Obama Rejects All Afghanistan War Options, Leaves Troops Hanging in Combat
Thursday, November 12, 2009 at 01:15AM President Obama is continuing to turn down requrests for troop reinforcements in Afghanistan where U.S. troops are in combat:
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.
That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official.
In strongly worded classified cables to Washington, Eikenberry said he had misgivings about sending in new troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
Obama is still close to announcing his revamped war strategy — most likely shortly after he returns from a trip to Asia that ends on Nov. 19.
This waffling indecision is unprecedented, unbelievable and irresponsible. There were questions about Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s leadership and that didn’t stop President Bush from winning in Iraq. Bush gave GEN Petraeus the reinforcements he requested and the rest, as we know, is history.
For that matter, there are questions, particularly under these circumstances, about President Obama’s leadership capabilities. He won’t hate us, then, if we don’t back him up as our leader, right?
Of course the reason for the dithering is because he has no intention of winning in Afghanistan and is eyeing the exit.
PREVIOUSLY:
- Obama Photo Op Will Build His Case for Retreat in Afghanistan
- 8 More U.S. Troops Killed in Afghanistan Making October the Deadliest Month of the War
- Obama Tells Troops They Are Why He’s Dithering on Sending Reinforcements to Afghanistan
- Barack Obama Furious at GEN McChrystal Speech on Afghanistan
- Obama Shelves Afghanistan Troop Request
- Obama Has Spoken to His Top General in Afghanistan ONCE Since Taking Command
- Obama Eyeing Retreat in Afghanistan
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (25)
I was in the other room last night, but I overheard someone on FoxNews say that President Obama was "not happy with the options he was given." Hmmmm. Too bad. Sometimes we are faced with decisions we don't like because neither option is a "happy" one. Like surgery or death, burial or cremation, etc. Since when did Obama begin to think that he would only have to make decisions with options he liked?
How about the options of "certain failure" or "possible victory"? Or is that too much like work... D'OH!
If you can't come up with a rational, achievable end result there is no reason to continue. There is no way to "win" in Afghanistan, nor is there any way to "liberate" the Afghan people, especially when you are allied with one group of homicidal maniacs to fight another. Hawkeye, there are all sorts of ways to achieve certain failure in Afghanistan, but there is no possibility of achieving anything that could reasonably be called a victory for the United States.
Charles, That's what they said about Iraq... remember?
BS Charles, You have to protect the Afghan people first and bring them stability. Then you figure out your game plan. The difference between us and the Russians was that the Russians wanted to kill every last one of them. We supported the conflict and then abandoned them allowing the Taliban to take over. If we abandon them again this time we will never have a chance to stabilize that area. It's hard, but it can be done. The problem with Liberals is that they would rather we lose a war. Obama as President is in between a rock and a hard place. He should either go all in, or pull all out and deal with the chips as they fall. He needs to stand up and man up. Sounds like Charles would be on the side of the 3rd Reich.
Mike, we aren't protecting the Afghan people. We are allied with the Northern Alliance, a gang of criminal goons, rapists and drug lords, to defeat the Taliban, another gang of criminal goons, rapists and drug lords. We have never had a chance to stabilize Afghanistan and we never will. The Brits couldn't do it, the Russians couldn't do it and we can't do it. You can't impose stability on a country using a foreign military force. Foreign military occupation is just disliked by people and they rebel against it, always have, always will.
The 3rd Reich analogy is useful. The Reich believed it could and should impose its will on other nations and force them to live according to its Aryan ideas. Many in America believe we should impose our will on other nations and force them to live according to our political and economic ideas. Your analogy is accurate, you just have the sides reversed. You would be one of the mob applauding the brave troops of the 3rd Reich and I would be in the socialist underground resistance movement. I would be clamoring for military withdrawal and you would be ridiculing people who hold that view.
Charles has the Howard Dean Ted Kennedy syndrome: surrender, our troops can't win.
Tim,
You forgot Harry Reid 2006: "We Lost"
Evidently, Al Chuque's meds have either run out or they've reached their expiration date, and he can't reach Nicole Smith for a refill.
