Let me see, you have the two world class experts on counter terrorism/insurgency recommending how to implement your strategy in Afghanistan (which is the job that you pay them for) and you have political geniuses(how much experience do they have in this field????) recommending opposite approaches. Let me think on this one, which has the most likelihood of success? Perhaps we should negotiate on an effective strategy? I know, lets take a POLL! Yeah, that will work. Leadership 101 at the senior level is hiring the right folks to do the job and letting them get the job done by facilitating the resources THEY say they need to accomplish the goal.


Charles Krauthammer

Friday, October 9th 2009, 4:00 AM

The genius of democracy is the rotation of power, which forces the opposition to be serious -- particularly about things like war, about which until Jan. 20 of this year Democrats were decidedly unserious.

When the Iraq war (which a majority of Senate Democrats voted for) ran into trouble and casualties began to mount, Democrats followed the shifting winds of public opinion and turned decidedly antiwar. But needing political cover because of their post-Vietnam reputation for weakness on national defense, they adopted Afghanistan as their pet war.
"I was part of the 2004 Kerry campaign, which elevated the idea of Afghanistan as 'the right war' to conventional Democratic wisdom," wrote Democratic consultant Bob Shrum shortly after President Obama was elected. "This was accurate as criticism of the Bush administration, but it was also reflexive and perhaps by now even misleading as policy."
Which is a clever way to say that championing victory in Afghanistan was a contrived and disingenuous policy in which Democrats never seriously believed, a convenient two-by-four with which to bash George Bush over Iraq -- while still appearing warlike enough to fend off the soft-on-defense stereotype.

Brilliantly crafted and perfectly cynical, the "Iraq war bad, Afghan war good" posture worked. Democrats first won Congress, then the White House. But now, unfortunately, they must govern. No more games. No more pretense.

So what does their commander in chief do now with the war he once declared had to be won but had been almost criminally under-resourced by Bush?
Perhaps provide the resources to win it?

You would think so. And that's exactly what Obama's handpicked commander requested on Aug. 30 -- a surge of 30,000 to 40,000 troops to stabilize a downward spiral and save Afghanistan the way a similar surge saved Iraq.

That was more than five weeks ago. Still no response. Obama agonizes publicly as the world watches. Why? Because, explains national security adviser James Jones, you don't commit troops before you decide on a strategy.

No strategy? On March 27, flanked by his secretaries of defense and state, the president said this: "Today I'm announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan." He then outlined a civilian-military counterinsurgency campaign to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.

And to emphasize his seriousness, the president made clear that he had not arrived casually at this decision. The new strategy, he declared, "marks the conclusion of a careful policy review."
Conclusion, mind you. Not the beginning. Not a process. The conclusion of an extensive review, the president assured the nation, that included consultation with military commanders and diplomats, with the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan, with our NATO allies and members of Congress.

The general in charge was then relieved and replaced with Obama's own choice, Stanley McChrystal. And it's McChrystal who submitted the request for the 40,000 troops, a request upon which the commander in chief promptly gagged.
The White House began leaking an alternate strategy, apparently proposed (invented?) by Vice President Biden, for achieving immaculate victory with arm's-length use of cruise missiles, Predator drones and special ops.

The irony is that no one knows more about this kind of warfare than Gen. McChrystal. He was in charge of exactly this kind of "counterterrorism" in Iraq for nearly five years, killing thousands of bad guys in hugely successful under-the-radar operations.
When the world's expert on this type of counterterrorism warfare recommends precisely the opposite strategy -- "counterinsurgency," meaning a heavy-footprint, population-protecting troop surge -- you have the most convincing of cases against counterterrorism by the man who most knows its potential and its limits. And McChrystal was emphatic in his recommendation: To go any other way than counterinsurgency would lose the war.
Yet his commander in chief, young Hamlet, frets, demurs, agonizes. His domestic advisers, led by Rahm Emanuel, tell him if he goes for victory, he'll become LBJ, the domestic visionary destroyed by a foreign war. His vice president holds out the chimera of painless counterterrorism success.

