The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: TheSarge on July 02, 2010, 03:18:44 PM
-
(http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Politics/steele_063010_397x224.gif)
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele on Friday declared his opposition to the Afghanistan war, saying the nine-year-old conflict was of President "Obama's choosing," and that the mission is "probably a lost cause" – prompting at least one prominent Republican to call for his resignation.
Steele made the comments at a fundraiser in Connecticut just two days after the Senate unanimously confirmed Gen. David Petraeus as the new U.S. commander in Afghanistan. Petraeus is taking over for Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was ousted over his and his aides' scornful remarks of Obama's national security team to Rolling Stone magazine, at a time when America's casualty rate in the war is at record high and the offensive is falling short of expectations.
"This was a war of Obama's choosing," Steele said. "This is not something United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."
The war in Afghanistan began shortly after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, in the first year of President George W. Bush's first term. Obama, at the time, was a state senator in Illinois.
"It was [Obama] who was trying to be cute by half by flipping a script demonizing Iraq, while saying the battle really should be in Afghanistan," Steele said in his delivery, which was posted on YouTube. "Well, if he's such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in land war in Afghanistan? All right, because everyone who has tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed."
Steele's comments led William Kristol, editor of the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard, to call upon the GOP chairman to resign over the July 4 weekend as "an act of service for the country you love."
"At a time when Gen. Petraeus has just taken over command, when Republicans in Congress are pushing for a clean war funding resolution, when Republicans around the country are doing their best to rally their fellow citizens behind the mission, your comment is more than an embarrassment," Kristrol said in a letter to Steele.
"It's an affront, both to the honor of the Republican Party and to the commitment of the soldiers fighting to accomplish the mission they've been asked to take on by our elected leaders," he wrote.
Kristol noted that a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee had pointed out that Steele's statement put him "at odds with about 100 percent of the Republican Party."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/02/steele-blames-afghan-war-obama-drawing-calls-resign/
-
There are plenty of issues one can criticize Obama on....Afghanistan isn't one of them.
-
Yeah--this non-influential Republican would also like to see Steele resign. This is just the latest in a long list of reasons why.
-
There are plenty of issues one can criticize Obama on....Afghanistan isn't one of them.
Don't necessarily agree. He is slow to make decisions and not exactly supportive of the effort in any of his public statements. It's becoming a police effort rather than a war (moreso than it already was). Not doing any worse than Bush, but definitely not doign any better.
The GOP has no backbone - none. It's for reasons like this that I conetned that they are barely discernable from the DNC these days.
-
Don't necessarily agree. He is slow to make decisions and not exactly supportive of the effort in any of his public statements. It's becoming a police effort rather than a war (moreso than it already was). Not doing any worse than Bush, but definitely not doign any better.
The GOP has no backbone - none. It's for reasons like this that I conetned that they are barely discernable from the DNC these days.
Disagree with your "not doing any worse than Bush" assessment. Remember, it took McChrystal BEGGING Obama 4 MONTHS for 60K additional troops, and he got half that with a withdrawal date almost as soon as they get unpacked, not to mention the hamstringing they're getting from the new ROE.
Karzai, love him or hate him, sees the writing on the wall and knows he's going to get the rug pulled out from him very quickly, which is why he's made statements of being willing to negotiate with the Taliban (nothing new there.)
-
Don't necessarily agree. He is slow to make decisions and not exactly supportive of the effort in any of his public statements. It's becoming a police effort rather than a war (moreso than it already was). Not doing any worse than Bush, but definitely not doign any better.
The GOP has no backbone - none. It's for reasons like this that I conetned that they are barely discernable from the DNC these days.
My main point was that there are certainly numerous areas where Obama is failing...Afghanistan, while his direction certainly hasn't been flawless, it's not his biggest failing. Healthcare, Border Inaction, Stimulus, Tax increases, Apology tour, Israel slight, Terrorist hearings handling....and the list goes on and on. Those are the things he should be shedding light on.
-
But it's an idiot (or Dem-like) comment. Of course we had to go into Afghanistan--but he really sounds like a freaking idiot saying something this contrahistorical. Plus--way to go to boost our servicepeople's morale. Sheesh!
-
My main point was that there are certainly numerous areas where Obama is failing...Afghanistan, while his direction certainly hasn't been flawless, it's not his biggest failing. Healthcare, Border Inaction, Stimulus, Tax increases, Apology tour, Israel slight, Terrorist hearings handling....and the list goes on and on. Those are the things he should be shedding light on.
You think those are his failings now, just wait until next summer when we cut and run. It'll be the Killing Fields, Rwanda, etc., all rolled up into one.
-
My main point was that there are certainly numerous areas where Obama is failing...Afghanistan, while his direction certainly hasn't been flawless, it's not his biggest failing. Healthcare, Border Inaction, Stimulus, Tax increases, Apology tour, Israel slight, Terrorist hearings handling....and the list goes on and on. Those are the things he should be shedding light on.
Definitely concur... highlighting the small mistakes is meaningless
-
There are plenty of issues one can criticize Obama on....Afghanistan isn't one of them.
