Where's the concern from liberals?

[Canceled2]

Obama approves deployment of 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan without a peep from congress. Neither has he met with these troops before deciding their deployment, as was the practice of Bush. So these men and women are sent off for who knows how long under the dark of night without even a personal "thank you or God's speed" from their CIC before deciding their fates...nice.

[SmarterthanYou]

with every president, troops are just considered a movable asset to achieve desired objectives on the ground. Meeting with them and talking with them are just window dressing items to show the american people that the president thinks they are people. Until a democrat deploys them.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I had not known until now.

Thanks for informing me. Bush III is on the move again.

[charver]

I think Barack Obamas will rue the day he sent those troops off without even saying goodbye.

It is a well known scientific fact that troops who have seen a President wave at them, with their own eyes, are 67% more likely to come back alive and have a kill rate 23% higher than Presidentially ignored soldiers.

[Canceled2]

with every president, troops are just considered a movable asset to achieve desired objectives on the ground. Meeting with them and talking with them are just window dressing items to show the american people that the president thinks they are people. Until a democrat deploys them.

I disagree. Bush met with men and women before deciding on deployments because it is the decent and right thing to do. The majority Of Bush's interactions with deployed, returning, and injured troops was never publicized. He often met with families of fallen troops privately.

My point however was that Obama has not. Where is the concern for our troops, their moral? Meeting with our military before deciding to put them in harms way is more than just window dressing, it's common decency.

[SmarterthanYou]

I disagree. Bush met with men and women before deciding on deployments because it is the decent and right thing to do. The majority Of Bush's interactions with deployed, returning, and injured troops was never publicized. He often met with families of fallen troops privately.

if it was private, how would you know about it?

you can disagree all you want, but the bottom line is that as a national leader, one HAS to look at troops as just a tool and not live physical people. It is the only way a moral person can actually order people in to situations where they could die.

[Canceled2]

if it was private, how would you know about it?

you can disagree all you want, but the bottom line is that as a national leader, one HAS to look at troops as just a tool and not live physical people. It is the only way a moral person can actually order people in to situations where they could die.

The same way we often find out about things that are private, people talk. Soldiers have talked, their families have talked, and post Bush administration people have talked. Bush himself made acknowledgement of it at the end of his presidency when he was asked.

I take the opposite position because a good leader will understand the immensity of his decision by personalizing his responsibility. Most leaders understand this too. Ask any general or lesser CO how important it is for the success of his mission for the troops under their command to feel that their personal sacrifice is important. The same principle applies to the CIC.


From Oliver North:

WASHINGTON — The economy is stuck on "meltdown." The Cabinet still has vacancies. The ruling political party on Capitol Hill is obsessed with pork, and the mainstream media are fixated on Ottawa's Obama-mania. When nothing else seems to work, dial 911 at the Pentagon and call for those who get things done: soldiers, sailors, airmen, guardsmen and Marines. And just to be different, send them on a stealth surge.
That's what happened Tuesday, when Mr. Obama decided that "urgent security needs" require the deployment of a Marine Expeditionary Brigade and an Army Stryker Brigade to Afghanistan. Rather than making the announcement in a televised address to the nation, as his predecessor did with the surge in Iraq, this commander in chief had his press secretary hand out a piece of paper. No Oval Office. No questions from the press. Just a sheet of paper.

This deployment — about 8,000 additional Marines, 4,000 more soldiers and 5,000 "support personnel" — does not come as a surprise. During the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama made it clear that he saw Afghanistan as the "central front" of what he called "the war on terror." He also has said repeatedly that he wants increased U.S. combat power to take on the Taliban and al-Qaida. The surprise is in the timing and the way he has decided to do it.

Last week, the administration announced a full-blown, 60-day, interagency, multinational, quadraphonic, star-studded, strategic review of "every aspect of our Afghanistan policy." Our European allies were informed that Afghanistan is at the "top of the agenda" for the NATO summit in March. On Sunday, Afghan President Hamid Karzai announced that he, too, would be participating in the strategic review. And then Tuesday at 5:30 p.m., too late for much besides a headline on the evening news, the one-page deployment order, which has troops from Camp Lejeune, N.C., to Fort Lewis, Wash. — and countless points in between — packing their kits for the Hindu Kush. So much for having a strategy before committing what's needed to implement it.

The deployment announcement apparently didn't impress our "allies' in Pakistan. White House "special envoy" Richard Holbrooke has been in Islamabad and Kabul — ostensibly on a "fact-finding mission." His plane was barely off the ground before the government in Islamabad announced that offensive military operations against the Taliban will cease in the Malakand region of northwestern Pakistan and that henceforth, the area will be governed in accord with Shariah, or Islamic law.
So much for persuading Pakistan — through which we send more than 80 percent of our supplies — to crack down on radical Islamic terror.

Holbrooke didn't fare much better in Kabul, where he acceded to Afghan demands for "coordinating all military operations with Afghan forces." On Sunday, he and Karzai held a testy joint news conference. Afterward, Holbrooke apparently convinced someone at the White House that the two presidents needed to have a little chat — something that, strangely enough, there just hadn't been time for since the inaugural.

