PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama speech: More troops, no endless commitment


Donger
12-01-2009, 01:32 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091201/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_afghanistan;_ylt=Ag7cYoQICGiDGa4.IYptIV2s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJ2cTVuaXZhBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMjAxL3V zX3VzX2FmZ2hhbmlzdGFuBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMgRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDb2JhbWFzcGVlY2h t

WASHINGTON President Barack Obama is sending 30,000 extra U.S. troops to Afghanistan on an accelerated timetable that will have the first Marines there as early as Christmas and all forces in place by summer. But he'll also declare Tuesday night that troops will begin leaving in less than three years.

In a prime-time speech to the nation from West Point that ends a 92-day review, Obama will seek to sell his much bigger, costlier war plan to a skeptical public in part by twinning it with some specifics about an exit strategy, said two senior administration officials.

He will tell the American people that U.S. troops will start leaving Afghanistan "well before" the end of his first term, with the aim of ending the main U.S. military mission there, one official said. However, Obama will not lay out precisely when he believes the war will end, the official said. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity to not upstage the president's speech.

With U.S. casualties in Afghanistan sharply increasing and little sign of progress from the war's beginning in 2001, the war Obama has called one "of necessity," not choice, has grown less popular with the public and within his own Democratic Party. In recent days, leading Democrats have talked of setting tough conditions on deeper U.S. involvement, or even staging outright opposition.

Obama is acknowledging the divided public opinion with his emphasis on an exit, as well as on stepped-up training to help Afghan forces take over and a series of specific demands for other governments, including Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO allies, to contribute more.

Unease with Obama's approach to the war is sure to be on display on Capitol Hill when congressional hearings begin this week.

With the full complement of new troops expected to be in Afghanistan by next summer, the heightened pace of Obama's military deployment appears to mimic the 2007 troop surge in Iraq, a 20,000-strong force addition under President George W. Bush. Similar in strategy to that mission, Obama's Afghan surge aims to reverse gains by Taliban insurgents and to secure population centers in the volatile south and east parts of the country.

In his speech and in meetings overseas in the coming days, Obama also will ask NATO allies to contribute more between 5,000 and 10,000 new troops to the separate international force in Afghanistan, diplomats said.

One official from a European nation said the troop figure was included in an official NATO document compiled on the basis of information received from Washington ahead of Obama's announcement. The NATO force in Afghanistan now stands at around 40,000 troops.

Obama also will make tougher demands on the governments of Pakistan and, especially, Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan, rampant government corruption and inefficiency have made U.S. success much harder. The Afghan government said Tuesday that President Hamid Karzai and Obama had an hourlong video conference. Obama spoke Tuesday with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.

The 30,000 new U.S. troops will bring the total in Afghanistan to more than 100,000.

The president's long-awaited troop increase had been envisioned to take place over a year, or even more, because force deployments in Iraq and elsewhere make it logistically difficult to go faster. But Obama directed his military planners to make the changes necessary to hasten the Afghanistan additions, said one official.

Military officials said at least one group of Marines is expected to deploy within two or three weeks, a recognition by the administration that something tangible needs to happen quickly.

The new Marines would provide badly needed reinforcements to those fighting against Taliban gains in the southern Helmand province. They also could lend reassurance to both Afghans and a war-weary U.S. public.

Obama's announcement comes near the end of a year in which the war has worsened despite the president's earlier infusion of 21,000 forces.

Previewing a narrative the president is likely to stress, press secretary Robert Gibbs told ABC that the number of fresh troops don't tell the whole story. Obama will emphasize that Afghan security forces need more time, more schooling and more U.S. combat backup to be up to the job on their own.

In Kabul, Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell, the new head of a U.S.-NATO command responsible for training and developing Afghan soldiers and police, said Tuesday the groundwork is being laid to expand the Afghan National Army beyond the current target of 134,000 soldiers and 96,800 police by next October. But, he said, no fixed higher target is set.

There is a general goal of eventually fielding 240,000 Afghan soldiers and 160,000 police, but Caldwell said in a telephone interview with the AP that that could change depending on reviews beginning next spring or early next summer.

One reason is the expected cost. "If you grow it up to 400,000 if you did grow all the way to that number, and if it was required to help bring greater security to this country then of course you have to sustain it at that level, too, in terms of the cost of maintaining a force that size," he said. Nearly all the cost of building Afghan forces has been borne by the U.S. and other countries thus far.

Obama was spending much of Monday and Tuesday on the phone, outlining his plan minus many specifics for the leaders of France, Britain, Germany, Russia, China, India, Denmark, Poland and others. He also met in person at the White House with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

A briefing for dozens of key lawmakers was planned for Tuesday afternoon, just before Obama was set to leave the White House for the speech against a military backdrop.

BucEyedPea
12-01-2009, 01:34 PM
Yeah right! What another lying crock that is they'll be gone in three years. I can't believe people are still stupid enough to believe such crock.

I was right, there really isn't any difference between the two parties on FP. What passes for a difference is window dressing while the elephant still stands in the living room ignored by all except the most astute.

