Is the POTUS dithering ?

[sfmedicw9]

So the way I read it the POTUS didnt like any of the 4 options given him by his security team. Why doesnt he say what he wants ? Im sure with all of his National Defense experience he has something in mind.

Strictly from the military standpoint the more the merrier and the NCA isnt debating whether or not we are going to war - we are at war.

when did it become acceptable to make a slow decision DURING a war ?? I can see slow deliberate on whether or not to go BUT once we are there...


There must be more to this story than whats being reported

[Abu Khalil]

..."we" chose to start another conflict, before finishing the current one. In a manner reminiscent of the Athenians assaulting Sicily, while their opponent resided in Laconia. Oh wait, that would be ancient history...

[Dave the Impaler]

..."we" chose to start another conflict, before finishing the current one. In a manner reminiscent of the Athenians assaulting Sicily, while their opponent resided in Laconia. Oh wait, that would be ancient history...

irrelevant

[Abu Khalil]

...who wasted their military and political capital in a campaign against Syracuse, only a "potential" source of support to Sparta.

Campaign in AF shoulda' been completed, before squandering political capital in IZ.

Developing a coherent strategy, based upon wargaming significantly different COA's does seem to fit into doctrine.

[8Ball]

Your background aside...

The history lesson is extraneous to the original thought (which I agree with). What's done is done. Aside from the fact if it was right or wrong to fight two fronts, the delay is WRONG. The boots on the ground are requesting more bodies. I heard on the radio today, POTUS wants a break down on where the troops are going by Provence. What weapons they will be carrying, etc. Micro managing is the wrong thing to do. Period. Listen to the General. He may have a clue with his background and all... Either support the damn effort full force or pull them the hell out. Period. Quit debating and pontificating while more of my brothers die. I find it shameful to half step at this time.

[Jimbo]

Campaign in AF shoulda' been completed, before squandering political capital in IZ..

I'm curious about this statement. What political capital was squandered?

[sfmedicw9]

I just watched Fox tonight. They are reporting that the ambassador doesnt want the troop increase. So who trumps who in this case - the generals in a country at war or the diplomat?

this is getting interesting.

i agree with 8ball shit or get off the pot

[Longrifle]

...So who trumps who in this case - the generals in a country at war or the diplomat?
Neither. POTUS is trump.

[8Ball]

Neither. POTUS is trump.

Well, arent you just a ray of sunshine, pretty flowers, and puppy dog tails.:biggrin:

[Stanley_White]

I just watched Fox tonight. They are reporting that the ambassador doesnt want the troop increase.

Eikenberry...

:rolleyes:

Everyone I trust thinks poorly of him.

[Longrifle]

Well, arent you just a ray of sunshine, pretty flowers, and puppy dog tails.:biggrin:
Damn skippy!!

And if I were POTUS, I'd side with this general.

Everyone knows diplomats are sycophants.

[Bravo_One_Three]

Whether invading Iraq or the timing of the invasion was wrong or not, it's irrelevant. It is done, and unless you've got a time machine you're not going to change anything. The situation is what it is.

I see the President doing everything in his power to do nothing on the matter. The fact is, if he wanted something done, he'd have it done (read on). You'd think after 7-odd years of criticizing the previous administrations management of the war that a few dems would get together and maybe actually come up with an alternative. You'd be wrong though.

Lets see: Ramrod stimulus, healthcare, nationalization of the auto and banking industries, cap and trade etc... All of which were "broken" but could wait a few weeks. But lets see which way the winds blow before we step in on matters where peoples lives quite literally hang in the balance. I'm sure I'll catch flak for that, but that really IS how I see it.

In the meantime, I'm sure the media will be happy to frame out various dramatic angles at Dover AFB so they can get more moving photos of the president saluting the coffins of my countries fallen soldiers.

[ussfpa]

In the meantime, I'm sure the media will be happy to frame out various dramatic angles at Dover AFB so they can get more moving photos of the president saluting the coffins of my countries fallen soldiers.

OOOOohhhhhhh AAAAHHHHHHHhhhhh
Not only most excellent points, but +5 for CROSSTHREAD points as well!

Nice....

PA

[BKK]

Whether invading Iraq or the timing of the invasion was wrong or not, it's irrelevant. It is done, and unless you've got a time machine you're not going to change anything. The situation is what it is.

I see the President doing everything in his power to do nothing on the matter. The fact is, if he wanted something done, he'd have it done (read on). You'd think after 7-odd years of criticizing the previous administrations management of the war that a few dems would get together and maybe actually come up with an alternative. You'd be wrong though.

Lets see: Ramrod stimulus, healthcare, nationalization of the auto and banking industries, cap and trade etc... All of which were "broken" but could wait a few weeks. But lets see which way the winds blow before we step in on matters where peoples lives quite literally hang in the balance. I'm sure I'll catch flak for that, but that really IS how I see it.

In the meantime, I'm sure the media will be happy to frame out various dramatic angles at Dover AFB so they can get more moving photos of the president saluting the coffins of my countries fallen soldiers.

100% Agree with all!

[Just Another Guy]

Well, an ambassador weighs in for political cover. Oh, for the days of the Vance/Christopher DOS.

[Abu Khalil]

I'm curious about this statement. What political capital was squandered?

Point was merely that Post 9-11 attacks, the USA possessed near unlimited political capital around the globe. Everyone declaring themselves to be "Americans too", queuing up to provide support for the punitive expedition across the Hindu Kush...but

Execution of OPLAN 1003, into the former Mesopotamia, causing a critical diversion of assets, and attention, from the first campaign. Compounded by the fact that IZ Coalition had a Campaign Plan, not a War Plan. Allied forces landing at Normandy, had plans, organizations, and structures in place for an occupation of liberated/conquered territory. Prepared to wage war, and the ensuing peace. As IZ Operations drug on, international impressions of U.S. moral ascendency and stature have suffered.

Can you visualize the difficulties associated with attempting to put together another U.S. "led" coalition operation today? All I meant.

BREAK

Worked for Stan McChrystal before, ran an operation for him in IZ, great respect & admiration for the man. Sure I know most of his hand-picked planning staff, from other times & places. Fun to imagine the look on their faces if I came strolling into ISAF planning areas, "Oh Shite, who the hell left the door open?!?".

For three decades I kept having to repeat this:
(NAME), do solemnly affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

and not or. The ultimate decision rests with the elected, not the appointed.

OUT

[SHOOB]

Holbrooke is a KEY player. Eikenberry may be the Ambassador but big H has a larger hand in AF

[BigNickT]

The ultimate decision rests with the elected, not the appointed.

