1 I guarantee that no war was ever won by someone who advertised the end date!

2 Under 10% of his administation have private sector experience --I wonder how many have military experience?

3 Don't think of it as a timetable, think of it as an expiration date. Unprecedented!

4 To qoute Der Spiegel in Germany; Obama's speech left a bad taste in many people's mouths.  Who knew that Obama was Bill Clinton returned to service his interns?

5 This movie ends with helicopters fleeing the US Embassy.

6 It ain't gonna work. It can't. The insurgents now know to lay low for a few months, make it "look" like we won, and we'll bug out. Just plain stupid.

7 When has Barry ever shown a long term 'commitment' to anything?

Exit question:  Will Afghanistan fit under that bus?

8 Hey, we won The War Of 1812, didn't we? Let's call this The War of May 2010 to August 2011.

9 In what way does ObamaÂ’s artificial timetable meet that basic stricture of counterinsurgency? Earth Logic.

There. FIFY.

10 He tried to please everyone and therefore will please no one.

This is all about him.

11

Obama's going to run a meat grinder for U.S. troops for 18 months.  If that's the decision, then he should just announce defeat and bug out now.  As American War Hero and Intellectual Cosmopoitan John Kerry said, "who wants to be the last soldier to die for a mistake"?

12 This is all about him.

Has there been anything in the last 11 months that wasn't?

13

What struck me most about the speech were the "but"s  explicit and implied. 

We are going to do this - but we can't really do it...

That kind of stuff.  To me, that was the entire speech.

14 What makes me truly sick at heart is the suspicion that Obama wants this effort to fail so that he can pull all the troops out at once in a Vietnam-esque orgy of anti-military and anti-American humiliation that will energize his liberal base just in time for the 2012 election.

He's been using the military for his own personal political reasons since he came to power and this will be no exception.

15 I will never understand you people. You say every one of my statements come with an expiration date. Now that I actually put an expiration date into the statement you freak out. There is just no pleasing you guys. The hell with you. I'm off to Oslo to get my Peace Prize, and check , and then to Copenhagen to save the world, and the green companies. Somebody is going to have to pay my million dollar speaking fees when I leave office, right? On the way home I think I might spend a week on the beaches in the Maldives watching the ocean rise. Research, you know?

16 CDR Salamander is right.  What a mess.  At best the Afghan Surge troops will get there just in time to retrograde out. 

17 Is the victory condition a stable, Democratic Afghanistan - or a sanctuary denied? The former provides the latter without a long term commitment; but are their other paths. For example, a completely immoral policy of arming and paying various tribes to kill each other off, or kinetic strategy of a few isolated firebases/arifields and disruption missions forever (basically, becoming the baddest clan on the highest mountain).

18 He needs to bring them home now. He is killing troops just for political cover.

There are no words sufficient to describe the low life qualities of the communist in chief.

19

Drew I think your May 2010 date for having all the troops in place is wildly optimistic.With no seaports and horrible roads I would guess Sept or Oct at the very earliest.

20 Barack the President
Had thirty-thousand men
He marched them into Afghanistan
And he marched them out again

And when they were in, they were in,
And when they were out, they were out,
And when they were only halfway in
Barack pulled them out again

21 bring them HOME. it just occurred to me that Wesley Clark would probably have been a better prez. jeez that's a dispiriting thought.

22 So, he's putting our troops in harm's way for 18 mos. to do what, exactly?

23 Why does anyone think that The Precedent has the good of the US in mind? I find it a bit perplexing that anyone could actually consider this possibility. The Precedent wants the US to lose and to lose badly. Initially, his strrategy was to dither and stall and bleed our troops in the field as he demoralized them. Now, as he's been pushed to finally have to make some move, he does as little as he possibly can to keep his overall strategy of harming our war effort operational.

The Precedent has no intention of doing the right thing, which is why he babbled on incoherently about costs, while he attempts to spend trillions on every wasteful program he can think of.

Maybe people think I am being flippant when I say that The Precedent is on the other side, but it seems pretty obvious to me. He stalled because he wanted to - that idiotic explanation that conditions had changed on the ground over the time it took McChrystal to come up with his troop recommendation was beyond reason, as The Precedent took almost as long in his "ponderings" over the appropriate number of troops - yet we don't hear that he conditions on the ground had changed, again, in the meantime.

The Precedent wants the US to lose. This is as clear as day. It is to me, at least.

24 So I guess the mission is to save Afghanistan so Pakistan doesn't fail.

What the hell do we get out of this?  Isn't it obvious right now? Any shit for brains that wants to get rich and mighty just needs to go out and develop nuclear weapons as quickly as possible and you'll find yourselves underneath the security umbrella of NATO.

We're changing from the Global Police to the Global Insurance Trust.

