17,000 More Troops To Afghanistan
 

So yesterday when passing the stimulas bill Obama announced more troops are going over seas. What's his exit strategy, how long will they be there, what's is his goals, when will we know his goals are met. etc.... I did not here any of these concerns addressed when he announced his troop build up.

[URL="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/18/obama.afghanistan.canada/index.html"]Obama: Troops alone cannot win in Afghanistan - CNN.com[/URL]

Re: 17,000 More Troops To Afghanistan
 

[quote=firstdown;527686]So yesterday when passing the stimulas bill Obama announced more troops are going over seas. [B]What's his exit strategy, how long will they be there, what's is his goals, when will we know his goals are met. etc....[/B] I did not here any of these concerns addressed when he announced his troop build up.

[URL="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/18/obama.afghanistan.canada/index.html"]Obama: Troops alone cannot win in Afghanistan - CNN.com[/URL][/quote]
Don't you know those things only matter when Bush does it?

But anyway this is one of the few things I actually agree with Obama on.

Re: 17,000 More Troops To Afghanistan
 

[quote=steveo395;527695]Don't you know those things only matter when Bush does it?

But anyway this is one of the few things I actually agree with Obama on.[/quote]
I do to but I'm having fun with his lack of details.

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

There seems to be this stupid game going on right now of comparing everything back to Bush and it just seems so childish and unproductive to me. It's almost like a 5 year old whining to his Mom that Billy got away with something so why can't he. Is it possible to just talk about the issues at hand instead of getting into this ridiculous game of finger pointing?

Re: 17,000 More Troops To Afghanistan
 

[quote=steveo395;527695]Don't you know those things only matter when Bush does it?

But anyway this is one of the few things [B]I actually agree with Obama on[/B].[/quote]
i voted for Obama, but i disagree with this. im trying to figure out what exactly the United States is trying to accomplish?

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

Thankfully our new President isn't as petty as many of the people who voted for him, and believes that the best way to right any previous wrongs is not to look back but move forward. The Democrats have wanted their guy in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for nearly a decade now. "Once we get our guy in the White House, things will change." Well they're not going to change if all you want to do is harp on the past. Were there problems with the Bush administration? Of course. Just like there were with Clinton, H.W. Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower, Truman, and so on. And I know, those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it, or whatever the saying is. I don't think it's a matter of Obama and his administration ignoring the past, it's a matter of not dwelling on it.

(this could just as easily go in the silly senate investigation thread as well).

Re: 17,000 More Troops To Afghanistan
 

[quote=dmek25;527702]i voted for Obama, but i disagree with this. im trying to figure out what exactly the United States is trying to accomplish?[/quote]

Hadn't he been saying for months that we needed to redirect troops to Afghanistan to fight the insurgents and find Bin Laden?

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

[quote=Mattyk72;527700]There seems to be this stupid game going on right now of comparing everything back to Bush and it just seems so childish and unproductive to me. It's almost like a 5 year old whining to his Mom that Billy got away with something so why can't he. Is it possible to just talk about the issues at hand instead of getting into this ridiculous game of finger pointing?[/quote]
I was joking to a point but why demand time lines and dates and such from one president but not another. Isn't that a double standard? I just remember all the fuss when we had the troop build up in Iraq a year or so ago and isn't that what we are doing in Afghanistan?

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

[quote=firstdown;527749]I was joking to a point but why demand time lines and dates and such from one president but not another. Isn't that a double standard? I just remember all the fuss when we had the troop build up in Iraq a year or so ago and isn't that what we are doing in Afghanistan?[/quote]

Nobody demanded time lines until Iraq was dragging out and we appeared to be spinning our wheels. If the same thing ends up happening in Afghanistan we can be pretty sure people will want the same kind of answers.

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

[quote=Mattyk72;527760]Nobody demanded time lines until Iraq was dragging out and we appeared to be spinning our wheels. If the same thing ends up happening in Afghanistan we can be pretty sure people will want the same kind of answers.[/quote]

[url=http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2185]DefenseLink News Transcript: Secretary Rumsfeld Remarks on ABC "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"[/url]
This interview was 2wks after the start of the war, I did a very quick google so there are probably others. The question of "How long" is always asked when troops are put into danger zones, although the answer is usually more to serve political needs than reality.