Our FP is left-wing progressivism that seeks to engineer the planet concocting false threats and exaggerating others to justify our presence in the vast corners of the world which erodes our liberties here at home. It is blatantly anti-American being more like British Empire Mercantilism which Hamilton wanted.


The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad.~James Madison

Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.~James Madison

No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.~James Madison

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.~James Madison

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps the most to be dreaded because it compromises and develops the germ of every other. ~James Madison

America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. ~ John Quincy Adams

wild1
12-01-2009, 01:35 PM
If this is "a war of necessity", then what remains to be seen is his commitment to win it.

All I can see so far is political tiptoeing. He didn't want to rattle this beehive while he was trying to pass Obamacare. I still don't believe he wants to touch Afghanistan, it's just become progressively a higher profile issue and was causing him to be seen as weak and waffling, caring more about expanding government than winning the war and the servicepeople fighting there.

I don't think this represents a change. He's managing political risk by sending more troops, but it remains to be seen if he is committed to winning.

Chocolate Hog
12-01-2009, 01:36 PM
Yea send more troops to the Al Aqeada summer camp while we pay the druglords. This president is a fucking joke all this is a guy playing politics so he can get re-elected to a 2nd term while these troops he said he would bring home now will die, Fuck him.

Donger
12-01-2009, 01:38 PM
Nice of Obama to give our enemies a time frame. Just hold out for three more years and victory will be yours!

Pathetic.

BIG_DADDY
12-01-2009, 01:43 PM
Nice of Obama to give our enemies a time frame. Just hold out for three more years and victory will be yours!

Pathetic.

Well, it makes a good campaign promise. ROFL

mlyonsd
12-01-2009, 01:43 PM
I've largely given Obama a pass on this issue until I heard what his plan was.

I will say this is troubling.

Imagine if FDR would have said "We'll give this WWII thing three years and then we're done".

Yes, this is wrong in so many ways. If you plan on 'winning' anyway.

KC Dan
12-01-2009, 01:46 PM
Yes, this is wrong in so many ways. If you plan on 'winning' anyway.That is the rub. He doesn't plan on winning. He has HOPE that we will win. Big difference & it is what the country voted for - Hope not results...

BucEyedPea
12-01-2009, 01:51 PM
What would we be winning? Conquest of a people and land? That sounds like Imperialism. That sukks!

memyselfI
12-01-2009, 01:53 PM
Three years? :spock: Just in time to declare "Mission Accomplished" before the election. :doh!:

wild1
12-01-2009, 02:09 PM
Nice of Obama to give our enemies a time frame. Just hold out for three more years and victory will be yours!

Pathetic.

I don't see how you can have a "war of necessity" where winning isn't necessary.

If I were AQ, I'd give him exactly what he wants. Cool our heels for 3 years, let him leave, then we can go back to what we were doing in the late 90s/early 2000s.

As long as the organization survives, even spends these years recruiting, stockpiling needed resources, stockpiling financial resources, AQ should be better off when this is over.

BucEyedPea
12-01-2009, 02:24 PM
I don't see how you can have a "war of necessity" where winning isn't necessary.
We already won in Afghanistan by breaking up the camps. Except for getting BL.

If I were AQ, I'd give him exactly what he wants.
We've given AQ exactly what they want....drawing us more and more into other nations until we're bankrupt. You do know we are bankrupt right?

As long as the organization survives, even spends these years recruiting, stockpiling needed resources, stockpiling financial resources, AQ should be better off when this is over.
Our invastion of Iraq has served as a successful recruitment device for AQ. Way to go....giving AQ exactly what they want.

memyselfI
12-01-2009, 02:29 PM
Merry Christmas, now go get shot at!!!

I'm not sure that is going to make a great WH Christmas card.

Donger
12-01-2009, 02:31 PM
Our invastion of Iraq has served as a successful recruitment device for AQ. Way to go....giving AQ exactly what they want.

I could have sworn reading recently that al Qaeda recruitment was down dramatically and that the view of AQ in the Muslim world has also dropped significantly.

BucEyedPea
12-01-2009, 02:38 PM
I could have sworn reading recently that al Qaeda recruitment was down dramatically and that the view of AQ in the Muslim world has also dropped significantly.

I was reporting about after the invasion of Iraq.
If you have a link for now then please provide. If true, then why any need to escalate in Afghanistan? Smacks of another agenda then. Like that natural gas pipeline.
Still doesn't mean those people like our policies there.Oh, and please spare me the idea that while Iraq did become a recruiting ground that it was necessary for our men
to die fighting over there in the meantime. It wasn't. Not unless you believe in using such people for cannon fodder.

Donger
12-01-2009, 02:54 PM
I was reporting about after the invasion of Iraq.
If you have a link for now then please provide. If true, then why any need to escalate in Afghanistan? Smacks of another agenda then. Like that natural gas pipeline.
Still doesn't mean those people like our policies there.Oh, and please spare me the idea that while Iraq did become a recruiting ground that it was necessary for our men
to die fighting over there in the meantime. It wasn't. Not unless you believe in using such people for cannon fodder.

