TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Barack throws military under the bus
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Barack throws military under the bus

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
I remember Barack, during the campaign, promising to get Osama Bin Laden and how he said he would concentrate on doing that, whatever it took.

Now, our media won't tell us, so we have to get the scoop from overseas

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6836205.ece

Quote:
Deep rifts at the heart of Western policy on Afghanistan were laid bare yesterday when President Obama’s top military adviser challenged him to authorise a troop surge that his most senior congressional allies have said they will oppose.
post #2 of 17
I don't see how he did that. I would say it's the congress that is the problem, not him. He's been much more dedicated to the Afghan war did Bush was.
post #3 of 17
Barack isn't doing our troops any favors because he hasn't shown much if any of a backbone about the Middle East overall. That said, I have to agree with Globalstop28 that it's Congress that is the problem. I've seen quotes from various Congress men and women that they will not support a strategy that doesn't guarantee success, that doesn't come with a definitive end date, and that will require more troops being sent to the region.

Um, what? If that's the case, then bring them all home now. You cannot start a military action that does not have victory as the ultimate goal. They don't do anything else. Don't send in the Special Forces and Marines for a diplomacy mission. Send Hillary and Bill and Joe Biden - they do meetings and negotiations.

Frankly, if they are only going to send in half the number of troops needed to fight this war in Afghanistan, then Obama better get his pen ready to sign the letters to the families because he's sending them to their graves. That matters to me. I know men who are over there. One in particular is a good friend, and married to a very good friend of mine (we all met him at the same time at the National Rifle Matches, only he and the rest of his team were learning advanced markmanship skills to increase their ability to survive on the battlefield - not just to punch holes in paper). His baby boy was born on 9/9/09 and he might have been able to get a picture sent to him on his cell phone. Or he might not have even seen or heard his baby yet.

To think that Obama and Congress don't have the juevos to do more than a half-assed effort over there infuriates me beyond belief. Either do it right or get out, but do NOT put those men and women's lives in greater peril because you don't want to upset the Cindy Sheehans of the country.

Most of the people who make the decisions have no real concept that the way to win on the battlefield is superior firepower. You can't do that without superior manpower. They need to decide if they want to win the war or not. If the answer is yes, send the personnel and equipment in to do the job. If the answer is no, then completely pull out.
post #4 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
Barack isn't doing our troops any favors because he hasn't shown much if any of a backbone about the Middle East overall. That said, I have to agree with Globalstop28 that it's Congress that is the problem. I've seen quotes from various Congress men and women that they will not support a strategy that doesn't guarantee success, that doesn't come with a definitive end date, and that will require more troops being sent to the region.

Um, what? If that's the case, then bring them all home now. You cannot start a military action that does not have victory as the ultimate goal. They don't do anything else. Don't send in the Special Forces and Marines for a diplomacy mission. Send Hillary and Bill and Joe Biden - they do meetings and negotiations.

Frankly, if they are only going to send in half the number of troops needed to fight this war in Afghanistan, then Obama better get his pen ready to sign the letters to the families because he's sending them to their graves. That matters to me. I know men who are over there. One in particular is a good friend, and married to a very good friend of mine (we all met him at the same time at the National Rifle Matches, only he and the rest of his team were learning advanced markmanship skills to increase their ability to survive on the battlefield - not just to punch holes in paper). His baby boy was born on 9/9/09 and he might have been able to get a picture sent to him on his cell phone. Or he might not have even seen or heard his baby yet.

To think that Obama and Congress don't have the juevos to do more than a half-assed effort over there infuriates me beyond belief. Either do it right or get out, but do NOT put those men and women's lives in greater peril because you don't want to upset the Cindy Sheehans of the country.

Most of the people who make the decisions have no real concept that the way to win on the battlefield is superior firepower. You can't do that without superior manpower. They need to decide if they want to win the war or not. If the answer is yes, send the personnel and equipment in to do the job. If the answer is no, then completely pull out.
Very well said, Heidi.

Give the troops the personnel and the equipment they need to do their job or don't commit them in the first place. I loved being a soldier but sadly we are often used as pawns in the games politicians play.
post #5 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post

To think that Obama and Congress don't have the juevos to do more than a half-assed effort over there infuriates me beyond belief. Either do it right or get out, but do NOT put those men and women's lives in greater peril because you don't want to upset the Cindy Sheehans of the country.
post #6 of 17
Thread Starter 
But didn't President Bush have a Democratic Congress when he authorized the surge in Iraq? How in the world was he able to get that through Congress.

