The future CinC speaks.
Posted on 10/06/2009 3:18:18 PM PDT by euram
For two years as a candidate, Senator Obama called for more resources for the war in Afghanistan and warned about the consequences of failure. As President, he announced a comprehensive new counterinsurgency strategy and handpicked the right general to execute it. Now General McChrystal is asking for additional troops to implement the strategy announced by President Obama in March. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers in harm's way in Afghanistan right now. We owe it to all those brave Americans serving in uniform to give them the tools they need to complete their mission.
We can win in Afghanistan by helping the Afghans build a stable representative state able to defend itself. And we must do what it takes to prevail. The stakes are very high. The 9/11 attacks were planned in Afghanistan, and if we are not successful there, al Qaeda will once again find a safe haven, the Taliban will impose its cruelty on the Afghan people, and Pakistan will be less stable.
Our allies and our adversaries are watching to see if we have the staying power to protect our interests in Afghanistan. I recently joined a group of Americans in urging President Obama to devote the resources necessary in Afghanistan and pledged to support him if he made the right decision. Now is not the time for cold feet, second thoughts, or indecision -- it is the time to act as commander-in-chief and approve the troops so clearly needed in Afghanistan.
- Sarah Palin
(Excerpt) Read more at facebook.com ...
Give’em hell, Sadie.
They can’t handle you.
At all.
Bull... you can’t build a stable democracy in a region that has never had and doesn’t seem to want it, regardless of how big an occupying force you’ve got there. We can send every able bodied American over there with a gun to every Afghani’s head screaming “Be free, damnit!” and it wouldn’t matter. All we are doing, as usual, is throwing money down a bottomless pit in the name of nation building. Never works, never will.
Good luck with the Hussein “rules of engagement.”
Islam wants to see our troops humilitaed and killed - they are someone’s bosses.
Hey “marine” Judge Carter - are you listening?
Newsflash: There is no “Win” in Barry or the Dems vocabulary when it comes to Afghanistan. Truth beknown, either they are utterly in fear of another US “Vietnam” or they are wanting another US Vietnam....to help hasten in the demise of the US. Can’t have world governance without destroying the US economically, spiritually, and military complex.
The future CinC speaks.
Surge NOW Obama! Win or GTFO. Don’t leave our troops in limbo.
The good ship Obama will tack hard right, while his crew of leftists pretend not to notice.
Ready the popcorn!
A caller claiming to be a Navy commander who worked with the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that McChrystal originally wanted 130,000 troops but was urged to take it “below 50,000” so that the Rats might support it. In other words, we are woefully undermanned in Afghanistan and 40,000 more is BARELY enough to win the war.
Cross her off the list. Anyone who thinks that we can create a stable government out of the corrupt, vote-stealing, and unpopular regime lacks good sense. It seems that she has totally gone of over to the “dark side” of her necon debate coach, Billy Kristol.
Invalid comparison, the Japanese Emperor told his people to be cool, settle down, and start making Sony televisions instead of hostile carrier groups.
No such option exists in the AF-PAK quagmire.
Undermanned? We have more troops there than Bush ever did. We simply can’t afford to create the corrupt, vote-stealing Karzai regime. Bring the troops home!
THRILL UP MY LEG!
While politically this might be good, militarily it’s not going to happen.
There is just no conceivable way that only 100,000 NATO forces can direct the outcome of the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, who outnumber them 1,410 to 1.
Especially when the administration is naive and inept, with a few dolts like Biden who thinks he can run a war better than the General Staff on one side, and a collective of anti-war and anti-military moonbats on the other side.
This current group are far less capable than even Lyndon Johnson’s war cabinet, a profoundly incompetent bunch.
Since they are not being given the manpower and rules with which to fight, the best idea for NATO is to do what is being done, retreat to the cities, attack the bad guys only from the air, and to minimize the risk to our forces.
I meant to say prop up not create.
Germany. Japan. S-Korea.
One might argue that these cases were much more developed than Afghanistan. But establishing a stable government is not rocket science and preferable to a Taliban cesspool.
BTW I wouldn't be against making an Afghan General an authoritarianpresident.But establishing a stable government (whatever form) is not rocket science and preferable to a Taliban cesspool.
Not that I expect to change the attitudes of the isolationists.
Radically different culture and history. The “nation” of Afghanistan is basically a bunch of tribal badlands, and they have basically not sense of nationalism unlike the Japanese or Germans. And Germany and Japan were not the World’s economic armpit like Afghanistan is where the only cash cow is poppy (which magically blossomed after the Taliban was ousted). We should’ve gone after OBL (remember him?) instead of getting bogged down in more UN-style nation building. You’d think eventually we’d learn the lessons of the past, but not in Washington. Our military is designed to devastate and sweep, not to occupy and act as peacekeepers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.