Lousy choices in Afghanistan

In letters and columns recently, right-wingers have complained about President Obama not sending troops to Afghanistan now. Have they forgotten that President Bush spent his last seven years pulling troops out?
 
When Osama bin Laden was trapped in Tora Bora, why didn’t Bush quickly send the requested troops to track him down? Instead Bush pulled troops out of al-Qaida-infested Afghanistan and sent them to al-Qaida-free Iraq. Our military commanders begged for more troops in Afghanistan for years, most recently in June 2008 when Gen. David McKiernan requested 30,000 troops immediately. He repeated the request in September and October, but was ignored until Obama, less than two months into his term, approved an increase of 21,000.
 
So now do we send in more to prop up a corrupt, unpopular regime that just stole an election? Or do we pull out and let the Taliban take over? Lousy choices, but that’s what Bush left us.
 
Whatever Obama decides, at least it will be the result of a strenuous analysis by our best experts, not a knee-jerk reaction by a president who disliked policy papers over three pages long and who took pride in his gut reactions.
 
Talis Bergmanis
Fairway

Comments

[Smarter Than You]

What color is the sky in your world, Bozo man? I've more than acknowledged that Obama rushed in and by February had implemented the plan he had advocated for over a year. He sent in more troops. It's in almost every freakin' post because you are too damn dense to get it. I agree with you he sent in more troops, just like he promised when he was running for office.

You've then offered articles that there weren't enough troops for him to take this step. My point is, based on your own documentation, Obama rushed into his initial escalation of Afghanistan without being prepared for the next step and failing to account for the realities of troop levels. It's the same type of sin you've accused Bush of on many occasions. It's YOUR argument! I’m not giving Bush a free pass on anything; but I’m also holding Obama to the same level of criticism. It’s a shame you can’t be honest/bright enough to see that

Now the troops on the ground are dying in record numbers, but you seem to think if you make that about me it makes those lives lost less important. That is a pathetic standard, even for you. Your argument is an insult to the troops, your daughter included.

"We will back you to the hilt!" Or not.

[Greghand]

Wildman I didn't forget about you either!
You've avoided this question for some time! You insult those with their own opinion and more intelligence now let's see what you've got?
How about your assessment?" What doe's the War college educated ace aka. Wildman do when there are not 600,000 troops requested and you have 30,000 available to start? Do you sit on your hands until they become available and not send any reinforcements whatsover?

[Wild Man]

You still refuse to acknowledge that the President did double the force in Afghanistan shortly after entering office, something that commanders on the ground had been requesting for years. Additional requests were not made until late in the summer. You are quick to blame this president for being indecisive when he has done more in Afghanistan than was done in the previous five years. You also do not acknowledge that decisions of the previous administration limit the options of this administration. You want to cast blame for not deploying additional troops, when you know they are not available. That’s the only reason that I have mentioned the decisions of the Bush administration. You refuse to acknowledge that the resources available are not what are necessary to complete the original mission. If he chooses different mission goals based on the available resources, you will criticize him for that too. This rhetoric is not serious discussion, it’s a game. When the game becomes the most important part of political discussion, then you really demonstrate how little you care about the men and women that are serving in the field.

[Smarter Than You]

Wild, again, much love and respect to your daughter for her service to our country.

I'm on record that Bush made several mistakes in Iraq. I guess to avoid dealing with Obama's missteps you think pointing out Bush's shortcomings makes anything Obama does OK. You did it again in your last post. You do it in almost every post.

As for the decision to go into Iraq, our current Secretary of State made quite the vociferous argument to go. I've even quoted her. Two years after she was still defending her vote to invade Iraq. Is your argument on Iraq then an indictment of Obama because he chose poorly for our lead person on international relations?

Then there’s the Democratic congressional support for the Iraq invasion.

Your problem is (one of them, anyway) that candidate Obama had been pushing his plan for Afghanistan over a year before he was President Obama. Now while you are quick to disparage Bush II over his preconceived plan to invade Iraq (care to reread you questions, hot shot), you accept and celebrate the same behavior in Obama.

That's why you're a Bozo, man. That and the Gallup stuff. And a lot of other stupid things you've posted.

[Wild Man]

Bush had no responsibility for the mess that we are in right now according to more stupid than most. Nothing can be said about why there are no troops available. He wants to cry, boo hoo, about any mention of the mistakes that the previous administration made that affect the present. History stops at he point that President Obama took office. He wants to do this because he can not defend his position.

Pop quiz whiner. If al Qaeda is responsible for the 9/11 attacks, where was al Qaeda leadership? Who pulled troops off the mission to pursue a different mission that was not as vital to American interests? Who is responsible for allowing the people that did the planning that took so many American lives slip away? Who left troop strength so low in the region where al Qaeda leadership was that the troops could not pursue them? In which theater of conflict have there been the most casualties, the one where al Qaeda leadership was, or the one that was not as vital to American interests. If you were so concerned about bad decisions by presidents costing American lives, why haven’t you been whining about the decisions of the previous six years?