Absolutely true. But the discussion is about whether or not the POTUS is taking too long in making that decision, and why. From where I sit it's pretty much a no-brainer.

Stay and fight or get out.

My concern is that the POTUS and his crew are farting around trying to come up with "the best parts of all the plans" which will be an attempt to be all things to all people, and will fail. I also fear that what may be the best plan could be discarded because it's too Bush-like. My gut is that that is the main resistance to a surge type option.

I think a big part of the problem is that we don't differentiate anymore between diplomatic and military solutions. Diplomacy fails, we send in the military, and before the military has a chance to accomplish the mission the diplomats are back in the game. In effect we start apologising before we're done kicking the guys ass. Doesn't work between dudes on the street and doesn't work between countries, governments, or groups like AQ, Taliban, etc. Granted, we've been inthis particular game for quite a while. But the concern with how it looks rather than what works always seems to screw things up.

So yes I think the POTUS is not taking action in a timely manner. Thus he (and by extension the US) seem indecisive or afraid to act.

I also think that "dithering" is a very very gay word. Men do not say such things.

Tax out

[grappler]

I think it's all about a popularity contest for him -- and he's not doing so hot in this category right now. He'd like to make his backers happy with his decision while probably trying to win over a few of his un-supporters(probably a better word for this but my brain isn't running on at full speed yet) too.

This really can't happen, IMO, because you'll never please everyone -- something again, I think he's REALLY trying to do rather than just make the right decision or fuck... just a decision.

[SOTB]

The POTUS IS taking too much time to decide -- and IMO since those aren't HIS children and I doubt HIS friends whom are in harm's way, he sees no problem with taking his sweet time.

He has his eye more on the 2012 elections than on what is good for the country. Hell, he has his eye on the elections more than on his OWN perception of the right thing to do....

[CarbineM1]

Is the POTUS dithering



Yes, play political world hits real world................= zero

[bmbsqd]

Yes he is dithering, and it is solely for political considerations like everything else:

A-stan: 2 years of a campaign claiming to have all the answers and 10 months as President...Dithering!

"Terror" or not terror: he stated emphatically during his campaign that a significant terror incident had the potential to derail his administration. His admin is now doing everything they can to NOT call the Hood terror incident a terrorist incident. Dithering!

Gitmo: A topic he minced no words on during his campaign! He has totally miscalculated his own base, and now is scrambling to redefine his position. His guy running the effort resigned today. Why the fuck Obama or anyone would think bringing these people to the US instead of keeping them 90 miles away in a mil supermax is a good idea is beyond me. I suspect prisoners at Joliet and other prisons would LOVE to go to Gitmo. Dithering!

Jobs: this man has no clue what to do to move this economy....his claims during his two year campaign notwithstanding. So...he will hold a Jobs Summit in December. So let me get this right....he campaigned for 2 years on jobs, he tossed hundreds of BILLIONS out in stimulus cash for "shovel ready" jobs....yet he has NO PLAN for jobs and has resorted to calling things such as a $.09 pay raise to a toll booth worker as 3 NEW/SAVED job!!! Yes, a 9 cents pay raise is called 3 new jobs! Dithering!

Immigration: Dithering

North Korea: Dithering

Iran: Dithering

Iraq: Totally, 100% ignoring it and keeping it TOTALLY off the radar screen, as is the media!

This reminds me of Al Gore spending 8 years as VP then suddenly running for President and saying "We're gonna fix Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, bla bla bla"...You had 8 fucking years to "fix it" and now you want to suddenly "fight" and "fix it"??......DITHERING!!!

Yep...I'd say he is the Ditherer in Chief

[Jimbo]

Can you visualize the difficulties associated with attempting to put together another U.S. "led" coalition operation today? All I meant.

Roger. I hear that phrase used a lot, but am never quite sure what people mean by it. In my experience the meaning varies quite a bit. While I agree that we would have tremendous difficulties putting together another U.S. led coalition operation today, I disagree that the war in Iraq was the sole cause. Even If Iraq had gone flawlessly, I think we would have trouble putting together another coalition due to coalition fatigue.

While Iraq is seen by most as a distraction, I actually think undertaking regime change there was a good move for U.S. interests in the long term, regardless of the public justification for it. That being said, the execution of that strategic move was rife with poor planning.

[Scholty]

I've got a really dumb question and would love to hear your input:

If you were President, how would you handle A-stan?

Get out? Stay and follow what strategy?

What would guys 'like' for the President to do?

[CarbineM1]

If you were President, how would you handle A-stan?

Get out? Stay and follow what strategy?

What would guys 'like' for the President to do?

I would like him to do something instead of sitting on his high horse after hearing how no one else had done anything correctly for the last year or two.

I have my own opinion about the course of action but that is irrelevant to this conversation (no one but me and a few other give a shit what I think).

[5831lvn]

I may be way off here and if I am correct me...

POTUS is begining to remind me alot of LBJ...listening to civilian dipolmats/advisors and by passing what the Generals on site have to say...again...IMHO

[Parajuevos]

Whether invading Iraq or the timing of the invasion was wrong or not, it's irrelevant. It is done, and unless you've got a time machine you're not going to change anything. The situation is what it is.

I see the President doing everything in his power to do nothing on the matter. The fact is, if he wanted something done, he'd have it done (read on). You'd think after 7-odd years of criticizing the previous administrations management of the war that a few dems would get together and maybe actually come up with an alternative. You'd be wrong though.

Lets see: Ramrod stimulus, healthcare, nationalization of the auto and banking industries, cap and trade etc... All of which were "broken" but could wait a few weeks. But lets see which way the winds blow before we step in on matters where peoples lives quite literally hang in the balance. I'm sure I'll catch flak for that, but that really IS how I see it.

In the meantime, I'm sure the media will be happy to frame out various dramatic angles at Dover AFB so they can get more moving photos of the president saluting the coffins of my countries fallen soldiers.

I was going to add my two cents worth but I don't have to now. You've said everything that I've been saying and I agree with you 100%.

[grappler]

The POTUS IS taking too much time to decide -- and IMO since those aren't HIS children and I doubt HIS friends whom are in harm's way, he sees no problem with taking his sweet time.

He has his eye more on the 2012 elections than on what is good for the country. Hell, he has his eye on the elections more than on his OWN perception of the right thing to do....

Great point.

Guarantee if one of his kids was in either AO -- yes, that ludicrous to even say -- there would be a decision made.

Still waiting on the President to get out of election mode...