[quote]ANNOUNCER: This morning, as the war enters its second week, [B]new questions about how long it might last[/B].

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: However long it takes. That's the answer to your question, and that's what you've got to know. [/quote]

[quote]MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: [B]Do you think we'll still be fighting in Iraq six months from now[/B]?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, goodness, you know, I've never -- we've never had a timetable. We've always said it could be days, weeks, or months and we don't know.[/quote]

I showed both the question - to prove that it was asked from the start, and the answer, to show that Pres. Obama could answer as well without giving specifics.

Re: 17,000 More Troops To Afghanistan
 

[quote=SmootSmack;527704]Hadn't he been saying for months that we needed to redirect troops to Afghanistan to fight the insurgents and [B]find Bin Laden[/B]?[/quote]

PFFT...That was the first things that Obamma took care of. Don't you remember this?

[URL="http://news-en.trend.az/politics/foreign/1407615.html"]Trend News : Angry civilians protest civilian deaths in Afghanistan[/URL]

Why else would we target civilians.

Of course I am not serious.

More

[url=http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200990218004]US general visits Afghan bomb site for death claim | CITIZEN-TIMES.com | Asheville Citizen-Times[/url]

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

[quote=Mattyk72;527700]There seems to be this stupid game going on right now of comparing everything back to Bush and it just seems so childish and unproductive to me. It's almost like a 5 year old whining to his Mom that Billy got away with something so why can't he. Is it possible to just talk about the issues at hand instead of getting into this ridiculous game of finger pointing?[/quote]

Seriously? The bullshit way in which Bush and his administration were treated just gets thrown out now? What a bunch of hypocrites the lefties are. Democrats spent years harping on everything and making political battles through disinformation and down right lying on many occasions (not to forget they were right on a lot of things too.) Now when righties start pointing stuff out it is "childish and unproductive" What a joke. I understand the tit for tat being seen negatively viewed but that doesn't mean the last administration, or the one before it was treated fairly. It is one of the biggest problems with Washington and Obama was sent to "change" it. Good luck Barack. That is if you actually have the stones to try and "change" it. Nothing so far indicates that you do.

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

[quote=Mattyk72;527760]Nobody demanded time lines until Iraq was dragging out and we appeared to be spinning our wheels. If the same thing ends up happening in Afghanistan we can be pretty sure people will want the same kind of answers.[/quote]

No no no. Once Iraq turned around after we refocused our previously misguided efforts the rhetoric from the Obama campaign never changed. He never once said the surge worked and he simply played politics with it. Isn't that true?

I am simply trying to dispell this crazy notion that Obama is any different than any other politician and this idea of "change", a real tangible different way of our country being governed" is ever coming under him. He ahs already showsn signs of busniess as usual.

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

Back to the topic...

Obama is supposed to reveal details about their strategy after a 60 day review

[url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-02-17-afghanistan-forces_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip]Obama's war: Deploying 17,000 raises stakes in Afghanistan - USATODAY.com[/url]

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

[quote=FRPLG;527787]Seriously? The bullshit way in which Bush and his administration were treated just gets thrown out now? What a bunch of hypocrites the lefties are. Democrats spent years harping on everything and making political battles through disinformation and down right lying on many occasions (not to forget they were right on a lot of things too.) Now when righties start pointing stuff out it is "childish and unproductive" What a joke. I understand the tit for tat being seen negatively viewed but that doesn't mean the last administration, or the one before it was treated fairly. It is one of the biggest problems with Washington and Obama was sent to "change" it. Good luck Barack. That is if you actually have the stones to try and "change" it. Nothing so far indicates that you do.[/quote]

I'm talking more of what goes on here.

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

[quote=Mattyk72;527808]I'm talking more of what goes on here.[/quote]

I do tend to agree there has been too much of the snarkyness in that regard.