25 Watching Gates do a piss poor example of a tap dance around very easy, straight forward, common sense questions from Mcain says it all. What I believe Obama wants is for Afghanistan to simply to stay out of the news a month from now. What better way to do that than to give our enemies a shout out on the month and year that we are leaving. The other thing is that this is "obviously" not the generals in the fields plan, no general in his right mind would ever,EVER publicize our exit time...........EVER!

26 Dear Amazon, Please cancel our current orders with you. Something has come up and we won't be needing explosives until late 2011. Thank you and Allahu Akhbar, Your friends in Afghanistan

27 26 So, he's putting our troops in harm's way for 18 mos. to do what, exactly?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at December 02, 2009 01:12 PM (zmiSr)

Get shot up badly enough that he will look "Presidential" to moderate voters when he panders to his leftist base by yanking them out - just in time for the 2012 election of course.

Miserable scumbag...

28 Is the victory condition a stable, Democratic Afghanistan - or a sanctuary denied? The former provides the latter without a long term commitment; but are their other paths. For example, a completely immoral policy of arming and paying various tribes to kill each other off, or kinetic strategy of a few isolated firebases/arifields and disruption missions forever (basically, becoming the baddest clan on the highest mountain).
Posted by: Jean at December 02, 2009 01:08 PM (PjevJ)

Put me in the immoral camp.

I said it to friends in the days after 9/11...we are going to have 5,000 (a number I pulled out of my ass) in Afghanistan forever to blow the hell out these AQ fucktards every time 3 or more of them are in the same room.

I know that presents ISR problems but to me those are eminently more solvable than the political and social problems of the Pashtuns.

That does raise a great point, what is Obama's definition of victory or hell success? I know what Bush thought, untenable as it was.

29

Three Options:

1.  Stay and rout the insurgents no matter the cost.

2.  Pack up and leave now.

3.  Make a half hearted effort for a short period of time, then leave no matter what.

Obama chose the worst option.  How do you justify the blood and treasure for the next two years?  You can't.  If you are not in it to win, then you don't need to be there.

30

This is what we progressive têtes-de-merde meant by supporting the troops by not supporting the war. We always knew this misadventure in Afghanistan was doomed from the outset, and we've always said so, having never said anything different. Now, at least, the end is in sight.

(By all of which we mean, Yay, we're finally going to lose!)

31 Here's the real message to the Taliban from Obama's speech: for domestic political reason, President Obama needs to be seen to be drawing down American forces from Afghanistan in 2011, ahead of any potential primary challenge.

Thus, the Taliban's best strategy is to rope-a-dope over the next 15 months and let the surge seem to be successful, all while preparing for a grand escalation of their insurgency in spring 2011, knowing that Obama will be politically incapable of sending troops back to Afghanistan at that time.  They may be wrong about that -- maybe Obama will find the will to reverse course and send more troops as late as 2011 if he has to -- but that's the smart way to play it if you're the Taliban.

32 As a Vietnam vet deployed to Vietnam in November of 1970 and medevaced out in March of 1971 I think I am qualified to comment on timetables. We all knew there was no intention of winning so what was the point of being there. Who wants to be the last casualty?

33 So, this places our troops in a defensive position where they will be forced to protect themselves because the Precedent doesn't have their back. They can't complete the mission while simultaneously doing this. I agree with progressoverpeace.

34 That does raise a great point, what is Obama's definition of victory or hell success?

Posted by: DrewM. at December 02, 2009 01:16 PM (FCWQb)

A US loss. Don't lose the big picture: The Precedent wants nothing but to exact revenge on America and the West. That is all he cares about - bringing us pain and suffering. Look carefully at all of his proclamations and policies and you cannot help but arrive at that exact conclusion.

35

The Precedent wants the US to lose. This is as clear as day. It is to me, at least.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at December 02, 2009 01:12 PM (A46hP)

It looks that way to me, too.

36
And here the Democrats go again telling lies.

The Democrats did it to us again. They have successfully planted the impression that Afghanistan is worse now than before the U.S. invaded in 2001.

Why isn't anyone out there saying Hey Assholes, The Heavy Lifting Is Done In Afghanistan. The Taliban Are On The Run. We Helped Start A New Democracy. Elections Have Been Held. The Afghans Have Had A Big Taste Of Freedom?

Instead we sit by while the media and the Democrats paint the picture.

37 Didn't Sen. Kerry say "Who wants to be the last solder to die for a mistake?' 

38 The problem with a 2011 rope-a-dope strategy for the Taliban is that in 2013 a girl might kick their ass.

39 As Thomas Jefferson famously said during the Civil War, "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight in the fields and hills. We shall never surrender until just before the elections."

40

As Thomas Jefferson famously said during the Civil War, "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight in the fields and hills. We shall never surrender until just before the elections."

Why doesn't my edition of Stuff Jefferson Said have that quote?