Against Emanuel and Biden stand Gen. David Petraeus, the world's foremost expert on counterinsurgency (he saved Iraq with it), and Stanley McChrystal, the world's foremost expert on counterterrorism. Whose recommendation on how to fight would you rely on?
Less than two months ago -- Aug. 17 in front of an audience of veterans -- the president declared Afghanistan to be "a war of necessity." Does anything he says remain operative beyond the fading of the audience applause?

Obama did not waiver on Afghanistan, he and his advisors are reevaluating the current strategy and as a matter of fact he has ordered another 13,000 troops to the country in addition to the 21,000 he announced in March.

quote:

Originally posted by SenClaghorn:
Obama did not waiver on Afghanistan, he and his advisors are reevaluating the current strategy and as a matter of fact he has ordered another 13,000 troops to the country in addition to the 21,000 he announced in March.

Wow, really??

quote:

On March 27, flanked by his secretaries of defense and state, the president said this: "Today I'm announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan." He then outlined a civilian-military counterinsurgency campaign to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Maybe you should read the article before commenting.

Either they are going to resource Stanley McChrystal in COIN or the Dems will collectively hang from their own petard.

quote:

"Iraq war bad, Afghan war good"

quote:

On March 27, flanked by his secretaries of defense and state, the president said this: "Today I'm announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan." He then outlined a civilian-military counterinsurgency campaign to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.

That was several months ago and the general was asked to reevaluate, which he did. Now it is Obama's turn. The first measuralbe step is the addition of 13,000 troops. doesn't sound like he is wavering at all

quote:

Either they are going to resource Stanley McChrystal in COIN or the Dems will collectively hang from their own petard.

Coin has not been the issue.

quote:

Originally posted by SenClaghorn:

quote:

On March 27, flanked by his secretaries of defense and state, the president said this: "Today I'm announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan." He then outlined a civilian-military counterinsurgency campaign to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.

That was several months ago and the general was asked to reevaluate, which he did. Now it is Obama's turn. The first measuralbe step is the addition of 13,000 troops. doesn't sound like he is wavering at all

Without criticizing the President, I would simply note that that 13,000 troops you mention is the unannounced increase that goes with the 21,000 announced increase earlier this year. While I am certainly glad that it is happening, it occurred before and has jack for diddley to do with McChrystal's strategy review or recent resource request. Your efforts to spin it as a "first measurable step" is flat untrue.

quote:

Originally posted by SenClaghorn:

quote:

On March 27, flanked by his secretaries of defense and state, the president said this: "Today I'm announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan." He then outlined a civilian-military counterinsurgency campaign to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.

That was several months ago and the general was asked to reevaluate, which he did. Now it is Obama's turn. The first measuralbe step is the addition of 13,000 troops. doesn't sound like he is wavering at all

No, the General was asked to evaluate and his conclusion was the exact same as Obama's "comprehensive new strategy" the only difference is manpower needed.

Reevaluate after only six months? His initial strategy was never in place to reevaluate on, so what is there to reevaluate? If it isn't a change in theater then it must be a change in politics domestically. I thought we learned that lesson already.

quote:

Your efforts to spin it as a "first measurable step" is flat untrue.

quote:

it occurred before

Before what? I am sure you have some proof? Please feel free to share it with us. And what part of what I said was spin, or factually incorrect?

Let's also get the time frame correct, McChrystal was not confirmed until Jun, certainly after the Mar 27th noted in the article.

quote:

Originally posted by SenClaghorn:

quote:

Either they are going to resource Stanley McChrystal in COIN or the Dems will collectively hang from their own petard.

Coin has not been the issue.

right....did you not read the article? It might not be THE issue, but is is AN issue.