If the various spokesmen are telling the truth, the Obama-Karzai conversation finally came Tuesday, after Obama issued his one-page deployment order. The next day, Karzai, who is running for re-election in August, said, "If foreign troops do not listen to us, we will call a (grand council), and we will also include the Taliban … to decide whether foreign troops should stay in Afghanistan."

While none of this sounds particularly encouraging, it must be noted that Karzai also said, "The tension the Afghan government had with the U.S. government is now over." That should make everyone feel better.

Unfortunately, timing and diplomacy aren't the only problems with this deployment announcement. There is also the matter of what's in it and what's not. Last year, Gen. David McKiernan asked for 30,000 additional combat troops to reinforce the 49,000 from NATO and the 32,000 U.S. personnel he has on the ground. But that's not what he's getting.

Tuesday's presidential order authorized sending 17,000 troops. Yet the Pentagon only identified the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade, which has "approximately 8,000 Marines" and is due to deploy in late spring 2009, and the 5th Stryker Brigade, which has "approximately 4,000 soldiers" and is due to deploy in midsummer 2009. It then adds, "Approximately 5,000 additional troops to support these combat forces will receive deployment orders at a later date." In short, Gen. McKiernan is getting less than half of what he asked for.

Finally, there is the issue of presidential style. In the final paragraph of his one-page order, Mr. Obama notes, "This increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan." All true. But then he goes on to whine, "Which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires." That is a gratuitous and unseemly swipe at his predecessor. Perhaps that is why Mr. Obama decided this has to be a stealth surge.

Oliver North is the host of "War Stories" on Fox News Channel, the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance, and the author of "American Heroes." To find out more about Oliver North and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

[uscitizen]

Not even a kiss from obama before getting screwed???

Wow. Yeah it is going to be hard cleaning up after Bush.

[charver]

Oliver North

[SmarterthanYou]

The same way we often find out about things that are private, people talk. Soldiers have talked, their families have talked, and post Bush administration people have talked. Bush himself made acknowledgement of it at the end of his presidency when he was asked.

then it wasn't really private, it was done that way to make it look like that while portraying Bush as a good hearted president.

I take the opposite position because a good leader will understand the immensity of his decision by personalizing his responsibility. Most leaders understand this too.

Do not confuse national leaders with GOOD national leaders. Maybe I didn't make that distinction clear.

Ask any general or lesser CO how important it is for the success of his mission for the troops under their command to feel that their personal sacrifice is important. The same principle applies to the CIC.

No, it does not even come close to applying for the simple fact that the CO wears the uniform and is therefore a brother in arms who may have been there before. A CIC is nothing more than a civilian given authority over those troops and has no spiritual bond with them at all.

[Canceled2]

Oliver North

Smashing rebuttal!

[charver]

Smashing rebuttal!

If you're using such trustworthy sources as that, there isn't really a lot left to say.

[Cancel3]

.I cannot imagine the troops being inspired by seeing the president before being deployed. They would see it as a publicity stunt.



One of the likely reasons for the lack of outrage over sending the troops is that Obama has said all along that he would be sending troops to Afganistan. The military mission in Afganistan has made sense all along. We were attacked. The mastermind of the attack is hiding in Afganistan. Go get him.

[Canceled2]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Dancer
The same way we often find out about things that are private, people talk. Soldiers have talked, their families have talked, and post Bush administration people have talked. Bush himself made acknowledgement of it at the end of his presidency when he was asked.

then it wasn't really private, it was done that way to make it look like that while portraying Bush as a good hearted president.

What bunk! You cannot know the motives, and it ceratinly was not known until after it could have given Bush any kind of kudos. The point you seem so determined to mitigate with anti Bush bunk is that the CIC has a moral responsibility to be compassionate to those whom he is charged with putting in harms way. Even if it is merely a figure head attempt as you wish to assume, it is still a part of his duty towards our military.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Dancer
I take the opposite position because a good leader will understand the immensity of his decision by personalizing his responsibility. Most leaders understand this too.

Do not confuse national leaders with GOOD national leaders. Maybe I didn't make that distinction clear.

No, you did not make it clear, which is odd since the gist of my point has been precisely that???

No, it does not even come close to applying for the simple fact that the CO wears the uniform and is therefore a brother in arms who may have been there before. A CIC is nothing more than a civilian given authority over those troops and has no spiritual bond with them at all.

Certainly the CO is in a unique capacity that differes from the CIC, but this does not diminish the impact that can be made to moral by an engaging CIC.

The military is a tool of the US, but the individual soldier is her citizen and deserves respect as such.

[Canceled2]

.I cannot imagine the troops being inspired by seeing the president before being deployed. They would see it as a publicity stunt.



One of the likely reasons for the lack of outrage over sending the troops is that Obama has said all along that he would be sending troops to Afganistan. The military mission in Afganistan has made sense all along. We were attacked. The mastermind of the attack is hiding in Afganistan. Go get him.

That's why it is normal practice to do it without cameras and only comment.