Our Sponsors
Need a Job?
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
I thought his speech was well done for the most part. It is an interesting policy, fairly strong. One thing however that I saw as a stretch is a open and strong relationship with Pakistan.
I cannot see this as a reality. Pakistan is supplying Jihads with money and training to attack India, whom we are supposed to be in support of. This does not make sense to me.
Not to mention the $10 billion dollars given to Pakistan from the U.S. that no one knows how they spent it.
As a retired military man with military intel experience, I have to say that Obama's speech the other night about his much touted Afghanistan policy was and is nothing short of a military disaster.
I am very disappointed in our commander in chief in that he has not learned one thing at all about how to lead. Here are his mistakes;
1. He gave the enemy a date to which he will pull out our combat forces from the area of operation. As a result of this grave error, I will predict that the enemy will remain in hiding until the last combat troops are out, then quite literally all hell will break loose.
2. He did not listen to the commanders on the ground in the combat area. They asked for 40 to 60 thousand more combat troops (this does not include the support personnel) and he gave them only 30 thousand – without the added support personnel. This erroneous strategy does nothing but overwork those support units already there and stretch his supply lines to the breaking point.
3. Again he tried to "kiss-up" to the enemy by praising their so-called religion. This is viewed as nothing but a sign of weakness by the enemy, thereby giving comfort and support to the enemy.
This strategy is nothing but a recipe for failure, at which point he will again try to blame our military leaders on the ground or past presidents and other politicians.
To me, this commander in chief is proving nothing less than an enormous embarrassment to the entire free and civilized world.
This is my not-so-humble opinion. B)
The one thing I do agree with you is the date to move out, however I do not think they will stay true to that word.
Unfortunately, Sal, only time will tell.
Just curious . . . Do you have any military experience? The reason I ask is that I would like to know what you base your disagreement with me on.
Obama is making promises and promises and then making more promises to hide-up the other promises.
Nope. Its been 8 years and these people still can't pick up the slack. Plus the country cannot be controlled by a centralized government. It is a tribal region that has never been conquered.
Plus you can't wage use the military to fight against radical groups.
No all I am saying is I just find it hard to believe that they can do all the features of this plan and begin to move out within 18 months.
I don't have any experience in the military, but I do know that things are not always as they seem. In one of my college classes, I had to write a research paper on a topic that interested me and so I chose to write on the effects of the Vietnam War. Now, correct me if I am wrong papadawg, but what my sources told me were not all bad things. Maybe the success of a war is not always beating the other guys back with a stick, but maybe it's seeing improvement in societal practices and other such things. -just a thought
He shouldn't need military experience to base a disagreement on point 3. Whether or not being "conciliatory" or otherwise accommodating to the religious beliefs of Muslims gives "aid and comfort" to the enemy is a matter of opinion, not military logic.
#2 would argue that there should not be civilian control over the military. Which may or may not be a an appropriate understanding of military tactics, certainly there are many examples of micro or mis-management of military strategy and tactics on the part of civilians. And may or may not result in fewer wasteful wars or conflicts, or better conduct over them on the basis that the military can be organised and trained and equipped by the society that produces it for the purpose of representing its value to its enemies, and thus be capable of exercising restraint in its own use. Theoretically anyway, most militaristic societies have thrived only on war. It's far from clear that this is a desirable means of organising society and that our government should support such a manner of operation. War must always be subservient to the political and moral ends for which it is used by authorities and those state interests should be informed by the people and their representatives.
I'd be more impressed with "leadership" if Obama surrendered more of the War Powers back to Congress where they belong as a result than if he gave the military everything they wanted all the time.
#1 Not sure that this is an empirical military issue either. In some regions of Afghanistan this may well be true. But the political and military "control" that the Taliban and others rely upon is in part due to the lack of political or military control by the Afghani government or the support of that government by the local population. The issue is not that they will sit tight and wait us out, because they actually cannot do that if they want to survive as a political institution in the aftermath of the war. They need to be visible operators in the manner of Hezbollah or Hamas, actively assisting people in the community in addition to recruiting foot soldiers, thus forming an opposing option to the Karzai/American backed government. The issue therefore is whether or not there will be a substantive improvement in the perception of the Afghan government and US-allied authorities in the region as a whole such that the Taliban and others would lose their perceived legitimacy to rule.
I'm highly skeptical that this is possible in any reasonable amount of time (much less in 18 months) and have been since we went in in the first place. That is a mission of decades or indeterminate occupation (ie: imperialism), so labeling a time to end that occupation is irrelevant in my opinion. I think we can deny the country or significant safe havens to train and recruit to them and this is perhaps a worthy goal for state security. But that was just as possible without many boots on the ground at any time. So far as I can tell, things in Afghanistan went reasonably well with just special operations and air power until we decided to pour in more troops so they could have "elections". As though majoritarian rule and constitutional democracy were a simple matter of casting votes.
Well, papadawg, I agree with certain things you said (such as the date of departure) but I would not say he is an "enormous embarrassment". Former President Bush could hardly speak the English language and shut off all talks with other countries. That, I would call embarrassing and counter-productive.
Obama is not living up to the hype that he had during his campaign, but I think he is doing the best he can do with the reins he's been given.
What does successful mean here? If success means killing every single person identified as a 'terrorist' until there's no one left, then this policy creates more enemies everyday also outside Afghanistan.
Alexander the Great, the Persians, the Russian, the British have all tried similar policies and failed miserably. If the target is to 'democratise' them i.e. make them docile allies, only partial success will result as these tribal people are not famous for being servile, docile or 'civilised' as they are required to be. The whole logic of going there is utter nonsense, and the barriers to winning trust back is an uphill ride. One possible way is to negotiate with all parties involved and find ways for people to make their livelihood peacefully (no drugs or weapons business).