[Stanley_White]

IMHO President Obama is taking a long time to decide for the following reasons:

1. He wants to trick the liberal anti-war crowd into thinking that he is really wringing his hands over what to do (read: "President Obama is anti-war -- thank goodness I voted for him!")

2. He wants to ensure the plan for reinforcing Afghanistan is as bullet-proof as possible. (read: President Obama will not end up like President Bush in a "Where is the WMD at?" situation a la Iraq.)

3. President Obama and his Staff fear that General Petraeus will run against him in the 2012 election. General Petraeus will have the "I won in Iraq" mojo going for him. President Obama and his Staff want to get some similar mojo for their side (read: "President Obama, the architect of the plan for victory in Afghanistan" etc).

My prediction?

General McChrystal will get around 30-40k troops.

When President Obama announces this he will use phrases like "trusting my General in the field" and "the Bush administration stole focus from Afghanistan and we never gave it our full effort" and "our plan includes specific measures of effectiveness and a timeline for withdraw" and a couple of other cool-guy phrases like this.

Things will improve in Afghanistan.

2012 will be Obama vs Petraeus.

[Longrifle]

What would guys 'like' for the President to do?
I would like him to watch that Ranger School "Whatcha Gonna Do, PL?" video, and see if he can connect.

[John6719]

I would like him to watch that Ranger School "Whatcha Gonna Do, PL?" video, and see if he can connect.

If only they could change it to "Whatcha Gonna do, BO?":biggrin:

[Just Another Guy]

Speaking of Petraeus, Isn't the Chain-of-Command through CINCCENT (oops, is it COM CENT now?) between in-country commander and POTUS?

[billdawg]

Well, an ambassador weighs in for political cover. Oh, for the days of the Vance/Christopher DOS.

LOL, now that's funny, I don't care who you are.

[billdawg]

Yes he is dithering, and it is solely for political considerations like everything else:

A-stan: 2 years of a campaign claiming to have all the answers and 10 months as President...Dithering!

"Terror" or not terror: he stated emphatically during his campaign that a significant terror incident had the potential to derail his administration. His admin is now doing everything they can to NOT call the Hood terror incident a terrorist incident. Dithering!

Gitmo: A topic he minced no words on during his campaign! He has totally miscalculated his own base, and now is scrambling to redefine his position. His guy running the effort resigned today. Why the fuck Obama or anyone would think bringing these people to the US instead of keeping them 90 miles away in a mil supermax is a good idea is beyond me. I suspect prisoners at Joliet and other prisons would LOVE to go to Gitmo. Dithering!

Jobs: this man has no clue what to do to move this economy....his claims during his two year campaign notwithstanding. So...he will hold a Jobs Summit in December. So let me get this right....he campaigned for 2 years on jobs, he tossed hundreds of BILLIONS out in stimulus cash for "shovel ready" jobs....yet he has NO PLAN for jobs and has resorted to calling things such as a $.09 pay raise to a toll booth worker as 3 NEW/SAVED job!!! Yes, a 9 cents pay raise is called 3 new jobs! Dithering!

Immigration: Dithering

North Korea: Dithering

Iran: Dithering

Iraq: Totally, 100% ignoring it and keeping it TOTALLY off the radar screen, as is the media!

This reminds me of Al Gore spending 8 years as VP then suddenly running for President and saying "We're gonna fix Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, bla bla bla"...You had 8 fucking years to "fix it" and now you want to suddenly "fight" and "fix it"??......DITHERING!!!

Yep...I'd say he is the Ditherer in Chief

DING,DING,DING, we have a winner!!!

[Parajuevos]

2012 will be Obama vs Petraeus.

If the President even suspects this, there will be a manufactured crisis that will set Petraeus up to look like a failure and discredit him before he retires from the military. It won't matter to the President what that crisis is, as long as it benefits him politically. The Presidency for Obama is all about him. It's not about the country or the troops.

[bmbsqd]

2012 will be Obama vs Petraeus.

Damn Stan...I agreed with everything in your great post until you said this!!!

1. Petraeus said yesterday without hesitation that he is NOT running for anything.

2. He may be a good Flag Officer, but how does that make him qualified for the other challenges of office, or of running for office?

3. Why do we always fall in to this trap of hoisting Generals to POTUS status? We did it with MacArthur, Schwarzkopf, Franks, etc?

The problem with this is that us military types and conservatives want to see our ideals of a strong military and non-quarter approach to things translated in to a Presidential candidate. But I say that due to their military background and its requirement to stay mum on political issues, we usually have no clue how they think on issues outside the uniform.

I give you Powell and the current Joint Chief Chairman as a defense to my argument....thank GOD neither of them are POTUS!!!!!

[Stanley_White]

Damn Stan...I agreed with everything in your great post until you said this!!!

1. Petraeus said yesterday without hesitation that he is NOT running for anything.

Why do you think he went on the record?

The current administration is scared of him.


2. He may be a good Flag Officer, but how does that make him qualified for the other challenges of office, or of running for office?

Can he be any worse then Obama or McCain?


3. Why do we always fall in to this trap of hoisting Generals to POTUS status? We did it with MacArthur, Schwarzkopf, Franks, etc?

Dunno.


The problem with this is that us military types and conservatives want to see our ideals of a strong military and non-quarter approach to things translated in to a Presidential candidate. But I say that due to their military background and its requirement to stay mum on political issues, we usually have no clue how they think on issues outside the uniform.

I give you Powell and the current Joint Chief Chairman as a defense to my argument....thank GOD neither of them are POTUS!!!!!

Powell was a sell-out. I don't know anything about Admiral Mullen.

All we can do is wait and see. I stand by my predictions. :biggrin:

[jsmurphy]

If you were President, how would you handle A-stan?


I would give Gen McCrystal the resources he needs/wants to prosecute the war 110%, balls to the wall, in order to terminate with extreme prejudice AQ operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I'd tell Pakistan that we are not going to allow their nukes to be compromised, and that you're either with us, or against us, but you will not stand in our way.

I'd go on TV and explain the definition of "victory" in the region, and how we will achieve it. (Mentioned in paragraph 1 above).

I'd tell the American people if you don't like it, vote me out of office in 2012.

I'd tell Europe and the rest of the world if you don't like it, fuck off.

A guy can dream, right...?

[Spinner]

Still waiting on the President to get out of election mode...

And therin lies part (a big part) of the problem, especially in presidential politics, because no sooner do you get elected that you're already looking forward to your next campaign. Within the next 6-8 months, you can expect a Republican to declare his/her candidacy for the office.