Sure ... WAPO is the one that broke the story ... piece of cake to back up what I stated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/12/AR2009101203142.html

quote:

President Obama announced in March that he would be sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But in an unannounced move, the White House has also authorized -- and the Pentagon is deploying -- at least 13,000 troops beyond that number, according to defense officials.

The additional troops are primarily support forces, including engineers, medical personnel, intelligence experts and military police. Their deployment has received little mention by officials at the Pentagon and the White House, who have spoken more publicly about the combat troops who have been sent to Afghanistan.

<snip>

The deployment of the support troops to Afghanistan brings the total increase approved by Obama to 34,000. The buildup has raised the number of U.S. troops deployed to the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan above the peak during the Iraq "surge" that President George W. Bush ordered, officials said.

<snip>

Obama announced in a March 27 speech that he was approving 21,000 troops, and a White House spokesman said that the president did not approve any other increases before or after. Asked for more details on the troop authorizations, spokesman Tommy Vietor said the Pentagon was better suited to provide such "technical information."

Defense officials, however, acknowledge that the request for 21,000 troops has led to the authorization of more forces.

<snip>

"The 21,000 are only combat forces, and when the combat forces go in, there are a certain amount of additional forces that are required," said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who signs the deployment orders, had military officials identify last spring the entire scope of the increase and agreed that he would consult with Obama again if the Pentagon sought to go above that, Whitman said.

"Obama authorized the whole thing. The only thing you saw announced in a press release was the 21,000," said another defense official familiar with the troop-approval process.

Again, your effort to spin it as a "first measurable step" is flat untrue.

quote:

Originally posted by EngrOpsNCO:

quote:

Originally posted by SenClaghorn:

quote:

Either they are going to resource Stanley McChrystal in COIN or the Dems will collectively hang from their own petard.

Coin has not been the issue.

right....did you not read the article? It might not be THE issue, but is is AN issue.

I read the article and did not see anything about "coin". I used your words.

quote:

Originally posted by SenClaghorn:
Let's also get the time frame correct, McChrystal was not confirmed until Jun, certainly after the Mar 27th noted in the article.

So by your count the Obama administration is reevaluating their strategy 60 days after their man has been on ground? Doesn’t make sense, what does make sense is the following was BS!

quote:

"Today I'm announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan." He then outlined a civilian-military counterinsurgency campaign to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.

And to emphasize his seriousness, the president made clear that he had not arrived casually at this decision. The new strategy, he declared, "marks the conclusion of a careful policy review."

quote:

Originally posted by SenClaghorn:
Let's also get the time frame correct, McChrystal was not confirmed until Jun, certainly after the Mar 27th noted in the article.

And that has what to do with anything? Obama announced his Afghanistan strategy in March. He canned McKiernan and replaced him with McChrystal in May. Your point?

Having declared a national strategy, he asked McChrystal to come up with an implementing strategy for his command ... and resource requirements. McChrystal has done that ... but Obama is in the process of reviewing his original strategy upon which McChrystal's strategy and resource requirements are based. As it stands at the moment, McChrystal does not know where he is going ... on strategy ... or resources.

If Obama changes the national strategy, then McChrystal is back to the drawing board ... both on how to implement it in his dual command ... and what resources are required to do so.

quote:

Originally posted by SenClaghorn:

quote:

Originally posted by EngrOpsNCO:

quote:

Originally posted by SenClaghorn:

quote:

Either they are going to resource Stanley McChrystal in COIN or the Dems will collectively hang from their own petard.

Coin has not been the issue.

right....did you not read the article? It might not be THE issue, but is is AN issue.

I read the article and did not see anything about "coin". I used your words.

Sorry I just assumed you knew the shorthand COIN is counterinsurgency operations.

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:
Sure ... WAPO is the one that broke the story ... piece of cake to back up what I stated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/12/AR2009101203142.html

quote:

President Obama announced in March that he would be sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But in an unannounced move, the White House has also authorized -- and the Pentagon is deploying -- at least 13,000 troops beyond that number, according to defense officials.

