Afghanistan.. clear objective and exit strategy?

[buckman]

So now that we have had the worst losses in a month since the war started could someone please explain the Obama mission and exit strategy? Please.
If you say to get Bin Ladin then tell me what Obama will do with him once we get him.

I won't even mention how well things have changed for the better for our men and women in Iraq.

[striperman36]

This situation scares me. To me it is NO WIN.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by striperman36

This situation scares me. To me it is NO WIN.

Think you might be right on that but all I hear are the crickets chirping.

[striperman36]

that country has been at war longer than the crusades

[spence]

The "Obama mission and exit strategy"? He's pretty much continued the Bush policy on Afghanistan, with slightly more strategic focus than Iraq.

Strategy seems to have been flawed from the start, but people want to jump on Obama now that he's in charge. Too bad none of those neocons bothered to pick up a history book.

My opinion is that we should leave and park an aircraft carrier offshore who's responsibility is to punish anyone who gets out of line.

-spence

[striperman36]

Naw, just a bunch of UAV's ready to rock

However, the issue is to know who is the one's to be punished

[Raven]

they have caves and tunnels that UAV's cannot even touch

so until those are discovered it's a continuing shell game
hiding in civilian homes pretending to be non taliban.

what pissed me off was hearing about them cutting off the fingers of those they caught voting....

how's that for democracy?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

He's pretty much continued the Bush policy on Afghanistan . . . Strategy seems to have been flawed from the start . . .Too bad none of those neocons bothered to pick up a history book.-spence

Why on earth is Obama following the flawed Bush plan? Surely, Obama has read a history book?

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by Raven

they have caves and tunnels that UAV's cannot even touch

so until those are discovered it's a continuing shell game
hiding in civilian homes pretending to be non taliban.

what pissed me off was hearing about them cutting off the fingers of those they caught voting....

how's that for democracy?

That unfortunately is the way the non-democratic world works, you vote we do bad things to you. Never going to stop that everywhere.

[Raven]

while i don't subscribe to the idea of internment camps like we did with the Japanese in the United States.....

it would seem like we need to separate the chaff from the wheat..... (better)
so we know who to kill.... but that is a difficult situation @ best
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2Quote CNN : "To the Taliban, winning is, in fact, not losing," he said. "They feel that over time, they will ultimately outlast the international community's attempt to stabilize Afghanistan. It's really a game of will to them."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

so based on that idea.... it's a game of breaking their will.
Others have tried and FAILED over many years so unless we use completely different tactics it's not a very effective strategy.

an interesting point the article also made was how the taliban are watering the ground around their mortar positions so as to not create a dust cloud and give themselves away.

that technology the aliens used in the movie:" predator" that triangulated the trajectory of a missile in reverse is closer to what we need to be doing it would seem. Unfortunately we are not that advanced technologically yet but we are close.

I'm not sure why we are not bombing the crap out of those mountains .... which gives them too much of an advantage...

so it's a war of foot soldiers Vs IED's .

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Why on earth is Obama following the flawed Bush plan? Surely, Obama has read a history book?

Not always easy to undo what's been done.

-spence

[Nebe]

Maybe we could ship over a couple hundred thousand blankets that are infected with small pox. It worked once... Why not agian.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Raven]

Obama's not as interested in reading History as he is in making History.

Well, Nebe that was done long before there were so called ethics in fighting a war and would not fly .

[Raven]

how ever something that could make them hallucinate
is ok by me.

[Fly Rod]

Spence

It is not the Bush plan any more. It is the OBAMA PLAN.

Obama has escalated the war by sending in more troops. It was his responsibility to pull the troops instead he sent more. And his words was that Afghanistan is where the war should be fought.

The Russians couldn't win and we are just losing a mothers child.

Pull the Troops out.

We do not win wars. The American people and the politicians will not let us win. We learned that in Vietnam.

[Raven]

BULLSH1T ......