Listen cry baby, the decision that the President will have to make is a difficult one thanks to the decisions of the previous administration, you can cry about that all you want. There are not the numbers of troops available to fill the request of Gen. McCrystal that are at the minimum level that he believes can accomplish the mission.. My daughter is rotating out of Iraq in the next couple of months and is starting to hear that they will be deployed in Afghanistan. I don’t believe that the decision is about deploying the troops, it’s about the goals of the mission with the resources that we have available. And the sad thing will be that you will try to score “political points” with what ever decision that is made. The position that the President is in leaves him with no good decisions, and you know it. Don’t play games. You’re not truly concerned about the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, you’re just gleefully waiting for a decision so that you can blame the president and score your point’s.

[Smarter Than You]

If consistent stupidity was all that was required to win anything, Bozo Man, you'd have several world titles. Too bad you refuse to address the central issue:

Obama took office and would have been aware of what the troop’s levels were. He went ahead with his plan that he promised during the campaign was the right thing to do and would be successful. Now our troops are dying in record numbers.

Pop quiz, hot shot: Who was President when our plan in Afghanistan changed? Who was President when our troops started dying in record numbers? Who's cowering over making any decision after promising our military families to "back them to the hilt?"

------------------

"Blame Bush!" and "Obama can't be held responsible for what he did!" I just thought I'd go ahead and get Bozo Man's next post out of the way.

By the way, Bozo, have you figured out that Gallup polling was released in New Jersey? I so enjoyed you’re arguing that Gallup polls weren’t national because the article identified where the release was from. Had you either read the polling or gone to Gallup’s web site and realized the articles are posted from New Jersey you could have avoided embarrassing yourself. . .again! Now that’s "stupid!"

[Greghand]

You make the decision stupid, only deploy 5% of what is necessary for success or withdraw. Either way you will accuse him of making the wrong choice. That is the hand that he has Wildman
Alright Einstein you keep quoting the opinions of other people "how about your assessment?" What doe's the War college educated ace AKA. Wildman do when there are not 600,000 troops requested and you have 30,000 available to start? Do you sit on your hands until they become available and not send any reinforcements whatsover?

[Wild Man]

Stupid likes to make up arguements. His strategy is to say stupid things to wear people down. He knows that the president committed what was requested in Febuary after years of neglect by Bush, that is a fact. McCrystal made his request later. At that time there were no more troops to commit because they had been over extended. Try to keep up and not look like a fool.

You make the decision stupid, only deploy 5% of what is necessary for success or withdraw. Either way you will accuse him of making the wrong choice. That is the hand that he has.

[Keith Williams3]

Calm down people, its not an excuse its truth, I don’t have to take responsibility for his failures, all I have to do is pray for the best. Nothing you all can do no matter how much you cry about it. Soon Obama will be blamed for the hearttacks; well hey not his fault people are so up tight. Obama will answer for his failures when the time is right.

[Smarter Than You]

Show of hands; who's tired of "the right wants the President to fail" being used as an excuse to avoid taking responsibility for the President's failures?

Obama is imploding on his own. The wishes of some people didn't make unemployment rise to 10% after 8% was promised. Their wishes didn't make a thorough review of the house health bill by the nonpartisan CMS show it would actually increase health care costs, operate at a deficit and increase the amount of GDP spent on health care compared to the current system. There was not a ventriloquist from the right that made the President appear to use the phrase the "police acted stupidly." The right did not create candidate Obama's plan for Afghanistan that has resulted in record numbers of deaths of our troops in that conflict.

[Wild Man]

"Who in the hell wnats the U.S. to fail in Afghanistan"

Please, your not that stupid, I hope. The neocons are willing to bring the country down if they can blame the President.

[Smarter Than You]

Bozo Man hates it when you use his own arguments against him. Oh sure, he's still playing the "blame bush" card since without that he has nothing to add to the conversation.

Let's take his last argument where he quotes the L A Times that Obama sent in additional troops in February. After a month in office don't you think the President would know the actual available backing troops numbers? Or was Obama so incompetent that he didn't bother to look at what would be left in reserve? Of course his promise to back deployed troops to the hilt doesn't count because Obama didn't do his homework.

Based on Bozo man's argument that the troop levels weren't there, why did President Obama rush into a plan that candidate Obama had been pushing over a year prior?

If Bozo were at least relatively coherent, his "blame bush" rant would also now apply to "blame Obama."

[Keith Williams3]

First off, where did that come form and if you have been on these blogs for a while and watching the right wing shows you would know that people wants the the President to fail period. You dont have to agree with himall the time but when you say you cant wait until he fails you are a bigot.

