Sarah Palin: Finally, A Decision for Afghanistan: We're In It to Win It

Sarah Palin Facebook ^ | Dec 1, 2009 | BigTigerMike

[Bigtigermike]

Three months ago, I joined a number of Americans in urging President Obama to provide the resources necessary to achieve our goals in Afghanistan. Tonight, I am glad he mostly heeded that advice........

[onedoug]

Getting ready to endorse McCain for another Senate run?

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

She's been reading the classics, with respect to political warfare...

In all fighting, the direct method may be used for joining battle, but indirect methods will be needed in order to secure victory. In battle, there are not more than two methods of attack - the direct and the indirect; yet these two in combination give rise to an endless series of maneuvers. The direct and the indirect lead on to each other in turn. It is like moving in a circle - you never come to an end. Who can exhaust the possibilities of their combination?

- Sun Tzu

[jla]

If Palin were a football coach and she stated 'good luck' to an opposing team her detractors would immediately accuse her of planning to throw the game.

" I know being right is better than being popular" - Sarah Palin

SARAH 2012!

[allmendream]

She understands it perfectly, thus the talk about how counterproductive it is to give the terrorists our timetable for withdrawal, and her insistence that such be driven by the situation “on the ground” and not political considerations.

Some people are too dense to understand the SMILE that goes with the cutting remark.

It is as if a woman says to a guy at a party “Well don't YOU look nice today, I guess the unemployment check came through and you didn't pay off your back due child support.” and people think she paid him a complement.

It is the smile the precedes the twisting of the knife.

[Lou Budvis]

Right. This is how you triangulate. You separate your enemy from his base. Besides supporting the troops and the mission in Afgan, which SP surely does, the lefties must deal with the fact that SP is on 0bama’s side (until he cuts and runs).

[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.

[Logic n' Reason]

At long last, President Obama decided to give his military commanders much of what they need (in war - I assume this is war - you don't give military commanders "much of what they need". You give them everything they ask for...and then some. If the assets are then "mis-used", you fire the commanders and find new ones. You DO NOT provide "much of what they need" to accomplish their mission) in Afghanistan. In the end, he decided to endorse a “surge” for Afghanistan, applying the counterinsurgency principles of “clear, hold and build” that worked so well in Iraq. Given that he opposed the surge in Iraq, it is even more welcome that he now supports a surge in Afghanistan.
". . . and Pakistan (anyone hear our islamosocialist muslim-in-chief say anything at all about Pakistan?? I sure didn't - must be mcloser's hearing going bad again), and ensuring that these countries never again (nothing like an idiotic, baseless platitude to calm the masses - "never again" my Aunt Tilly's garters!) serve as bases for terrorist attacks against America and our allies.”
We should be clear, however, that fewer troops mean assuming more risk. (True...sadly and awfully true...and as always, the use of this neutral word "risk" falls squarely on the back of the military troops in the field. The ones doing the dirty work and tragic dying for the current islamosocialist muslim-in-chief) Talk of an exit date also risks sending the wrong message (it doesn't "risk" sending the wrong message - IT IS THE WRONG MESSAGE! - The enemy eats this stuff up). We should be in Afghanistan to win, not to set a timetable for withdrawal that signals a lack of resolve to our friends, and lets our enemies believe they can wait us out. This is - or should have been - the whole speech; it is all that needed to be said, other than the statement that we'd be sending 90,000 combat troops in at once. As long as we’re in to win, and as long as troop level decisions are based on conditions on the ground and the advice of our military commanders, I support President Obama’s decision.

[org.whodat]

So you run your little mouth and ask some about the service and you are a none vet. PUNK!!

[EBH]

I am very sorry, but she is way off base with this statement. He is not in it to win it, semi-stablized maybe, but the escalation is for more sinister reasons.

In Nov. ‘06 it was senior democrats who attempted to reinstitute the DRAFT!

0bama mentioned several times the issue with Pakistan during the campaign. He even piqued the anti-war folks about his Pakistan rhetoric during the campaign. Afghanastan is a launching point for Pakistan. 0bama needs a war. All fascist governments need a war and a draft.

The question is can 0bama rally his left? This one time, like a stopped clock, they just might be correct.

[org.whodat]

Why all the resistance in answering it?

The simple minded fools are one glass full of grape from Jones-town.

[org.whodat]

Since you think this is “nation-building”, what guage would you use?

There is only one way to handle Afghanistan with the big bombs. Put it on the level they understand, and remind them often. You let people come to out country and attack our people. We will be walking these hills and killing your people until you are dead and your sons are dead and the sons of his sons are dead. And it doesn't take a troop surge to do that. A hundred years from now we will still be killing you!

[WalterSkinner]

..my advice to the governor would be to never mention the name of John McCain, ever...

[org.whodat]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2398420/posts

[fortheDeclaration]

Why all the resistance in answering it?

The simple minded fools are one glass full of grape from Jones-town.

Exactly.

Palin is for the Right what Hillary was to the Left.

[SmokingJoe]

Neither are you.
All I anyone is getting from you is wild anti-war talk in the same vein as the lunatic Cindy Sheehan.
If you are a vet, I am Mother Theresa.
Now why don't you take you little tales back to DU where you belong, sucker?

[org.whodat]

I will be more than willing to send Jim a copy of my discharge if he will ban you for that comment.

[fortheDeclaration]

She understands it perfectly, thus the talk about how counterproductive it is to give the terrorists our timetable for withdrawal, and her insistence that such be driven by the situation “on the ground” and not political considerations. Some people are too dense to understand the SMILE that goes with the cutting remark. It is as if a woman says to a guy at a party “Well don't YOU look nice today, I guess the unemployment check came through and you didn't pay off your back due child support.” and people think she paid him a complement. It is the smile the precedes the twisting of the knife.

Gee, and when someone like a McCain says the same thing, he is a sellout.

Her supporters are just jumping in and rationalizing what she has said.

Now is the time to be critical of the plan before it is implemented.

Once troops are involved, then the excuse for not criticizing the plan is that we have troops in combat and don't want to give aid and comfort to the enemy.

[SmokingJoe]

Now why don't you just do a simple search and find it yourself.
I'll even make it easy, the story was posted right here on FR, around the time the debate over the surge was going on.
If I am not mistaken, Rush Limbaugh posted that story from the New York Times on his site as well.
Do your some work for a change will ya?

[rbmillerjr]

Palin qualified her agreement on two important counts:

1. There should have been more troops or what the Gen. said he needed to win.

2. There shouldn’t be a time limit on military engagement.

But overall, she is right that our troops in the field needed these 30,000 troops and that is a good thing.

Obama has been putting our troops in danger with his inability to make command decisions.

I’m relieved for the troops.

[fortheDeclaration]

“With SEALS being persecuted for being too hard on a terrorist, you think Obama is going to aggressively pursue the war?”

I wasn’t agreeing with Obama, I was agreeing with Palin

And Palin was agreeing with Obama.

Conservatives will rant and rave about how dishonest Obama is, but are going to walk lockstep when he claims he is going to win the war and destroy Al Quada.

Many Conservatives will now mute their criticism of Obama since he is sending in more troops.

Is he sending in troops to win the war-no, just to buy time to leave.

Now is the time for Conservatives to attack that policy, not a year from now.