41

RUMMY'S BACK!!! Just went over to FoxNews.com and Rumsfeld's got some things to say.

Welcome back to the public eye, Mr. Secretary!

42
Obama obviously doesn't understand when you sit on the fence people throw rocks at you from both sides.

43 Jefferson also said, "War is okay, but there's no point going in overboard."

44 And when they were in, they were in,
And when they were out, they were out,
And when they were only halfway in
Barack pulled them out again

Heh, The imagery of this poem suggests that Afghanistan is getting royally fucked.

And so are we.

45
It looks like Obama has taken his military strategy from the grand old Duke of York - you remember:

The grand old Duke of York
He had ten thousand men
He marched them up to the top of the hill
And he marched them down again!

We'll march into Afghanistan, and the last troops will get there just in time to start packing up to go.

By the way, did Obama anywhere in his speech define what constituted victory? Is there any measure by which he could say that we won? Just askin' ...

46 @49 Cicero

Jefferson also said, "War is okay, but there's no point going in overboard."

Dude.  Now you're just mangling shit on purpose.  It was Robert Wagner who told Natalie Wood, "Another drink is okay, but there's no point going overboard."

47

Obama at West Point:

We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills;

We shall never surrender until July 2011 at which point, we're outta there. 

Thank you very much.  IÂ’ll be here all week.

[apologies, serious apologies to Winston Churchill who actually knew how to make a speech like this]

48 Heh, The imagery of this poem suggests that Afghanistan is getting royally fucked.

And so are we.

Posted by: OregonMuse at December 02, 2009 01:27 PM (6kI9E)

The only problem with seeing that as a sexual metaphor is that in matters sexual, Obama wouldn't ever pull out before he was finished, no matter how long it took or who had to suffer.

Which, comes to think about it, makes that a perfect description of his domestic policy.

49 DrewM, "I know that presents ISR problems" -- that is battlefield which we dominate and since it requires opening up the ROE it can only be lost to the squeamish.

50 Barry: It's going to work because I say it's going to work! I'm going to send the Talley-bahn & Pahkee-stan an iPod with my speeches on it. They will be overwhelmed with my awesomeness!

51 I didn't find it in 'Stuff Jefferson Said'. Check out 'If The World Were Run By Third-Graders'. I have an Indonesian edition.

52 A simple bit of logic for you all.

(Obama declares USA will leave 'Stan in 2011.) + (Obama is a liar.)====>
(USA is not leaving 'Stan in 2011)

So why worry?

53 The problem with a 2011 rope-a-dope strategy for the Taliban is that in 2013 a girl might kick their ass.

Posted by: Jean at December 02, 2009 01:21 PM (Scxfk)

No risk of that.  If that girl gets elected, the Taliban will surrender about one hour after her inauguration, like the Iranian hostage-takers did.  Because then they would know that America just got serious.

54

it just occurred to me that Wesley Clark would probably have been a better prez. jeez that's a dispiriting thought.

I will now jab a pencil through my right eye.

 

55 In 2011, with a Repub Congress, I don't think Obama is going to get away with a withdrawal for political cover. This strategy only works for him if he retains both houses of Congress and controls the agenda. Or maybe he was serious that he intends to be a one term President.

56 Posted by: Jean at December 02, 2009 01:30 PM (3WbbL)

I agree. It's just every time I write that someone points out you need good intel and that means counterinsurgency.

My thinking  (from the safety of my home office) is we don't need to get 'a guy' like we did on occasion in Iraq. We need to stop them from rebuilding camps like they had in the 90's.

We knew where they were, we just lacked the will to do anything about them.

I think we can stop AQ from turning Afghanistan back into a playground like it was 10 years ago with a hell of a lot less firepower than we are sending.

As you point out though, that's an ugly way to go. Personally, I'd rather win ugly than lose pretty.

57 We are committed to the Pacific Theater until the date of January 1945.

58 I am committed to escalating the war against the CSA until the date of December 1864.

59 We are committed to the war effort in South Vietnam until 1974.  Nothing bad will come of us leaving in the region................wait what?

60 Barry mentioned a couple of times last night that it was during FDR's reign that the US first got involved on the world stage. I was under the mistaken impression that the United States was involved in the First World War.

61 Well, you get the point.

62

Welcome back to the public eye, Mr. Secretary!

Another Bush failure. He should've stuck by his SecDef instead of caving into the Dem pressure.

63 Barry mentioned a couple of times last night that it was during FDR's reign that the US first got involved on the world stage. I was under the mistaken impression that the United States was involved in the First World War.

Posted by: TheQuietman at December 02, 2009 01:38 PM (1Jaio)

And wasn't there some sort of unpleasantness involving US Marines in North Africa under President Jefferson?

64 See, I also recall Commodore Matthew Perry and his "black ships*" opening up isolationist Japan to the world as well........

