Posted on 11/12/2009 4:06:27 AM PST by DeusExMachina05
President Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.
That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official.
In strongly worded classified cables to Washington, Eikenberry said he had misgivings about sending in new troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the official told the AP.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Seems like it was the same in iraq. the surge gave the new govt strength.
So politics gets in the way, and also moves to the front of the line ... ahead of saving troops and winning the war, a winnable war.
Hello McNamara/Johnson.
SSDD
He’s looking for a way out I’d say. IMO, we need to fight to win, or leave. A “politically correct” war just gets people killed - for nothing.
Obama’s killing our troops!!!!
Well, it looks as though Junior once again is learning that managing is a lot different than loud mouth criticizing. Stay tuned for a few more “its Bush’s fault”.
just a stall tactic.
Apparently none were "Present".
It read: Just something that occurred to me today while trying to cross Fifth Ave in Manhattan during the Veteran’s Day Parade:
The towers fell in New York on 9/11/01, Kabul fell to American led forces on 11/14/01. That’s 65 days.
President Obama’s hand-picked replacement commander in Afghanistan, GEN McChrystal, delivered his Afghanistan war plans to President Obama on 8/30/09, and President Obama hasn’t acted on his General’s recommendations as of today, 11/11/09. That’s 73 days, and waiting.
It seems they have discovered what the name Barack means in Arabic: "He who dithers."
1) Is this an ambassador that Obama appointed? 2) How convenient that Obama now has this cover to hide behind if he is forced to send troops and things don’t go well!
Translation: "The liberals are holding Obamacare hostage and will vote it down if I don't kowtow to their demands."
It comes down to Commander’s Intent.
If the commander cannot clearly articulate his intent, then his troops can neither present nor execute a well-planned mission consistent with the intent for the mission. If a commander cannot articulate his intent, he needs to delegate the task to his command and then support their actions with resources and sponsorship. Zero and his ‘advisors’ can’t and won’t do this.
NET: Zero is not up to the task of being CINC.
WEre My kid to get killed serving our great country in Afghanistan due to this marxist p.o.s. “dithering” while trying to placate who ever I would go after his sorry marxist ass.
While Obama waits on his decision to send more troops, is he doing anything to protect the “uderstaffed” troops that are already there?
LLS
It sounds to me like its time for some creative, out of the box, thinking and some real leadership rather than a seminar on how to make a decision. Where is Bush when we need a military leader? Dr Utopia isn’t in on this one.
Eikenberry said he had misgivings about sending in new troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai...
If he's so opposed to Karzai, why did he couple this with a request for millions of dollars more in aid? Isn't he afraid Karzai will steal it?
The terrorists, who never have exit strategies love to hear Americans say when they promise to leave.
The Islamic terrorists have a 500 year plan, and we’re agonizing over how to get out in a couple of years.
Hamlet wins the gold medal for dithering.
” just a stall tactic.”
When does he pick up his “ peace prize “ ???????
Sometime after that may be his real decision date, as he certainly doesn’t want to go there having ordered more troops into Afghan....
Has he cracked yet?
“Bring me a plan that solves itself so that I can vote ‘present.’”
The one is deliberately f*king around.
There is no other answer. To take this long is intentional neglect.
There are two and only two options. Stand and fight or cut and run. Which one have you got?
I agree. He already knows what he's going to do. Just waiting for what he perceives is the best politically advantageous moment. I hope he fails in that respect.
It seems perfectly obvious that PO__S has requested a plan that both enables the troops to be pulled and victory claimed. Pretty simple plan really... (/sarc)
Obama/Osama reminds me of corrupt, criminal and fraudulent (sound familiar?)Emperor Commodous in the movie Gladiator. While the Roman senators are conducting gov’t business, this clown, bored, is busy spinning his sword by it’s tip on the ground.
Our generals have stated what we need to win this war and they are backed up by our allies. But the marxist in chief is delaying and now asking for "more options."
Our enemies will trumpet this betrayal, even the VERY HINT of it as a victory and those who have trusted us will lose trust.
More Americans will die as a result of this...and if he continues with it...hundreds of thousands of Afghans who trusted us will end up dying.
He will have handed Al Quida and the Taliban a victory where there was none.
They are hiding in holes, scared of our UAVs and when they come out, they are defeated every time with large loss of life.
Now they will say they have "won".
Dear God in Heaven, let stalwarts stand against this rash, evil action and prevail.
Some think it is hard to understand Obama's motivation and reasons for doing this. I for one do not. His every action has been to destroy the free market and republican principles of this nation. His every foreign policy move has weakened us.
It is his intent...it is all part of his fundamental change. He is a marxist ideologue and he, his adherants, and his handlers mean to destroy American as we have known it.
Obama is trying to manage the war by managing US public opinion. The delay and the restrictive ROEs will cause more casualties and strengthen public opinion that the US should withdraw. When Obama makes his decision to draw down and then withdraw the troops he will be more popular. A corollary is that Afghani allies and potential allies will look to the strong horse, not Obama, and that will help Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Bring them home. A grown up will take care of this 3 years from now. Not one more American death.
Exactly!!!!!
He has NO intention of trying to win this WAR against the terrorists.
Anyone in corporate America who’s ever worked under a boss who “makes decisions” this way, has ended up losing their mind, committing murder, or looking for another job.
“Translation: “The liberals are holding Obamacare hostage and will vote it down if I don’t kowtow to their demands.”
Pure myth. They didn’t hold the votes in Iraq and don’t hold the votes on Afghanistan. This is a horrid action on Obama’s part.
It’s Johnson’s policy backwards.
“Gelding-in-Chief”
That’s the best one yet! I’m adding it to my collection and passing it along!
Bring the troops home and hope we don’t have another 911 before we get a real President.
All packaged up in political correctness...The CIC cannot clearly articulate his intent nor identify the enemy, therefore killing our troops. His intentions are clear and he needs IMPEACHED immediately!
The Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, currently Thorbjørn Jagland, presents the Nobel Peace Prize in the presence of the King of Norway on December 10 each year (the anniversary of Nobel’s death).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize
I suspect that if all the parents of our brave soldiers serving in Afghanistan were aware of the ROE, they would band together NOW and personally remove Obama by force.
He doesn't want to kill fellow muslims.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCAffMSWSzY&feature=player_embedded
Bambi couldn't have picked a better painting to show the world how he is.
Leadership and Morale. Can an overt stress on casualty limitation cause an army's leaders to become too timid, and the soldiers to lose their "warrior spirit"? The ancient Chinese strategist and commander Wu Zi wrote, "In general, on the battlefield, if soldiers are committed to fight to the death they will live, whereas if they seek to stay alive, they will die. . . . Thus it can be said that the greatest harm that can befall the army's employment [stems from] hesitation, while the disasters that strike . . . are born in doubt."[16] Variations of this theme have been discussed by military theorists of all cultures throughout the history of warfare. Would Leonidas have stayed the course with his band of Spartans at Thermopylae had his army's doctrine been grounded deeply in the art of casualty avoidance? The famous military historian Hans Delbrück described the significance of the Spartan defense as such:
Of itself, the defense of Thermopylae was as good as hopeless. [And] as a matter of form, it could also be said that it was a mistake from the physical-military point of view, but it was of morale significance and of inestimable value in its fulfillment, in that the entrance into Greece proper was not to be handed to the barbarians without a fight.[17]
Acts of valor and audaciousness do play an unquantifiable role in battle that can have profound effects on collective morale, resolve, and aggressiveness. To make too much of a virtue of "living to fight another day" might discourage bold acts. If casualty limitation is simply implied in an order, a subordinate commander may still elect to accept considerable losses if he deems it necessary to fulfill his mission; however, if battle losses are explicitly frowned upon at every level, the men and the mission may become blurred. Furthermore, if the dominant culture becomes one in which each and every casualty is researched in great detail to ascertain causes, and not infrequently to assign blame, the forces may be ill-prepared for the inevitable tough fight lurking over the horizon. Considered coldly, soldiers and an army are ultimately a means, not an end. This truth should not be obscured.
Conclusion
The successful waging of war in both the political and purely military dimensions requires hard, realistic calculations of costs and benefits. Serving the people of a vibrant democratic state, US political leaders have traditionally, and rightfully, placed much significance on the loss of lives suffered in America's battles. Moreover, the United States is a scientifically advanced nation that is best served by developing a doctrine that takes advantage of its technological sophistication and conserves manpower. Obviously, the United States would have little influence in today's chaotic world if it were to quickly exhaust our forces in contests of attrition in far-flung regions of the globe. Fighting smartly, in the sense of using the most modern weapons and innovative doctrine, has been the American military's forte in the 20th century, and it will be even more important to the success of our armed forces given the domestic constraints and international challenges in the coming years.
I have not argued in this article that America should beat its precision-guided weapons into bugles and bayonets. Rather, my purpose is to suggest--modestly and speculatively--that casualty limitation, an issue that must often be addressed explicitly by statesmen, is best left unmentioned by the military in its doctrine, and instead considered seriously, but implicitly, as it plans for war.
Bambi couldn’t have picked a better painting to show the world how he is.
The TOTUS told him to do it...
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.