in turn. It is like moving in a circle - you never come to an end. Who can exhaust the possibilities of their combination?

- Sun Tzu

[Scythian]

Obama never mentioned the word Victory once in the speech. Announcing 30,000 troops and then in the next breath saying in 18 months we leave is a clear message to the Taliban to lay low, it will be yours soon, and it passifies the radical left as well, all is lost ... I would not serve under this man, I would not let my life be wasted for him and him alone.

[Logic n' Reason]

At long last, President Obama decided to give his military commanders much of what they need (in war - I assume this is war - you don't give military commanders "much of what they need". You give them everything they ask for...and then some. If the assets are then "mis-used", you fire the commanders and find new ones. You DO NOT provide "much of what they need" to accomplish their mission) in Afghanistan. In the end, he decided to endorse a “surge” for Afghanistan, applying the counterinsurgency principles of “clear, hold and build” that worked so well in Iraq. Given that he opposed the surge in Iraq, it is even more welcome that he now supports a surge in Afghanistan.
". . . and Pakistan (anyone hear our islamosocialist muslim-in-chief say anything at all about Pakistan?? I sure didn't - must be mcloser's hearing going bad again), and ensuring that these countries never again (nothing like an idiotic, baseless platitude to calm the masses - "never again" my Aunt Tilly's garters!) serve as bases for terrorist attacks against America and our allies.”
We should be clear, however, that fewer troops mean assuming more risk. (True...sadly and awfully true...and as always, the use of this neutral word "risk" falls squarely on the back of the military troops in the field. The ones doing the dirty work and tragic dying for the current islamosocialist muslim-in-chief) Talk of an exit date also risks sending the wrong message (it doesn't "risk" sending the wrong message - IT IS THE WRONG MESSAGE! - The enemy eats this stuff up). We should be in Afghanistan to win, not to set a timetable for withdrawal that signals a lack of resolve to our friends, and lets our enemies believe they can wait us out. This is - or should have been - the whole speech; it is all that needed to be said, other than the statement that we'd be sending 90,000 combat troops in at once. As long as we’re in to win, and as long as troop level decisions are based on conditions on the ground and the advice of our military commanders, I support President Obama’s decision.

[EBH]

I am very sorry, but she is way off base with this statement. He is not in it to win it, semi-stablized maybe, but the escalation is for more sinister reasons.

In Nov. ‘06 it was senior democrats who attempted to reinstitute the DRAFT!

0bama mentioned several times the issue with Pakistan during the campaign. He even piqued the anti-war folks about his Pakistan rhetoric during the campaign. Afghanastan is a launching point for Pakistan. 0bama needs a war. All fascist governments need a war and a draft.

The question is can 0bama rally his left? This one time, like a stopped clock, they just might be correct.

[WalterSkinner]

..my advice to the governor would be to never mention the name of John McCain, ever...

[dforest]

Sarah jumps in too soon. A mistake.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

She’s not a neo-con OK?

[hattend]

bttt