I remember a few years ago researching the Taliban for an article, and finding some video footage of their justice in action. After a short trial and conviction of inappropriate touching, a bound young man was led into the soccer stadium of a large city in Afghanistan, and at center field, was forced to lie on his side. The mother of the man's victim was then led in, given a large knife and instructed to insert the knife in the man's throat just behind his Adam’s apple. The stadium was about half full and a small cheer went up as the man's legs kicked violently for a few seconds, and then stopped.
Sharia law at it's finest, and like Jane Fonda supporting the Viet Cong, Al Chuque argues for the Taliban without a clue for whom we are engaged in battle.
Your analogy is accurate, you just have the sides reversed. You would be one of the mob applauding the brave troops of the 3rd Reich and I would be in the socialist underground resistance movement. I would be clamoring for military withdrawal and you would be ridiculing people who hold that view. - Charles
Sure man, like my ancestors would have been loved by the 3rd Reich...Not exactly thier type Chuck. My position is the same as always try to win, or get out. Iraq had a lot of issues and we are managing to disentangle ourselves there. I am not for attacking countries unprovoked. I am for standing up for my country, and even Obama said that Afghanistan was a good war, so is he a Nazi too?
If people are going to bring up the Nazis every time they run out of arguments, then they shouldn't be miffed if someone points out that their analogies prove the opposite of what they intended. And Mike, we are "disentangling" ourselves from Iraq kind of like the Soviets disentangled themselves from Poland during the 1950's. Try to think about that analogy for a second.
As for Al Garyque, he apparently does not read well. Arguing that there is nothing for the United States to "win" in Afghanistan doesn't represent an endorsement of the Taliban. Arming and funding the murdering rapist drug lords of the Northern Alliance in order to defeat the Taliban doesn't sound like such a winning policy either. Obama has never advocated imposing our way of life on the Afghans, but supported the war because he thought it was a way to rid ourselves of Al Qaeda (at least that's what he said). He's now apparently re-evaluating that position in light of the facts. It's something you ought to try now and then.
Obama also stated that not all Taliban are bad. And ym nickname for you works far better than yours does, LOL! As far as the northern druglord rapists, it kinda sounds like Chicago Politics, doesn't it?
I love the hypocrisy. Americans, don't look over here at the corruption in your own government, look over there at Afghanistan instead.
Oh, and does anybody remember the accusations of hegemony directed at Bush? Yet, it's okay for Obama to tell another sovereign nation what it must do?
Hypocrites, hyprocrites, hypocrites.
Again Charles? Did we not address this issue why its vital that we win?
Suspect Charles to be of french dissent for his love of surrendering. He wants to go back to the days of doing nothing when attacked or at best shooting off a few missles to show how the bad guys need to fear us. Bush kept us safe for over 7 years and we now have Obama and will soon see a massive increase in attacks on our soil in direct proportion to the places we run and hide over in their back yard. The nuts are coming out over in the middle east so what is better than sending over our guys with the weapons to destroy as many of the enemy as possible. Charlie boy seems to forget that before we went over and while Billy was president, they had full fledged bases and training grounds in Afghanistan and the entire democratic party was calling for war with Iraq over weapons of mass destruction.
But setting all this aside, the post was about a CIC who sought the job based on the fact that Afghanistan was his war and that we could not afford to lose it. Barry the Muslim is seeking a perfect solution when war is all about breaking things and killing people. The biggest issue I see in this war is that we did not finish the job of killing and breaking before we tried to start the touchy feely things that as far as I know have never worked out without the right force in place to back it up.
A strategic withdrawal in Afghanistan will likely destabilize Pakistan which may trigger a hot war between Pakistan and India. It will greatly embolden AQ who suffered a humiliating defeat in OIF. It was AQ who stated that the central front of their Jihad was Iraq - and politicians in Washington, DC such as Barack Obama looked foolish stating that it was Afghanistan. Now that AQ in Iraq are defeated, they have moved their central front to Afghanistan. And Obama is dithering while the Taliban claim more and more turf. A victory for the Taliban is a victory for AQ and a victory for AQ will boost recruitment and organizational expansion for terrorism world-wide. Obama's people deny that there even is a war on terrorism.