But that's because I'm cursed with this thing called a memory.

(*  I denounce myself)

65 In 2011, with a Repub Congress, I don't think Obama is going to get away with a withdrawal for political cover. This strategy only works for him if he retains both houses of Congress and controls the agenda.

I don't think The Precedent ever cared one whit for political cover. He's never done anything "political", in that sense, but just what he wants (to serve his own purposes). The Indonesian imbecile still controls the Executive and doesn't really care about withdrawal. He'd be happy to leave the troops there, no matter what is happening, and just have justice (outside of the military) go after personnel with suits and investigations and all sorts of attacks. I don't believe that he cares about withdrawal one way or another - though he would love to have America beg him to withdraw from Afghanistan.

Or maybe he was serious that he intends to be a one term President.

Posted by: Jean at December 02, 2009 01:33 PM (tJF9l)

I never got the impression that The Precedent cared about getting a second term. It always looked to me as if he was trying to overload the system and shove everything down our throats at once because he assumed that he would be thrown out of office before the second term ever came around. The Indonesian imbecile has been on a suicide run since he got into office and he managed to coax most of the useful idiots in Congress into going along with him, to the point that they are now all-in on his insanity (ergo the zombie health scare monstrosity that refuses to die, as it would have long ago, with any normal Chief Executive - as The Precedent is the one who has kept pushing the insanity and egging Nazi Pelosi and Hairy Reid to continue on).

66 I am starting to come around to the idea that it would be better for us to just pull out then to allow Chairman Zero to use our troops as pawns for him to cover his ass for now without any real commitment to victory. The 18 month deadline for withdrawal is the tell. Yes, we will have to go back eventually but hopefully by then, someone serious will be CinC, not this fruity metro sexual Marxist.

67 A simple bit of logic for you all.

(Obama declares USA will leave 'Stan in 2011.) + (Obama is a liar.)====>
(USA is not leaving 'Stan in 2011)

So why worry?

Posted by: Fred Z at December 02, 2009 01:32 PM (MVq0U)

Here's why: the people on the other side of the political spectrum did the same logical calculation. (Obama promises to escalate Afghanistan if elected) + (Obama is a liar) => (Obama will pull out of Afghanistan once he's elected)

If Obama could screw the Progressives for political reasons, he can certainly screw America's national security for political reasons.

68 Victory is over-rated.

69
"Barry mentioned a couple of times last night that it was during FDR's reign that the US first got involved on the world stage."

So what the hell was I doing, opening up Japan in 1853?

70 I am starting to come around to the idea that it would be better for us to just pull out then to allow Chairman Zero to use our troops as pawns for him to cover his ass for now without any real commitment to victory. The 18 month deadline for withdrawal is the tell. Yes, we will have to go back eventually but hopefully by then, someone serious will be CinC, not this fruity metro sexual Marxist.

Posted by: the real joe at December 02, 2009 01:44 PM (rFTt2)

Except that during the hiatus, the situation could and almost certainly would get far worse and far more difficult to reverse.  The fall of Pakistan to the Islamofascists would make a return to AfPak a very bloody and parlous enterprise indeed.

71 So what the hell was I doing, opening up Japan in 1853?

Posted by: Matthew Perry at December 02, 2009 01:46 PM (VrNoa)

Great training ground for your later television role on Friends, wasn't it?

72 Here's why: the people on the other side of the political spectrum did the same logical calculation. (Obama promises to escalate Afghanistan if elected) + (Obama is a liar) => (Obama will pull out of Afghanistan once he's elected)

Posted by: stuiec at December 02, 2009 01:45 PM (Ate22)

Heh. Very true. Even his supporters count on him being a lying sack of shit. They just grossly miscalculated on his actual intentions and his real goals. They haven't realized, yet, that he doesn't care about them, at all. They are nothing but useful idiots to The Precedent - the chief idiot.

73 So what the hell was I doing, opening up Japan in 1853?

Posted by: Matthew Perry at December 02, 2009 01:46 PM (VrNoa)

Barry I, rewriter of history: You're nothing but a dead white man! Begone from my version of history. Besides my cultist don't know a damn thing about history.

74 The fall of Pakistan to the Islamofascists would make a return to AfPak a very bloody and parlous enterprise indeed.

The next fight in the region with that happening wouldn't be with us, it'd be with India.

75 Hey everybody, I'm trying to look up all the quotes from Thomas Jefferson mentioned on this thread, and for some reason, I can't find any of them. I'm starting to think that you guys are just making them up.

76 He wants to pull most troops out by 2013 so he doesn't leave a mess for his successor. At least Jimmah-junior's got that successor part figured out already.

77
#78

 Yeah I guess Teddy Roosevelt and his Great White Fleet and building the Panama Canal was just small time chump shit.

