Obama's Exit Strategy

[pocketfullofshells]

ok then tell us the actual exit st. all in serious now. Does he have one, a clear one

For Afganistan or Iraq?

 

[Pandora]

For Afganistan or Iraq?

Afganistan, he wants to put more troops in, he wants to make things bigger than they already are but never talks about exit str. or anything

he says 18 months and we are out of Iraq no matter how well or bad they are doing.

but we never hear when we are leaving Afganastan. Gen has a very good point

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I resent this.

We rarely have a real exit strategy when we act in the 3rd world. Coming off Iraq obviously things like the Weinburger Doctrine look more appealing, but it remains to be seen what that amounts to in terms of practical policy application.

I still maintain that openly running border raids into Pakistan is a mistake. If we must do it, fine (Bush is doing it now), but we need to stay quiet about it.

I said about, not the only one, your good as well normally.

And what do you think we should do about Pakistan then? just let them sit there and plan and attack? Let the Pakistani Intel people deal with it ( also known as tell the Taliban and al Qaeda to attack themselves?) Fact is we are at war with them and if Pakistan cant deal with them effectively, then we have to.

Pakistan is not going to do our work, and we cant not afford to just sit back and look over the border and say damn there they are, wish we could do something.

The thing to have done would have been have the troops in place on the border back at tora bora, not having the afghans be our watchdogs and realy got them then, when we had them. Out lack if troops , and not listening to our commanders on the ground who said we needed them, cost us and now we have to pay the price and deal with them in Pakistan.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Afganistan, he wants to put more troops in, he wants to make things bigger than they already are but never talks about exit str. or anything

he says 18 months and we are out of Iraq no matter how well or bad they are doing.

but we never hear when we are leaving Afganastan. Gen has a very good point

again the military part of Iraq is over, was over, its mostly politics now there.

And Obama stated over and over and over , that the plan was contingent on the situation on the ground. I am sorry if you are hard of hearing but that was what was said over and over and over.

And again look who agreed....the Goverment of IRAQ

 

[BigRob]

I said about, not the only one, your good as well normally.

And what do you think we should do about Pakistan then? just let them sit there and plan and attack? Let the Pakistani Intel people deal with it ( also known as tell the Taliban and al Qaeda to attack themselves?) Fact is we are at war with them and if Pakistan cant deal with them effectively, then we have to.

Pakistan is not going to do our work, and we cant not afford to just sit back and look over the border and say damn there they are, wish we could do something.

I agree that Pakistan is certainly not going to do our "work." That said, so far our cross borders raids have inflamed the extremist element in Pakistan against the West even more. This is particularly worrisome for the fragile new government in Pakistan.

Pakistan is on the verge of outright collapse, and our cross border raids are not helping the situation. Yes, I want to kill Bin Laden, but no I am not willing to risk Pakistan becoming a failed state (with nuclear weapons) in order to do so.

The thing to have done would have been have the troops in place on the border back at tora bora, not having the afghans be our watchdogs and realy got them then, when we had them. Out lack if troops , and not listening to our commanders on the ground who said we needed them, cost us and now we have to pay the price and deal with them in Pakistan.

Could have done and should have done is not policy. What we need is a new strategy that does not involve Pakistan imploding and putting nuclear weapons in the hands of the extremist wing that is dominating Pakistani politics right now.

 

[GenSeneca]

again the military part of Iraq is over, was over, its mostly politics now there.

They need security to achieve the political gains.

And Obama stated over and over and over , that the plan was contingent on the situation on the ground. I am sorry if you are hard of hearing but that was what was said over and over and over.

From his new website: www.Change.Gov

Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months.

Whats disturbing for people like me is that he very clearly states he wants to "end" the war, not "win" it. Winning it would be leaving behind a stable, democratic government in a country that can be an ally in our war on terror - rather than a future enemy. If that is what Obama plans to do in Iraq, he should call that victory.

Now as far as saying its dependent on conditions on the ground.... Nobama had a valid point... that wasn't good enough when Bush said it... Why is it suddenly an acceptable answer when Obama says it?

And again look who agreed....the Goverment of IRAQ

The SOFA will decide how long we stay. I thought it was really bad when Obama tried to talk Iraqi's into holding off on agreeing to the Bush proposal for US troop drawdown until he was elected... He was undermining the sitting president and CIC by doing so - But because Bush is our president, the left doesn't seem to see that as being a big deal... cuz you guys really hate Bush.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

They need security to achieve the political gains.