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

[quote=Mattyk72;527700]There seems to be this stupid game going on right now of comparing everything back to Bush and it just seems so childish and unproductive to me. It's almost like a 5 year old whining to his Mom that Billy got away with something so why can't he. Is it possible to just talk about the issues at hand instead of getting into this ridiculous game of finger pointing?[/quote]I think you have to admit, objectively, that the media response to a given incident today compared to an identical event from, say, 2 years ago is downright hilarious.

Obama deserves every chance to try to correct our foreign affairs, but let's not act like he's going to get half the resistance that Bush would have on this move.

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

[quote=Mattyk72;527807]Back to the topic...

Obama is supposed to reveal details about their strategy after a 60 day review

[URL="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-02-17-afghanistan-forces_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip"]Obama's war: Deploying 17,000 raises stakes in Afghanistan - USATODAY.com[/URL][/quote]
Well the General asked for the men so he did what was right and gave the orders. I just hope that after 60 days he gives us the information that we need and no more. As Americans we need to be informed but not if it causes any information to go out that could help the bad guys in any way. That was my biggest problem with all the people demanding that Bush tell us everything and the information that was leaked to the public. If there needs to be debate about whats going on do it behind closed doors with a group from both parties and clasify the information as such making any leaks of info a war crime. We are at war and need to remember that not all information should be released.

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

The fact that this was announced in a simple press release, rather than a speech tells me that The White House is not sold on the strategy and doesn't reallly want to own it. Their problem is that in the campaign they didn't want to be seen as anti-war in the code-pink/Jane Fonda sense of the term so they cast Afghanistan as the "good war" to contrast it with the "unnecessary, bad war" in Iraq and now they're somewhat boxed in.

Problem is, Afghanistan was actually the "bad war" all along from a military standpoint. The solution in Iraq seems comically simple by comparison. Petraeus convinced the Sunnis that if the violence continued, the Americans would leave and they would all be slaughtered by the Shiites and then to be sure, he bought them off. The classic stick and carrot. The Jihadis that are vexing us in the border regions obviously have no interest in making deals. And they know that Obama would not pay much of a political price at this point if he threw in the towel. It seems we've seen this film before. No not Red Dawn, although that works too. No, not Easter Parade. Oh yeah, Vietnam.

At some point I suspect Obama will find some face saving way of basically withdrawing. As the saying goes, "Declare victory and depart the field."

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

[quote=70Chip;527845]The fact that this was announced in a simple press release, rather than a speech tells me that The White House is not sold on the strategy and doesn't reallly want to own it. Their problem is that in the campaign they didn't want to be seen as anti-war in the code-pink/Jane Fonda sense of the term so they cast Afghanistan as the "good war" to contrast it with the "unnecessary, bad war" in Iraq and now they're somewhat boxed in.

Problem is, Afghanistan was actually the "bad war" all along from a military standpoint. The solution in Iraq seems comically simple by comparison. Petraeus convinced the Sunnis that if the violence continued, the Americans would leave and they would all be slaughtered by the Shiites and then to be sure, he bought them off. The classic stick and carrot. The Jihadis that are vexing us in the border regions obviously have no interest in making deals. And they know that Obama would not pay much of a political price at this point if he threw in the towel. It seems we've seen this film before. No not Red Dawn, although that works too. No, not Easter Parade. Oh yeah, Vietnam.

At some point I suspect Obama will find some face saving way of basically withdrawing. As the saying goes, "Declare victory and depart the field."[/quote]
I'll agree with your first part if he does press release when he has had his 60 days to determine what actions he want to take. He really has not had alot of time to look over the entire thing in Afghanistan but after 60 days from then on is his.

Re: 17,000 More Troops To Afghanistan
 

[quote=dmek25;527702]i voted for Obama, but i disagree with this. im trying to figure out what exactly the United States is trying to accomplish?[/quote]
Make sure the Taliban/extremists don't take hold of the country and we wind up with another 9/11 ten years from now.