78 stuiec: Except that during the hiatus, the situation could and almost certainly would get far worse and far more difficult to reverse. The fall of Pakistan to the Islamofascists -- the real problem would be Baluchistan, the punjabis will fight the pashtuns forever, the Baluchis could cut a deal then got a real mess right on top of a critical SLOC.

79 Hey, didn't I have some sort of "doctrine" that basically told Europe that the Western Hemisphere was ours now and that they should piss off?

80 Thus, the Taliban's best strategy is to rope-a-dope over the next 15 months and let the surge seem to be successful

Ding, ding, ding.  We have a winner.

All they need to do is stash their weapons, lay low, act non-threatening and wait until the expiration date.  It would be foolish and just degrade their forces to continue engaging now.

Now, it may be that we've zapped their best strategic planners already and all that's left is fools who will continue to engage, but that's not something I'd bet on.

Obama has put the locals in a position where there's no advantage to active cooperation with the Americans anymore now they know the Taliban will come back with a vengeance in 2 years.  Not only has he chosen the worst option, he kneecapped any chances of running Maj. Gant's scheme in parallel in those regions where it may have been advantageous to.

81

 

Re the  time-based strategy:

"No battle plan survives contact with the enemy."

QED

82 Yes, my good chap, and I expounded upon that doctrine greatly.

83 a real mess right on top of a critical SLOC.

What's SLOC?

84

You're nothing but a dead white man!

Some of us happen be Mexican. And if the U.S. did nothing on the world stage until 1853, would you please leave my nation's northern territories -- you know, the places you call Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah? Gracias.

85 (ok, sock puppets off)

86 I once taught a logistics training course at an ACORN community organizing seminar.  Oh, and it was unprecedented.

87

It's lame-o.  One, as well stated here already, wars don't really follow timetables; in fact, they are notorious for standing timetables on their ear -- just ask Napoleon and the Germans (or any other army that's tried to tie their strategy too tightly to a timetable).  Two, if you're waging war you don't lay out your strategy for you enemies to see, which is pretty much what precedent did.

Dumb and dumber anyone?

88

I'm trying to look up all the quotes from Thomas Jefferson mentioned on this thread, and for some reason, I can't find any of them. I'm starting to think that you guys are just making them up.

It doesn't matter, Jersey. Much of what Jefferson said was early in his life -- which he later contradicted. (Ditto, Jean-Paul Sartre and Milton Friedman, by the way.) The important stuff came later, especially his correspondence with those who wanted to adopt a wait-and-see attitude toward reforms in the colonies. Jefferson wanted to act swiftly in severing ties with England, and much of what's considered to be his most important political writings began with The Anti-Procastination Papers, ca. 1770.

So just disregard stuff that's attributed to Jefferson before 1770.

89 Rush just made what I thought was an interesting point. To paraphrase, what if the Taliban announced that they were going to really push things and accelerate their efforts for another 18 months, but after that if they were not back in power, they would  fuhgedaboudid? How would we react?

90 #27  progressiveoverpeace, I agree with you.   I think he was hoping that the Taliban could pull off a massive terror attack, akin to the Marine barracks bombing of Lebanon back in the 80's.  He was all set to pull the troops out using that as an excuse (and citing Reagan as a precedent).

For whatever reason, his dithering wasn't used by the Taliban for a really big attack, so he is going with this new defeatist strategy.   In addition, he is making sure that the Afghanistan government won't trust us, and therein is a recipe for disaster.

His goal is to discredit the military, shrink it, and make us a second-rate power.  It's all of a piece of his effort to completely destroy this nation, which is his primary goal.  The announcement of the pull-out date was very clever, inasmuch as he can pretend he did it to placate the left when in actuality it is a signal to the Taliban and Al Qaeda of a date they can shoot for.

91 Jefferson wanted to act swiftly in severing ties with England, and much of what's considered to be his most important political writings began with The Anti-Procastination Papers, ca. 1770.

I can find no reference to these so-called Anti-Procastination Papers anywhere on the internet and the reference desk clerk at my local public library looked at me funny and laughed when I asked her about them, so you're obviously a bad person who can't substantiate his sources. You wingnuts are all alike.

92 Purely a political speech too, I might add -- a;though I'm positive this has been remarked on as well.

93 What's SLOC?
Strategic Lines of Communications

94 In addition, he is making sure that the Afghanistan government won't trust us, and therein is a recipe for disaster.

Yeah, that was a cute part of The Precedent's 'strategizing' that has gotten lost in the rest of the Indonesian imbecile's stupidity. Funny how no one mentions that much. With this tsunami of stupidity emanating from the White House, it's hard to keep track of it all.

His goal is to discredit the military, shrink it, and make us a second-rate power. It's all of a piece of his effort to completely destroy this nation, which is his primary goal.

Exactly.

The announcement of the pull-out date was very clever, inasmuch as he can pretend he did it to placate the left when in actuality it is a signal to the Taliban and Al Qaeda of a date they can shoot for.

