Obamas war

[Cancel 2016.2]

This whole idea of an exit strategy is crazed. Did FDR have an exit strategy? Wars are fluid, things happen that either shorten or extend the war. There is no way to know what will happen tomorrow. Exit strategy is something I would expect to come out of the mouths of the pacifists.

exactly

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

yah im having a hard time with Afghanistan. What is the strategic reason for having 100K troops there besides protecting the oil pipelines? if its to hunt al quida we can just use drones. If anything we have a far greater strategic reason for being in iraq.

what oil pipelines are you referring to?

 

[Bonestorm]

From the very link you posted:

The troop requests to which Gibbs referred were made by then-Gen. David McKiernan. McKiernan started off making individual requests for brigades, and that list kept growing.

Officials from that time say that demands in Iraq prevented the Bush administration from fulfilling the requests until just before Bush left office. (Prioritizing troops to Iraq over those to Afghanistan is, of course, a choice.)

In his first interview after being fired by Defense Secretary Gates over the summer, McKiernan told the Washington Post about his appointment to command ISAF troops in Afghanistan in June 2008: "There was a saying when I got there: If you're in Iraq and you need something, you ask for it. If you're in Afghanistan and you need it, you figure out how to do without it."

In retrospect McKiernan’s troop requests ultimately added up to roughly 30,000 more troops, a combination of combat units and support troops.

Why stop there? More from the link"

In retrospect McKiernan’s troop requests ultimately added up to roughly 30,000 more troops, a combination of combat units and support troops.

Throughout most of 2008, the Bush administration tried to get NATO countries to fill that gap, though they had to have known that would be a challenge. By the late summer, 2008 Bush administration officials realized NATO wasn’t going to come through.

In September 2008 that led the Pentagon to order 2,000 Marines to replace Marines sent to Afghanistan in January as a one-time deployment. At the same time, it also ordered in the first of the additional four combat brigades that McKiernan had requested. This unit of 3,700 soldiers would arrive in January, 2009 and had been originally scheduled to deploy to Iraq.

In December 2008, President Bush sent 2,800 troops to Afghanistan from an aviation brigade that McKiernan had also requested.

So as McKiernan’s outstanding requests for more forces accumulated throughout 2008 to roughly 30,000 soldiers, President Bush sent at least 6,800 troops – months and months after the requests had come in.

By March, President Obama had ordered 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan – which can be seen as roughly the outstanding balance of McKiernan’s original request.

 

[christiefan915]

you of course ignore that many repubs/cons voiced disagreement or disapproval of bush's actions there....

but of course you couldn't have a good gotcha post if you were to be completely honest....tell me...did the generals in afghanistan ask for more troops when bush was in office and if so, how many troops?

Yes, they did.

In April 2008, two months before he assumed command in Kabul, McKiernan traveled to Afghanistan for a get-acquainted visit. Within days, he concluded that there were not enough troops to contend with the intensifying Taliban insurgency...

...By late last summer, he decided to tell George W. Bush's White House what he knew it did not want to hear: He needed 30,000 more troops. He wanted to send some to the country's east to bolster other U.S. forces, and some to the south to assist overwhelmed British and Canadian units in Helmand and Kandahar provinces.

The Bush administration opted not to act on McKiernan's request and instead set out to persuade NATO allies to contribute more troops...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/16/AR2009081602304_pf.html

 

[Damocles]

Not that I disagree that it is now Obama's war, (I'd argue that his earlier doubling of our troop commitment as soon as he took office made it his) but I think it is hilarious that so many unabashed Bush ass-lickers have the audacity to question Obama's "commitment to victory" after Bush dicked around for 8 years there.

Inane. I had the same to say about Bush. Why are you so perpetually ignorant of what has gone on in the past?

 

[Bonestorm]

Inane. I had the same to say about Bush. Why are you so perpetually ignorant of what has gone on in the past?

Given the above, I think it is odd that you thought my reference to "unabashed Bush ass-lickers" included you. If you want to include yourself among them, feel free.

 

[Damocles]

Given the above, I think it is odd that you thought my reference to "unabashed Bush ass-lickers" included you. If you want to include yourself among them, feel free.

It may be that I have been called that regardless of what I had to say about Bush, it usually is a term simply used for any republican, and since mine was the first post from a republican asking about the topic you were talking about it wasn't too much of a stretch that you included me.