This is really nothing new, and the political capital that I expect most interests the President and his advisors is that which is centered on domestic politics. I know a lot of people say they really don't care much about how domestic politics comes into play, but it probably plays a bigger role in foreign policy decisions than the global politics that was brought up by Abu Khalil.

IMO, at least.

Hard as it is to believe, the President is already running for his 2nd term in office. Same as it always was.

3. President Obama and his Staff fear that General Petraeus will run against him in the 2012 election.

I've heard that tossed around as a rumor, but as ambitious as Gen. Petraeus is, I don't really think he wants the office. But again, who knows? All Generals, by their very nature, are political. Maybe even more so than the elected officials who they serve under.

[Abu Khalil]

A guy can dream, right...?

But what if my last dream, was that I was dreaming?

[Hot Mess]

I'd tell the American people if you don't like it, vote me out of office in 2012.


Bullshit you would:rolleyes: There is ONLY one thing a first term POTUS is worried about...a second term.

No one gets to the office of POTUS by telling people how it's going to be. They get there by trying to please every one all the time.

[Massgrunt]

While Iraq is seen by most as a distraction, I actually think undertaking regime change there was a good move for U.S. interests in the long term, regardless of the public justification for it.I don't want to derail this thread, but how? My admittedly under informed opinion is that we should have come to terms with Saddam. Obviously the decision makers at the time didn't have ESP or the benefit of hindsight, I mean "if we knew then..."

It seems to me that the Iranians are the big winners of the war in Iraq.

[Oldpogue]

I'd tell the American people if you don't like it, vote me out of office in 2012.

I'd tell Europe and the rest of the world if you don't like it, fuck of.

Thats one of the reasons the Republican Party was voted out of office the last election. We're in a global society whether we like it or not. Unilateral policies didn't work for George Bush, what makes you think that they'll work for the current president?

Right now, NATO is waffling on their commitments to Astan because they don't see a comprehensive exit policy. I don't think that putting 250,000 troops in there will do much except provide some modicum of safety in the larger cities. Afghanistan is a much larger and more fragmented country than Iraq. Will a surge help, I don't know. Will finding a common ground with the Taliban work, much like we did with the Sunnis, again I don't know. What I do think will happen, is that when we eventually withdraw from both countries, it will go back to civil unrest. Does anyone have a lot of faith in Karzai or Maliki to hold things together after we're done propping them up.

[TXAggie05]

It seems to me that the Iranians are the big winners of the war in Iraq.

That's how I see it too. How do our gains outweigh theirs at this point?

[jsmurphy]

Bullshit you would

Yes, I really would. But I'm not a politician...

[Jimbo]

I don't want to derail this thread, but how? My admittedly under informed opinion is that we should have come to terms with Saddam. Obviously the decision makers at the time didn't have ESP or the benefit of hindsight, I mean "if we knew then..."

It seems to me that the Iranians are the big winners of the war in Iraq.

I don't have anything fresh to add to what was said in this thread:
http://www.socnet.com/showpost.php?p=1012714&postcount=44

[Baildog]

I believe that the internal political debate is between a COIN strategy and a CT strategy in AFG. In other words, should we focus on stabilizing and (re)building the country, or should we focus on hunting bad guys. VP Biden and CoS Emmanuel are on-record as strongly favouring the CT strategy ... draw down the conventional guys, and let SOF and the drones hunt and kill bad guys. I personally speculate that, when President Obama put GEN McChrystal in place and gave him a mandate to come up with a new plan for AFG (just a month after the Administration had announced it's last "new" plan), he was expecting that, based on GEN McChrystal's background and experience, the results of his assessment would be a recommendation to focus on a CT approach, and draw down the conventional folks. When GEN McChrystal came out and said that COIN was the answer, and a CT approach would not work, the President was, it would appear, caught off-guard, and is now trapped in a political paralysis.

That's my take on why. And, regardless of the reasons behind it, I think that "dithering" is thoroughly counterproductive in this situation.

[Spinner]

Actually, Iran is very satisfied with the way things are now. They've gone from being really worried about having our troops stationed in countries on their border to being quite satisfied with us being tied up in both.

That's not even taking into consideration the damage they've been able to inflict on troops either by proxy or direct action. Our presence has been fairly low risk/high reward for them in terms of their influence.

If and when we pull out of either country, but in particular Iraq, they become Iran's problem. And Saudi Arabia, if you start looking at it in its totality.

[wowzers]

Can he be any worse then Obama or McCain?


It sucks that we have to view our potential leaders in terms of at least he isn't as bad as the last guy.

[SOTB]

I'd tell Pakistan that we are not going to allow their nukes to be compromised, and that you're either with us, or against us, but you will not stand in our way....I think this would be a pretty bad idea/plan.

If you are going to announce something like this, then you'll set yourself up for failure on a massive scale.

If you (or the POTUS) felt this way, then the smart thing to do would be to attack and seize the nukes, THEN tell them how you feel. Otherwise -- damn -- lots of Americans would die, and probably not get the nukes under power, either....

[jsmurphy]

If you (or the POTUS) felt this way, then the smart thing to do would be to attack and seize the nukes, THEN tell them how you feel. Otherwise -- damn -- lots of Americans would die, and probably not get the nukes under power, either....

Good point. Get the nukes first, I'll make a note...:biggrin:

[Sharky]

I've got a really dumb question and would love to hear your input:

If you were President, how would you handle A-stan?

Get out? Stay and follow what strategy?

What would guys 'like' for the President to do?




Long term strategic plan? I dunno. There's a lot of geopolitical factors at play that are over my head that we pay guys like Jimbo to think about. But, in my humble opinion, the first thing we have to do is figure out what exactly we are trying to accomplish there. I keep hearing all of this rhetoric about democracy, stability, elections, rule of law, constitution etc etc. You dont have to be a rocket scientist to know that is just not going to happen there. All you need to do is spend a week or so outside the wire with the locals and you will know this. These people are two steps above being cave men. Outside the most major cities, most wouldnt know Karzai if he walked into their home. And most dont care.

[SOTB]

All you need to do is spend a week or so outside the wire with the locals and you will know this....Sadly, I doubt if there is even ONE US politician who has done this. Sigh....

[KidA]

Sadly, I doubt if there is even ONE US politician who has done this. Sigh....

True. Should have sent a gaggle of them to follow Rory Stewart.

[Massgrunt]

True. Should have sent a gaggle of them to follow Rory Stewart.

That's one way of implementing term limits.