Actually his attempts to stab Karzai in the back politically back during the Afghan elections have turned an uphill battle into a vertical face free climb.
-
But it's an idiot (or Dem-like) comment. Of course we had to go into Afghanistan--but he really sounds like a freaking idiot saying something this contrahistorical. Plus--way to go to boost our servicepeople's morale. Sheesh!
There ya go--wonder what TRG has to say in reaction to this news? Frankly, were it me in the sandbox, I'd be mightily pissed.
-
Actually his attempts to stab Karzai in the back politically back during the Afghan elections have turned an uphill battle into a vertical face free climb.
Hence my comment as to why Karzai is willing to negotiate with the Taliban. He's a snake, but he has an incredible survival instinct going all the way back to the Soviet invasion.
-
Where is his outrage against Kagan??? Has he said anything about her.. Isn't he the head of the RNC?
-
Hence my comment as to why Karzai is willing to negotiate with the Taliban. He's a snake, but he has an incredible survival instinct going all the way back to the Soviet invasion.
My comment was more directed at Cavegal's post, but since you bring it up, I would have to say that if I was in Karzai's shoes, I'd be doing the same - counting on a backer who has already shown he doesn't intend to stick around that much longer, and has demonstrated no commitment to my personal welfare and hold on power (Just the opposite, in fact) is not a recipe for long-term survival.
-
Aren't we still leaving peace keeping troops there?, after the "formal" exit?
-
Aren't we still leaving peace keeping troops there?, after the "formal" exit?
Tripwire, at best. Remember what happened to our "peacekeeping" troops in Somalia and Lebanon.
-
Then the Taliban will be back in power within 5 years....
-
Then the Taliban will be back in power within 5 years....
I'd say a lot faster than that. Remember, they're just sitting across the border in Pakistan in a lot of cases, and the ISI has never given up supporting them. Couple that with the fact the Pakistanis blame the US for every Taliban suicide bomber that goes for his 72 virgins (read story HERE (http://ap.stripes.com/dynamic/stories/A/AS_PAKISTAN?SITE=DCSAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)) and I'd be surprised if it isn't a campaign issue for the 2012 presidential election.
-
Steele needed to leave a long time back. This just adds more reason as to why
-
Once he put down the Tea Party, it was time for him to go. It's way over due.
-
Once he put down the Tea Party, it was time for him to go. It's way over due.
He put down the TEA Party? I missed that. Well, :bird: him then AND this comment about Afghanistan was incredibly stupid and demoralizing for our troops in harm's way.
I know the GOP can do better than this guy. :thatsright:
-
It's becoming a police effort rather than a war (moreso than it already was).
Ummm...no it's not. It never has been a police action here. Except to the uneducated about what we're doing here.
The GOP has no backbone - none. It's for reasons like this that I conetned that they are barely discernable from the DNC these days.
:yawn:
-
Then the Taliban will be back in power within 5 years....
Not even close.
-
There ya go--wonder what TRG has to say in reaction to this news? Frankly, were it me in the sandbox, I'd be mightily pissed.
As a Gulf War veteran, I am still pissed that we weren't allowed to finish the job the fisrt time.
-
There ya go--wonder what TRG has to say in reaction to this news? Frankly, were it me in the sandbox, I'd be mightily pissed.
You're right Sparky...I AM pissed. HE hasn't set foot over here...yet like a Liberal he proclaims to know what a failure this war is from the comfort of DC.
I dare anyone political or otherwise to tell a combat veteran either here right now or that has been here that this is a lost cause.
It's no more a lost cause than Iraq was.
-
Not even close.
Okay, assuming you have anything to say in the matter, that might be true. But what if Obumbler DOES pull out all but a very small token force next year?
What then?
-
Okay, assuming you have anything to say in the matter, that might be true. But what if Obumbler DOES pull out all but a very small token force next year?
What then?
Then he'll be making the biggest mistake of his life. He'll be this generations LBJ. But he's already backing off of the timeline...Petreaus is against it and Libtards like Boxer have already said publicly that if General P wants more time beyond the July 2011 deadline he should have it.
-
Then he'll be making the biggest mistake of his life. He'll be this generations LBJ. But he's already backing off of the timeline...Petreaus is against it and Libtards like Boxer have already said publicly that if General P wants more time beyond the July 2011 deadline he should have it.
I knew General Petraeus (and frankly, was that not a demotion, or is the administration trying to play politics with putting him in charge there?) was against the timeline--as is virtually anyone above the rank of PFC, but BOXHEAD?
Babs? If even SHE can see it, whoa...
-
I'd say GEN Petraeus is filling in while another commander is being sought/groomed for the gig. That commander will be named in due course and GEN P will go back to his gig as CENTCOM commander.
-
Sorry, the Zero administration might be a bunch of malignant narcissists, but they're not COMPLETELY stupid. I see putting Gen. Petraeus in there as a purely political move for them, which if they spin it right, can be a win-win for Zerobama. If Gen. Petraeus can turn it around (so to speak), they'll take the credit for putting him in there, and if they fail, they'll come up with the, "Well, we put the best person in there, and he couldn't do it, so must be nobody can!" excuse. Either way, the shitstorm gets deflected away from them.