Of course the idea of an "exit strategy" is silliness, but I still want to hear how Obama will satisfy those people who asked for them for so many years...

 

[Bonestorm]

It may be that I have been called that regardless of what I had to say about Bush, it usually is a term simply used for any republican.

It's not always about you. You are a very important person with very serious and important things to say so I know it may come as a surprise to you, but not everything is about you.

Of course the idea of an "exit strategy" is silliness, but I still want to hear how Obama will satisfy those people who asked for them for so many years...

The idea of an "exit strategy" may seem silly to a deficit-hawk war opponent that supports the war however much it costs for how ever long it takes, but a realistic assessment of what the mission objectives are, how to achieve them and how to ensure their permanence seems to be a generally important thing to think about, particularly when scare resources, human and otherwise, are on the line.

Then again, I'm not a deficit-hawk war opponents that supports the war whatever it costs for how ever long it takes so what do I know.

 

[Damocles]

It's not always about you. You are a very important person with very serious and important things to say so I know it may come as a surprise to you, but not everything is about you.



The idea of an "exit strategy" may seem silly to a deficit-hawk war opponent that supports the war however much it costs for how ever long it takes, but a realistic assessment of what the mission objectives are, how to achieve them and how to ensure their permanence seems to be a generally important thing to think about, particularly when scare resources, human and otherwise, are on the line.

Then again, I'm not a deficit-hawk war opponents that supports the war whatever it costs for how ever long it takes so what do I know.

No, it seems silly to anybody who understands that the best laid plans of mice and men go astray.

A good outlined objective with a cost benefit analysis would be nice, but an "exit strategy" is pacifist silliness.

 

[Bonestorm]

No, it seems silly to anybody who understands that the best laid plans of mice and men go astray.

A good outlined objective with a cost benefit analysis would be nice, but an "exit strategy" is pacifist silliness.

Yeah, "exit strategy" is total pacifist silliness. That must be why it was used by war-mongering Republicans like John McCain in his criticism of Clinton in Somalia and Bosnia.

 

[Socrtease]

Yeah, "exit strategy" is total pacifist silliness. That must be why it was used by war-mongering Republicans like John McCain in his criticism of Clinton in Somalia and Bosnia.

True Dis.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

From the very link you posted:

The troop requests to which Gibbs referred were made by then-Gen. David McKiernan. McKiernan started off making individual requests for brigades, and that list kept growing.

Officials from that time say that demands in Iraq prevented the Bush administration from fulfilling the requests until just before Bush left office. (Prioritizing troops to Iraq over those to Afghanistan is, of course, a choice.)

In his first interview after being fired by Defense Secretary Gates over the summer, McKiernan told the Washington Post about his appointment to command ISAF troops in Afghanistan in June 2008: "There was a saying when I got there: If you're in Iraq and you need something, you ask for it. If you're in Afghanistan and you need it, you figure out how to do without it."

In retrospect McKiernan’s troop requests ultimately added up to roughly 30,000 more troops, a combination of combat units and support troops.

also from my link:

So as McKiernan’s outstanding requests for more forces accumulated throughout 2008 to roughly 30,000 soldiers, President Bush sent at least 6,800 troops – months and months after the requests had come in.

By March, President Obama had ordered 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan – which can be seen as roughly the outstanding balance of McKiernan’s original request.

So Gibbs’s claim that for “eight months” McKiernan’s request for troops “sat on desks” isn’t accurate.

nigel claimed the requests sat on his desk and bush sent no troops as the requests were unfullfilled....smigel is incorrect

 

[Bonestorm]

also from my link:



nigel claimed the requests sat on his desk and bush sent no troops as the requests were unfullfilled....smigel is incorrect

Nigel claimed thusly:

And if you simply do a google search I am sure you can dig up the fact that McKiernan had various requests for additional troops that were unfulfilled by the Bush Administration that Obama fulfilled after taking office.