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

[quote=70Chip;527845]The fact that this was announced in a simple press release, rather than a speech tells me that The White House is not sold on the strategy and doesn't reallly want to own it. Their problem is that in the campaign they didn't want to be seen as anti-war in the code-pink/Jane Fonda sense of the term so they cast Afghanistan as the "good war" to contrast it with the "unnecessary, bad war" in Iraq and now they're somewhat boxed in.

Problem is, Afghanistan was actually the "bad war" all along from a military standpoint. The solution in Iraq seems comically simple by comparison. Petraeus convinced the Sunnis that if the violence continued, the Americans would leave and they would all be slaughtered by the Shiites and then to be sure, he bought them off. The classic stick and carrot. The Jihadis that are vexing us in the border regions obviously have no interest in making deals. And they know that Obama would not pay much of a political price at this point if he threw in the towel. It seems we've seen this film before. No not Red Dawn, although that works too. No, not Easter Parade. Oh yeah, Vietnam.

At some point I suspect Obama will find some face saving way of basically withdrawing. As the saying goes, "Declare victory and depart the field."[/quote]


We actually agree. The alternative to declaring victory where there is none is to tell people we're making progress where there is none. I prefer declaring victory and abandoning a hopeless and sinking ship. This Afgani venture will not end well...many have tried in the past and all have failed. To think we can succeeded is fantastic.

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

[quote=saden1;527855]We actually agree. The alternative to declaring victory where there is none is to tell people we're making progress where there is none. I prefer declaring victory and abandoning a hopeless and sinking ship. This Afgani venture will not end well...many have tried in the past and all have failed. To think we can succeeded is fantastic.[/quote]

Not sure where you get your news but we have had great progress fighting the bad guys there. I think the real problem is the minute we let our guard down they come back and hunker down to fight again. I just don't think we can ignore them any longer and when we do they will strike us. I don't know if anyone knows the solution but doing nothing will some day lead them back here to attack us and another 9/11. Maybe its just a case of keeping them runing so they cannot organize like they once did. Remeber we have to get it right a 100% of the time and they only have to get it right once.

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

[quote="SmootSmack"]Were there problems with the Bush administration? Of course. Just like there were with Clinton, H.W. Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower, Truman, and so on.[/quote]

Your wrong dude! Its not [I]Just Like[/I]..........................Bush was waaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond [I]Just Like[/I]. Carter, Reagan, Ford, Clinton, those guys didn't crash the housing market, crash the economy, crash the world relations, start a war without a plan, appoint a lottery lawyer to the Supreme Court, out a undercover CIA agent, strum a guitar when his city is buried under 5 feet of water, or read a book when their country is under attack. There is nothing [I]just like [/I]that in any of the other Presidents you mentioned. And no offense or nothing, but saying so is kind of offensive to those President's Legacies.



As far as the troop build up goes...............I like it and I hate it. Our military is stretched thin enough as it is. It kind of sucks that they are going to be stretched even thinner now, but it does sound like its needed. I mean, when the Commanding General publicly said, "Its going to be a tough year." I can't help but think that 17,000 is just barely enough.

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

[quote=firstdown;528017]Not sure where you get your news but we have had great progress fighting the bad guys there. I think the real problem is the minute we let our guard down they come back and hunker down to fight again. I just don't think we can ignore them any longer and when we do they will strike us. I don't know if anyone knows the solution but doing nothing will some day lead them back here to attack us and another 9/11. Maybe its just a case of keeping them runing so they cannot organize like they once did. Remeber we have to get it right a 100% of the time and they only have to get it right once.[/quote]

Riiiight....and I'm making progress in my training for the NFL.

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

Changing the subject some. Now that Obama is comitting more troops in Afgan and it seems he may even double that ammount what is he going to do with the guys we capture? I think this could be the most interesting part.

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

Wow, I did a search for Afghanistan, figuring we would have had some discussions on it recently. There were some miscellaneous posts, but this was the most clearly relevant. This has been a way more quiet campaign, my bias against the media would say it was deliberate to keep pressure off President Obama, than the daily reports and counts from Iraq.