[Greenhat]

the first thing we have to do is figure out what exactly we are trying to accomplish there.

x 2

[Bravo Five Romeo]

IMHO President Obama is taking a long time to decide for the following reasons:

1. He wants to trick the liberal anti-war crowd into thinking that he is really wringing his hands over what to do (read: "President Obama is anti-war -- thank goodness I voted for him!")That's just the granola hippy crowd. The majority of the left supported the war in Afghanistan. In fact, concentrating the military more on Afghanistan was part of the platform President Obama ran on.2. He wants to ensure the plan for reinforcing Afghanistan is as bullet-proof as possible. (read: President Obama will not end up like President Bush in a "Where is the WMD at?" situation a la Iraq.)Agreed.
I believe a large part is fear of the wrong decision.3. President Obama and his Staff fear that General Petraeus will run against him in the 2012 election. General Petraeus will have the "I won in Iraq" mojo going for him. President Obama and his Staff want to get some similar mojo for their side (read: "President Obama, the architect of the plan for victory in Afghanistan" etc).I doubt that 2012 election is a consideration in all this. Americans have a short memory and a decision now means far less to the voters than fllow up decisions he makes in 2011 and early 2012.
General Petraeus is not a real contender... even if he wanted to run.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

Long term strategic plan? I dunno. There's a lot of geopolitical factors at play that are over my head that we pay guys like Jimbo to think about. But, in my humble opinion, the first thing we have to do is figure out what exactly we are trying to accomplish there. I keep hearing all of this rhetoric about democracy, stability, elections, rule of law, constitution etc etc. You dont have to be a rocket scientist to know that is just not going to happen there.And there is the dilemma.
Are we going to stay in Afghanistan for the next few generations, fighting an endless war of attrition?
or
Are we going to leave?

I believe we are going to leave at some point but the question of when depends on being able to save political face (while preserving our superpower image) and walk away with some sort of victory.

And how do we justify commiting more troops if we're planning on leaving?

Killing or capturing Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri would change everything I think... not the will of the enemy, but it would give us an excuse to begin drawing down.

[Sharky]

And there is the dilemma.
Are we going to stay in Afghanistan for the next few generations, fighting an endless war of attrition?
or
Are we going to leave?



Personally I am okay with either one. Like I said before, I would be okay with just making AFG a perpetual live fire training area. We have the most battle hardened and experienced military in the world right now. They only stay that way by fighting.

Or we can leave and go back to being a peacetime army with all the chickenshit that that entails.

I believe we are going to leave at some point but the question of when depends on being able to save political face (while preserving our superpower image) and walk away with some sort of victory.


I dont think that there is a country in the world that truly believes (or will believe if and when we leave) that we "lost" in AFG. They may like to say we lost but the truth is we won in AFG within weeks and everyone knows it. I think the rest of the world is just thankful they arent trying to bring democracy to the savages in AFG as it doesnt take a genius to figure out that that's a lost cause. That part, beyond the winning militarily, is what we are falling on our face at. As burned out as our military may be, there isnt a country on this planet who wants to fuck with us right now militarily, and for good reason.

And how do we justify commiting more troops if we're planning on leaving?


Unless we are leaving very very soon, and I doubt that, it's easily justified. You make it sound like if we send 40,000 more troops over there that they are all gonna die. The fact is that sending those troops will increase security and save lives overall. That's not a hard concept to figure out.

Killing or capturing Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri would change everything I think... not the will of the enemy, but it would give us an excuse to begin drawing down.


Like I said, we dont need an excuse. If we pull out, we can pull out knowing we kicked the dogshit out of them militarily, just like we continue to do today. (Giving respect where respect is due, at least they have bigger balls than the Iraqis. You have to respect their willingness to stand and fight and die, but, they still get their asses kicked every time.) We tried to help them rebuild their country into something better than it was and it turned out to not be worth the effort or lives so we left. To me, that's the truth, not an excuse. I'm sure there will be nations who will see it your way too but the truth is that none of them are of any signifigance anyway.

So, although there may be some geopolitical ramifications to both going and staying, militarily it really doesnt matter either way in my opinion. Personally I vote for the perpetual live fire training area. Draw down the troops to a level where they can do a rotation there now and then and get some good live fire training in and still have enough time at home so that they dont get burned out. Bad guys get killed, good guys get to do some killing, spend some time at home, and our military overall maintains its sharp edge.

[Bravo_One_Three]

Maybe he doesn't want to be the 2nd GW Bush, I think he doesn't want to be the 2nd LBJ. LBJ gave "us" his whole "Great Society", but the libs hated him for sending more and more troops to Vietnam. When you're as batshit crazy as many on the left, all wars are like Vietnam.

I gave this thread a little bit of thought today and I believe there's more to this. I believe the US ambassador (the presidents official envoy in any country) isn't making these statements spontaneously. This was a planned and scripted reaction. The primary function for any US ambassador is to implement the foreign policy of the United States as directed by the president. Thus, it is not his place to say what he thinks is necessary. He is there to carry out the diplomatic will of the president whether he agrees with it or not, just as our troops are there to carry out the military will of the president whether they agree with it or not.

I think he'd rather do ANYTHING other than make decisions which would reflect negatively in terms of world opinion of HIM PERSONALLY. Sending more troops is an escalation of the war, and he doesn't want his base to see him as a war monger. He wants to be seen as contemplative in foreign policy, but in reality he and his advisors are keeping ears to the ground and fingers in the wind to see which alternatives will garner the most domestic support and what "the world" will say about it.

Someone asked "What would you do if it were your decision?" or something like that. It's simple. After the man I personally picked to wage that part of the war asked for 40K troops, I'd ask him what his idea was and if that was everything he needed. Assuming the idea sounded rational, then within 10 minutes of hanging up with the man I personally selected to wage that part of the war, I'd be on a conference call to the JCS and SecDef ordering them to identify relevant, deployable units and get them ready to be in theater ASAP. They could end up standing around picking their noses in some tent city at Bagram, but I'd trust that the man I personally picked to wage that part of the war would probably not ask for troops unless he needed them. Once I had ordered the pre-deployment, I'd be talking to the man I personally picked to wage that part of the war to help me sell his plan to Congress.

We hire presidents to decide who to go to war with. Presidents hire generals to decide HOW that war is waged.

Personally, I see Gen. McChrystal getting a roman ending for his unmitigated gall in asking the president to make a decision that could negatively effect the presidents popularity.

"Promoveatur ut amoveatur"

[8Ball]

Personally I am okay with either one. Like I said before, I would be okay with just making AFG a perpetual live fire training area. We have the most battle hardened and experienced military in the world right now. They only stay that way by fighting.