Bottom line, though, the Buck stops with Barack just like it did with President Bush. The death rate is going up and it barely gets a mention in the media.
With the ongoing love affair that Barack has with Pelosi and Reid's Congress, if he wants a surge in Afghanistan he could have it IMO.

I, also, remember how everyone in Congress, Republicans and Democrats said we HAD to remove Sadaam from power. Well we did, but now when all is said and done, President Bush is villified for going into Iraq, NOT Congress. The same will be true with Barack's willingness to keep our troops in Afghanistan in danger by not authorizing a surge. He said he would do, "whatever it takes" to win in Afghanistan and get Bin Laden, another forgotten and broken promise IMO.
One of his worse ones though, he is not caring about our military IMO.
post #7 of 17
Honestly, I was willing to give Obama a bit of a break on this one. I really was. "Was" being the key word.

Obama: "No Immediate Decision Pending" on More Troops in Afghanistan

So, instead of making a decision he's got to consult with everyone under the sun to make sure it's a popular decision before actually making it??!?

Like I said, he needs to decide if victory is the goal. But apparently he has to ask others if it should be or not. And of course it's still Bush's fault. He hasn't been in office now for 8 months or anything - the same amount of time that Bush had in office before 9/11. Nope, it's still Bush's fault.

To President Obama: Grow a SPINE! You are putting good men and women's lives at risk because of your inability to make a decision as Commander in Chief. Stop pointing fingers and DECIDE.
post #8 of 17
I don't understand where the assumption is coming from that the reason to take the time to consult with allies has anything to do with whether or not the final decision will be "popular." You have to watch it with FOX News, they inserted that irrelevant comment about how pollsters claim that the war is losing public support and thus suggest that this has a bearing on his decision.

Obama has never been one to shoot from the hip (one of the reasons I voted for him, we've had enough shoot 'em up cowboy types in the White House already) so if it takes time to determine what the best course of action is then it is time well spent IMO.

And as far as putting the lives of good men and women at risk, I think that has already been done. Or why have families, charities and friends of soldiers sent to Iraq and Afgahnistan been sending their loved ones protective gear that they needed?
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs....38/1002/NEWS01
post #9 of 17
You don't suppose that some of that hesitation might have to do with the rigged election in Afghanistan, and the rampant corruption in Karzai's government?

Afghan poll: Main fraud allegations
Flaws overshadow Afghan outcome
Diplomat in Kabul Leaves in Dispute
Karzai condemns EU's fraud claims

US warns Karzai on fraud, corruption, militia ties
post #10 of 17
For those that just want to pull out of Afghanistan - I wonder - what do they picture will be the results of pulling out?

For me - I see Bin Laden and his barbarians taking over the country, and once again establishing a Home Base for attacks on the U.S., G.B., etc..

Someone help me here - where does my "picture" go wrong?
post #11 of 17
That article is the biggest crock of I have read in a long time. I talk to Marines nearly every day that have been over there, and they say there is a whole lot of nothing going on. They mostly play video games or football and take turns guarding small gates at the entrances to camps. I have spoken to some that said they saw no one but other Marines during the usual 7 month deployment. They just deployed the last expected group to Iraq to pack up equipment for shipment out of the country. Most of them are now going to Afghanistan to clean up the small groups of insurgents that are pretty much the only ones shooting at or blowing up anything. It is a huge waste of resources and American lives.
If we spent that money guarding our borders and rounding up all the people that come here on temporary visas and just stay, we could worry a lot less about our citizens being safe.
It is bull@#$% that this is to keep terror attacks off of American soil. (That is how many Marines have been told to explain it to their families.) A determined enough terrorist is going to attack where they want, no matter how many of them we go over there and kill or arrest. They have been doing it for many years before this debacle, and will continue to do it long after it is over.
post #12 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by GloriaJH View Post
For those that just want to pull out of Afghanistan - I wonder - what do they picture will be the results of pulling out?
Just trying to get ideas of what may happen in Afghanistan, especially to the people, once Forces leave?
post #13 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by GloriaJH View Post
Just trying to get ideas of what may happen in Afghanistan, especially to the people, once Forces leave?
The same thing that happened after the British pulled out in the early 20th century, and the Soviets around 70 years later: civil war.
post #14 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by GloriaJH View Post
For those that just want to pull out of Afghanistan - I wonder - what do they picture will be the results of pulling out?

For me - I see Bin Laden and his barbarians taking over the country, and once again establishing a Home Base for attacks on the U.S., G.B., etc..

