So, a president should be non-creative, and just do what any mainstream person would do? You can take your rolleyes and shove it.
Look, there’s good outside the box thinking and bad outside the box thinking.
He seemed very comfortable, knowledgeable, and in total control of his decision/plan and why he thought it was necessary. If it takes a few months to understand that yourself, believe it, and convey all that information to me in 30mins(?) where I’m able to believe your truly making it with American and foreign interests, then it’s worth the wait.
I thought we had already done that, somewhat. The whole “winning the hearts and minds.” An emphasis on less civilian casualties (at the likely inevitable expense of more American casualties).
To be more precise, for example, the ROE are you can no longer call in an air strike on a building from which you are taking fire because it risks civilian casualties.
Which is precisely one of the reasons I referred to them as 30,000 targets
Waiting 4 months to make support decisions in the middle of a war is the polar opposite of helpful when viewed by other nations who have already dedicated support for the operation. Even more so when asking for additional foreign support.
Not to mention, Obama’s decision is pretty much exactly the same decision Bush would have made, based on what he did in Iraq.
If we had had the uncommon good fortune and wisdom to elect **John Mace **instead of this lightweight, your plan would have been…?
I don’t think he’s a lightweight. I think he punted on this, and did the politically expedient thing. I’m a little disappointed, but not too much.
As for what I would have done… I would have figured out some way to just get us out of there. Not that I ever said I was smarter or better suited to the presidency than Obama is. Expecting more doesn’t mean that one could deliver more oneself. I expect a great concert when I go to see The Stones. If they deliver a mediocre performance, that doesn’t mean I could have done better.
I don’t think everybody did know it, and yes it required complex analysis, whether you want to admit it or not. It was a decision which would have consequences either way.
What does that even mean? What would be your idea of a “creative” decision? You think he should attack with flying monkeys? Isn’t it better to go with the best decision than the most creative? This isn’t Top Chef.
I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq, not Afghanistan (maybe a little ambivalent at times, never outright opposed), and I’m not cheering. I’d have rather he said we were going to piss on the fire and call in the dogs, but I understand that political reality could never let him do that, and I’m at least heartened that he set a time table. That’s more than I was expecting
No, Bush had plenty of opportunity to make this decision, and he never did.
There’s no reason to think that yet another year of rolling disaster in Afghanistan would have moved him even a millimeter off his dead, do nothing ass.
I was opposed to the invasion, started a thread on the subject. Suffice to say it was not warmly received.
So have we. Obama alredy sent 17.000 troops earlier this year. He took 4 months to make a decision about what to do NEXT year. The fact that he thought it through will not be viewed as a bad thing by anyone but those on the right who view any kind of thinking, discussion, research and analysis, or informed decisions as anathema.
[/quote]
Yea I picked up on that. And I believe you do have legit point.
I also believe the “hard” combat approach wasn’t working. We switched to a “softer” approach in Iraq and are doing it in Afghanistan, too. I just don’t think you can win by killing all the enemies. You might be able to win by simply making less enemies, even friends, and then transition out of the country.
Or just pull out entirely which both administrations don’t feel is a option.
Personally, under the current rules of engagement I don’t think either troop commitment should have been made. That said, as for Obama’s decision, since when did battlefield decision become events ruled by the calendar year?
:rolleyes: NEXT year is 30 days from now which is about how long it will take to move them all over there. He has effectively delayed troop deployment by 4 months. The delay in support left world leaders wondering WTF was going on. Asking for additional troops from them after denying his own commanders what they asked for is just stupid.
I think we should stay in Afghanistan as long as needed like Germany, Japan, and Korea.
Nothing has been delayed. That’s baloney. He’s not sending anything any later than it was requested, and he didn’t have to honor the request at all.
I think what took the time is forming a clear exit strategy. I’m glad the president is really getting his shit together before committing (more) troops. How refreshing compared to a previous administration!
His decision was delayed by 4 months. Are you suggesting that the request for more troops was to begin at 1am on January the 1st 2010 and trickle through the year? Do you think the amount of troops he left out is basically the same he’s asking from NATO is going to strike a friendly cord after the delay?
Your Composition 101 teacher saw this sentence, and is standing on a window ledge threatening to jump.
Yeah, I can see why it took 4 months to just declare that we’d leave in 18 months. That’s just a random date thrown out there. As soon as we leave, the Taliban will just filter back in. In 2,000 years there has never been a central gov’t in Afghanistan. We’re not going to create one in 18 months.