The additional troops are primarily support forces, including engineers, medical personnel, intelligence experts and military police. Their deployment has received little mention by officials at the Pentagon and the White House, who have spoken more publicly about the combat troops who have been sent to Afghanistan.

<snip>

The deployment of the support troops to Afghanistan brings the total increase approved by Obama to 34,000. The buildup has raised the number of U.S. troops deployed to the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan above the peak during the Iraq "surge" that President George W. Bush ordered, officials said.

<snip>

Obama announced in a March 27 speech that he was approving 21,000 troops, and a White House spokesman said that the president did not approve any other increases before or after. Asked for more details on the troop authorizations, spokesman Tommy Vietor said the Pentagon was better suited to provide such "technical information."

Defense officials, however, acknowledge that the request for 21,000 troops has led to the authorization of more forces.

<snip>

"The 21,000 are only combat forces, and when the combat forces go in, there are a certain amount of additional forces that are required," said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who signs the deployment orders, had military officials identify last spring the entire scope of the increase and agreed that he would consult with Obama again if the Pentagon sought to go above that, Whitman said.

"Obama authorized the whole thing. The only thing you saw announced in a press release was the 21,000," said another defense official familiar with the troop-approval process.

No date on the when the order was issued. Looks pretty odd given the timing. Still nothing inacurate with my statement and I still contend that Obama is not wavering. He is doing a thoughtful review.

Originally posted by EngrOpsNCO:

quote:

So by your count the Obama administration is reevaluating their strategy 60 days after their man has been on ground?

Yes that is correct. Remember, McChrystal is a Coin soldier.

quote:

Originally posted by EngrOpsNCO:

quote:

Originally posted by SenClaghorn:

quote:

Originally posted by EngrOpsNCO:

quote:

Originally posted by SenClaghorn:

quote:

Either they are going to resource Stanley McChrystal in COIN or the Dems will collectively hang from their own petard.

Coin has not been the issue.

right....did you not read the article? It might not be THE issue, but is is AN issue.

I read the article and did not see anything about "coin". I used your words.

Sorry I just assumed you knew the shorthand COIN is counterinsurgency operations.

??? Never occured to me.

I might add that a majority of the buildup are CS and CSS troops to support the door kickers. We need them, but they are not combat arms, which is what we need over there to assist in killing these slugs.

GRAYMAN

quote:

No date on the when the order was issued. Looks pretty odd given the timing. Still nothing inacurate with my statement and I still contend that Obama is not wavering. He is doing a thoughtful review.

LOL ... twist and squirm. You should be "Fog", not "Clag".

I never criticized Obama and I agree he is doing a thoughtful review. What I criticized (politely) was you ... and your erroneous statement. You were wrong ... I've demonstrated that ... and you apparently aren't man enough to admit it.

quote:

Originally posted by SenClaghorn:
Originally posted by EngrOpsNCO:

quote:

So by your count the Obama administration is reevaluating their strategy 60 days after their man has been on ground?

Yes that is correct. Remember, McChrystal is a Coin soldier.

Wrong. He is a counter-terrorism expert. Petraeus is the COIN expert. That is why, as the article notes, McChrystal advocating a COIN strategy came as a bit of a surprise to the Administration.

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:

quote:

No date on the when the order was issued. Looks pretty odd given the timing. Still nothing inacurate with my statement and I still contend that Obama is not wavering. He is doing a thoughtful review.

LOL ... twist and squirm. You should be "Fog", not "Clag".

I never criticized Obama and I agree he is doing a thoughtful review. What I criticized (politely) was you ... and your erroneous statement. You were wrong ... I've demonstrated that ... and you apparently aren't man enough to admit it.

You trip over the minutiae. Fact is Obama is not wavering as you admitted yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by SenClaghorn:

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:

quote:

No date on the when the order was issued. Looks pretty odd given the timing. Still nothing inacurate with my statement and I still contend that Obama is not wavering. He is doing a thoughtful review.

