Comments on: Obama Unveils Preemptive Withdrawal Strategy

By: Carl M

Carl M — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:38:25 +0000

Good question, Joe.. I’m no history buff but I have yet to see fighting in my life that was worth the cost. My point is that I don’t think upper level politics are worth fighting/dying for.

And right now are we really fighting for freedom? I’m paying close to 50% of my income in taxes to have it redistributed to people my government has decided are more worthy than me to have it. And that figure is only going to go up.
Plus I’m paying for this war where we’re fighting who? to do what? Did someone in the middle east ask the US to come there and fix their problems? And did they want democracy.. and to be just like America? My guess is no.

Did FDR go to war for vague and fuzzy reasons with no exit strategy? No, it was a response to Pearl Harbor. But then he did he kill a lot of Japanese civilians, uninvolved with the war, with nuclear weapons. And no other country has done that.

Do we have it so right that we can go to other countries and ‘set them straight’?

By: JoeB

JoeB — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:25:06 +0000

@Carl. Please tell me of any war that is not political. Would FDR had stayed in office if he hadn’t urged Congress to declare war?

By: Carl M

Carl M — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:55:59 +0000

Fred, I think surrender is the outcome of the mentality of most democrats.. By that I mean there is no goal for a democrat, only a timeline for spending… You know the old democrat saying, “we’ve come a long way, but we’ve got a long way to go”… It has worked for decades.

Dems inherited a war, taxpayers/voters/pigeons don’t want war so the dems have to get out of it somehow. Surrender is a great way to put it.

But why are we really fighting in the first place? The war is political, just like Desert storm and others before that. I’m not sure why the US is so worried about any country having nukes when the US is the only country that’s ever used them.

But I digress, it seems to me the only difference between the dems and the reps is how they want to spend my money.

By: Fred B

Fred B — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:59:14 +0000

Is this a record for a Nobel Peace Prize recipient – sending 30,000 troops into a conflict before the award has even been formally presented?! Ooops! Or perhaps Surge Lite doesn’t count somehow. After all, America has basically just surrendered.

By: JoeB

JoeB — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:55:05 +0000

“President Obama promised to renew and reconstruct our nation. At a time when we are struggling to recover from a debilitating economic crisis, how can he justify the cost that sending yet more troops to Afghanistan would entail?”
Katrina vanden Heuvel , The Nation
Mrs. vanden Huevel clearly encapsulates the left’s concern with the war in Afghanistan – national security comes second to liberal objectives like universal healthcare and cap and trade. I have heard her talk about how LBJ’s domestic agenda was derailed by the Vietnam war and she’s afraid the same thing will happen to President Obama’s agenda.
There is certainly an argument that can be made that the War in Afghanistan has been mishandled but that is an argument for academics and historians, not our National Security team. National Security is our President’s number one priority and the threat presented by Al Qaeda and the Taliban is real and must be dealt with. What makes this war different from Vietnam and most every other “counter-insurgency” is that now that the Pakistani Government has begun to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban, there is no sanctuary nation for the enemy to retreat to and regroup. This is a mission that can and must be accomplished.
Take a look at the decades long battle that the Columbian government fought against the narco-terrorist FARC, it has some striking similarities to our efforts in Afghanistan. For years the Columbian government tried to cede large portions of their country to the FARC in the hope they would leave the rest of the county alone but of course that wasn’t the case. So the Uribe government went to work to finally defeat the terrorists and now Columbia is a prosperous nation and its populace is safe.
The fly in the ointment for President Obama is his “preemptive withdrawal” (love that term) and as Gavino correctly points out war plans rarely go according to plan. We could achieve success faster (good news) or slower than the 18 month timetable the President has established. About this time next year is when the really tough decisions will need to be made regarding our withdrawal from the region.
As a side note I want to thank our staunch NATO allies who have courageously ponied up another 7,000 troops and this from a region with a larger population than the US. Thank goodness for article 5 of the NATO charter which states that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all. I’m sure the US will be able to squeeze out 7,000 troops for the next European conflict!

By: Carl M

Carl M — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:53:09 +0000

Well, it only makes sense that Obama would tell the world what he’s going to do first.. because that’s what he does.. he talks about what he’s going to do.. We have yet to see him actually DO anything he says he’s going to do so who knows what will actually happen.

Being as young an inexperienced as he is, he has no clue what to do with an inherited war. If I were him, I would’ve already ended the war (without warning) because that’s why my peoples had elected me… but what do I know? I should shut my mouth and pay my taxes! ha.

By: Dancer

Dancer — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:27:34 +0000

This strategy angers the left, the right and the middle doesn’t know what to make of it! Even though Congress is likely to approve the measure and fund it because it’s sending troops over, there must be serious questions asked about US objectives in Afghanistan. Does the president want to “win” and what does that mean? Whereas, Clinton used “triangulation” to unite the left and right sides of the aisle in support of his policies (which, of course, ticked off his base!), Obama is uniting everyone against him!

As others have said, he’s a legislator/community organizer, not a leader. It must have been very difficult for those West Pointers; they have to respect the office of the CINC, but not the man…