Someone help me here - where does my "picture" go wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GloriaJH View Post
Just trying to get ideas of what may happen in Afghanistan, especially to the people, once Forces leave?
Don't get me wrong, I don't want us to pull out prematurely. However, if it's going to be done it needs to be done right and with victory as the ultimate goal. To do that, you need to be willing to put the resources behind it - personnel, equipment and the money to do it. What I don't see is the fortitude by the President OR the Congress to do that, and if they aren't going to do it right then they shouldn't be putting lives on the line to fight for nothing.
post #15 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by krazy kat2 View Post
That article is the biggest crock of I have read in a long time. I talk to Marines nearly every day that have been over there, and they say there is a whole lot of nothing going on. They mostly play video games or football and take turns guarding small gates at the entrances to camps. I have spoken to some that said they saw no one but other Marines during the usual 7 month deployment. They just deployed the last expected group to Iraq to pack up equipment for shipment out of the country. Most of them are now going to Afghanistan to clean up the small groups of insurgents that are pretty much the only ones shooting at or blowing up anything. It is a huge waste of resources and American lives.
If we spent that money guarding our borders and rounding up all the people that come here on temporary visas and just stay, we could worry a lot less about our citizens being safe.
It is bull@#$% that this is to keep terror attacks off of American soil. (That is how many Marines have been told to explain it to their families.) A determined enough terrorist is going to attack where they want, no matter how many of them we go over there and kill or arrest. They have been doing it for many years before this debacle, and will continue to do it long after it is over.
Really? Just how long ago were your Marine friends in Afghanistan?

http://www.jakartanews.net/story/525837

Quote:
43 U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan in July

The month of July had the highest death toll for U.S. troops in Afghanistan since the war began nearly eight years ago.

In Afghanistan, at least 43 Americans were killed, among 75 coalition troops.

On Saturday, the first day of August, the trend continued with another 3 U.S. soldiers killed in Kandahar province in southern Afghanistan. Their patrol hit two improvised explosive devices. A French soldier was also killed Saturday, in a gunfight north of Kabul.
http://icasualties.org/oef/

Year US UK Other Total
2001 12 0 0 12
2002 49 3 17 69
2003 48 0 9 57
2004 52 1 6 59
2005 99 1 31 131
2006 98 39 54 191
2007 117 42 73 232
2008 155 51 88 294
2009 204 77 64 345
Total 834 214 342 1390
Filter Deaths By Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coalition Military Fatalities By Year and Month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 4 12
2002 10 12 14 10 1 3 0 3 1 6 1 8 69
2003 4 7 12 2 2 7 2 4 2 6 8 1 57
2004 11 2 3 3 9 5 2 4 4 8 7 1 59
2005 2 3 6 19 4 29 2 33 12 10 7 4 131
2006 1 17 13 5 17 22 19 29 38 17 9 4 191
2007 2 18 10 20 25 24 29 34 24 15 22 9 232
2008 14 7 19 14 23 46 30 46 37 19 12 27 294
2009 25 24 28 14 27 38 76 77 36 0 0 0 345


Filter Deaths By Month
post #16 of 17
I think a lot depends on where they are stationed, and what the duties are in that area. So while the Marines that Rebecca talks to may be in a zone where they are twiddling their thumbs (and thank goodness they are!), there are other areas especially in Afghanistan recently where they see heavy action almost daily.
post #17 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
Obama has never been one to shoot from the hip (one of the reasons I voted for him, we've had enough shoot 'em up cowboy types in the White House already) so if it takes time to determine what the best course of action is then it is time well spent IMO.


http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs....38/1002/NEWS01
I think that careful consideration is needed here. If we are supposed to increase the troops and give them everything we need, then how is that to be done??
My SIL, retired logistics Army, is now a private contractor involved in supplying the troops. Logistics is key here - if we put the troops out there, how do we feed them, equip them???? Same problems that the British & the USSR dealt with.
My question to those who criticize the President (and therefore Gen. McKrystal) ---if we plan for victory, how do we supply the troops? Do you suggest that we kiss up to the Iranians (who don't like Taliban) and ship supplies from Chah Bakar to Herat, or jump in bed with the Russians and go thru Uzebikistan; or do we just keep on dealing with the Khyber Pass??
If the U.S.A. hasn't been able to create and maintain a year-long pass thru the central Sierra, how can we expect to overcome the Khyber Pass logistics?
Any ideas???
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Barack throws military under the bus