According to a number of sources there has been a "wave of revulsion" against Al Qaeda and its affiliates by "religious scholars, former fighters and militants" alarmed by Al Qaeda's takfir and killing of Muslims in Muslim countries, especially Iraq.[141]

Noman Benotman, a former Afghan Arab and militant of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, went public with an open letter of criticism to Ayman al-Zawahiri in November 2007 after persuading imprisoned senior leadership of his former group to enter into peace negotiations with the Libyan regime. While Ayman al-Zawahiri announced the affiliation of the group with Al Qaeda in November 2007, the Libyan government released 90 members of the group from prison several months later after "they were said to have renounced violence."[142]

In 2007, around the sixth anniversary of September 11 and a couple of months before Rationalizing Jihad first appeared in the newspapers,[28] the Saudi sheikh Salman al-Ouda delivered a personal rebuke to bin Laden. Al-Ouda, a religious scholar and one of the fathers of the Sahwa, the fundamentalist awakening movement that swept through Saudi Arabia in the 1980s, is a widely respected critic of jihadism.[citation needed] Al-Ouda addressed Al Qaeda's leader on television asking him

My brother Osama, how much blood has been spilt? How many innocent people, children, elderly, and women have been killed ... in the name of Al Qaeda? Will you be happy to meet God Almighty carrying the burden of these hundreds of thousands or millions [of victims] on your back?[143]

According to Pew polls, support for Al Qaeda has been dropping around the Muslim world in the years leading to 2008.[144] The numbers supporting suicide bombings in Indonesia, Lebanon, and Bangladesh, for instance, have dropped by half or more in the last five years. In Saudi Arabia, only 10 percent now have a favorable view of Al Qaeda, according to a December poll by Terror Free Tomorrow, a Washington-based think tank.[145]

In 2007, the imprisoned Sayyed Imam Al-Sharif, an influential Afghan Arab, "ideological godfather of Al Qaeda", and former supporter of takfir, sensationally withdrew his support from al Qaeda with a book Wathiqat Tarshid Al-'Aml Al-Jihadi fi Misr w'Al-'Alam (Rationalizing Jihad in Egypt and the World).

Although once associated with al-Qaeda, in September 2009 LIFG completed a new "code" for jihad, a 417-page religious document entitled "Corrective Studies". Given its credibility and the fact that several other prominent Jihadists in the Middle East have turned against al Qaeda, the LIFG's about face may be an important step toward staunching al Qaeda's recruitment.[146]

BucEyedPea
12-01-2009, 02:55 PM
I need the link so I can read the whole thing

I knew about inside Iraq because they were killing Sunni's and their families who turned against them.
But in general I have contrary facts from the following but it's 2007/08:

A Resurgent Menace
U.S. spy agencies say al Qaeda's top leaders, once on the run, have regrouped
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070506/14alqaeda.htm

National Intelligence Estimate: Al Qaeda stronger and a threat to US homeland
Report points to war in Iraq and Pakistan's tribal areas as allowing Al Qaeda to regroup.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0718/p99s01-duts.html

Al Qaeda Getting Stronger
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/al_qaeda_getting_stronger/

Al Qaeda In Iraq Far Stronger Than Bush Administration Admitting
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/15/al-qaeda-in-iraq-far-stro_n_91685.html

Terrorism: Six Years On, How Is War Against Al-Qaeda Progressing?
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1078609.html

Direckshun
12-01-2009, 02:56 PM
I will make a bet with anybody who ACTUALLY thinks Obama is going to have a calendar-measured timeframe tonight.

If he makes any sort of calendar-measured timeframe in his speech tonight, I will let you control my avatar and the subtitle above it until the NFL Draft. If he doesn't, I get yours.

As always, there will be no takers.

As usual, you guys are in the business of running your mouths without believing a word you're saying.

Donger
12-01-2009, 03:09 PM
I will make a bet with anybody who ACTUALLY thinks Obama is going to have a calendar-measured timeframe tonight.

If he makes any sort of calendar-measured timeframe in his speech tonight, I will let you control my avatar and the subtitle above it until the NFL Draft. If he doesn't, I get yours.

As always, there will be no takers.

As usual, you guys are in the business of running your mouths without believing a word you're saying.

What's wrong with a calendar-measured timeframe, IYO?

Direckshun
12-01-2009, 03:12 PM
What's wrong with a calendar-measured timeframe, IYO?

Well, I don't think it's categorically bad. I think the devil would be in the details.

But we know he's not going to. None of you believe that he will. You guys are just firing dishonest shots into the air.

wild1
12-01-2009, 03:17 PM
Well, I don't think it's categorically bad. I think the devil would be in the details.

But we know he's not going to. None of you believe that he will. You guys are just firing dishonest shots into the air.

Don't you think it's a bit dishonest to act as if you won't have tears of joy streaming down your cheeks, no matter what he proposes?

