Posted on 09/19/2009 7:09:27 AM PDT by MestaMachine
Six months after it announced its strategy for Afghanistan, the Obama administration is sending mixed signals about its objectives there and how many troops are needed to achieve them.
The conflicting messages are drawing increasing ire from U.S. commanders in Afghanistan and frustrating military leaders, who are trying to figure out how to demonstrate that they're making progress in the 12-18 months that the administration has given them.
Adding to the frustration, according to officials in Kabul and Washington, are White House and Pentagon directives made over the last six weeks that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, not submit his request for as many as 45,000 additional troops because the administration isn't ready for it.> snip
Three officers at the Pentagon and in Kabul told McClatchy Newspapers that the McChrystal they know would resign before he would stand behind a faltering policy that he thought would endanger his forces or the strategy. >snip
The White House still hasn't decided how much political capital it wants to invest in Afghanistan, and it considers a health care overhaul, financial regulatory revisions and energy policy its priorities, the senior defense official said.
In Kabul, however, U.S. commanders said they thought that Obama's strategy was based on McChrystal's assessment of what he needs. "We thought that bringing McChrystal here was their strategy," one said.
Those officials said that taking time could be costly because the U.S. risked losing the Afghans' support. "Dithering is just as destructive as 10 car bombs," the senior official in Kabul said. "They have seen us leave before. They are really good at picking the right side to ally with."
(Excerpt) Read more at miamiherald.com ...
•Obama has yet to define U.S. objectives in Afghanistan
Obama has yet to define U.S. objectives in AfghanistanAs the Obama administration and Congress begin a heated debate about how many more American troops to send to Afghanistan, military observers, soldiers on the ground there and some top Pentagon officials are warning that dispatching even tens of thousands more soldiers and Marines might not ensure success.
Some even fear that deploying more U.S. troops, especially in the wake of a U.S. airstrike last week that killed and wounded scores of Afghan civilians, would convince more Afghans that the Americans are occupiers rather than allies and relieve the pressure on the Afghan government to improve its own security forces.
The heart of the problem, soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and some officials in Washington told McClatchy Newspapers, is that neither Barack Obama's White House nor the Pentagon has clearly defined America's mission in Afghanistan. As a result, some soldiers in the field said, they aren't sure what their objectives are.
Obama is trying to figure out how to lose in the worst possible way.
PING!
This is unconscionable! o is riding his media horse to 5, count them, FIVE Sunday TV News shows to talk about deathcare and evil insurance, while our Troops wait...and DIE!!!
He is MURDERING our Troops. This cannot stand. The military MUST do something!
Kinda like the NY Mets
Obama is not willing to do what needs to be done in order to win.
Part of his plan to de-develop the USA.
This Marxist and traitor is putting the country in harms way more than just the examples you’ve indicated.
As Obama waffles, SOLDIERS DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Right- the TOTUS plans to dither with “his war” for 12-18 months as many brave Americans (and allies) risk their lives and DIE waiting for him to figure out what to do
God forbid the marxists should employ Petraeus or any other “Bush” advisor
Gates as SecDef, you are a massive sellout. Shame on you, sir.
There is NO curent govt official now worthy of issuing orders to risk life to even the lowest ranking American soldier.
God Bless and protect them, so many are just teenagers and others, on their 3-4-5th tours i that hellish place as the American values they fight for are under vicious attack right at home
The man is a clueless I-N-C-O-M-P-E-T-E-N-T
Somebody in Congress needs to get up on their hindlegs and demand a coherent policy from the White House.
might be a good time for career military to retire....
like they did in droves under Clinton.
obama doesnt think we are spending enough
I have come to believe this myself. As the someone said in the article, dithering is worse than 10 car bombs.
The Taliban is watching our European Allies pussy out. They can read the Fringe Media and see that support for Obama's war in Afghanistan is flagging. And they just saw what we did to the Czechs and Poles.
Pulling out is bad-- staying in but not fighting to win really will make Afghanistan "Obama's Vietnam."
I have come to believe this myself. As the someone said in the article, dithering is worse than 10 car bombs.
The Taliban is watching our European Allies pussy out. They can read the Fringe Media and see that support for Obama's war in Afghanistan is flagging. And they just saw what we did to the Czechs and Poles.
Pulling out is bad-- staying in but not fighting to win really will make Afghanistan "Obama's Vietnam."
In HIS view, he is winning by weakening this country in every possible way. Noice that he won't reveal his long term vision for America because his goal is to tear it down.