I do not wish for such but perhaps the only thing that will wake us up is another large scale terrorist attack on the US connected to AQ or another terrorist group whom we have engaged on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Lastly, Generals Petraeus and McChrystal are battle-hardened warriors, scholars, intellectuals, leaders. Obama is a community organizer. There is much at stake here.
Apparently The One has adopted France's sitzkrieg strategy
Johnny, the Taliban government in Afghanistan was supported by the Pakistani government, particularly the Army and the ISI. They have no interest in having a war zone for a neighbor and as long as US forces are there, there will be Afghan insurgents (they might call them patriots) trying to throw them out. The best thing we can do for Pakistan - more specifically for the people of Pakistan - is to get out of Afghanistan and quit trying to dictate to the Pakistani government.
The way to stop AQ attacks and AQ itself, what's left of it, is to quit occupying Islamic countries, quit supporting those who do (Israel), quit supporting totalitarian governments in the region, and get ALL US troops out of the Middle East and Central Asia. That will pull the rug out from under the terrorist leadership and replace the thirst for violent retribution with the hope of real peace.
Well Charles I hope you are wrong about Iraq. Obama needs to make good on his promises, otherwise he is another empty suit. As for Afghanistan he needs to pick a plan and run with it, and yes if it is to fight it should be without tying the hands of the military. If it is to pull out, then be prepared as us not being there never seemed to stop them from attacking us. As for Israel you can forget it. We will support Israel until the end of time. If the enemy wants to kill Americans for it fine, but they have to be willing to die themselves, and that seems to be the case. Now, I would not say that this country is always right, history shows it has not been, however it is still our home. We need to protect it, not lay down.
MY name is Debbie and my son is a member in the 5th Stryker Brigade 1-17 ID fighting in Afghanistan. I can't just sit here any longer while the extra troops they need are being pushed on the back burner. I created a YouTube video and I hope you can help by watching it and passing it along. We need to keep our Soldiers in the forefront and I don't know how else to help them. Please help me and view this video immediately and pass it on. This comes straight from the heart of the mother of an American Soldier. Here is a link to the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zWmTi86drU
Hey Mike, Obama is an empty suit - haven't you figured that out yet?
Debbie, let's home Obama brings the 5th Stryker Brigade and all our other troops home from Afghanistan as soon as possible. Your son should be defending America not propping up a corrupt government halfway around the world.
Again Charles. Did we not just talk about the subject and why its important that we win. Again you spout the same BS as before. Have you no where upon you think for yourself.
Nothing ends when we leave. It will only get worse. I can hardly believe that your so blisteringly stupid. All you do is whine about your precious left vs. right bullshit that its made you a dull witted serf to the same political powers you supposedly despise.
Charlie is a run and hide appeasement boy who thinks we can somehow survive in a world gone mad. Charlie boy's solution would mean that in a very short time the terrorist would own most of the worlds oil supply and be able to inflict great harm on the world with unlimited funds to support any effort they wanted including WMD. America can never run away and hide from the responsibility we have as the lone super power on the side of democracy. The entire world would be in collapse if we do not stand on the barrier with all our force. No nation would stand with us again if we abandon our friends as we will soon find out under Barry. he already threw Poland and Checkoslovakia under the bus. Barry is an empty suit, but having an empty suit with the type of radicals he surrounds himself with is very dangerous.
Greta, Charles is more than a "run and hide" appeaser. He's a hater. He hates this country and all it stands for. He sees only the worst things. And he thinks everything is our fault by ignoring the totalitarian governments' long history of abuses that go back much further than the time this country has existed but, still, it's all our fault and will always be our fault because he hates this country.
Debbie, I will add your son to my prayers that he comes home safe. I also passed along your video link.
Charles, The President is still the President. He needs to back the troops there with more than political posturing. You seem to hate everything that is American, including the current and last President. We need the current President to do his job, and prod him in that direction. Your approach is just as bad as the people you are critical of.
Debbie, I spent a year with the 1/17 th Infantry when I was 20, I will pray for your son.