Military Aviation > Defence in General
Losing the war in Afghanistan
AVIATOR:
Obama in Afghanistan: Losing a War to Reassure his Re-Election
Last week on Oct. 3, Taliban fighters in northern Afghanistan launched a mini-Tet Offensive against American troop bases. Over 300 terrorists and their allies stormed the bases in an attack that started in a nearby mosque, which had been used to store weapons and ammunition. While the American soldiers repelled the invaders, they suffered heavy casualties: eight deaths, plus two Afghan Army officers killed and 12 missing Afghan National Policemen. It was one of the deadliest days of fighting since the start of the war.
For the last several weeks, high-ranking members of the military establishment have called for a troop "surge" in Afghanistan similar to the surge in Iraq.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said that "time is not on our side." Gen. David Petraeus has shed light on the Obama administration's slow movement."Because of our inability and the inability, frankly, of our allies, (for putting) enough troops into Afghanistan, the Taliban do have the momentum right now, it seems."
President Obama's response has been anger. He has not even addressed McChrystal's or Mullen's or Gates' concerns; instead, he has focused on targeting McChrystal personally for his temerity in going public with his suggestions. There is a reason for Obama's anger: He is more interested in winning the public relations battle than winning the war in Afghanistan, particularly since his possible presidential opposition in 2012 includes both Petraeus and McChrystal. McChrystal has reportedly discussed quitting if he does not receive the troops he needs; Petraeus, if he continues to be marginalized by the Obama administration, may follow the same path.
Two days after a New York Times article suggested Petraeus' presidential ambitions in 2012, the Times somehow got wind of Petraeus' treatments for prostate cancer — treatments only the White House knew about. The Times then solicited confirmation from Petraeus' office. This sudden revelation has the Obama team's fingerprints all over it.
Instead of focusing on his 2012 rivals, Obama should be focused on victory. Instead of focusing on winning the political battles, Obama should focus on winning the very real war — a war in which our soldiers are fighting and dying as we speak. But President Obama has demonstrated time and time again that he cares less about American victory on the world stage than he does about his personal prestige and power.
Obama has no grand strategy to win the war in Afghanistan, nor even a strategy to achieve a peace-with-honor pullout. He has only his Chicago tactics, which he will use to destroy any military man or woman who so much as hints to the American public that Obama's Afghan plan is flawed.
Under the Obama administration America and the West will continue on a downward slide to the disastrous prospect of a terrorist victory in Afghanistan and the resultant world anarchy that will follow. .
AVIATOR:
October 9. In news just in.
Gasps echoed through the Nobel Hall in Oslo yesterday as Barack Obama was unveiled as the winner of the 2009 Peace Prize, sparking a global outpouring of incredulity.
Will someone that views this forum like to tell me how the President of the United States and leader of the US armed forces who are currently fighting a war, can get the Nobel Peace Prize?
What absolute socialist moronic crap!
I rest my case.
Webmaster:
Well, I'm not sure what to make of your first post. I heard what Petraeus said, but I think he exaggerated to get more troops from both Obama and the allies, PR yeah, but I didn't think of it as for 2012. I'm not saying that the nations shouldn't put more troops in.
That other stuff is political games perhaps, comes with the territory. I don't really care.
Now about that Nobel price. I thought somebody must have done something for peace, instead of just laying the foundations for talks and making promises about a better world. Perhaps he got the price for sending Mitchell to the Middle East to talk peace, as if there's now really peace in the Gaza, or preventing another Cold War with Russia? I can't think of much more? Maybe he got the price for what he didn't do, which Bush would have... N.Korea / Iran...
I guess the only conclusion is that they didn't have anyone better to receive the price today...
It's remarkable, but socialist, moronic? You can call it socialism when Chavez gets it, okay? But what's socialist about an individual getting a price for peace anyway!?
afterburnerlover:
I didn't read the rest of the replys bcuz of time,but i will shortly.I write stream of conscience,so bare with me.Oh and the spelling is horrible.Always been a bad speller.But i have to comment on the material in the topic.
1st;more people have died in Afghanistan under Obama's rule,than Bush's.Look at his Nobel Peace Prize-like the topic,he DOES care more about his popularity than winning a fcking WAR!!! Where people die,and are maimed for life.And will continue to be until 2012 no doubt.
It's just funny that he won it,and has achieved,or done NOTHING of any importance since he was sworn in.Nothing.He still excepted it.The Nobel Piece Prize has been dumbed down.People like Einstien,and Martin Luther King got it.Obama has never held a regular job,until he got into the Government.Even there,he has accomplished nothing-just a space hog in a chair.He wants to get rid of all nukes.G,great !@&king idea,when Iran now has thousands of centrifues(misspelled)spinning right now.
Iraq,and Iran need more troops.As many as possible.But civilians know nothing about how to win a war,or anything about combat for that matter,and they seem to pull Obama's strings-which is how the government should be ran;the PEOPLE decide.But when it comes to war,you do anything,and send anything to win the war quickly.Get it done quickly and efficiently,with everything in our arsenal we have.It saves time,and lifes.
You must ask the question-why are the 2 wars being fought this way?
It just reminds me of a "Vietnam"style of thinking,where we lifted the embargo on Russia's supply to Vietnam days before the Gulf of Tonka?-spelling.But people do nothing until it directly effects them.We know how to win these wars,trust me.They could end in 5 months-done,goals accomplished.Then pull back what we can,and "fortify" our boarders,letting no one end.In that time,we would strengthen our military to be ready for anything that comes our way.
Now i forgot what my main point was going to be...dangit! sorry
RecceJet:
--- Quote from: Webmaster on October 10, 2009, 06:43:29 AM ---...Now about that Nobel price. I thought somebody must have done something for peace, instead of just laying the foundations for talks and making promises about a better world. Perhaps he got the price for sending Mitchell to the Middle East to talk peace, as if there's now really peace in the Gaza, or preventing another Cold War with Russia? I can't think of much more? Maybe he got the price for what he didn't do, which Bush would have... N.Korea / Iran...
--- End quote ---
Rabin and Arafat got the Nobel Piece Prize back in the early 90s and there's still no peace in that part of the world. It would seem like that prize is given out just on the basis of proposed scenarios. I'm sure anyone else can come up with a good Utopian idea for this world, even if it is an unlikely event. Giving a Nobel prize for people like these under those conditions simply removes the prestige it once held.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version