The teleprompter needs to show some leadership here. Either support a plan for victory or get out now. Anything in between can lead to another Vietnam. I would greatly prefer a path to victory, but it’s likely to be costly. Mountainous terrain evens the playing field for friend and foe.
With recent events of the potential prosecution of CIA agents and former Bush attorneys, granting rights to terrorists, elimination of the “global war on terror,” and the scrapping of the Eastern Europe missle defense program; I suspect our TOTUS will get out now. He doesn’t want to repeat the mistakes of LBJ, nor, evidently, does he care about the potentially weakened image of American resolve against our enemies.
I’ve always believed that America is far safer from a position of strength. Our enemies need to respect and fear us— especially the crazy ones. Although I much prefer a victory in Afghanistan, a “get out now” decision won’t bother me as much as a half-hearted play-not-to-lose strategy.
I want America to succeed even if it benefits our president. Our soldiers bleed no matter who’s in office.
We simply cannot afford to lose in Afghanistan.
The consequences would be devastating to us.
We’ve already suffered a serious setback on the missile shield debacle which is sending the wrong message to our enemies and scaring our friends.
This Idiot Marxist scum is calling the shots and getting Americans killed !
“Obama is not willing to do what needs to be done in order to win.”
For the bam, this IS winning. Anytime we lose, HE wins. That is what he wants. That is what he is. He is the ENEMY WITHIN, and we are permitting it.
The military has got to stand for us. If they don’t, we are heading for a confrontation that will take us decades to resolve. I just can’t see any other way.
He intends to have HIS way in the face of extreme, (and growing,) dissatisfaction of the American population. His way, and WE pay. And pay...
I’m guessing the Afghans - the educated ones in government - have seen what we just did to Poland and are busy hedging bets with the Taliban.
I did a tour (6 months) in Afghanistan...the Afghans are a tough people who don’t respect any sign of weakness.
Hey, he made a solid decision, don’t be too hard on Obama!
He made the wise decision to force soldiers into walking into fire with the precise order to not fire back. See, he is a fine CiC! /s
0b0z0 re Afghanistan appears to be scum resulting from blending Jimmy Carter’s genes with LBJ. Both were miserable presidents and would abandon our warriors with no problem.
Thank you for your service.
What branch? When were you there? And do you think we should be there at all if this is the way it continues?
I have gone nuts trying to get some attention on this. NO ONE seems willing to talk about it. No radio guys, no TV guys, No one. It is frustrating. Our death toll continues to rise.
“Hey, he made a solid decision, don’t be too hard on Obama!”
A five hundred pound SLEDGEHAMMER wouldn’t be enough hard on obama.
Or the Pittsburgh Pirates.
Obama is going to ruin the military and recreate it in his own, perverse image.
What kind of person is Obama??????
Some members of the military have already acted by not following the orders of their commanders and using as a reason that Obummer does not deserve to be president and that he was never born in this country and is not a true American citizen. They are challenging Obummer’s birth.
It isn’t enough. Not by a long shot. Each challenge has been turned back except for the one in CA. The longer the military obeys this enemy, Troops die without cause or purpose. That makes it murder. That makes it treason.
Thank you for your service to our country. God bless you.
Idiomatic anti-military “reporting” at it’s dumbest from Ms YOUSSEF.
“Or the Pittsburgh Pirates.”
OUCH!!!
“What kind of person is Obama??????”
A narcissistic, sociopathic, pathologically lying, meglomaniacal, ignorant, intolerant, muslim marxist street thug.
Did I miss anything?
Yeah? Well the sources aren’t “Ms. Youssef.” The sources are military.
The proof is dripping in.
Now what?
Who is dumb here? Her for reporting it, or you for ignoring reality?
Nope, I think you covered all the bases.
These are MUST reads for those who have anyone serving or who care about and support our military.
