Obama's Exit Strategy

There are a lot-o'-things a new-President is unaware-of....until he gets the opportunity the view the real-story (as-opposed-to what the Public's told).
Click to expand...

Well it's nice that you admit that. I guess Bush (even though I don't like him) knew stuff you don't know too, eh?
 
Werbung:
Mr. Shaman said:
How 'bout we give Obama the opportunity to digest what's (actually) goin'-on, in Afghanistan, first?

There are a lot-o'-things a new-President is unaware-of....until he gets the opportunity the view the real-story (as-opposed-to what the Public's told).

Ya' never know what's under-the-rock.
Click to expand...

well as long as he does not start pushing in more troops or upgrading things until he has a clear exit strategy
 
pocketfullofshells said:
Like I said, so what is your idea? If you say we cant attack them, and hey will not attack....sooo nothing is the plan? I dont see to many other options. And of course they are pissed, but letting them be not pissed and the terrorist and taliban be happy is not a option. If we have good intel on high leval targets, take them out.
Click to expand...

My plan is to not run cross border raids in Pakistan and talk about them. You can run raids, just stop telling the world you are doing it.

Aside from that, we will rarely have good intelligence on much of anything. If you are sitting around waiting for good intel to come in, it will be a long wait.

What is not an option in my mind is being the spark that collapses Pakistan and puts nuclear weapons in an extremists hands.

Our plan should be this:

1) Run raids if we must, but deny, deny, deny.

2) Aggressively support the current Pakistani government in maintaining military operational control over their weapons.

3) Put a plan in place to raid all known Pakistani nuclear facilities on a moments notice. While we do not know where they all are, if Pakistan fails we will need to get what we can.

4) Bring India into the discussion. If Pakistan fails, India will be in a very delicate situation. If India is in a delicate situation you can assume China will be in one shortly as well.


The point is this: What good does killing Bin Laden do you if it means putting a nuclear weapon in the hand of a radical?

The plan certainly should not be to tell the Pakistani government that we are going to operate on their side on the border.
 
Mr. Shaman said:
Yeah....let's (try to) keep it a secret.....like Extraordinary Rendition. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well Clinton started Rendition, well before September 11th, and we managed to keep it a secret under him. We remain capable of running a secret operation.

As for the raids, openly talking about the raids only emboldens the extremist element in Pakistan. The government in Pakistan cannot survive if this element gets to stirred up. Pakistan also just happens to be a nuclear power.
 
BigRob said:
As for the raids, openly talking about the raids only emboldens the extremist element in Pakistan.
Click to expand...
How-the-HELL do you expect to hide BOMBING-RAIDS?? :confused:

If you're doing THE RIGHT THING....there's NO need to hide ANYTHING!!

BTW.....show me where Clinton committed, or....even endorsed...torture!
 
Mr. Shaman said:
How-the-HELL do you expect to hide BOMBING-RAIDS?? :confused:

If you're doing THE RIGHT THING....there's NO need to hide ANYTHING!!

BTW.....show me where Clinton committed, or....even endorsed...torture!
Click to expand...

You do not "hide" them, you maintain plausible deniability. You neither confirm nor deny any raids. Making it part of your campaign platform certainly kills any plausible deniability.

In the world of international politics there is no such thing as the "right" thing. That is not how international politics works.

That said on the rendition point:

It is pretty clear that Clinton started the program with Sandy Berger and Richard Clark back in 94-95.

There are many former agents who will tell you this. The way they ran it was different. The Bush administration ran into the problems because they started to hold the people in places like GITMO, or basically on US soil, whereas the Clinton Administration carefully avoided that.

A big part of the OLC decision confirming that Bush had the legal authority to do this came from decisions and precedence made in the Clinton White House. Not to blame Clinton somehow for this, its just what happened.
 
Mr. Shaman said:
How 'bout we give Obama the opportunity to digest what's (actually) goin'-on, in Afghanistan, first?
Click to expand...

Wait wait wait...

So you admit he is completely ignorant of the situation in Afghanistan, but you voted for him as president?

And, if he doesn't know what's going on, why was he so pointed about it before?

This seems a bit contradictory to prior statements made by him and you for that matter.
 
Werbung:
Exit strategy, like Nobama would know what to do. He has never served his country. Whatever we do it can't be done alone. It has to be a unilateral NATO effort. It's a war of attrition, remember Vietnam? remember when the soviets invaded? Pakistan, a nuclear country, is on the verge of being taken over by the Taliban and we elected some jerk that doesn't have a clue. We don't even know where he was born. Let's hope he listens to the generals over there. Unless he is disqualified because of citizenship, it's going to be a long 4 years.
 

Similar threads

Little-Acorn
Obama: Troops will remain in Iraq far beyond 2010
Replies
2
Views
1K
Phoenix68
Phoenix68
G
Ten Simple Questions
Replies
2
Views
1K
Greco
G
Agnapostate
Obama's "Most Liberal" Rating
Replies
1
Views
849
vyo476
vyo476
The Scotsman
  • Locked
Obama: US troops out of Iraq by 2010
2 3
Replies
41
Views
7K
Bunz
Bunz
P
Bush wants more money
Replies
2
Views
1K
PLC1
PLC1
Back
Top