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Spence

It is not the Bush plan any more. It is the OBAMA PLAN.

Obama has escalated the war by sending in more troops. It was his responsibility to pull the troops instead he sent more. And his words was that Afghanistan is where the war should be fought.

The Russians couldn't win and we are just losing a mothers child.

Pull the Troops out.

We do not win wars. The American people and the politicians will not let us win. We learned that in Vietnam.

It was President Obama's plan to widen United States involvement in Afghanistan and send in 4000 more troops, It was his plan to shift the focus from Iraq to Afghanastan. Both fronts are now a mess. His administration is a mess. You can't run a war on campaign promises and retoric. Lifes are being lost and I would like to know why. The war was why the Dems won, now tell me what they are doing.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

Not always easy to undo what's been done.

-spence

But Obama made it all sound so easy when he was campaigning. Are you telling me he can't deliver on everything he promised?

Oh, and Spence, could you throw "neocon" into any more of your responses? Let me guess. It was the word of the day on your Doublespeak calendar last week and you're trying to use it as much as possible.

[stcroixman]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Spence

It is not the Bush plan any more. It is the OBAMA PLAN.

Obama has escalated the war by sending in more troops. It was his responsibility to pull the troops instead he sent more. And his words was that Afghanistan is where the war should be fought.

The Russians couldn't win and we are just losing a mothers child.

Pull the Troops out.

We do not win wars. The American people and the politicians will not let us win. We learned that in Vietnam.

We win when we committ 100% which we didn't do in 'Nam and don't appear to be doing in Afghanistan. Once we are out of Iraq completely it will be interesting to see if the gov't folds. That will seal the deal with "occupying" these countries as a waste of $$$ and lives

[scottw]

I thought Obama was going to have a beer with he "good" Taliban and straighten this all out right after he had tea with Amadinajad?....so easy to pontificate when you have no accountability, just soaring rhetoric for the entranced... now the shoes is on the other foot for Obama, it's his RESPONSIBILITY and he's tripping all over his untied laces....what a fraud...just keeps blaming someone else as he continues to display utter incompetence...maybe he'll GROW into the job...we can all HOPE...

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by buckman

could someone please explain the Obama mission and exit strategy? Please.

I would like to know that too. The silence is deafening.

I thought the original mission was to destroy
the terrorist's training camps and get Bin Laden, who according to reports, is
somewhere in Pakistan now.

Now is the time to use special ops and the new weapons of war, not introduce more troops.

Obama's campaign talk sounded oh so promising.

[striperman36]

NPR had a good discussion of this today.

Check it out

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

It was President Obama's plan to widen United States involvement in Afghanistan and send in 4000 more troops, It was his plan to shift the focus from Iraq to Afghanastan.

The focus never should have been on Iraq, a country with moderate stability, no WMDs (remember, that's why we went there) and with no more Al Qaeda presence than the US - all before Bush decided to take a personal vendetta against a man that supposedly "tried to kill my daddy" as Bush so eloquently put it. The country was a mess before Obama became president. Let's also not forget that US military involvement is now significantly reduced with the Iraqi "military" running most operations in that countries cities and towns.

The focus should be Afghanastan. The country used as the base for Bin Ladin and his terrorist training camps. There's a reason they're called "Al Qaeda in Iraq" - because they weren't there before Bush decided to oust Saddam.

I know the Spin Train has been running full steam since Obama took office (in some cases rightfully so), but let's not become deluded to who (Bush) was the one that started this entire mess.

[spence]

Originally Posted by stcroixman

We win when we committ 100% which we didn't do in 'Nam and don't appear to be doing in Afghanistan. Once we are out of Iraq completely it will be interesting to see if the gov't folds. That will seal the deal with "occupying" these countries as a waste of $$$ and lives

The USSR was 100% committed and look where it got them.

Afghanistan is a very tribal and nationalistic country where war is seen as just a habit.