From his new website: www.Change.Gov



Whats disturbing for people like me is that he very clearly states he wants to "end" the war, not "win" it. Winning it would be leaving behind a stable, democratic government in a country that can be an ally in our war on terror - rather than a future enemy. If that is what Obama plans to do in Iraq, he should call that victory.

Now as far as saying its dependent on conditions on the ground.... Nobama had a valid point... that wasn't good enough when Bush said it... Why is it suddenly an acceptable answer when Obama says it?

The SOFA will decide how long we stay. I thought it was really bad when Obama tried to talk Iraqi's into holding off on agreeing to the Bush proposal for US troop drawdown until he was elected... He was undermining the sitting president and CIC by doing so - But because Bush is our president, the left doesn't seem to see that as being a big deal... cuz you guys really hate Bush.

what is a win? I mean really? They elected leaders, they have a government, they have there own army, they have a econ that is got lots of oil cash, And there government has asked us to get out....Bush said we won, a few years go, maybe you missed it. lets see we went to war to get rid of WMD...well there was none so I guess thats done...TO get rid of Saddam, done.....So now what is a win? stay untill suni and shia love each other?

Tell me what do you want 150,000 troops to do for the next 5 years, babysit and then stand around as targets? And be a show of lack of power for Iraqs leaders becuse they cant even get the Americans out after they told them to?

Why do you tell me your plan, Is it stay forever?

 

[GenSeneca]

what is a win? I mean really? They elected leaders, they have a government, they have there own army, they have a econ that is got lots of oil cash, And there government has asked us to get out....Bush said we won, a few years go, maybe you missed it. lets see we went to war to get rid of WMD...well there was none so I guess thats done...TO get rid of Saddam, done.....So now what is a win? stay untill suni and shia love each other?

Tell me what do you want 150,000 troops to do for the next 5 years, babysit and then stand around as targets? And be a show of lack of power for Iraqs leaders becuse they cant even get the Americans out after they told them to?

Why do you tell me your plan, Is it stay forever?

I said precisely what a Win would be... you went off on this nonsense rant packed with hyperbolic talking points from the left... so on that note, this conversation is over.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

They need security to achieve the political gains.


From his new website: www.Change.Gov



Whats disturbing for people like me is that he very clearly states he wants to "end" the war, not "win" it. Winning it would be leaving behind a stable, democratic government in a country that can be an ally in our war on terror - rather than a future enemy. If that is what Obama plans to do in Iraq, he should call that victory.

Now as far as saying its dependent on conditions on the ground.... Nobama had a valid point... that wasn't good enough when Bush said it... Why is it suddenly an acceptable answer when Obama says it?

The SOFA will decide how long we stay. I thought it was really bad when Obama tried to talk Iraqi's into holding off on agreeing to the Bush proposal for US troop drawdown until he was elected... He was undermining the sitting president and CIC by doing so - But because Bush is our president, the left doesn't seem to see that as being a big deal... cuz you guys really hate Bush.

what is a win? I mean really? They elected leaders, they have a government, they have there own army, they have a econ that is got lots of oil cash, And there government has asked us to get out....Bush said we won, a few years go, maybe you missed it. lets see we went to war to get rid of WMD...well there was none so I guess thats done...TO get rid of Saddam, done.....So now what is a win? stay untill suni and shia love each other?

"My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything I've said, was always premised on making sure our troops were safe," Obama told reporters as his campaign plane landed in North Dakota, a state no Democratic presidential candidate has carried since 1964. "And my guiding approach continues to be that we've got to make sure that our troops are safe, and that Iraq is stable. And I'm going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold." ( he also repeted that he would of course be flexible if the saturation on the ground needed it in the debates that I watched)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/03/AR2008070303919_pf.html

Tell me what do you want 150,000 troops to do for the next 5 years, babysit and then stand around as targets? And be a show of lack of power for Iraqs leaders becuse they cant even get the Americans out after they told them to?

Why do you tell me your plan, Is it stay forever? wait I forget no time lines...just Time "Horizons" right?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I agree that Pakistan is certainly not going to do our "work." That said, so far our cross borders raids have inflamed the extremist element in Pakistan against the West even more. This is particularly worrisome for the fragile new government in Pakistan.

Pakistan is on the verge of outright collapse, and our cross border raids are not helping the situation. Yes, I want to kill Bin Laden, but no I am not willing to risk Pakistan becoming a failed state (with nuclear weapons) in order to do so.



