Posted on 01/25/2009 11:24:43 PM PST by FocusNexus
Vice-president Biden reveals US forces will step up operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The Obama administration warned the US public yesterday to brace itself for an increase in American casualties as it prepares to step up the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan.
Against a background of widespread protests in Pakistan and Afghanistan over US operations since Obama became president, the vice-president, Joe Biden, said yesterday that US forces would be engaged in many more operations as it takes the fight to its enemies in the region.
The Obama administration is to double the number of US troops in Afghanistan to 60,000 and when asked in a television interview if the US public should expect more American casualties, Biden said: "I hate to say it, but yes, I think there will be. There will be an uptick."
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Very simple. They lie, and the media supports the lie. Nuthin' to it!
I remember well that in the leadup to the Surge in Iraq all the naysayers were also predicting the same thing for Iraq , a great uptick in US casualties . Yet in fact casualties dropped precipitously and and have remained vastly lower since.
Some US Battalions and even entire Brigades doing their entire tours with almost no losses . Think of 2005 & 2006 .
Bush was so right and well advised by the likes of General David Petraeus who is , THANK GOD , still on scene and advising Mr. Obama right now. We also may conclude that all these mouthy frothing Jihadis are a bunch of cowards who use women and children as shields ,but who run and hide in the deepest hole they can find when they know we are coming for them in much greater numbers . I totally wish our President the best on this . And please bring us the head of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Sawahiri on a plate . Fill the skies with Predators !
CYA
Gets worse, he said so, and it is no surprise.
Gets better, OH MY GOD the Messiah performed a miracle.
I wonder if they will use the “V” word *now*?
Victory?
That’s a valid point. It this is just a way to draw down Iraq too early I would agree that it’s a very bad idea.
Thanks for the response.
I agree with your reasoning. Thanks for the comments.
Those are all good questions to be asking. I have seen very little talk about what is actually going to take place here, or how it is going to be facilitated.
I’m not going to back something that is revealed to be a serious miscalculation, or simply a devious way to draw down Iraq prematurely. We should be asking questions. In the end, if Obama’s actions on this matter do sound reasoned, I’m not against backing his move.
This is one we’ll have to keep our eyes open and continue to watch as it unfolds no doubt.
Lori, I have backed Bushes actions in Iraq since before he took them. Any questions?
A very good article about protecting us from terrorism:
2,668 Days without an attack by Mark Thiessen
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012103215.html
“As the new president receives his intelligence briefings, certain facts must now be apparent: Al-Qaeda is actively working to attack our country again. And the policies and institutions that George W. Bush put in place to stop this are succeeding. During the campaign, Obama pledged to dismantle many of these policies. He follows through on those pledges at America’s peril — and his own. If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible — and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation.
Consider, for example, the CIA program that Bush created to detain and question senior leaders captured in the war on terror. Many of these terrorists, including Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, refused to talk — until Bush authorized the CIA to use enhanced interrogation techniques. Information gained using those techniques is responsible for stopping a number of planned attacks — including plots to blow up the American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan; to fly airplanes into the towers of Canary Wharf in London; and to fly a hijacked airplane into the Library Tower in Los Angeles. “
Now that Obama banned aggressive interrogations, we would NOT find out about any of these attacks in advance and don’t think the terrorists aren’t planning many more.
There may be some truth to that. I am not convinced he’ll get Osama Bin Lauden. I would like to have thought Bush did everything in his power to get him. I would not be too happy a camper if Obama wound up doing it in a few months, even if I would be happy Laden was finally brought down.
Do you do windows?
” agree, especially since the Republican party is just sitting there, trying to appeal to “moderates” and not offering any alternatives—nor, in this case, SHOULD they be.”
Actually I think Republicans are trying to get their act together ( and hope they will) and they should indeed offer alternative and point out flaws in the Obama agenda.
Here is an article by clearly a Democrat complaining that Republicans may actually oppose Obama’s agenda.
Ready-for-Disaster Republicans
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2171771/posts
“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121668659664272147.html
from the article:
Mr. Obama should have supported the surge in Iraq, but that doesn’t mean that advocating one in Afghanistan makes sense.”
Excellent, informative article, thanks for posting it.
Why don’t you find someone else to act childish with.
Obama will INVITE Bin Laden to the White House for diplomatic talks, guaranteeing his full safety, of course, they will have joint photo-ops and Obama will tell us, see, how much better diplomacy works.
Then within a month we’ll get attacked — what will Obama say then?
(I am being sarcastic, but I don’t think this is as far from the truth as I would like it to be)
You’re welcome, I thought it was on target.
I get this sense Obama is acting according to what the Democrat POLITICIANS want in order to make political hay—”You shouldn’t have attacked Iraq, but put all that in AFGHANISTAN”—as if one size fits all in military matters.
Bush, for all his flaws, seemed to listen to the military, and stick with their advice even when public sentiment was against it.
Oh, for cryin’ out loud! I was just joking with ya!
I would agree that if we’re talking about sending in traditional troops to do heavy battle, then perhaps the surge is not warranted. However, if the goal is to work with the people on projects and build relations with them, then more troops means more contacts and more projects that can be done jointly. I think the writer may have some good points to make, but I’m not convinced her overall conclusion is spot on.
This woman has mad ten tours of Afghanistan. She should know more than I do. I still note that leftist politicians make tours too, and they seldom get it right.
Hmm, that first question to me was a joke huh?
Look Lori, I’ve been here to long to be questioned about whether I support Bush’s efforts in Iraq or not.
What effort at humor took place after that wasn’t going to be received warmly.
Perhaps we’ll get a chance to agree on another thread.
Well, Obama has certainly set himself up for this type of speculation hasn’t he.
I know where you are coming from.
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.