LOL ... twist and squirm. You should be "Fog", not "Clag".

I never criticized Obama and I agree he is doing a thoughtful review. What I criticized (politely) was you ... and your erroneous statement. You were wrong ... I've demonstrated that ... and you apparently aren't man enough to admit it.

You trip over the minutiae. Fact is Obama is not wavering as you admitted yourself.

If I trip over it, you lie about it. In fact, it is not minutiae ... your gross inaccuracy created the false impression that Obama has responded to McChrystal's request for more troops ... and he has not.

I did not say Obama was not wavering; I said he was doing a thoughtful review. There is a big difference.

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:

quote:

Originally posted by SenClaghorn:
Originally posted by EngrOpsNCO:

quote:

So by your count the Obama administration is reevaluating their strategy 60 days after their man has been on ground?

Yes that is correct. Remember, McChrystal is a Coin soldier.

Wrong. He is a counter-terrorism expert. Petraeus is the COIN expert. That is why, as the article notes, McChrystal advocating a COIN strategy came as a bit of a surprise to the Administration.

Out of my league on all of that. Fact is Obama is engaged and not wavering.

quote:

Fact is Obama is engaged and not wavering.

I do agree that he is (properly) engaged. Beyond that ... we'll see.

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:

quote:

Originally posted by SenClaghorn:

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:

quote:

No date on the when the order was issued. Looks pretty odd given the timing. Still nothing inacurate with my statement and I still contend that Obama is not wavering. He is doing a thoughtful review.

LOL ... twist and squirm. You should be "Fog", not "Clag".

I never criticized Obama and I agree he is doing a thoughtful review. What I criticized (politely) was you ... and your erroneous statement. You were wrong ... I've demonstrated that ... and you apparently aren't man enough to admit it.

You trip over the minutiae. Fact is Obama is not wavering as you admitted yourself.

If I trip over it, you lie about it. In fact, it is not minutiae ... your gross inaccuracy created the false impression that Obama has responded to McChrystal's request for more troops ... and he has not.

I did not say Obama was not wavering; I said he was doing a thoughtful review. There is a big difference.

I did not lie about anything. I read today that 13,000 more troops where headed toward the country. Today. get it? There was no further information. Stick the lie **** up your ass I am done with you.

A fraudulent election has recently occurred. Our strategy is based on a legitimate, uncorrupt government that the people respect. Given all the crap surrounding the election, a strategy review is most certainly warranted.

quote:

Originally posted by WepsFP:
A fraudulent election has recently occurred. Our strategy is based on a legitimate, uncorrupt government that the people respect. Given all the crap surrounding the election, a strategy review is most certainly warranted.

Yep.

As stated by Senator Graham:

quote:

"I think if he will continue to talk to his foreign policy team and the generals and come up with a military civilian strategy that is robust and gets to the heart of the problem he will be just fine and earn the award he was given," the Senator said, referring to the Nobel Peace Prize the president received on Friday.

and Representative Boehner:

quote:

"We do recognize that he has a tough decision, and he wants ample time to make a good decision," said House Republican leader John Boehner. "Frankly, I support that, but we need to remember that every day that goes by, the troops that we do have there are in greater danger."

quote:

Originally posted by SenClaghorn:


I did not lie about anything. I read today that 13,000 more troops where headed toward the country. Today. get it?

I've been listening to the news all morning and have heard nothing about that. Care to back up that statement with some facts? If you read it, where did you read it?

quote:

Originally posted by AngelHeart:

quote:

Originally posted by SenClaghorn:


I did not lie about anything. I read today that 13,000 more troops where headed toward the country. Today. get it?

I've been listening to the news all morning and have heard nothing about that. Care to back up that statement with some facts? If you read it, where did you read it?

15,000 sound better?

+++http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/13/obama-authorizes-troops-afghanistan/?test=latestnews