Breaking: Obama rejects all current troop options on Afghanistan?

[BoatsNHoes]

Alternate headline:“Obama votes present.”
President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.
That push follows strong reservations about a possible troop buildup expressed by the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official.
The Times actually saw this coming this morning, before the national security meeting, when it quoted one participant in the meeting as saying,“He’s simply not convinced yet that you can do a lasting counterinsurgency strategy if there is no one to hand it off to.” I can only assume that means he’s leaning towards some sort of benchmark system by which progress in reducing corruption in the Afghan government and training the Afghan army will determine how many U.S. troops are deployed. The reasonable way to do that would be to give McChrystal what he wants up front and then start pulling people out if Karzai drags his feet, but that seems unlikely if The One has rejected all possible options up front. If he decides to deploy troops piecemeal, in gradual installments depending upon whether the Afghans show progress, then he runs into the problem identified by Fred Kagan here. And of course, threatening Karzai with pulling the entire force out is a non-starter. No one believes he’ll do that; the Times has an entire piece tonight devoted to calling his bluff about it. Exit question: How much longer?

[Magna Cum Laude]

Since when does our US AMBASSADOR IN AFGHANISTAN opinions not matter??

Pakistan plays a large role in all of this but all of the Republicans want to stick with their BS argument and not delve into the situation enough to try to understand any of it. What about relations between Pakistan and India and the role it plays in this cluster f*ck situation?

[BoatsNHoes]

more than a general on the front lines? nah

[Magna Cum Laude]

BoatsNHoes wrote:

more than a general on the front lines? nah

You never know, the Ambassador may know something that a General on the ground doesn't. Too bad we aren't there, I'm sure we would have all of this wrapped up by now with a big red bow around it.

[Gas Passer]

I think we should get out of Afghanistan.

A community organizer isn't smart enough to be Commander-n-Chief.

[Nowhere Man]

General McChrystal was Obama's pick. Now he doesnot want to support him. Does he want to win??

I think he is to Indecisive, worried about the polls. Popularity over lives. Does not want to fight TERROR. He would rather let them come here and let the reak havic. A Radical Islimic Sympathizer.

[Blinded By the Right]

Generals in the field always want more troops, that's nothing new. Our military has to answer to civilian authorities, that means the Sec of Defense and their ultimate commander is the President of the United States.

It looks like we finally have a commander that will order the military instead of the weakling who took his orders from the military.

[Nowhere Man]

Blinded By the Right wrote:

Generals in the field always want more troops, that's nothing new. Our military has to answer to civilian authorities, that means the Sec of Defense and their ultimate commander is the President of the United States.
It looks like we finally have a commander that will order the military instead of the weakling who took his orders from the military.

That is how wars are lost. civilians don't fight wars thank God. Warriors do. Who knows better what you need to win a war but a warrior. By not giving him the troops requested that means soldiers will have to pick up the slack. More stress more of a load to carry. Deaths due to that soldier missing to cover the ones in the field.
Obama is sending a message to our military. The message is do your job with less. Polls are more important than a life. Obama has never served he does not understand and know the cost of freedom.
Freedom is paid for in blood. The less we spill the better. You must strike your ememy will overwhelming force, fast and hard. win quickley.
No president since Eisenhower has understood this or willing to make this charge. Ronald Raegan May have.
Polititions tie soldiers hands and hamper the cause.
Let the Generals fight the war give them the tools to succeed and allow them to make decissions.
History has proven this. In America, WWI Gen Pershing, WWII McAuther, Eisonhower, Patton, Bradley ect. In Vietnam Gen Abrams tried to do this after taking over from Westmoreland, but was shut down by Nixon. Gen Swartzcoft proved overwhelming military force can defeat the enemy quickly. Sham he could not complete the mission.

If your car is broken down do you take it to an experience Mechanic or the white collar auto dealer owner who only knows how to check the oil and put in gas.

[BoatsNHoes]

Magna Cum Laude wrote:

<quoted text>You never know, the Ambassador may know something that a General on the ground doesn't. Too bad we aren't there, I'm sure we would have all of this wrapped up by now with a big red bow around it.

Some guy sitting in an office vs the General Obama himself put in place there? Not even close.

[Blinded By the Right]

Nowhere Man wrote:

<quoted text>
That is how wars are lost. civilians don't fight wars thank God. Warriors do. Who knows better what you need to win a war but a warrior. By not giving him the troops requested that means soldiers will have to pick up the slack. More stress more of a load to carry. Deaths due to that soldier missing to cover the ones in the field.
Obama is sending a message to our military. The message is do your job with less. Polls are more important than a life. