Vets Not Ready to Support New Afghanistan Strategy

Vets Voice ^ | Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 20:41:15 | Richard Allen Smith

[BP2]

AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ VETERANS NOT READY
TO SUPPORT OBAMA STRATEGY IN AFGHANISTAN

Usually supportive of administration, largest progressive veterans group in America has serious questions about future of War in Afghanistan following Obama speech

WASHINGTON -- Veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not ready to support the strategy for the war in Afghanistan, laid out by President Obama this evening, saying they had serious reservations and questions about it.  The veterans of VoteVets.org, the largest progressive group of veterans in America, said that the strategy left unanswered too many questions regarding strain on the Armed Forces, and didn't address other issues that would help ensure that the entire mission wouldn't be put on the backs of the troops.

Jon Soltz, Iraq war veteran and Chairman of VoteVets.org said, "We have been supportive of every move the President has made since he was elected, and have supported an increased focus on Afghanistan since our inception, but given the serious questions that are unresolved, we aren't ready to support what he's laid out.  First and foremost, we are always concerned about the strain on the American servicemember, and this plan leaves very big questions on that issue.  We know that the President has carefully considered all the options presented to him, and doesn't take this decision lightly.  We appreciate that.  But before committing troops, he has to answer these questions."

The questions the group raised are as follows:

1. By deploying an additional 30k troops, without speeding up the departure from Iraq, our force will remain overstretched.  How does the administration reconcile this issue?  

       * The administration has promised that each servicemember will receive appropriate "Dwell Time" (as much time home as deployed) and an end to stop loss.  With the operational tempo set out by this strategy, it is hard to see how the administration can keep to that promise.

       * Additionally, will this strategy mean a return to deployments longer than 12 months?  Again, by simply shifting Iraq troops to Afghanistan, it is hard to see how deployment times don't go up again.  We've seen a record rate of suicide in the Army, linked to longer and more frequent deployments, making this a top consideration.

       * The troop increase will happen in just six months. At this rate, that doesn't match the troops coming home from Iraq. Where do these troops come from, and what does it leave to take care of any emergencies in Korea, Iran, or at home?

2. What increases in efforts can we expect from the State Department, CIA, other intelligence, diplomatic, and humanitarian arms of the US government?

         o Is there increased sacrifice from other agencies equal to what the administration is putting on the troops?  A counter-insurgency strategy, which the President has laid out, the engine of American foreign policy firing on all cylinders.  Without increasing the commitment of other branches of American foreign policy, will we continue to see troops having to serve as negotiators, diplomats, and nation builders?  They weren't trained for that, and it isn't right to place that responsibility on their shoulders.

3. Do we have a partner in Karzai, and are there guarantees that his government can be legitimized so we can leave?

         o It has become clear that the Karzai government does not have the confidence of the people because of corruption.  A trusted government is essential to any counter-insurgency strategy working, otherwise it becomes impossible to transition out.  How does this plan address corruption issues, especially as it pertains to the central government gaining the confidence of the people in a way that doesn't make it seem that it is a puppet-regime just doing what the western nations want?  If we cannot guarantee that, what does a counter-insurgency strategy really achieve that could not be done with a counter-terror strategy that relies on fewer troops?

Founded in 2006, VoteVets.org is the leading progressive, pro-military organization of veterans, dedicated to the destruction of terror networks around the world, with force when necessary. It primarily focuses on education and advocacy on issues of importance to the troops and veterans, and holding politicians accountable for their actions on these issues.

[BP2]

NOTE: While VoteVets did not officially endorse a candidate for president in 2008, the group did publicly support Barack Obama's plan for Iraq and actively opposed John McCain's campaign for President, despite McCain being an honored war veteran.

The group, which supported mostly Democrat military veterans candidates in the 2006 Congressional campaign, are apparently very under-whelmed by Obama's persuasive abilities.

[Engineer_Soldier]

This used to be unheard of in our military, but a lot of people became disgruntled with the silly Rules of Engagement Bush forced upon us, the stop-losses, and the 15 month deployments (another horrible idea under Bush). The only thing we want is to go in and whoop @$$ and then get out. Fighting decade long wars and fighting fair with an unfair opponent is immoral and shows a clear lack of leadership beginning with Bush and made even worse by Obama.