As for the Obama strategy, it's not that complicated. Raise troop levels to provide added security in the hopes of shifting responsibility onto Afghan and Pakistani troops. I believe the expectation is that there will be a NATO presence in the region for a decade or more to come.

Remember that a big reason for the recent increase in violence was the national election.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The focus never should have been on Iraq, a country with moderate stability, no WMDs (remember, that's why we went there) and with no more Al Qaeda presence than the US - all before Bush decided to take a personal vendetta against a man that supposedly "tried to kill my daddy" as Bush so eloquently put it. The country was a mess before Obama became president. Let's also not forget that US military involvement is now significantly reduced with the Iraqi "military" running most operations in that countries cities and towns. this is so riddled with lame drivel, but i still love ya JD...

The focus should be Afghanastan. The country used as the base for Bin Ladin and his terrorist training camps. There's a reason they're called "Al Qaeda in Iraq" - because they weren't there before Bush decided to oust Saddam.so, all of the "Al Qaeda in Iraq" poured into the country after we invaded..all of their leadership and memebership just showed up so that we could kill them, they aren't very smart are they?

I know the Spin Train has been running full steam since Obama took office (in some cases rightfully so), but let's not become deluded to who (Bush) was the one that started this entire mess.

I would suggest that Saddam, Al Qaeda and radical Islam started this mess

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

I would suggest that Saddam, Al Qaeda and radical Islam started this mess

You didn't get the updated talking points did you?

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The USSR was 100% committed and look where it got them. weren't they just a "paper tiger" or something, going to collapse anyway?

Afghanistan is a very tribal and nationalistic country where war is seen as just a habit. right, there's probably noone there that actually wants a peaceful existence...those animals..can you similarly apply those beliefs to Oh, I don't know...certain areas of Detriot, Chicago, LA, NY...just wondering

As for the Obama strategy, it's not that complicated. because there is none Raise troop levels to provide added security in the hopes of shifting responsibility onto Afghan and Pakistani troops. I believe the expectation is that there will be a NATO presence in the region for a decade or more to come.

Remember that a big reason for the recent increase in violence was the national election.
that's how they do elections in tribal, nationalistic countries
-spence

[spence]

I'd offer up a counter argument, but I don't really see one to counter.

Could you please try to actually make a point?

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

You didn't get the updated talking points did you?

-spence

I fished all night, haven't gotten to the RADICAL RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS website yet this morning

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The focus never should have been on Iraq, a country with moderate stability, no WMDs (remember, that's why we went there) and with no more Al Qaeda presence than the US - all before Bush decided to take a personal vendetta against a man that supposedly "tried to kill my daddy" as Bush so eloquently put it. The country was a mess before Obama became president. Let's also not forget that US military involvement is now significantly reduced with the Iraqi "military" running most operations in that countries cities and towns.

The focus should be Afghanastan. The country used as the base for Bin Ladin and his terrorist training camps. There's a reason they're called "Al Qaeda in Iraq" - because they weren't there before Bush decided to oust Saddam.

I know the Spin Train has been running full steam since Obama took office (in some cases rightfully so), but let's not become deluded to who (Bush) was the one that started this entire mess.

For someone who so obstinately insists that we shouldn't conjecture what motives lay behind the health care bill but only speak about what's actually in its exact language, you certainly take a conjectural leap by postulating that Bush invaded Iraq as a personal vendetta. Other than his remark that Saddam tried to kill his father, there is NO EVIDENCE of a vendetta. And the WMDs were just one of the stated reasons for the invasion, and they certainly did exist prior to the invasion, and there is CONJECTURE that they were transferred to Syria and possibly Libia, and Iraq was the easier target on war on terror, and it is now a model for possible "populist power" (as Spence likes to say) in the Middle East, and Bush was not "the one who started this entire mess." I suppose you could could go back a long, long way before Bush, but a convenient stop might be Jimmy Carter's intervention on behalf of the Mujahadin against the Soviets.