Or we can leave and go back to being a peacetime army with all the chickenshit that that entails.




I dont think that there is a country in the world that truly believes (or will believe if and when we leave) that we "lost" in AFG. They may like to say we lost but the truth is we won in AFG within weeks and everyone knows it. I think the rest of the world is just thankful they arent trying to bring democracy to the savages in AFG as it doesnt take a genius to figure out that that's a lost cause. That part, beyond the winning militarily, is what we are falling on our face at. As burned out as our military may be, there isnt a country on this planet who wants to fuck with us right now militarily, and for good reason.




Unless we are leaving very very soon, and I doubt that, it's easily justified. You make it sound like if we send 40,000 more troops over there that they are all gonna die. The fact is that sending those troops will increase security and save lives overall. That's not a hard concept to figure out.




Like I said, we dont need an excuse. If we pull out, we can pull out knowing we kicked the dogshit out of them militarily, just like we continue to do today. (Giving respect where respect is due, at least they have bigger balls than the Iraqis. You have to respect their willingness to stand and fight and die, but, they still get their asses kicked every time.) We tried to help them rebuild their country into something better than it was and it turned out to not be worth the effort or lives so we left. To me, that's the truth, not an excuse. I'm sure there will be nations who will see it your way too but the truth is that none of them are of any signifigance anyway.

So, although there may be some geopolitical ramifications to both going and staying, militarily it really doesnt matter either way in my opinion. Personally I vote for the perpetual live fire training area. Draw down the troops to a level where they can do a rotation there now and then and get some good live fire training in and still have enough time at home so that they dont get burned out. Bad guys get killed, good guys get to do some killing, spend some time at home, and our military overall maintains its sharp edge.

I like it. We will call it NTC "realism training". It will be just like JRTC/NTC without all those pesky safety rules. :biggrin:

[Bravo Five Romeo]

Unless we are leaving very very soon, and I doubt that, it's easily justified. You make it sound like if we send 40,000 more troops over there that they are all gonna die. The fact is that sending those troops will increase security and save lives overall. That's not a hard concept to figure out.

Like I said, we dont need an excuse. If we pull out, we can pull out knowing we kicked the dogshit out of them militarily, just like we continue to do today. (Giving respect where respect is due, at least they have bigger balls than the Iraqis. You have to respect their willingness to stand and fight and die, but, they still get their asses kicked every time.) We tried to help them rebuild their country into something better than it was and it turned out to not be worth the effort or lives so we left. To me, that's the truth, not an excuse. I'm sure there will be nations who will see it your way too but the truth is that none of them are of any signifigance anyway.What I meant about justifying increasing troop levels if the plan is to get out... I meant in political terms, not practical.
It's not a mindset I agree with, but I suspect it is something being taken into consideration... the best interests of poitical survival, not national security.

I have no doubt the POTUS wants to do what is best in the big picture, but unfortunately I'm sure he is also considering his political future.

[Massgrunt]

I have no doubt the POTUS wants to do what is best in the big picture, but unfortunately I'm sure he is also considering his political future.

That only makes sense. A little thing like a war shouldn't affect him personally.

Say what you want about George Bush, that was never part of the equation.

[Spinner]

As burned out as our military may be, there isnt a country on this planet who wants to fuck with us right now militarily, and for good reason.

True enough, and our continued presence gives lie to bin Laden's claim that the US wouldn't have the will to stick with it. I like to think that when he sees updates, the first thing out of his mouth is "They're still there!? I can't believe it!".

But...there's a tipping point where battle hardened and tough becomes battle weary and tired. And there's a price to be paid in terms of readiness for other conflicts that may present themselves. And like it or not, domestic politics will come into play, especially for a first termer who thinks any continuation of operations (or escalation) will cost him a second term.

Right now the concern is that the President is taking his time deciding whether to increase troop strength in Afghanistan. Don't take this the wrong way, but in a sense he has the luxury of taking his time (and that doesn't reflect my opinion on whether he should or shouldn't deploy more troops, and the very real danger to troops already deployed if they aren't reinforced).

The bigger concern down the road would be if the President made a decision to take action somewhere, and the personnel and logistics capability wasn't readily available to deal with it because we couldn't support a full scale deployment, one that would require a large, conventional force.

[The Fat Guy]

This is what happens when the sheep are allowed to tell the sheep dogs where to shit and when to eat. They are so intrigued with the power thinking they can make an elegant decision that will change the course of history with one decision. They need to look at the Rubics Cube. No one move puts all of the colors on the same side as no one decision wins a war. This is why sheep dogs occasionally chew shoes and lick their balls in public

[Bravo Five Romeo]

That only makes sense. A little thing like a war shouldn't affect him personally.

Say what you want about George Bush, that was never part of the equation.Why did US forces wait to go into Fallujah until after the Presidential election in 2004?
How long did he go on saying no mistakes were made?
When the WMDs he suspected were there, weren't, instead of admitting the error, he tried some newsspeak by saying WMDs were never the reason, spreading the freedom agenda was.

I'm not sngling him out, but you can't say politics were never part of the equation for him.

[Massgrunt]

Why did US forces wait to go into Fallujah until after the Presidential election in 2004?

Okay, I probably should concede at least this one. That's what I get for speaking in absolutes. I think you would have to admit that politics and his own reputation was a hell of a lot less of a concern for him than pretty much any prominent politician you can name. And with Fallujah, it's not a crazy position to say that he most likely thought he was the better man to prosecute this war than Cut and Run Kerry. So it's not at all clear cut that his own career was the deciding factor.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

I think you would have to admit that politics and his own reputation was a hell of a lot less of a concern for him than pretty much any prominent politician you can name. On this we agree. I have no doubt he did what he felt was best, politics be damned, when it came to certain matters. I disagreed with many of his ideas but I can respect his determination to do what he thought was best, regardless of what people thought of him.

[bmbsqd]

On this we agree.

Good Lord...I need a shower!!!

[RB]

Is the POTUS dithering?

I'm leaning across the fence toward 'blithering'.

B5R agree with someone?? Agree with GW??

I hope the sun comes up tomorrow......:cool:

[Forestboy]

Why did US forces wait to go into Fallujah until after the Presidential election in 2004?


That operations planning began long before the election. It was going whether he was reelected or not. You think an op like that can be layed on in 10-15 days?

[Bravo Five Romeo]

That operations planning began long before the election. It was going whether he was reelected or not. You think an op like that can be layed on in 10-15 days?I think you missed the point.
I know the planning and preparation was months.
And I'm not at all saying the delay was to see whether or not he was reelected.