[jessduntno]

WASHINGTON -- Veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not ready to support the strategy for the war in Afghanistan, laid out by President Obama this evening, saying they had serious reservations and questions about it.

A leader you can TRUST...

[DakotaRed]

Somehow, the word “progressive” and “Military” just don’t sound right.

[Brad from Tennessee]

[. . .Where do these troops come from, and what does it leave to take care of any emergencies in Korea, Iran, or at home?]

The continued effect of Obama’s economic policies will be to increase the volume of recruits.

[spunkets]

"Somehow, the word “progressive” and “Military” just don’t sound right."

It's the Russian Model.

[glock rocks]

the group did publicly support Barack Obama's plan

Well, let them sit and twirl. Woo.

I'm thinking some adult supervision might help. Perhaps not. Shut up and fall in line. Just damn. Pray for our troops.

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[TomasUSMC]

Lame duck military strategy

Now the World knows our leader has turned tail in the face of the enemy.

Tomorrow Afghan civs will start turning against US.

[exnavy]

I’m not understanding many peoples logic on things political these days. Some folks I know are complaining about the corruption in DC. Then completly doing a one-eighty and stating that democrats are still better than the republicans. I can only give the blank stare, speachless.

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

I’ve never heard of this bunch,,,

I’ll say this :

My house-mate is a Blue Star Mom,,,

Her son is back in Iraq now for his 3rd.tour,,,

2nd.BCT.10th.Mtn.Div,,,18th.Airborne Corps,,,

His last tour was 18 Months,,,Not the 15 mo. LIE !!!,,,

TANKS,Arbusto!!!,,,

They were told his unit was taken off the rotation list,,,

Another LIE!!!,,,

TANKS,O’Bammy!!!,,,

He is back in B-Dad now for another year so they say,,,

Stuck with the same ROE as A-Stan,,,

We are doing our best to get him to quit when this hitch is

up...

[Unrepentant VN Vet]

SIERRA SQUARED, DELTA SQUARED

Only things have changed is the calendar and the faces telling the lies.

(....although even at their absolute puke-inducing all time low, LBJ and his bunch couldn’t hold The O’s jock strap at screwing over the troops. Or, for that matter, everybody else in the area.)

Just tell “your” trooper to stay safe and we’ll all pray for him. Got a feeling that the reenlistment debate for a whole bunch of ‘em is already been decided, but they just don’t want to go back to the sandbox with a Short-Timer’s attitude.

[MountainDad]

"2nd.BCT.10th.Mtn.Div,,,"

Climb to Glory!

[caver]

“NOTE: While VoteVets did not officially endorse a candidate for president in 2008, the group did publicly support Barack Obama’s plan for Iraq and actively opposed John McCain’s campaign for President, despite McCain being an honored war veteran.”

Sounds like the vets got what they wished for.

[headstamp 2]

“Jon Soltz, Iraq war veteran and Chairman of VoteVets.org said, “We have been supportive of every move the President has made since he was elected, “

There’s the problem.

[camp_steveo]

I am a vet and I support Obama’s decision to finish the war and get our boys home.

~SC

[Scythian]

Obama never mentioned the word Victory once in the speech. Announcing 30,000 troops and then in the next breath saying in 18 months we leave is a clear message to the Taliban to lay low, it will be yours soon, and it passifies the radical left as well, all is lost ... I would not serve under this man, I would not let my life be wasted for him and him alone.

[Scythian]

See my post just above this, are you crazy, Obama isn’t going to finish anything

[razzle]

(another horrible idea under Bush)

Yeah, its all Bush’s fault. You know it doesn’t matter if the terrorists fight unfair. We have vastly superior technology, quality and training. It should not matter.

[razzle]

“I am a vet and I support Obama’s decision to finish the war and get our boys home.”

You “boys” should not have signed up for the military if you want so much to be home with momma. Try reading military history to see hardship for the troops (and understand we still have troops in Japan, Korea, Balkans, Germany, etc.). Also try and find a winning military leader like obama; you never will.