Posted by: Miss Marple at December 02, 2009 02:03 PM (4DwVn)

And he knew that the announcement costs him nothing, anyway. The Precedent feels perfectly free to say anything he wants. He's been allowed to reverse himself on a dime, without any repercussions, so many times that he takes it as an entitlement.

If there are not some big time resignations coming from the military soon ... then I don't even know what to say. I just don't know what they could possibly be thinking.

95 and I'm beginning to believe (have had nagging worries about it prior) that you may be on target with your conclusion Miss Marple.

96 MAJHAM@GTMO--thanks!

97 SLOC - Sea Lane of Communication ref Alfred Thayer Mahan

98 Progress -- they may be staying for their troops, and the American people; they resign, and who would replace them?  I've got kids and friends in -- I don't want them led by party hacks and careerist sell outs entirely; the ones already in place are bad enough.

99 This bothers me more than I can say. My brother is over there right now. He's supposed to be home for a few months following Christmas and then back into theater. His unit has lost more people this deployment than they've lost since all this began in 2001, and that includes in Iraq as well. I seriously fear for his safety while this asshole is running things.

100

108 -- yeah, I feel you there Mandy

 

and slighty off topic, but Chris Matthews and his ilk can eat caca (profanity rules limit my expression of feelings on this, just imagine a real vile string of invective; I trust you all can).

101 I hate, hate, hate that I am forced to agree with the left, for very different reasons, but still I hate it.  I wish he would just pull them out.  If you are not going to fight to win (and define win), get out.  Did we learn nothing from Vietnam?  I hate domestic politicization of wars.  So O wants to have a standoff until the US citizens tire of it, then say "I am doing what the people want and bringing the troops home". Pure BS.
 
God Bless our troops.

102

and slighty off topic, but Chris Matthews and his ilk can eat caca (profanity rules limit my expression of feelings on this, just imagine a real vile string of invective; I trust you all can).

Posted by: unknown jane at December 02, 2009 02:28 PM (5/yRG)

The string of profanity that came from my mouth this morning when I saw that clip from Chrissy's show last night would have made a sailor blush.

103 Our troops will adapt to this new strategic environment and do themselves proud despite Obama; for which he will then take credit for their sacrifices. Soldier on.

104 The only strategy Obama is interested in is one that gets US troops out before the 2012 Presidential election. Domestic Politics based decision, no surprise there.

105

The only thing we have going for us with this "strategy" is that the Muj have shown themselves to be politically tone-deaf at times - they may not have the organizational discipline to lay low and "rope our dope."

Nevertheless, US soldiers will have to die to prove this point one way or the other and it's clear to them (and the rest of us) that their CiC is using them for a political football.  

Say what you will about McCain (God knows I have, and will again), but I'd like to think he wouldn't engage in this kind of crass political gamesmanship when it came to US lives and national security.

I've even said myself that the Afghan war has a political dimension we shouldn't overlook (regarding why "Kill 'em All" shouldn't be our strategy) but this type of politics isn't what I had in mind.

106 Say what you will about McCain (God knows I have, and will again), but I'd like to think he wouldn't engage in this kind of crass political gamesmanship when it came to US lives and national security.

I agree. I can't stand McCain, but I voted for him because I knew when it came down to the war and our national security McCain would do whatever was necessary to win. McCain doesn't kid around when it comes to our military and our safety.

107 Progress -- they may be staying for their troops, and the American people; they resign, and who would replace them? I've got kids and friends in -- I don't want them led by party hacks and careerist sell outs entirely; the ones already in place are bad enough.

Posted by: unknown jane at December 02, 2009 02:23 PM (5/yRG)

Yes, Ms. Jane, I'm sure that many are taking this view - and it is good that they are staying. I share your trepidation at what would happen if too many good people resign and are replaced by politically correct twits who care more about their stance with Washington than the mission, but we have a large military and I just find it hard to believe that there aren't ten or twenty high ranking officers who have gotten totally fed up and see how the mission is being intentionally scuttled. I'm surprised that the looming SEAL courts-martial over a terrorist scumbag with a fat lip hasn't prompted anyone to go.

The military has been put in an absolutely awful position by The Precedent, just as our spies have had done to them. Our whole national security apparatus is under attack from the White House (with the lunatic Congress cheering The Precedent on) and it puts every one of our defenders in a terrible, terrible spot. ... Just wait until these terrorist civilian trials in New York start.

108

"and slighty off topic, but Chris Matthews and his ilk can eat caca (profanity rules limit my expression of feelings on this, just imagine a real vile string of invective; I trust you all can)."

Lets get Eddiebear in here. He'll fix you up :-)

109 Stuiec, you're right, I guess.

I should have said 'Why worry about Obama lying about a timeline that he has no intention of keeping. Worry that the President is a liar. And a fool. And so are all of his closest associates and advisers'.

