The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: ColonialMarine0431 on October 08, 2009, 04:37:14 PM
-
Can someone tell me again why we're in Afghanistan?
Official: Obama to Send Enough Troops to Keep Al Qaeda at Bay
The official also added that President Obama is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan's political future, reiterating what the president said in March.
WASHINGTON -- President Obama is inclined to send only as many more U.S. troops to Afghanistan as are needed to keep Al Qaeda at bay, a senior administration official said.
The official, in an interview with The Associated Press, also added that the president is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan's political future, reiterating what Obama said in March.
FULL STORY (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/08/obama-war-council-focuses-al-qaeda/)
-
I may be a military brat, 2nd generation, but some of the finer points regarding warfare elude me. Can any one of you please explain to me exactly how one "keeps the Taliban at bay"? Dumb it down into civilian talk please. I don't believe I have ever heard of that being a tactic before. :badmood:
-
There is no holding any enemy at bay. You set-up areas where you can defend local populations then move these forward to challenge the enemy. The idea is to get the protected populations to love you more than the enemy thus denying the enemy of manuever space, resources, safe havens, recruits etc. Once an area flips you move into the next area until the enemy is squeezed out. It's long and painstaking but its been proven roughly 70% of the time over the last few thousand years from Alexander vs the Bactrians to the Brits vs Wales to the modern Brits vs SE Asian guerillas.
-
More Obama backstabbing and appeasement.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/08/obama-war-council-focuses-al-qaeda/
-
Jesus ****ing Christ! This is like trueman saying he'd be open to Hitler being involved with teh german Government after the war...
:banghead:
-
see my outburst in breaking news...
-
There is no holding any enemy at bay. You set-up areas where you can defend local populations then move these forward to challenge the enemy. The idea is to get the protected populations to love you more than the enemy thus denying the enemy of manuever space, resources, safe havens, recruits etc. Once an area flips you move into the next area until the enemy is squeezed out. It's long and painstaking but its been proven roughly 70% of the time over the last few thousand years from Alexander vs the Bactrians to the Brits vs Wales to the modern Brits vs SE Asian guerillas.
Okay. But when I read things like this: Obama's developing strategy on the Taliban will "not tolerate their return to power," the senior official said. But the U.S. would fight only to keep the Taliban from retaking control of Afghanistan's central government -- something it is now far from being capable of -- and from giving renewed sanctuary in Afghanistan to Al-Qaeda, the official said.
I wonder how the bleep that is going to get accomplished if McChrystal's requests are not met. And, IMHO, this all just sounds a little wishy washy, and incredibly unfair to all the men and women we have out there keeping the Taliban AT BAY. I fully understand the strategies you listed above, but I would like to believe that those are different, because they had knowledgeable leaders at the helm, who believed in what they were doing and why, and weren't so concerned about their own image.
-
Jesus ******* Christ! This is like trueman saying he'd be open to Hitler being involved with teh german Government after the war...
:banghead:
OK. Looks like we are on the same page.
-
The article continues to state Biden and General McCrystal are on opposite sides of this debate. McCrystal want a minimum of an additional 10K troops to a preferable 40K troops, while Biden wants no additional troops [because of the recent anti-war posts in DC]
Who will the bronze statue listen to...a military GENERAL or Blithering Idiot Biden?
-
Who will the bronze statue listen to...a military GENERAL or Blithering Idiot Biden?
If you have to ask...
-
OK. Looks like we are on the same page.
In 1918 the German Government sued for peace.
In 1920 the former German Army soldiers formed 'clubs'
During the 1920s and 30s these clubs fought against various communist 'clubs' (see the Spartican revolt)
One of the themes of thes veterans groups was being stabbing in the back by the governemnt back home even though they had been winning the war at the front.
-
Maybe Admin can merge our threads. :tongue:
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,34860.0/topicseen.html
-
The article continues to state Biden and General McCrystal are on opposite sides of this debate. McCrystal want a minimum of an additional 10K troops to a preferable 40K troops, while Biden wants no additional troops [because of the recent anti-war posts in DC]
Who will the bronze statue listen to...a military GENERAL or Blithering Idiot Biden?
I had heard on the news that McCrystal originally was going to ask for 50,000 troops, but was under pressure to drop it to 40K. If they aren't going to give him the number he asks for, then what difference does it make how many he asks for?
-
Okay. But when I read things like this:
I wonder how the bleep that is going to get accomplished if McChrystal's requests are not met. And, IMHO, this all just sounds a little wishy washy, and incredibly unfair to all the men and women we have out there keeping the Taliban AT BAY. I fully understand the strategies you listed above, but I would like to believe that those are different, because they had knowledgeable leaders at the helm, who believed in what they were doing and why, and weren't so concerned about their own image.
In other words the president wants to play whack-a-mole with a strong military presence in Kabul but that is guaranteed to fail as soon as the talis push around enough provincials to win a general election. Either Obama concedes or he fights wars to allow any coalition except THAT coalition and he looks like a big phony.
This article is nothing but the beginning of the end. Surrender. Capitulation. Whatever you want to call it. It is unsustainable.
Ironically, Bush won Iraq before leaving office and the moral necessity of that war was always in doubt. Yet here comes Obama less than a year in office going French on a war even he called necessary.
It isn't as if the strategy is in doubt it is merely the will of the CinC to see it through.
-
The article continues to state Biden and General McCrystal are on opposite sides of this debate. McCrystal want a minimum of an additional 10K troops to a preferable 40K troops, while Biden wants no additional troops [because of the recent anti-war posts in DC]
Who will the bronze statue listen to...a military GENERAL or Blithering Idiot Biden?
That military genious Biden also opposed the Surge in Iraq. :hammer:
-
Obama is open minded and clear headed.....his mind is open for anything and you can see clear thru his head....despite the big ears.
-
Obama is open minded and clear headed.....his mind is open for anything and you can see clear thru his head....despite the big ears.
I disagree...I believe he knows EXACTLY what he is doing....but then I sometimes think he's a pawn in a movement. People like Axelrod, ACORN and Rahm Emmanuel are controlling the puppet.
-
I disagree...I believe he knows EXACTLY what he is doing....but then I sometimes think he's a pawn in a movement. People like Axelrod, ACORN and Rahm Emmanuel are controlling the puppet.
You forgot one. George Soros.
-
I heard on the radio he asked for 60K. This is absolutely horrific.
-
Flashback: Obama Rips Pakistan For "Making Peace Treaties With The Taliban" During Election
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWNqun21uQo[/youtube]
Hat tip to Mere Rhetoric
http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11275906.html
-
Why doesn't he just hand over battle plans come on is he really that stupid?
-
Why doesn't he just hand over battle plans come on is he really that stupid?
Yes.
-
What a ****ing genius idea.
:sarcasm:
-
Can we charge him with treason and impeach his a**
-
Can we charge him with treason and impeach his a**
Had the surge failed in Iraq they were prepared to impeach Bush and I wouldn't have had the heart to stop them.
I remain true to my principles.