Direckshun
12-01-2009, 03:18 PM
Don't you think it's a bit dishonest to act as if you won't have tears of joy streaming down your cheeks, no matter what he proposes?

It's a bit dishonest to act as if I agree with everything he does.

I've made my position on this issue clear. I want troops out.

Donger
12-01-2009, 03:55 PM
Well, I don't think it's categorically bad. I think the devil would be in the details.

But we know he's not going to. None of you believe that he will. You guys are just firing dishonest shots into the air.

I'd be happy to offer you a gentleman's bet that he will indeed mention specific time measurements.

Reaper16
12-01-2009, 04:09 PM
The text posted in the OP and the text found at the link provided are completely different.

Direckshun
12-01-2009, 04:10 PM
I'd be happy to offer you a gentleman's bet that he will indeed mention specific time measurements.

A bet, of course, with zero consequences.

As usual, you fire off your mouth, but believe virtually none of your dishonest attacks.

Donger
12-01-2009, 04:17 PM
A bet, of course, with zero consequences.

As usual, you fire off your mouth, but believe virtually none of your dishonest attacks.

Saying "I was wrong" for some people has greater consequence than you playing jr. high with my avatar.

Dayze
12-01-2009, 04:20 PM
I'll stick to my policy of not believing a single, solitary word from a politician. regardless of party.

They're all FOS anyways.
Just sayin'...

Direckshun
12-01-2009, 04:20 PM
Saying "I was wrong" for some people has greater consequence than you playing jr. high with my avatar.

Why would I be playing jr. high with your avatar unless I yet again turn out to be right all along?

You clearly know you're going to lose this bet, as usual, so you're just going to make a bet with the smallest consequences possible that disallows me from messing with your avatar.

You're on for your consequences-less gentleman's bet. But you've got to post it publicly here in this thread, not in my rep column where you always do.

Donger
12-01-2009, 04:22 PM
You're on for your consequences-less gentleman's bet.

Very well. We have a bet.

But you've got to post it publicly here in this thread, not in my rep column where you always do.

I don't believe that I've ever repped you. If you lose, I don't really care where you acknowledge it, however.

Direckshun
12-01-2009, 04:28 PM
I don't believe that I've ever repped you.

Oh, how short our memories are.

How criminally and selectively short our memories are.

wild1
12-01-2009, 04:29 PM
I'd be happy to offer you a gentleman's bet that he will indeed mention specific time measurements.

He'll mention some kind of numeric time frame, but as a fuzzy goal that he's allowed to revise at a later date and not have been wrong or dishonest

dirk digler
12-01-2009, 04:30 PM
Nice of Obama to give our enemies a time frame. Just hold out for three more years and victory will be yours!

Pathetic.

That is not what is happening. His goal is 3 years but it could be longer depending on how it works out.

Obama aims to achieve his objectives and begin withdrawing most troops within 3 years. There is no firm time-line for withdrawing all troops, administration officials said, and the pace of the pullback will depend on conditions on the ground.

Direckshun
12-01-2009, 04:30 PM
By the way, the White House has already said today that a calendar-measured timeframe would not be mentioned in tonights speech.

So you can save yourself the time and admission right now.

Direckshun
12-01-2009, 04:31 PM
He'll mention some kind of numeric time frame, but as a fuzzy goal that he's allowed to revise at a later date

Isn't that incredibly responsible?

Who on earth would want the President to stick to a plan that wasn't working to fruition?

Adapting at a later time is just like changing your mind: it can be a very reasonable course of action.

dirk digler
12-01-2009, 04:31 PM
He'll mention some kind of numeric time frame, but as a fuzzy goal that he's allowed to revise at a later date and not have been wrong or dishonest

Of course duh you can't predict what is going to happen 3 years into the future. :spock:

Donger
12-01-2009, 04:32 PM
Oh, how short our memories are.

How criminally and selectively short our memories are.

Post it.

Donger
12-01-2009, 04:37 PM
By the way, the White House has already said today that a calendar-measured timeframe would not be mentioned in tonights speech.

So you can save yourself the time and admission right now.

Would you mind if we wait and actually hear what the POTUS says? Thanks in advance for your acceptance.

dirk digler
12-01-2009, 04:38 PM
Would you mind if we wait and actually hear what the POTUS says? Thanks in advance for your acceptance.

Why didn't you wait then hypocrite?

Direckshun
12-01-2009, 04:38 PM
Post it.

Do you want to bet on that?

Direckshun
12-01-2009, 04:39 PM
Would you mind if we wait and actually hear what the POTUS says?

And there it is. My entire point proven.

Edit: Dirk beat me to it. You mother****er, I've been setting him up all thread for that shit and I don't even get to savor it.

dirk digler
12-01-2009, 04:41 PM
And there it is. My entire point proven.

Edit: Dirk beat me to it. You mother****er, I've been setting him up all thread for that shit and I don't even get to savor it.

Oops...sorry. :)

Donger
12-01-2009, 04:42 PM
Why didn't you wait then hypocrite?