I didn't say that the requests "sat on his desk." I merely said it was unfulfilled. You may have scored a point against Gibbs who said that the requests "sat on his desk for 8 months" but you've got nothing on me. My statement was unequivocally correct.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Nigel claimed thusly:



I didn't say that the requests "sat on his desk." I merely said it was unfulfilled. You may have scored a point against Gibbs who said that the requests "sat on his desk for 8 months" but you've got nothing on me. My statement was unequivocally correct.

lol....unfulfilled....really....that is not similar to "they sat on his desk"....give me a break

and btw....as my link indicated......bush in fact sent additional troops more than once because of the requests....you are wrong that the requests were unfulfilled.....but i have no expectation you will admit it

 

[Bonestorm]

lol....unfulfilled....really....that is not similar to "they sat on his desk"....give me a break

and btw....as my link indicated......bush in fact sent additional troops more than once because of the requests....you are wrong that the requests were unfulfilled.....but i have no expectation you will admit it

From your link again, Yurtle:

So as McKiernan’s outstanding requests for more forces accumulated throughout 2008 to roughly 30,000 soldiers, President Bush sent at least 6,800 troops – months and months after the requests had come in.

By March, President Obama had ordered 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan – which can be seen as roughly the outstanding balance of McKiernan’s original request.

The requests were unfulfilled. There can be no dispute about that.

As an aside, Bush doesn't care about this stuff. Why do you?

 

[Epicurus]

I think that Afghanistan is pretty safely "Mainstream America's War" at this point, since two presidents popular with two very different American bases have now continued and escalated it.

Not to say that it necessarily should be, but it is. Using Cypress-logic, a questionable method at best, this war is now on the shoulders of those who voted for these two presidents. Between all the conservatives that voted for Bush and all the liberals and moderates that voted for Obama, that's most of America.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

From your link again, Yurtle:




The requests were unfulfilled. There can be no dispute about that.

As an aside, Bush doesn't care about this stuff. Why do you?

no, you are wrong....obviously some of the requests were fulfilled, you claimed they were not fulfilled, that is false

and the link is clear that the requests kept coming and coming....thus, added up, they ultimately requested up to 30K over the entire year....bush was in fact sending troops all the through january 2009........well guess what happened in january 2009....bush left office, had he stayed he would have sent the additional troops, and as the article clearly stated, he was sending all the troops he could, even taking some troops that were bound for iraq and sending them to afghanistan...

your claim that they requests were unfulfilled is false

 

[cawacko]

I think that Afghanistan is pretty safely "Mainstream America's War" at this point, since two presidents popular with two very different American bases have now continued and escalated it.

Not to say that it necessarily should be, but it is. Using Cypress-logic, a questionable method at best, this war is now on the shoulders of those who voted for these two presidents. Between all the conservatives that voted for Bush and all the liberals and moderates that voted for Obama, that's most of America.

This. 90% of Americans supported us going into Afghanistan originally. Now people have the right to change their mind but as Epic stated Obama made it clear during his campaign he thought it to be a war of necessity so no one who voted for him should have been under the delusion that he was coming into office to end the Afghanistan war. And John Kerry ran in 2004 on focusing on the Afghanistan war so it wasn't like voting for him was a vote to leave. So yeah, we're pretty much all involved in this war.

 

[Damocles]

Yeah, "exit strategy" is total pacifist silliness. That must be why it was used by war-mongering Republicans like John McCain in his criticism of Clinton in Somalia and Bosnia.

Yes. It is used as a bludgeon because nothing ever satisfies. Again, a good solid objective is what is necessary, not an "exit strategy". Of the wars we won, can you tell me the "exit strategy" that was involved? Germany, Japan, WWI, the Civil War... What were the "exit strategies"? Now in each of those the objective was clear, but there was never an "exit strategy", that is just imaginary hogwash created by people who want to bludgeon a leader who hasn't outlined a clear objective.

 

[Onceler]

I think that Afghanistan is pretty safely "Mainstream America's War" at this point, since two presidents popular with two very different American bases have now continued and escalated it.

Not to say that it necessarily should be, but it is. Using Cypress-logic, a questionable method at best, this war is now on the shoulders of those who voted for these two presidents. Between all the conservatives that voted for Bush and all the liberals and moderates that voted for Obama, that's most of America.

Afghanistan has always been a very different animal from Iraq. It's a war that most Americans genuinely supported, including many on the left, at least initially. From my own perspective, it made sense; the Taliban was giving Bin Laden safe haven and sponsoring terrorist efforts against America, so I thought it was the right move.

7 years into it, I really have to 2nd guess that support, particularly with the benefit of hindsight. It just seems like a massive nation-building effort now, with very few guarantees. I remember reading some article where the Soviets who fought in their war w/ Afghanistan said it's destined to be a quagmire for anyone who ventures there.

Now, with 3 more years tacked on, you just have to wonder what kind of outcome will make it all seem "worth it."