Obama Getting Briefed on Afghanistan Operation

P

Pale Rider

Independent Conservative
When I saw this headline, my first thought was...

pfft... SO THE FUCK WHAT???!!! ..... :lol:

Like the little junior community organizer knows JACK SHIT about the military or how it works ANYWAY... ROFLMFAO!!!!




Obama Getting Briefed on Afghanistan Operation


Sat Feb 13, 7:56 pm ET

WASHINGTON – A White House spokesman says President Barack Obama is keeping a close watch on combat operations in Afghanistan, getting multiple updates as thousands of U.S. Marines and Afghan soldiers storm a Taliban stronghold.

The attempt to take the Taliban stronghold of Marjah is the largest operation since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan.

Spokesman Tommy Vietor (vee-tur) said Obama is keeping abreast of the combat through the White House Situation Room. He said the president will also get an update from his national security advisor, Gen. Jim Jones, later in the day.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100214/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_afghanistan
 
Oh yeah obamalamadingdong... save us all... keep a close eye on what the military is doing... you're SUCH a GREAT SOLDIER....

.... :lol: ... :lmao: ... :rofl: ...
hahaha-024.gif
...
lol-045.gif
 
you are aware, I assume, that many presidents have had zero military experience and yet have been successful wartime presidents. Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt come quickly to mind. Do you not think that Gates and the JCS are providing wise counsel to Obama?
 
I am aware that if wise, experienced, military commanders and people are expecting some great stroke of military wisdom to come out of obama, they may as well go, to borrow one of your expressions, "go pound sand." They may as well keep him entirely out of the loop and just take care of business.
 
maineman said:
you are aware, I assume, that many presidents have had zero military experience and yet have been successful wartime presidents. Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt come quickly to mind. Do you not think that Gates and the JCS are providing wise counsel to Obama?
Click to expand...
I am also aware that many who had zero military experience screwed the pooch, like LBJ and Nixon...
 
Onceler said:
Don't forget Dubya...
Click to expand...
Dubya was screwing it, but then finally agreed to the surge... Which Obama is now trying to claim credit for even though he fought it at every step and predicted doom. He did have zero combat experience though and was following some truly horrific plans before he finally agreed to put enough boots on the ground to give actual security to Iraqis..
 
Damocles said:
Dubya was screwing it, .
Click to expand...

Fixed.

It's amazing that you're such a hack that you think "agreeing to the surge" erases the decision to actually invade, with all of the ramifications that had. And that you could even imply Obama belongs somewhere near this level.

Hopeless.
 
Onceler said:
Fixed.

It's amazing that you're such a hack that you think "agreeing to the surge" erases the decision to actually invade, with all of the ramifications that had. And that you could even imply Obama belongs somewhere near this level.

Hopeless.
Click to expand...
Not really... It's based on what was happening on the ground solely, not on decisions to go there. That I blame on Congress not taking responsibility for their part as much as I blame Bush. The reality is the situation in Iraq was bad and was made better by exactly what I had said from the beginning we should be, but weren't, doing. I didn't like (and still don't) the decision to invade Iraq, but that doesn't change what will work as a military strategy.

What is amazing is that you would ignore that Obama is attempting to take credit for something like the surge that he fought so strongly against and was declaring defeat for the US as the Congress was approving funds for...
 
Pale Rider said:
I am aware that if wise, experienced, military commanders and people are expecting some great stroke of military wisdom to come out of obama, they may as well go, to borrow one of your expressions, "go pound sand." They may as well keep him entirely out of the loop and just take care of business.
Click to expand...

you didn't answer my question... no big fucking surprise there, that's for sure.
 
Damocles said:
Dubya was screwing it, but then finally agreed to the surge... Which Obama is now trying to claim credit for even though he fought it at every step and predicted doom. He did have zero combat experience though and was following some truly horrific plans before he finally agreed to put enough boots on the ground to give actual security to Iraqis..
Click to expand...

ther surge would have failed without the concurrent sunni enlightenment in anbar which had nada to do with how many boots WE had on the ground.
 
maineman said:
ther surge would have failed without the concurrent sunni enlightenment in anbar which had nada to do with how many boots WE had on the ground.
Click to expand...
Both were the work of the Bush Administration, not of Obama who had already declared defeat.