Because Direckshun challenged me to a bet. I don't see any hypocrisy at all. The speech hasn't happened yet.

It seems clear that, at the very least, they floated the idea of a timeframe and seem to be back-tracking now.

If Obama doesn't mention a timeframe in the speech, I'll gladly honor my bet.

Donger
12-01-2009, 04:44 PM
Do you want to bet on that?

As I wrote, I don't believe that I've ever repped you. I don't rep very often. Feel free to provide evidence if I'm mistaken.

dirk digler
12-01-2009, 04:45 PM
Because Direckshun challenged me to a bet. I don't see any hypocrisy at all. The speech hasn't happened yet.

It seems clear that, at the very least, they floated the idea of a timeframe and seem to be back-tracking now.

If Obama doesn't mention a timeframe in the speech, I'll gladly honor my bet.

BS. Your post at #5 says he is going to announce a time frame when that is not going to happen apparently. You didn't wait until the POTUS made his speech to start bitching.

I think we all should wait then we can praise or bitch what he is doing.

Direckshun
12-01-2009, 04:48 PM
As I wrote, I don't believe that I've ever repped you. I don't rep very often. Feel free to provide evidence if I'm mistaken.

Well tell you what, Donger, because you're a complete tool, I'll give you this one on the house.

This time, you don't have to say you're wrong. Even though, once again, you are.

Donger
12-01-2009, 04:49 PM
BS. Your post at #5 says he is going to announce a time frame when that is not going to happen. You didn't wait until the POTUS made his speech to start bitching.

According to this article, it is going to happen (or was). We'll see whether or not the article was accurate tonight. But, like I wrote, I see no reason to admit that I lost the bet with Direckshun at this point, do you? That's what I was responding to with my post about let's see what he says.

I guess both you and he got all riled up over that. Sorry you misunderstood.

Direckshun
12-01-2009, 04:50 PM
BS. Your post at #5 says he is going to announce a time frame when that is not going to happen apparently. You didn't wait until the POTUS made his speech to start bitching.

Because nothing's on the line. There are no consequences.

That's why these guys all say the things they do. But the second you start placing consequences on the crazy stuff they say, they back away.

They probably actually believe a fraction of what they say. The rest of it is target practice on a strawman. That's it.

Donger
12-01-2009, 04:50 PM
Well tell you what, Donger, because you're a complete tool, I'll give you this one on the house.

This time, you don't have to say you're wrong. Even though, once again, you are.

My memory was incorrect, no question about it.

Donger
12-01-2009, 05:05 PM
Well tell you what, Donger, because you're a complete tool, I'll give you this one on the house.

This time, you don't have to say you're wrong. Even though, once again, you are.

What thread is that from, BTW?

HonestChieffan
12-01-2009, 05:08 PM
Man this is getting killed by Dems and Repubs. Watch ObamaRatings fall after this hokus-pokus.

For the young folks, read up on Robert McNamara, LBJ, and Viet Nam. This dance has been seen before. Limited engagement failed and they didnt have to read a guy his rights or ask 4 levels of superiors to shoot a bad guy.

Direckshun
12-01-2009, 06:52 PM
What thread is that from, BTW?

We had what you call a gentleman's bet, and what I'd call a "Donger is scared shitless" bet about whether Obama would win the Presidency over John McCain.

Guess who won.

dirk digler
12-01-2009, 06:58 PM
Man this is getting killed by Dems and Repubs. Watch ObamaRatings fall after this hokus-pokus.

For the young folks, read up on Robert McNamara, LBJ, and Viet Nam. This dance has been seen before. Limited engagement failed and they didnt have to read a guy his rights or ask 4 levels of superiors to shoot a bad guy.

30,000 troops is a limited engagement? This is basically what McChrystal asked for. Is he wrong and everyone else right?

HonestChieffan
12-01-2009, 07:13 PM
Coming home in 18 months....nice move before election. Oh, that should give the Taliban time to rest and relax till we leave.

Direckshun
12-01-2009, 07:14 PM
Limited engagement failed

This surge is much larger, in men and in percentages, than the Iraq surge.

The partisan media you rely on are lying to you.

HonestChieffan
12-01-2009, 07:18 PM
You don't know what a limited engagement is do you.

dirk digler
12-01-2009, 07:26 PM
You don't know what a limited engagement is do you.

Apparently you don't know either coward.

General McChrystal:

The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the President has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task. The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the President's address are critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security.

Direckshun
12-01-2009, 07:26 PM
You don't know what a limited engagement is do you.

Link me to an official definition, because I've never heard it before, and Bush's surge definitely was not referred to as a limited engagement. As far as I know right now, it is a made-up term that is malleable enough to mean that the President is sending a half-effort to the war in Afghanistan. The fact that you're comparing it to Vietnam is not by accident.

He has almost completely met the boots on the ground demanded by the general in Afghanistan. His surge is larger, both in percentage and in manpower, than the Iraq surge. And it is to be deployed fairly rapidly.