-
I knew General Petraeus (and frankly, was that not a demotion, or is the administration trying to play politics with putting him in charge there?) was against the timeline--as is virtually anyone above the rank of PFC, but BOXHEAD?
Babs? If even SHE can see it, whoa...
It was a demotion of sorts...but IMHO theres a quid pro quo somewhere in there. He steps down from CENTCOM...cleans up the mess here and he's nominated for CSA or CJCS aftrewards.
Yeah that's what I thought when I read that Boxer supported giving more time. And the last quote I saw from POTUS last week weas him saying that there "too much focus" on the deadline" or something to that effect.
-
The strategy of Petraeus, implemented originally by McChrystal, is a perfectly valid approach, probably the only real workable COIN strategy since in modern times it is unacceptable to just depopulate and lay waste to a rebellious countryside (Also a proven successful COIN strategy, historically).
What he's doing has been proven by other players than us in the past, it is not some untested flash in the pan. That said, it DOES take many years of enforced stability for it to take root, what's called in military jargon 'The Long War' vs. the kind of war Gulf I or Kosovo was. Thing is, it works much faster in countries that have more developed economies and more visible-to-the-people economic benefit from a stable central government.
Afghanistan is more or less a 'Worst case' COIN war, well except for lacking jungles, that's about all that would make it worse yet. The enemy has all the classic preconditions for successful guerrilla war set up in his favor, to include a willingness to take extremely unfavorable loss ratio ass-beatings until we get tired of losing even the small end of those numbers and sanctuary across the border.
In other words our COIN strategy bears fruit a whole lot quicker in a place like Iraq than in a place like Afghanistan. Iraq is a place where the vast majority of the population sees a better life in peace than in continued warfare, there's a tangible difference between the two conditions to them. In comparative terms, let's say it's like Yugoslavia was - civilized, even mildly industrialized, literate and aware of the wider world and wanting to be involved in it, but riven by factional fighting. Afghanistan is more like the kind of African colonial state as depicted in 'Heart of Darkness' - a thin veneer of civilization, mostly imported and misspent, but with a backward population ruled by warlords who regard conflict as actually providing more opportunities for themselves than peace (Peace after all means not being able to hijack convoys, or raid your competition's villages), where loyalty is strictly local and the central government is generally regarded as an unnecessary annoyance and an irritating hindrance to your life goals of increased power and personal enrichment.
The strategy will work in Afghanistan only if we have the political will to pursue it to its logical consequences, which I frankly doubt, since it will mean maintaining serious credible forces to backstop the central government for at least two decades, and a substantial reaction and training force well beyond that. In other words we would have to stay there in force until Western expectations fo fair government and straight dealing are enforced long enough for a couple of generations to grow up under them and think of them as the norm.
If we actually follow Obama's timetable, or even a stretch version of it, our departure will signal a replay of the Soviet pullout, with the central government eventually going Tango Uniform. That timetable is entirely in the hands of the aAdministration, not the generals, of course. People forget that the Soviets too had mcuh more than a military presence, but did their best to bring the Afghans up to the Soviet version of a modern outlook and values. From the overthrow of the king, in which they were heavily involved, they had over ten years at it, and they did indeed convince a lot of the same sub-populations with whom we have made some headway. It wasn't enough to survive their departure, when they pulled out it was like clock was suddenly dialed back a hundred or two years.
Oh, and yes, Steele's an idiot, he needs to go.
-
Just to cut Steele a little slack. Is there anyone here that honestly believes that if the situation were reversed reversed, that the media would be supporting him? I mean, if this same thing were said by the DNC chairman about a Republican president following a Dem that had gotten us into a war.
-
Well, if history is any indicator, Vietnam is more a Nixon issue than an LBJ one, if that give ya any idea.
-
Well, if history is any indicator, Vietnam is more a Nixon issue than an LBJ one, if that give ya any idea.
Dunno about that, Sparky. Nixon didn't not run for office because of Vietnam, even after his "secret plan" to end the war was found to be campaign rhetoric.
LBJ, of course, opted not to run in 1968 principally because of Vietnam and how it was perceived to be "his war", not to mention the growing disaffection with it.
Even after Nixon's prosecuting the war with the two Linebacker campaigns and the invasion into Cambodia, Vietnam is still very much LBJ's war imho.
-
But if you ask a kid today who was more responsible for prolonging it, guess who they'd say? The media and the history books have given LBJ (and JFK) a pass regarding Vietnam.
-
Your point is well taken, but I'd submit that most kids today don't have a damned clue about Vietnam one way or the other. The amount of historical ignorance in our youth today is staggering.
Straw man aside, I haven't seen a kid's history book in some years so I dunno what kind of slant the authors are taking these days except that liberal policy is the best policy. :whatever:
-
Obama? Really? We've been over there long before he took office.