“AMBUSHED MARINES’AID CALL REJECTED”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2340992/posts
“WE’RE PINNED DOWN:’4 U.S. MARINES DIE IN AFGAN ABUSH”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2335142/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2336737/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2335336/posts
“GIS TOLD NOT TO RISK CIVILIAN LIVES”
http://www.military.com/cs/Satellite?c=maArticle&cid=1199422047446&pagename=News%2FnwsLayout
“OBAMA’S RULES OF ENGAGEMENT IN AFGHANISTAN COSTING OUR TROOPS LIVES”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2335891/posts
“BAGRAM INMATES CAN CHALLENGE DETENTION: PENTAGON”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2339337/posts
“ANALYSIS: WHITE HOUSE POSTPONING HARD CALLS ON WAR”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2340176/posts
“NO DEADLINE FOR TROOPS WITHDRAWAL FROM AFGHANISTAN: OBAMA ADMN”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2334327/posts
“MILITARY LEERY OF AFGHANISTAN ESCALATION WITH NO CLEAR GOALS”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2335026/posts
“U.N. LAWYERS TARGET U.S. TROOPS”
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=337473733467144
“Justice: As if fighting a war in Afghanistan isn’t hard enough, ambitious global prosecutors have rolled into Kabul looking to charge U.S. troops. Intentional or not, such legalism will sap U.S. morale as it did in Vietnam.
At about the time NATO’s new secretary-general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, warned NATO’s European members against an early pullout, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the top prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, whose body is charged with looking for international war criminals, announced he was looking for new “clients” from anyone with a grievance in Afghanistan.
At a briefing Wednesday in The Hague, Moreno-Ocampo said he had launched a new war crimes inquiry, seeking information about “torture” especially — a European obsession — and had already mined the human rights groups for stories. He added he was also “very open” to more information from foreign governments.
Oh, he’d been evenhanded in his Monday-morning battlefield quarterbacking of course, promising he’d prosecute both Taliban and NATO troops as moral equals.
But it doesn’t take a genius to know what the spotlight-loving attorney (who once launched his own reality TV show back in Argentina) is really after: Americans in the dock as war criminals.
The atmosphere that makes a prosecutor like Moreno-Ocampo ambitious enough to go after Americans instead of a real monster like, say, Fidel Castro, can only occur when the West’s will has weakened, as Rasmussen warned.
After all, if a war to defend our civilization can be reduced to a series of police-brutality cases, then Afghanistan isn’t about victory.
This is underscored by Washington’s conflicting aims.
Though our president has rightly boosted the number of troops in Afghanistan, he’s created a climate of doubt by declaring the war on terror an “overseas contingency operation” and stating he doesn’t believe in “winning.” It’s poison for morale and gives momentum to the kind of bureaucratic, legalistic and defeatist thinking that preceded our bitter pullout in Vietnam.
Moreno-Ocampo’s entry into Afghanistan is a sign that legalism has begun to overtake victory as a goal, at a time when our Taliban foes still believe in victory.
On the battlefield, our troops are increasingly constrained by legalistic rules of engagement.
Case in point: On Tuesday, four U.S. Marines and seven of their Afghani allies walked into a well-planned ambush and were killed in the Kunar province near the Pakistani border.
“We are pinned down. We are running low on ammo. We have no air. We’ve lost today,” Marine Maj. Kevin Williams, 37, told his Afghan counterpart, responding to the latter’s repeated demands for helicopters, McClatchy Newspapers reported.
Rules of engagement condemned them to die because they couldn’t get air cover.
According to McClatchy: “U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren’t near the village.”
Meanwhile, all pullout talk condemned those U.S. troops, too.
Ground intelligence sources who might have warned them were reportedly more fearful of Taliban retaliation than convinced that American troops would be able to defend them, given the weakening will of the West. They opted to survive.
Now, the latest legalistic block against winning is an international prosecutor looking for NATO troops to prosecute.
Back in 2002, President Bush told the ICC that there wouldn’t be any of that, and he rescinded the U.S. signature from the Rome Statute that would have opened the door to that. Today, there’s a legal battle going on at the ICC to make U.S. troops subject to doing it and there’s no signal from the White House that it will stop it.
Don’t think Moreno-Ocampo won’t do it. His history as a prosecutor suggests an affinity for publicity over justice, which is just what the anti-American crowd wants.
(snip)Someone like that won’t hesitate for a minute to make a big show of putting U.S. troops in the dock for “war crimes” no matter what the impact in Afghanistan. That’s defeat.
____________________________________________________________
Then there is this little tidbit:
0’s Giant Ego is too busy trying to be king of the World. He has no time to be bothered with what could be avoidable deaths of American servicemen.
Besides, he’s proving his qualifications to head up the “Security Council” (excuse my utter hysterical laughter!) to the America hating dweebs at the U.N..:
“Obama to seal US-UN relationship”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2334897/posts
“Dithering”
Our word for the day.
*PLEASE NOTE THIS PARAGRAPH IN THIS ARTICLE IN PARTICULAR.*
“In preparing his assessment of the Afghan command, McChrystal found an American military culture that showed a great concern for troops’ protection – sometimes at the expense of their relations with Afghan civilians.