So define limited engagement, and link me to the official source you got it from.

Because I am willing to bet that you got it from a fringe website that feeds off misinformation and the ignorance of its readers.

HonestChieffan
12-01-2009, 07:32 PM
I thought they said it would take months and months to ship soldiers over to the war zone. Now we hear we are committing 30,000 but we will start shutting down in 18 monts. So, how long will we have this surge in place if we have to fix all the things he is listing off in 18 months?

dirk digler
12-01-2009, 07:32 PM
He can't direckshun. Having over 100,000 troops in one country is not a limited engagement

Deberg_1990
12-01-2009, 07:34 PM
Can somebody tell me what we are going to be able to accomplish in 18 months that we havent been able to do in 8 years?????

Direckshun
12-01-2009, 07:35 PM
He can't direckshun. Having over 100,000 troops in one country is not a limited engagement

No shit.

"Limited engagement" is literally something made up over the past few days as a meme. It's not an official definition that I can find anywhere on the Internet.

HCF is being played by some fringe website.

Direckshun
12-01-2009, 07:35 PM
Can somebody tell me what we are going to be able to accomplish in 18 months that we havent been able to do in 8 years?????

Question of the night.

dirk digler
12-01-2009, 07:38 PM
Can somebody tell me what we are going to be able to accomplish in 18 months that we havent been able to do in 8 years?????

Considering they didn't have near enough resources or troops I think they can accomplish alot. Never underestimate the US Military.

HonestChieffan
12-01-2009, 07:45 PM
With the Rules of Engagement in place and having our soldiers all schooled up on reading the miranda rights on the battlefield....hard to know what will come from this.

dirk digler
12-01-2009, 07:58 PM
What is going to be interesting is how many additional troops our NATO allies will send or if they will send any at all. I would hope he had discussions with them prior to saying they are going to send more troops.

HonestChieffan
12-01-2009, 08:07 PM
What is going to be interesting is how many additional troops our NATO allies will send or if they will send any at all. I would hope he had discussions with them prior to saying they are going to send more troops.

What is your guess?

dirk digler
12-01-2009, 08:08 PM
What is your guess?

I am hoping he called them if not he is stupid.

dirk digler
12-01-2009, 08:10 PM
McCain likes the plan but blasts the timeline.

But maybe Obama is on to something here because this is what McCain said a little while ago.

McCain goes a bit farther on CBS: "Hamid Karzai knows very well that if US troops leave he’ll be leaving shortly thereafter or find himself probably assassinated."

memyselfI
12-01-2009, 08:12 PM
Meet the new boss
Same as it ever was
Same shit, different dude
The more things change

WilliamTheIrish
12-01-2009, 08:12 PM
With the Rules of Engagement in place and having our soldiers all schooled up on reading the miranda rights on the battlefield....hard to know what will come from this.

You're a fucking idiot.

First it's a "limited engagement".

When that gets shredded

Then it's "What about rules of engagement"? and some ridiculous miranda rights on the battlefield"?

Yea you're a real patriot, you piece of fucking trash.

Captain Obvious
12-01-2009, 08:12 PM
I am hoping he called them if not he is stupid.

No specifics, but a response. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_59618.htm?mode=pressrelease

memyselfI
12-01-2009, 08:12 PM
Did he call the freaking Nobel Peace Prize Committee?

dirk digler
12-01-2009, 08:14 PM
No specifics, but a response. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_59618.htm?mode=pressrelease

Thanks but I will wait and see how many troops they will actually commit.

Donger
12-01-2009, 08:17 PM
We had what you call a gentleman's bet, and what I'd call a "Donger is scared shitless" bet about whether Obama would win the Presidency over John McCain.

Guess who won.

So, what thread?

Donger
12-01-2009, 08:18 PM
Direckshun:

WEST POINT, N.Y. – Declaring "our security is at stake," President Barack Obama ordered an additional 30,000 U.S. troops into the long war in Afghanistan on Tuesday night, but balanced the buildup with a pledge to an impatient nation to begin withdrawing American forces in 18 months.

Is that 18 months a "calendar-measured timeframe"?

memyselfI
12-01-2009, 08:19 PM
Can somebody tell me what we are going to be able to accomplish in 18 months that we havent been able to do in 8 years?????

Reward those companies that made Lite the largest recipient of defense industry lobbyists campaign contributions in 2008. :doh!:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?cycle=2008&ind=D

dirk digler
12-01-2009, 08:23 PM
Direckshun:

WEST POINT, N.Y. Declaring "our security is at stake," President Barack Obama ordered an additional 30,000 U.S. troops into the long war in Afghanistan on Tuesday night, but balanced the buildup with a pledge to an impatient nation to begin withdrawing American forces in 18 months.

Is that 18 months a "calendar-measured timeframe"?

I think you won.

Donger
12-01-2009, 09:01 PM
I think you won.

I hope you aren't always as premature.

dirk digler
12-01-2009, 09:04 PM
I hope you aren't always as premature.

