On a similar note, according to some military people assessing the situation in Afghanistan, in order to "win," we will have to be there for at least 8 more years and probably much longer. Rachel Maddow interviews retired Lt. Col., Dr. John Nagl, coauthor of the Counterinsurgency Field Manual, along with General David Petraus.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#29729804 Do any of you think we can continue fighting for 8 more years or longer? I have war fatigue. In addition, since Afghanistan has never been beaten, should we really be trying to "win" a war there? |
I saw the interview last night. Sharp guy, very guarded comments and he sees no out other than to put a lot more troops on the ground lie 10 to 15 times what we have there now. There is no way thats gonna happen. There is no real win.
|
Obama:
Quote:
Iran: FUCK Quote:
Quote:
|
Eh...lets see what happens after the Iranian elections. Hopefully Ahmadinejad will bust.
|
Quote:
Michael Yon. McCain and Lieberman. |
History suggests that Afghanistan is a near impossible place for outside invaders/occupiers to "win."
But I do like the Obama approach of a "civilian surge" to "boost its political and economic development" in addition to more troops. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
That's why I think we have to empower the locals to win out over the Taliban. Quote:
|
So Obama wants to basically use Patreus' idea and call it the Obama plan? Isn't that special.
|
Quote:
Obama campaigned on putting more troops in Afghanistan (I didnt agree with just more troops) and refocusing efforts against those who potentially pose the greatest threath to the US that are in the Afghan-Pakistan border regions...as opposed to six years of diverting resources from that front to engage in the "central front on the war on terrorism" in Iraq, which posed no direct threat to the US. The idea of a "civilian surge" to accompany more troops deployed in a more targeted manner was developed jointly by the US in consultation with NATO allies. So whats your beef? Stealing the terminology of "surge" from Petreaus? In case you forgot, both Petreaus and Gates are now on the Obama team. |
lol.
|
Iran Supreme Leader mullah Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: "In case my underlings weren't totally clear yesterday, fuck you."
Quote:
|
[quote=Redux;547900]I dont know anyone calling it the Obama plan other than you. /QUOTE]
Since I read this as a petty demeaning reply, I will respond to it. Try Googling it and see what you get. From MSNBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, Reuters, Bloomberg .... there are hundreds of relevant hits. |
Quote:
Obama is calling it a plan developed in consultation with his defense and national security team and NATO allies. I honestly just didnt see the point of what I read as your cynical post of how "special" it was that Obama was basically using Petreaus' idea, particularly when most defense and national security experts and advisors said the Iraq type surge would not work in Afghanistan. If I was wrong to interpret your post as being cynical about how 'special it was...using Petreaus' idea", perhaps you can expand on it. |
Quote:
|
Ok...so i guess you wont expand on your post.
The fact remains that most defense and national security advisors, including Petreaus, said the Iraq type surge would not work in Afghanistan. If you think its "special" and "using Petreaus idea"....hey, that your interpretation. I think such an interpretation is "cough/bullshit/cough" |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:50 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.