Could have done and should have done is not policy. What we need is a new strategy that does not involve Pakistan imploding and putting nuclear weapons in the hands of the extremist wing that is dominating Pakistani politics right now.

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.

 

[GenSeneca]

what is a win? I mean really? They elected leaders, they have a government, they have there own army, they have a econ that is got lots of oil cash, And there government has asked us to get out....Bush said we won, a few years go, maybe you missed it. lets see we went to war to get rid of WMD...well there was none so I guess thats done...TO get rid of Saddam, done.....So now what is a win? stay untill suni and shia love each other?

They are still building and training their army,
Bush said "mission accomplished" after the defeat of Saddams army - the beginning of the "occupation"
We did find WMD - just not a ready to launch nuke so you don't think it counts.

"My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything I've said, was always premised on making sure our troops were safe," Obama told reporters as his campaign plane landed in North Dakota, a state no Democratic presidential candidate has carried since 1964. "And my guiding approach continues to be that we've got to make sure that our troops are safe, and that Iraq is stable. And I'm going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold." ( he also repeted that he would of course be flexible if the saturation on the ground needed it in the debates that I watched)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/03/AR2008070303919_pf.html

Why doesn't he characterize this as victory once accomplished? Why does he want to just say we're leaving and ending the war?

Tell me what do you want 150,000 troops to do for the next 5 years, babysit and then stand around as targets? And be a show of lack of power for Iraqs leaders becuse they cant even get the Americans out after they told them to?

Yes, thats it exactly... just like Obama's plan in Afghanistan. Have our troops stand around as targets... when they're not busy torturing prisoners or killing innocent civilians. Seriously, I expect this hyperbole from others, its beneath you.

Why do you tell me your plan, Is it stay forever? wait I forget no time lines...just Time "Horizons" right?

Let me know when you're once again ready to discuss this like an adult.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

They are still building and training their army,
Bush said "mission accomplished" after the defeat of Saddams army - the beginning of the "occupation"
We did find WMD - just not a ready to launch nuke so you don't think it counts.


Why doesn't he characterize this as victory once accomplished? Why does he want to just say we're leaving and ending the war?


Yes, thats it exactly... just like Obama's plan in Afghanistan. Have our troops stand around as targets... when they're not busy torturing prisoners or killing innocent civilians. Seriously, I expect this hyperbole from others, its beneath you.

Let me know when you're once again ready to discuss this like an adult.

You already said you where done, live up to it. I guess it was hard to state how time horizons are different, I guess a adult would just ignore that Bush keeps doing the same things he attacked Obama for.

I think I can live with finishing this debate with bigrob....

 

[Libsmasher]

thank you for your great insight....arg...

Obama the one saying for years send more troops to Afganistan...is going to be softer?

He was just doing that as cover for his appeaser attitude toward iraq. Strategically, afghanistan aint worth a tinker's damn compared to the great strategic importance of iraq. Obama's position, leave aside that it's phony, is like the US saying in WWII that the germans can have france and the UK, but by god we'll duke it out with them in Lichtenstein.

Bush the man in charge who has been in charge while the Taliban has gained and gained power back again...you never ever attacked for that I saw. funny, its like the party lable means more then the facts or something....

Uh no, the Taliban aren't in control of Afghanistan. See how the Bot mind works, or rather doesn't work? In the same sentence where you complain abouts facst, you offer up a startling hallucination.

And of course there will be a major offensive, oddly this spring, you know why? Becuse they always do...and you will blame Obama...even though it happens evry single year, thats how it works in Afganistan...major offensive in the spring. And I have some shocking info for you, it will not be any bigger then if Bush or McCain was in charge.

I say you're wrong, and we'll just see.

 

[GenSeneca]

You already said you where done, live up to it. I guess it was hard to state how time horizons are different, I guess a adult would just ignore that Bush keeps doing the same things he attacked Obama for.

I think I can live with finishing this debate with bigrob....

WTF are time horizons? I have no problem with timetables for withdraw... SO LONG AS THEY ARE NOT MADE PUBLIC.

Get over yourself.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Democrats made a great deal out of the fact that we went to Iraq without an exit strategy.... Obama has made several statements, some of which conflicted with his others, but I think his plan strives to get us out of Iraq in 16 months - regardless of conditions on the ground. But that isn't what I'm most interested in...

What I want to know is this:

What is Obama's Exit Strategy for Afghanistan?

Have Obama and the Democrats made their timetable for withdraw in that war public yet? If not... Why not?

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.