To change those relations, McChrystal wants American forces to think twice about basic conduct - for instance no longer pointing their guns at people when they pass in convoy or blocking narrow roads with their convoys, while relegating Afghans to the ditches.
To deal with the most contentious aspect of those shaky relations, McChrystal has already committed to try to reduce civilian casualties by issuing new orders that restrict when troops should call in bombing strikes.”
http://www.hotsr.com/news/WireHeadlines/2009/08/02/general-wants-more-troops-for-afghan-war-26.php
From the posted article by McClatchy ‘We’re pinned down:’:
“...U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren’t near the village.”
___________________________________________________________
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/75036.html?storylink=MI_emailed
(snip)..Dashing from boulder to boulder, diving into trenches and ducking behind stone walls as the insurgents maneuvered to outflank us, we waited more than an hour for U.S. helicopters to arrive, despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five minutes away.
U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren’t near the village.
“We are pinned down. We are running low on ammo. We have no air. We’ve lost today,” Marine Maj. Kevin Williams, 37, said through his translator to his Afghan counterpart, responding to the latter’s repeated demands for helicopters.”
(snip)”...The Americans were there to give advice and call for air and artillery support if required.”
(snip)
(snip)”...Several U.S. officers said they suspected that the insurgents had been tipped off by sympathizers in the local Afghan security forces or by the village elders,..”
(snip)”..Lt. Fabayo and several other soldiers later said they’d seen women and children in the village shuttling ammunition to fighters positioned in windows and roofs. Across the valley and from their ridgeline outposts, the Afghans and Americans fired back.
(snip)”...At 5:50 a.m., Army Capt. Will Swenson, of Seattle, WA, the trainer of the Afghan Border Police unit in Shakani, began calling for air support or artillery fire from a unit of the Army’s 10th Mountain Division. The responses came back: No helicopters were available.
__________________________________________________________
NOTE: The women and children running ammo for the insurgents. The village elders undermining the U.S. efforts and siding with the Insurgency.
NOTE: Obama and McChrystal’s new ROE’s are protecting and defending the enemy. Not our troops.
Obama does not mind if US soldiers die while he works to have the Taliban defeat the US military and he has taken action to weaken them as best he can. To him the demoralizing of the US military is “progress.” He remembers what happen to the Soviet Union in it’s fight in Afghanistan. That is his strategy for the US in this war. It is no wonder he has not laid out his war strategy directly. Watch what he does - not what his teleprompter says.
We need to get our soldiers out of war NOW before Obama reaches success.
This is the nightmare that every one of us has been fearing.
Thank you for the article. No lunch for me today. my appetite is gone, gone, gone.
How to deal with people like BO.
1. Only do what you are directly told to do (Publicly).
2. Don’t think, just respond.
3. When something goes wrong just respond that your were doing EXACTLY as BO directed.
4. Don’t take any non specific orders. Always ask for specific detailed instructions and then follow them to the letter.
5. Let BO micromanage EVERY minute detail.
6. Never accept “Use your best judgment” order. Let him specify all details.
7. Do nothing except what is precisely defined.
8. Let BO spend all of his time micromanaging the military and pronounce all results as “as directly instructed by the POTUS”.
It works. I’ve had managers who tried this on me and I turned it back on them. After a couple of days they leave me alone and I can get my work done properly.
Just doing what he’s always done - voting “Present”.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/Military_vs_health_care.html
September 18, 2009
Categories: Healthcare
Military vs. health care?
This report, from CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr, is not exactly how the White House wants things seen right now:
The White House is not ready to hear what the General has to say. All indications are McChrystal now believes he needs 30-40 thousand additional troops. Military sources tell us they worry, it’s a huge decision the White House does not want to get in the way of other issues like health care. But senior military officials have long signaled they can’t wait too long given Afghanistan’s collapsing security.
Starr reported yesterday that the White House had asked McChrystal to hold off on turning in a completed policy review, and this issue is starting to get serious traction among administration critics.
Obummer is like the Emperor Nero: fiddling while Rome burns.
“Obummer is like the Emperor Nero: fiddling while Rome burns.”
More like the Maestro directing the torches.
“In HIS view, he is winning by weakening this country in every possible way. Noice that he won’t reveal his long term vision for America because his goal is to tear it down.”
I agree. He is actively committing treason in open view for all to see.
Neat tactics in an office.
Not worth a **** if you’ve got your butt under fire.
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.