110

def: SLOC = Stupid Lefitsts On Crack

and @52 MikeO, you owe me for a keyboard cleanup  ;-))   too funny

111

112 -- the military side of me says, "oorah, Gunny" (whether or not you are one of those or not -- I'm feeling what you're saying) Jean; it's just the Mom side of  of me is more nervous than it's been for years.  It's like a dog that knows it's been traded off to a really bad master, you know?

 

112 Remember, everything Obama says has an expiration date.  If he decides to, he may well increase the manpower and involvement, use crummy strategy or try and wipe out the enemy with bombing if it will make him feel better or his polls go up a tick.

Think Kennedy/Johnson and VietNam.

113 #110 The Democrats did learn one thing from VietNam. They can get the country into trouble then leave the Republicans to fix it, then get political capital for years demonizing us.

It worked in VietNam, it worked in Iraq and maybe it will work in Afghanistan too.

114 Gibbsy needs to be fired for what he said vis-a-vis Karzai -- unless it was a cleared statement. If so, the whole NSC staff needs to go.

115 "The next fight in the region with that happening wouldn't be with us, it'd be with India."

Agreed- and I'll bet you what's left in my checking account (thanks preznit wonderdunce) that the Indians won't be dicking around with "rules of engagement".

116 It's not just the Taliban that will understand Obama's establishing a 'withdrawal date' ... the US forces, from McCrystal on down will also understand. It will be interesting to see how they decide to play it.

117 Posted by: Jean at December 02, 2009 03:25 PM (5ddCw)

Isn't that the most amazing quote?

Obviously I'm not carrying any water for Karzai but that's the damnedest thing to say the day after you launch this strategy.

I can't be the only one whose mind went right to Diem when they heard it.

The only people not alienated or threatened by this new policy is the enemy.

118 Ooops, I'm "Mrs. Woods' Lawyer". Well, if she divorces Tiger, I'll wish I was. Half a billion dollars is a big settlement check!

119 I'll bet you what's left in my checking account (thanks preznit wonderdunce) that the Indians won't be dicking around with "rules of engagement".

Posted by: buster mcdissenter at December 02, 2009 03:30 PM (zN9bC)

A little nostalgia, report circa 2003:

Nuclear threats started flying in all directions. In May 2002, as fighter aircraft circled Islamabad, in a public debate with one of us (PH), General Mirza Aslam Beg, the former chief of Pakistan's army, declared: "We can make a first strike, and a second strike, or even a third." The lethality of nuclear war left him unmoved. "You can die crossing the street," he observed, "or you could die in a nuclear war. You've got to die some day anyway." Pakistan's ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Munir Akram, reiterated Pakistan's refusal of a no-first-use policy.

Across the border, India's Defence Minister George Fernandes told the International Herald Tribune "India can survive a nuclear attack, but Pakistan cannot." Indian Defence Secretary Yogendra Narain took things a step further in an interview with Outlook Magazine: "A surgical strike is the answer," adding that if this failed to resolve things, "We must be prepared for total mutual destruction." Indian security analyst, Brahma Chellaney, claimed "India can hit any nook and corner of Pakistan and is fully prepared to call Pakistan's nuclear bluff."

ROE ... heh. I still can't figure out why we tried to stop India and Pakistan in 2001 and 2003 from going hot.

120 The only people not alienated or threatened by this new policy is the enemy.

Posted by: Mrs. Woods' Lawyer [DrewM.] at December 02, 2009 03:37 PM (FCWQb)

Exactly. But that is a thread that has weaved its way through every policy of The Precedent ...

121 Hahahaha, the f'n feds can't even get a highway paved on time and under budget even without getting shot at. Chances of this strategy, as stated by Obambi last night succeeding ? Zero, dudes.

122

If the four-stars had ANY integrity, they'd throw their stars on the table, quit, and criticize.

Find "Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam."  The JCS deluded themselves that they could mitigate a bad situation by not quitting.  We know how that turned out.  In fact, General Johnson, Army Chief of Staff at the time, subsequently stated that not quitting was the greatest regret of his life.

Buy a copy and send it a copy to a random four-star admiral or general.

BTW, it was written by COL H. R. McMaster, a member of GEN Petraeus' brain trust.

For the Dems, every war must be Vietnam,: a humilation for the US.

Fuck them all sideways with a red-hot pineapple.

123 131 -- but LBJ and Nixon weren't "the One"; back then those generals would have been feted by the anti-war crowd and the media for "protesting the unjust war" -- and the troops stood a better chance of getting a more favorable to their well being outcome; now -- if the generals resign they'll be branded as quitters and they will be swiftly replaced, by people I shudder to think of, and where would that leave our troops?  Precedent would do even more what he wanted to them, and the media would cover for him and his lackeys and fellow travelers would eat it up.