I will try harder next time

Donger
12-01-2009, 09:06 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/01/obama.afghanistan.speech.transcript/index.html

Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.

Donger
12-01-2009, 09:07 PM
I will try harder next time

I hope so.

Donger
12-02-2009, 09:09 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/01/obama.afghanistan.speech.transcript/index.html

Transcript of Obama speech on Afghanistan

Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans. I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan -- the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here at West Point where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.

To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban -- a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them -- an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 -- the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda's terrorist network, and to protect our common security.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention -- and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.

But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda's leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.

Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation's Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and -- although it was marred by fraud -- that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution.

Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan -- Gen. McChrystal -- has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable.

As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. As your commander in chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010 -- so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people and our troops no less.

This review is now complete. And as commander in chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you -- a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As president, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I have traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

So no -- I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda's safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.

The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 -- the fastest pace possible -- so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility -- what's at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.

Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government -- and, more importantly, to the Afghan people -- that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.

Donger
12-02-2009, 09:10 AM
Second Part:



Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.

This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas -- such as agriculture -- that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation -- by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand -- America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect -- to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan's democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort -- one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

As president, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don't have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We have failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.

All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended -- because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.

Now, let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.

And we can't count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons -- true security will come for those who reject them.

We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world -- one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.

Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values -- for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That is why we must promote our values by living them at home -- which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source -- the moral source of America's authority.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions -- from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank -- that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades -- a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for -- what we continue to fight for -- is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.

As a country, we are not as young -- and perhaps not as innocent -- as we were when Roosevelt was president. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people -- from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people and for the people a reality on this Earth.

This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue -- nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.

It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united -- bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we -- as Americans -- can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment -- they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people.

America, we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God Bless you and God Bless the United States of America.

BucEyedPea
12-02-2009, 09:13 AM
How are we going to get rid of the NeoCon Kool-Aid in America?
It needs to be an endless committment because they'll be at it again sooner or later.

Chief Henry
12-02-2009, 09:44 AM
Obama is delivering on one of his TOP campaign promise's. The left should NOT be crying about this. This is actually one campaign promise he IS delivering on right now !!!

Yesterday we learned that this admn. saved or helped start 600,000 to 1,600,000
jobs !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Given that large gap of ONE MILLION jobs - what are we to believe
when Obama says 18 months ?

BTW, why would one signal to the enemy we are fighting that we'll start pulling out
troops in a particular month?

Pray for our country those of you who are so inclined to pray. Our country is going to need some extra help for these next several years.

Direckshun
12-02-2009, 12:00 PM
Direckshun:

WEST POINT, N.Y. – Declaring "our security is at stake," President Barack Obama ordered an additional 30,000 U.S. troops into the long war in Afghanistan on Tuesday night, but balanced the buildup with a pledge to an impatient nation to begin withdrawing American forces in 18 months.

Is that 18 months a "calendar-measured timeframe"?

Yeah, shit. I wasn't specific enough. I meant a time to be withdrawn. Not the beginning of withdrawals, but that's on me.

I was wrong. :)

See you guys could have had my avatar for a while if you had any balls.

Donger
12-02-2009, 12:06 PM
By the way, the White House has already said today that a calendar-measured timeframe would not be mentioned in tonights speech.

So you can save yourself the time and admission right now.

Where did you hear this, BTW?

Bill Parcells
12-02-2009, 12:09 PM
Nice of Obama to give our enemies a time frame. Just hold out for three more years and victory will be yours!

Pathetic.

That was a very dumb statement that was only made to appease the left. another awful way to politicize something that is more important than politics..he really is an idiot.

patteeu
12-02-2009, 01:51 PM
30,000 troops is a limited engagement? This is basically what McChrystal asked for. Is he wrong and everyone else right?

LOL, that's like saying a transvestite hooker is "basically" what the hetero john asked for.

Direckshun
12-02-2009, 01:55 PM
Where did you hear this, BTW?

I read the transcript of the Dec 1st press briefing.

Q Thank you. First of all, can I ask that you identify yourselves -- not for the transcript, just for our background information? Also I wanted to drill down on your statement that the President will talk about a date to begin the transfer of power. It's been reported widely that three years is that date. Is that correct or not? And what does that mean, the beginning -- what is he going to announce? What exactly does that date signify, how should we understand it? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, let's let -- let me -- the three-year figure, in all honesty, is not in the speech. Let me give you a sense of what my colleague just said and what the President will reiterate tonight, that the strategy that he outlined to accelerate -- will accelerate handing over security responsibilities to the Afghan forces and thus allow the United States to begin to transfer our forces out of Afghanistan beginning in July of 2011.

As my colleague mentioned previously, the slope thereafter is something that will be determined by the Commander-in-Chief, but the date that he will use tonight to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan would begin in July of 2011.

See I read there that we begin pulling troops out by July of 2011, but nothing about when we would actually be pulled out, which is what I was referring to. But the vagueness is my fault, not anybody else's, and I'll own up to that.

patteeu
12-02-2009, 02:05 PM
He can't direckshun. Having over 100,000 troops in one country is not a limited engagement

You're a ****ing idiot.