The assault on Fallujah was going to be an ugly slugfest and images of fighting in Iraq was helping Kerry in the polls.
A hard fought bloody battle before the election would have hurt President Bush in the polls.
Kerry was a terrible candidate... he offered nothing.
All he had was president Bush's unpopularity and the public's dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq.
Fallujah was surrounded for months and it appears the reason for the assault being after election day was a political decision, not a tactical one.
From the LA Times, 11 October 2004:
Major Assaults on Hold Until After U.S. Vote
Attacks on Iraq's rebel-held cities will be delayed, officials say. But that could make it harder to allow wider, and more legitimate, Iraqi voting in January.

by Mark Mazzetti

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration plans to delay major assaults on rebel-held cities in Iraq until after U.S. elections in November, say administration officials, mindful that large-scale military offensives could affect the U.S. presidential race.

Although American commanders in Iraq have been buoyed by recent successes in insurgent-held towns such as Samarra and Tall Afar, administration and Pentagon officials say they will not try to retake cities such as Fallouja and Ramadi — where the insurgents' grip is strongest and U.S. military casualties could be the highest — until after Americans vote in what is likely to be an extremely close election.

"When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously," said one senior administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"Once you're past the election, it changes the political ramifications" of a large-scale offensive, the official said. "We're not on hold right now. We're just not as aggressive."

Any delay in pacifying Iraq's most troublesome cities, however, could alter the dynamics of a different election — the one in January, when Iraqis are to elect members of a national assembly.

With less than four months remaining, U.S. commanders are scrambling to enable voting in as many Iraqi cities as possible to shore up the poll's legitimacy.

U.S. officials point out that there have been no direct orders to commanders to halt operations in the weeks before the November 2 U.S. election. Top administration officials in Washington are simply reluctant to sign off on a major offensive in Iraq at the height of the political season.

Asked for comment, White House spokesman Taylor Gross said, "The commanders in the field will continue to make the decisions regarding military operations, and will continue to assist the Iraqi people in the pursuit of a more peaceful and safer Iraq." I only brought this up to counter an assertion that President Bush didn't play politics with military decisions.
Apparently there were times he did... and it would seem that so is President Obama.

[Silverbullet]

I only brought this up to counter an assertion that President Bush didn't play politics with military decisions.
Apparently there were times he did...

Apparently you have the LA Times with anonymous sources to base this point on.

[Ranger1]

What would guys 'like' for the President to do?

The same thing I would want any COC of our armed forces to do when confronted by a fanatic enemy fueled by blind religious fervor of any denomination:


Instill a worlwide media blackout regarding all military operations in a time of war regardless of theatre.
Ignore the borders and sovreignity of any nation that allows our enemies to hide therein.
Be professionally detached when it comes to civilian casualties in a time of war.
Instruct our Generals to simply hunt down and destroy our enemies as quickly and effectively as possible down to the last man woman and child that would take up arms against us, take the gloves off, give them every tool in our arsenal and get out of their way.
Put our country and our troops before their own political gain.
Treat the ex and current members of our military and their families like royalty for life when they return victorious.
Review the list of 9/11 victims and all of our fallen soldiers since then every day. The Oval Office should be lined with their photos.

But that's why myself and many others here are not politicians.

[GPC]

The same thing I would want any COC of our armed forces to do when confronted by a fanatic enemy fueled by blind religious fervor of any denomination:


Instill a worlwide media blackout regarding all military operations in a time of war regardless of theatre.
Ignore the borders and sovreignity of any nation that allows our enemies to hide therein.
Be professionally detached when it comes to civilian casualties in a time of war.
Instruct our Generals to simply hunt down and destroy our enemies as quickly and effectively as possible down to the last man woman and child that would take up arms against us, take the gloves off, give them every tool in our arsenal and get out of their way.
Put our country and our troops before their own political gain.
Treat the ex and current members of our military and their families like royalty for life when they return victorious.
Review the list of 9/11 victims and all of our fallen soldiers since then every day. The Oval Office should be lined with their photos.

But that's why myself and many others here are not politicians.

Steel on target, i like Sharkys idea too.

[grappler]

The same thing I would want any COC of our armed forces to do when confronted by a fanatic enemy fueled by blind religious fervor of any denomination:


Instill a worlwide media blackout regarding all military operations in a time of war regardless of theatre.
Ignore the borders and sovreignity of any nation that allows our enemies to hide therein.
Be professionally detached when it comes to civilian casualties in a time of war.
Instruct our Generals to simply hunt down and destroy our enemies as quickly and effectively as possible down to the last man woman and child that would take up arms against us, take the gloves off, give them every tool in our arsenal and get out of their way.
Put our country and our troops before their own political gain.
Treat the ex and current members of our military and their families like royalty for life when they return victorious.
Review the list of 9/11 victims and all of our fallen soldiers since then every day. The Oval Office should be lined with their photos.

But that's why myself and many others here are not politicians.
No shit, good post!

[Spinner]

The same thing I would want any COC of our armed forces to do when confronted by a fanatic enemy fueled by blind religious fervor of any denomination:.



Instill a worlwide media blackout regarding all military operations in a time of war regardless of theatre.

Easier said than done these days, I'm afraid, with so many nodes of connectivity and alternative means to communicate information. The media has been redefined over the last decade, and short of pulling the plug on the internet, there's no way you could control it.

Ignore the borders and sovreignity of any nation that allows our enemies to hide therein.

Another vexing problem. Our limited encroachment into Pakistan is a prime example of that. And what if we discover a terror cell planning a major attack from London? Or Paris? If time was of the essence, should we strike in the heart of either of those cities with no warning?

Be professionally detached when it comes to civilian casualties in a time of war.

I agree in principle, especially about remaining detatched from casualties that result from legitimate operations, in which both the civilians and the enemies among them know that being in close proximity to each other will bring a world of hurt down around both parties.

But in a place like Afghanistan, we'll just be making more enemies with every strike. We're screwed whether we show a lot of caution about using force around civvies, or throwing caution to the wind.

Instruct our Generals to simply hunt down and destroy our enemies as quickly and effectively as possible down to the last man woman and child that would take up arms against us, take the gloves off, give them every tool in our arsenal and get out of their way.

That's probably at least a couple of hundred million people, probably more.

Put our country and our troops before their own political gain.

Those nasty Domestic Politics rearing their ugly heads again. We can only wish.

Treat the ex and current members of our military and their families like royalty for life when they return victorious.