[Greghand]

I am not saying that you want to see failure in Iraq, but the ideologues that you listen to want to fail in Afghanistan so that they can blame the President for the failure Jazzman
Who in the hell wnats the U.S. to fail in Afghanistan you moron?

[Wild Man]

"If the troop levels requested are not available then send troops that are available and increase that number as they become available." - GHman

I hadn't forgotten about you. It is interesting to talk to a graduate of the George Custer School of Military Strategy. Here's the deal, 30,000 troops is all we have. It will be all we have for a long time. By committing our reserves, it makes us unable to respond if something happens in some other part of the world. Gen. McCrystal has said many times that it is unlikely that we will be successful in Afghanistan w/o an additional 80,000 troops. He has also said that he can not guarantee success if 80,000 troops are added. The reason why is because the COIN playbook calls for a minimum of 600,000 troops be assigned to the mission. On top of that you have a corrupt government in power that is not serving the needs of the Afghani people, giving momentum to the insurgency. The ambassador to Afghanistan, and Gen. McCrystal both have expressed apprehension about success when there is not a reliable partner in Iraq. I am not saying that you want to see failure in Iraq, but the ideologues that you listen to want to fail in Afghanistan so that they can blame the President for the failure. This is a complicated decision that has many opposing views from the State Department to the Defense Department to the military. Too many lives are involved in this game.

[Wild Man]

Bozo Man apparently has missed the irony of his argument that there just aren't any troops available. That also would have been the case when President Obama implemented the Afghanistan plan that candidate Obama promised would be necessary and effective. – More Stupid Than Most

I guess stupid forgot that the president more than doubled troop strength in Afghanistan a month after he took office. I guess that stupid forgot that the military commanders in the field had been requesting additional troops for months prior to the deployment ordered by the President. Those were requests that the Bush administration ignored. The reason for the increased casualties is because with the increase in force strength, American forces are now beginning to patrol rural areas of Afghanistan again. Under Bush, the force level was so low that soldiers were reduced to staying in the large population centers. The Bush administration concealed how extended American forces were stretched during his administration. This was something that the President could not have anticipated prior to being elected into office.

Reporting from Washington - President Obama ordered his first major deployment of U.S. combat troops Tuesday, authorizing 17,000 additional soldiers and Marines for Afghanistan in what he described as an urgent bid to stabilize a deteriorating and neglected country. – LA Times 2/17/09

[GCYL]

“Some sly pinko liberal HAS to be making up that nonsense to make right wingers look like TOTAL nutjobs, right?” - latman

Only if you’re also pushing the “Some sly fascist concretive HAS to be making up that nonsense to make left wingers look like TOTAL wingnuts, right?”

Stay here long enough and you find the left wing and right wing extremist posters.

I give Mark Robertson a point for his “Thank You” a point to Arminius for the brevity of his posts but I give three points to our resident Atheistic Stalinist Wannabe “whispering in kc” for entertainment. But that’s just a person call and in no way an effort on my part to make someone cry. Again.

[Wild Man]

It’s really funny how history gets revised when one needs to justify the actions of another. Two points need to be made. First, back when Clinton ordered the strikes on Iraq, republicans claimed that they were ordered to divert attention away from impeachment hearings. In other words the strikes were not justified. Only after the evidence has been brought forward that Bush administration used “faulty” “cooked” intelligence do we go back and use that strike as justification. You can’t have it both ways.

Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi the GOP majority leader, called the air strikes’ timing “suspect” and “cursory." Branding the strikes as a ploy to direct attention away from the congressional impeachment initiative, Republicans also claimed the air attacks would ultimately prove futile in persuading Hussein to comply with the U.N.’s demands. (CNN) December 1998

Second, Clinton claimed that he launched the strike because Iraq was not cooperating with UN inspectors, not because he had irrefutable proof that they had the weapons, or there was a lnk between Iraq and al Qaeda. Hussein ordered the inspectors to leave the country. Weapons inspectors were in Iraq until shortly before the invasion telling the Bush administration there were no weapons of mass destruction. To say that what Clinton did justified what Bush did is an out right lie.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. – Transcript Clinton Speech (CNN) March 2004

Blix (Chemical weapons Inspector) described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice… I think they chose to ignore us. (CNN) March 2004

ElBaradei (Nuclear Weapons Inspector) said he had been "pretty convinced" that Iraq had not resumed its nuclear weapons program, which the IAEA dismantled in 1997…. I thought to myself, well, history is going to be the judge. No evidence of a nuclear weapons program has been found so far. (CNN) March 2004

[latman]

Whoops, I meant to post this about the Sarah Palin letter, which includes Mark Robertson. The reference to Arminius, who seems to post everywhere that a rightwing nutjob comment is required, stands.

[latman]

I'm not a regular here, but some of you obviously are. Please tell me that the mindless comments by Mark Robertson and Arminius are not real. Some sly pinko liberal HAS to be making up that nonsense to make right wingers look like TOTAL nutjobs, right?