First it's a "limited engagement".

When that gets shredded

Then it's "What about rules of engagement"? and some ridiculous miranda rights on the battlefield"?

Yea you're a real patriot, you piece of ****ing trash.

How was "limited engagement" shredded? It sounds like that's what Obama was trying to sell us last night to me. He may have had his fingers crossed behind his back, but he was clearly (or as clearly as he ever is) trying to emphasize the fact that our efforts were limited in time and would begin to wind down in mid 2011 (just in time for the beginning of the presidential campaign, coincidentally).

Chocolate Hog
12-02-2009, 03:12 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/07/obama.pakistan/

"I find it amusing that those who helped to authorize and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation are now criticizing me for making sure that we are on the right battlefield and not the wrong battlefield in the war against terrorism," he said."

So the person who played a part in authroizing the biggest foreign policy disaster is now Obamas Secrterary Of State. Could this guy be anymore full of shit?

patteeu
12-15-2009, 05:03 AM
Ralph Peters (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/setting_up_our_military_to_fail_lBlTIHm69SM02Lly5JbNaO):

Setting up our military to fail

Last Updated: 4:58 AM, December 2, 2009

Just plain nuts: That's the only possible characterization for last night's presidential declaration of surrender in advance of a renewed campaign in Afghanistan.

President Obama will send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan -- but he'll "begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011." Then why send them?

If you're going to tell the Taliban to be patient because we're leaving, what's the point in upping the blood ante? For what will come down to a single year by the time the troops hit the ground?

Does Obama really expect to achieve in one year what we haven't been able to do in more than eight?

Adding to the confusion, Obama qualified his timeline by insisting that "we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground."

If conditions of the ground are key, why announce a pullout date?

And what did this "new strategy" come down to, otherwise? More of the same, but more: More troops, more civilians, more partnership.

Well, the troops will go, the civilians won't -- and the partnerships are a fantasy.

Our president is setting up our military to fail -- but he'll be able to claim that he gave the generals what they wanted. Failure will be their fault.

He's covering his strong-on-security flank, even as he plays to our white-flag wavers. His cynicism's worthy of a Saddam.

Obama's right about one thing, though: The Afghans "will ultimately be responsible for their own country." So why undercut them with an arbitrary timeline that doesn't begin to allow adequate time to expand and train sufficient Afghan forces? Does he really believe that young Afghans are going to line up to join the army and police knowing that we plan to abandon them in mid-2011?

Does the 2012 election ring a bell?

What messages did our president's bait-and-switch speech just send?

To our troops: Risk your lives for a mission I've written off.

To our allies: Race you to the exit ramp.

To the Taliban: Allah is merciful, your prayers will soon be answered.

To Afghan leaders: Get your stolen wealth out of the country.

To Pakistan: Renew your Taliban friendships now (and be nice to al Qaeda).

This isn't just stupid: It's immoral. No American president has ever espoused such a worthless, self-absorbed non-strategy for his own political gratification.

On the other hand, the stage lighting and the camera angles at West Point were terrific. Our president looked good. Jaw jutting high (in his "hope" pose), he decried political partisanship -- but spent more time blaming Bush and Iraq for our Afghan problems than he spent blaming the Taliban (check it with a stop-watch).

Nor did Obama miss a single chance to praise himself, insisting that he's already transformed our relationship with the Middle East (please notify the Iranians, al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas) and that all of his dithering demonstrated wisdom.

This guy loves to hear himself talk. The last quarter of the speech was boiler-plate rhetoric that wandered off into the clouds. And that human-rights stuff? Where was that during his visits to China and Saudi Arabia? Hypocrisy, thy name is Barack.

Above all, where was the strategy? And where are the four-star resignations over a policy designed to squander American lives just to give an administration political cover?

After eight years of failure to create effective Afghan security forces and a responsible government, does anyone believe we can do it in 12 to 18 months?

"Target the insurgency"? Does that mean our soldiers will finally be permitted to go after our enemies and kill them? Nope. Those troops are going to "secure population centers." We'll be passive and let the enemy choose where and when to strike.

When fighting insurgents and terrorists, if you're not slamming them up against the wall and breaking their bones, you're losing. Obama isn't sending more troops -- he's sending more targets.

How do the Marines and soldiers slated to go to Afghanistan feel today, knowing that their commander-in-chief has already declared defeat?

By the time Obama finally got to Pakistan -- the refuge of evil -- he was spouting pure nonsense: "We are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect and mutual trust." But our interests diverge, we don't respect each other and we certainly don't trust each other.

Sounded good, though.

Mr. President, how can you send our troops to war without backing them all the way? How could you pull the strategic rug out from under them in advance? Why did you reassure the Taliban that we've already fixed a sell-by date? What's the bloody point?

At West Point last night, President Obama's delivery was superb. But what he was delivering was a funeral oration for his promised strategy.