That'll be the day. Although I like the idea of becoming permanently tax exempt. ;)

Review the list of 9/11 victims and all of our fallen soldiers since then every day. The Oval Office should be lined with their photos.

Very unfortunate that the fallen become abstract figures to many of our leaders. The gulf between the leaders and the led has never been wider, in all aspects of our lives.

[SOTB]

The media has been redefined over the last decade, and short of pulling the plug on the internet, there's no way you could control it.While I agree that you'd still have info getting out of the warzone at pretty impressive speeds, I also think you could dramatically reduce that amount of info throgh better policing of your own troops, systematically attacking major electronic media nodes in the area you are operating (in some cases, as simple as jamming the airwaves and cutting off all phone connectivity -- with the caveat that I still agree with you that info will get out -- I think it will be reduced and slower, though).Another vexing problem. Our limited encroachment into Pakistan is a prime example of that. And what if we discover a terror cell planning a major attack from London? Or Paris? If time was of the essence, should we strike in the heart of either of those cities with no warning?Good examples, but I think under Kirk's plan we woudl either have sufficient support from those countries that they would carry out the intervention ops -- or, we would do it, a la Operation Bayonet -- recognizing the risks and potential (probable) political fallout.But in a place like Afghanistan, we'll just be making more enemies with every strike. We're screwed whether we show a lot of caution about using force around civvies, or throwing caution to the wind.We should not purposely tgt civvies, but we should not care -- in the slightest -- if civvies are killed in the persecution of our ops. This statement would be affected by our relations with those peoples -- IMO -- ie, if the location were Afghanistan, we should carry out the op and not give a rat's ass if the building next door collapsed due to the attack and killed/injured the occupants. If the location were Spain, we woudl be better served with using weaponry not as likely to generate collateral dead/wounded -- even if in THAT situation, it increased the risk to our troops. I realize that my statement is probably not very nice. That's probably at least a couple of hundred million people, probably more.Por eso, "every tool in our arsenal." I'm sure we have "tools" that can deal with any number of asshats that raise their hands and state they want to kill us.Very unfortunate that the fallen become abstract figures to many of our leaders. The gulf between the leaders and the led has never been wider, in all aspects of our lives.Very true.

On another note, perhaps the administration is sending a signal as to how they will go with regards to Astan. Clinton (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/15/clinton.afghanistan/index.html) is stating that we have no long-term interest in the place, and "appears" to be sending a strong message to the world regarding how we view Karzai.

One can only hope....

[Spinner]

We should not purposely tgt civvies, but we should not care -- in the slightest -- if civvies are killed in the persecution of our ops. This statement would be affected by our relations with those peoples -- IMO -- ie, if the location were Afghanistan, we should carry out the op and not give a rat's ass if the building next door collapsed due to the attack and killed/injured the occupants. If the location were Spain, we woudl be better served with using weaponry not as likely to generate collateral dead/wounded -- even if in THAT situation, it increased the risk to our troops. I realize that my statement is probably not very nice

That's pretty much how I feel about it. One of my sisters, big supporter of the POTUS and very liberal, once heard me espouse some similar views at a family gathering and recoiled in horror. She's still giving me funny looks.

Part of our problem, because of who we are and what we represent, is that we sometimes error on that side of trying to make everybody "happy" when carrying out an operation, and wind up pissing everybody off regardless. So, if we're going to be damned, might as well be damned if we do, while at the same time making the effort to reasonably avoid civilian casualties. Because when all is said and done, it's still war.

A lot of uniformed people on the civilian side seem to think we have magical bullets like the kind we'd see as kids on Richochet Rabbit, nothing but net with every shot. We all know it doesn't work that way.

[JumpCut]

I can't speak for the rest of you, but all politics and policies aside, I see a dramatic and disturbing lack of true leadership on the part of the President of United States.

'Dithering' is greatly diminished when one takes an actual leadership position, even an unpopular one.

I disagreed with President Bush on many issues, and supported him on many others. I never doubted, however, that he would shoot America's enemies in the face.

I get none of this from our current President.

[Ranger1]

.......

Agree with all your and SOTB's points. My post was a very 'wish list' type of outlook that I know we all know will never happen. We, as a country, or the current POTUS (as the figure head of an Administration and COC) are just not taking the Afghanistan issue seriously.

For my personal taste, I don't think the previous administration did either. But (with regards the original intent of this thread) at least there wasn't this level of 'dithering'.

If the US was a corporation and how to deal with post 9/11 Afghanistan / Pakistan / Islamic Terrorism / Iraq / Iran (ad nauseum) was a 'business' decision, both the previous and current 'POTUS/CEO's would have been fired by their board within months in favor of someone who not only could, but would be willing to do the job properly.

Politicians regardless of affiliation have no sack. That's why they should leave War to the Warriors.

[Senior D]

I can't speak for the rest of you, but all politics and policies aside, I see a dramatic and disturbing lack of true leadership on the part of the President of United States.

'Dithering' is greatly diminished when one takes an actual leadership position, even an unpopular one.



Yes! If you're in a leadership position then you need to make a decision because indecision is worse than making the wrong choice. This is taught to privates in basic training who can grasp this concept. Why cant he? The same is applicable in this situation. POTUS needs to be a leader and make a decision.

[Bravo_One_Three]

I've been mulling this over a bit. This lack of response is poll driven (http://www.pollingreport.com/afghan.htm). If you look at the polls, you'll see the negative percentiles increasing. It gets less convoluted when the neutral responders are added. If you assume half of the neutrals or undecideds would support the a decision in accordance with the "withdraw" responders, the negatives go well above 50%. It is only a matter of time before the positive numbers decrease to a point that it is acceptable for the government to reach a "diplomatic settlement" and withdraw.

I can't think of a single reason why a decision hasn't been made other than that. Until the polls indicate that it is politically safe to withdraw, our brothers and sisters on the sharp end are going to keep coming home in boxes.

[Greenhat]

I've been mulling this over a bit. This lack of response is poll driven (http://www.pollingreport.com/afghan.htm). If you look at the polls, you'll see the negative percentiles increasing. It gets less convoluted when the neutral responders are added. If you assume half of the neutrals or undecideds would support the a decision in accordance with the "withdraw" responders, the negatives go well above 50%. It is only a matter of time before the positive numbers decrease to a point that it is acceptable for the government to reach a "diplomatic settlement" and withdraw.

I can't think of a single reason why a decision hasn't been made other than that. Until the polls indicate that it is politically safe to withdraw, our brothers and sisters on the sharp end are going to keep coming home in boxes.

Clinton Administration revisited?