The reality is, had we provided enough boots for security from the beginning, the Iraq war would have lasted much shorter and cost us much less. Following advice from idiots like Rumsfeld extended the period of time that we spent there and multiplied the amount of treasure and lives lost.

The main reality is, had we followed what Obama wanted at the time of the surge the only option was actual defeat, thankfully Bush made one of his few good decisions concerning the occupation of Iraq and it was averted. All of it was against the strenuous objection and declaration of defeat from the current President who was then an inexperienced Senator.
 
maineman said:
both of them HAD military experience.
Click to expand...
About as much as Bush. An inspector and observer, the other was a cargo handler (after he requested more difficult duties than he had previous to that)...

Bush was a fighter pilot in the National Guard...

LBJ did get a Star for flying a malfunctioning airplane away from combat once and returning with information...

Too bad neither of them had enough to actually make success from the mess of Viet Nam.
 
Damocles said:
Not really... It's based on what was happening on the ground solely, not on decisions to go there. That I blame on Congress not taking responsibility for their part as much as I blame Bush. The reality is the situation in Iraq was bad and was made better by exactly what I had said from the beginning we should be, but weren't, doing. I didn't like (and still don't) the decision to invade Iraq, but that doesn't change what will work as a military strategy.

What is amazing is that you would ignore that Obama is attempting to take credit for something like the surge that he fought so strongly against and was declaring defeat for the US as the Congress was approving funds for...
Click to expand...

I’m going to trust the judgment of Middle East experts who were right about Iraq from the very beginning. While I’m not smart enough to come up with my own definitive history of the Splurge, I know who has always been right about Iraq and which experts to trust on that basis. I don’t read the McCain/Palin/Joe Biden version of events.

The splurge may have been a band aid, and had peripheral importance in reducing violence in Iraq. But the fact is that the violence dropped because the Shia decisively won the Iraq civil war in 2007. The Sunnis were cleared out of Baghdad, ethnic cleansing had segregated much of central Iraq, and hundreds of thousands if not millions of Sunnis were sent packing, and either internally displaced or ended up in refugee camps in Jordan. And it didn’t hurt that the U.S. ended up bribing or paying off Sunni militias to stop fighting. The U.S. finally figured out and knew which side to choose in the civil war; a shia victory wasn't a victory for us, but the dumb asses in washington at least knew there was no other outcome than a shia victory. And in an attempt to keep some fig leaf of relevance, we plopped our money and cards down on the side that was going to win no matter what we did.

What exactly did the splurge “win”? It wasn’t a victory. The Shia were going to win that civil war, simply by the sheer magnitude that they outnumbered the Sunnis. Where exactly is the U.S. military victory? Victories are measure by their political outcomes, not by tactical metrics on the battlefield. There’s a corrupt Shia government in Iraq that is strongly influenced by theocratic Shia, a government that is in no way shape of form ever going to be a strong and resolute ally of the U.S. They will use us, use our army, and use our money, and give us a condescending smile and handshake as long as it suits their agenda.

This is, and always will be, one of the most colossal wastes of blood and treasure in American history. There’s no way to spin this into victory. And, while Obama was right about Iraq from the beginning, I think he took all the wrong lessons from the splurge. And applying all the wrong lessons to his Afghanistan splurge. You can’t win any victories in countries that didn’t want you there in the first place, are xenophobic towards westerners, or who have their own agendas and are only willing to use you as long as it suits them.
 
Cypress said:
I’m going to trust the judgment of Middle East experts who were right about Iraq from the very beginning. While I’m not smart enough to come up with my own definitive history of the Splurge, I know who has always been right about Iraq and which experts to trust on that basis. I don’t read the McCain/Palin/Joe Biden version of events.

The splurge may have been a band aid, and had peripheral importance in reducing violence in Iraq. But the fact is that the violence dropped because the Shia decisively won the Iraq civil war in 2007. The Sunnis were cleared out of Baghdad, ethnic cleansing had segregated much of central Iraq, and hundreds of thousands if not millions of Sunnis were sent packing, and either internally displaced or ended up in refugee camps in Jordan. And it didn’t hurt that the U.S. ended up bribing or paying off Sunni militias to stop fighting. The U.S. finally figured out and knew which side to choose in the civil war; a shia victory wasn't a victory for us, but the dumb asses in washington at least knew there was no other outcome than a shia victory. And in an attempt to keep some fig leaf of relevance, we plopped our money and cards down on the side that was going to win no matter what we did.