We have been laying siege for 7 days in this one town, but I don't see numbers of injured like we did on the daily Iraq count. Maybe we have been brutally efficient, but in door to door fighting, and with the opposition having "skilled sharpshooters" preventing us from advancing, I find it hard to believe that no major casualties have been suffered.
Here is the yahoo news link:[url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100219/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan]US Marines airdropped into Taliban-held territory - Yahoo! News[/url]

Re: 17,000 More Troops To Afghanistan
 

[quote=firstdown;527686]So yesterday when passing the stimulas bill Obama announced more troops are going over seas. What's his exit strategy, how long will they be there, what's is his goals, when will we know his goals are met. etc.... I did not here any of these concerns addressed when he announced his troop build up.

[URL="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/18/obama.afghanistan.canada/index.html"]Obama: Troops alone cannot win in Afghanistan - CNN.com[/URL][/quote]
Years late, it's about time.

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

[quote=firstdown;527749]I was joking to a point but why demand time lines and dates and such from one president but not another. Isn't that a double standard? I just remember all the fuss when we had the troop build up in Iraq a year or so ago and isn't that what we are doing in Afghanistan?[/quote]
Who are you referring to demanding time lines? There were years in Iraq before that got to even be a major focal point.

It's this petty shit that keeps people uninformed and sensationalized.

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

I read NATO all over that article and just wonder who the is running our troops. I also wonder why the heck an officer or who ever would leak (read that somewhere else) that we are dropping guys in there and why the HE!! the press prints this stuff that can endanger our troops? There have been over 10 civilian deaths but I have not really heard anything about those in the news. When Bush was in charge if a troop touched someone wrong it was headline news for a week and Dems would want a hearing into what happened.

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

Sorry, I pulled this up from last year, I know I shoulda made a new one, especially with the start dates so similar. It just amazed me that no new discussion on Afghanistan in nearly a year

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

I have always thought that the Afghani campaign was not given much press, even under Bush, and have always wondered why. I too saw Obama characterize this as the "Good War" and thought that, unlike past Afghani campaigns, this one might be winnable - i.e. establishing a stable govt. that limited the terror groups operating within its borders.

Unlike the Russians and Britons, I didn't see us as trying to establish a client state. Perhaps that is just a mistaken view on my part.

Regardless, it has always struck me as odd how the Afghani campaign has been such a low profile war.

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

LOL... Read through the thread without realizing most of it was from a year ago.

Sorta proves the point about the media coverage.

Why the lack of interest by America? Is it b/c the economy, health care and the snow storm have driven it from our minds? How long does Obama plan to be there? Are we trying to establish a client State? Are our efforts in this country in vain?

We have lost ~ 1,000 men in "and around" Afghanistan. Where is the discussion as to the neccesity, or lack thereof, for there sacrifice?

Just curious.

Re: 17,000 More Troops Afghanistan
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;664777]LOL... Read through the thread without realizing most of it was from a year ago.

Sorta proves the point about the media coverage.

Why the lack of interest by America? Is it b/c the economy, health care and the snow storm have driven it from our minds? How long does Obama plan to be there? Are we trying to establish a client State? Are our efforts in this country in vain?

We have lost ~ 1,000 men in "and around" Afghanistan. Where is the discussion as to the neccesity, or lack thereof, for there sacrifice?

Just curious.[/quote]

That was my point exactly. Amazing that we could discuss the nuances of Iraq daily for 8 years, while soldiers have been in the mountains of Afghanistan, with much of the same dangers and tasks, and not hear nearly as much discussion. I would tend to think that Iraq was Bush's war, and the Dem's saw it as a way to make political hay. Conversely, Afghanistan is a joint Rep/Dem war, and Republicans aren't generally going to bash military action, so there is no significant counter to an ongoing military siege. It just simply amazes me. Could anybody imagine a 7 day siege and advance in Iraq, or Vietnam, or any past war not receiving Major headlines??