124

Europe loved Barry's little speech so much they aren't going to do a damn thing.

PARIS – European leaders and top diplomats hailed President Barack Obama's speech defining the new U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, but few countries were forthcoming Wednesday with pledges of fresh troops.

Speaking just hours after Obama announced the deployment of 30,000 fresh U.S. troops to Afghanistan, NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in Brussels that European and other U.S. allies will contribute more than 5,000 more troops to the international force in Afghanistan.

Rasmussen did not specify where the troops would come from and how many would be from Europe — and reluctance for major new troop contributions was palpable Wednesday across the continent.

125

Woah Drew,

This is the type of nonsense you advocated in a post long ago.  This is the type of war you wanted, this is the type of war you got.  Now all of a sudden you feel uncomfortable about it (though for some odd reason you still can't bring yourself to commit to the total war concept)? 

We should have fought this war totally from day 1.  I said that back in 2001 and I will continue to say this until we lose this war.  And yes, we're going to lose this now.  Once we jet from Afghanistan and Iraq (and we will do this because this seems to be our national pasttime as of late, conflict-wise), these assholes will get all sorts of recruits to keep rolling us back. 

You think these islamonuts were emboldened after Clinton?  Wait to you see what happens after we pull out.  So we will have lost all of those men and women for, well, nothing.  Maybe, just maybe, we can cut it out with the hearts and minds garbage and actually fight a war the way it's supposed to be fought?  Oh yeah, I forgot, that would mean actually killing people and we wouldn't want to do that.  Well, that's what happens in war.  There is no morality in war and there are certainly no rules. 

 

126 progressoverpeace:

(Sorry I misspelled your name before.)

I feel I must say something about Karzai.  He returned to Afghanistan before the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban was successful,  back in late 2001 or very early in 2002.  He was guarded by a group of Special Forces guys who knew that he was a big target.  He did NOT need to return; he had a very comfortable life in London.

Karzai was at Bush's 2002 State of the Union speech, with those Special Forces guys.  They ALL admired him and said they would take a bullet for him.

Suddenly, all we are hearing about is how corrupt Karzai is.  WHO is telling us that? The loathesome weasels in Hilary's State Department, maggots like Robert Gibbs, and the media. 

Myself, I go with the Special Forces guys.   Doesn't anyone else remember what happened back then?   That is a very clear memory to me.  They were interviewed on Fox.

127 Karzai was at Bush's 2002 State of the Union speech, with those Special Forces guys. They ALL admired him and said they would take a bullet for him.

Suddenly, all we are hearing about is how corrupt Karzai is. WHO is telling us that? The loathesome weasels in Hilary's State Department, maggots like Robert Gibbs, and the media.

Yep. And this needs to be pointed out more, Miss Marple. I doubt that Karzai is any worse than anyone else out there - I'd wager that he's cleaner than most. We've got Mr. 10% as Pakistan's president, after all. This "Karzai corruption" scream is clearly just part of the dithering tactic. The White House just grabs onto any possible excuse they can, and the lame stream media runs with whatever they say.

Myself, I go with the Special Forces guys. Doesn't anyone else remember what happened back then? That is a very clear memory to me. They were interviewed on Fox.

Posted by: Miss Marple at December 02, 2009 04:48 PM (4DwVn)

I'm with you. And there is still no question that Karzai is cleaner than most of the thugs the left loves to back, anyway. But he has certainly been backed into a corner by this administration. Big time.

128

Hey Taliban,

  I'm going to beat the stuffing out of you tonight. But I'll be late showing up, and I have to be home by midnight. So you better start trembling in your boots, ..., you meanies.

129

Throughout its entire history, this country's sleazy politicians have never finished what they have started. Never. It's the nature of the sleazes who become politicians and bureaucrats.

Let's face it: This country's enemies know that if they just wait it out, sooner or later, America will turn tail and run away from its commitments. It's a no brainer.

It all boils down to one factor. Americans elect and promote ass-kissers, not qualified, experienced people. It's the American way. A tradition.

130

Reality Check Here,

Bingo.

The people here bitch about the "leadership" but it's the people who elect them.  They want a bunch of sissies running the show.  Be careful of what you wish for because you may just get it...

131 Look the pullout date is bullshit, Obama threw that out there to appease his loony base, recall Clinton did the same thing with Kosovo he went on national TV and said we would only be there one year and guess what we are still there today so relax it was just rhetoric like everything else he has ever said.

132

Actually Old Crow,

We turned it over to the UN, so technically, we did leave.  Who are we going to turn it over to this time?  The Afghans?...

133

POTUS:  Hey guys see if you could hurry things up up over there, I need to use this when I run for a second term and 2012 Nobel Peace Prize thing is coming soon too...er huh thanks .....

 

God help the troops and us all...........