What exactly did the splurge “win”? It wasn’t a victory. The Shia were going to win that civil war, simply by the sheer magnitude that they outnumbered the Sunnis. Where exactly is the U.S. military victory? Victories are measure by their political outcomes, not by tactical metrics on the battlefield. There’s a corrupt Shia government in Iraq that is strongly influenced by theocratic Shia, a government that is in no way shape of form ever going to be a strong and resolute ally of the U.S. They will use us, use our army, and use our money, and give us a condescending smile and handshake as long as it suits their agenda.

This is, and always will be, one of the most colossal wastes of blood and treasure in American history. There’s no way to spin this into victory. And, while Obama was right about Iraq from the beginning, I think he took all the wrong lessons from the splurge. And applying all the wrong lessons to his Afghanistan splurge. You can’t win any victories in countries that didn’t want you there in the first place, are xenophobic towards westerners, or who have their own agendas and are only willing to use you as long as it suits them.
Click to expand...
The reality is, the predictions of total and utter defeat were simply incorrect.

I'll also rely on the experts. Interestingly enough, not ones that are solely reported on Huffpost or the Biden version only.

:rolleyes:

Seriously, what Obama said was wrong. You and I both know it. Now he is attempting to claim credit, we also both know that.
 
Damocles said:
Not really... It's based on what was happening on the ground solely, not on decisions to go there. That I blame on Congress not taking responsibility for their part as much as I blame Bush. The reality is the situation in Iraq was bad and was made better by exactly what I had said from the beginning we should be, but weren't, doing. I didn't like (and still don't) the decision to invade Iraq, but that doesn't change what will work as a military strategy.

What is amazing is that you would ignore that Obama is attempting to take credit for something like the surge that he fought so strongly against and was declaring defeat for the US as the Congress was approving funds for...
Click to expand...

This is such Bush apologist talk. "I didn't like the decision to invade"....cripes.

Damo, the decision to invade Iraq was the worst foreign policy decision in modern times, and possibly in American history.

Why do you adore Bush so much? I have never been able to figure that out.
 
Onceler said:
This is such Bush apologist talk. "I didn't like the decision to invade"....cripes.

Damo, the decision to invade Iraq was the worst foreign policy decision in modern times, and possibly in American history.

Why do you adore Bush so much? I have never been able to figure that out.
Click to expand...
Invading Iraq = Bad.

Didn't vote for bush in '04 = Me.

Realize that as far as military strategy goes nothing was worse than Rumsfeld's "small force/take cities only" tactics = Me.

Disingenuous person who thinks that Obama taking credit for the one thing that Bush did right there is okay because invading was bad = You.

Most partisan hackery displayed in this thread = You....

Thanks for playing, but pretending that somebody cannot view a military campaign as a military campaign even if they hay hate the policy that got us there is just sophomoric and hacktackular idiocy.
 
Damocles said:
Invading Iraq = Bad.

Didn't vote for bush in '04 = Me.

Realize that as far as military strategy goes nothing was worse than Rumsfeld's "small force/take cities only" tactics = Me.

Disingenuous person who thinks that Obama taking credit for the one thing that Bush did right there is okay because invading was bad = You.

Most partisan hackery displayed in this thread = You....

Thanks for playing, but pretending that somebody cannot view a military campaign as a military campaign even if they hay hate the policy that got us there is just sophomoric and hacktackular idiocy.
Click to expand...

Nah - reading the thread, you basically come across as saying that Obama's decision to oppose the surge was much worse than Bush's initial decision to invade.

And where did I say that Obama taking credit for the surge was "okay"?

Fail.
 
maineman said:
you are aware, I assume, that many presidents have had zero military experience and yet have been successful wartime presidents. Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt come quickly to mind. Do you not think that Gates and the JCS are providing wise counsel to Obama?
Click to expand...

And you don't think Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates,

General Peter Pace and Admiral "Mike" Mullen, etc. gave wise counsel to Bush?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top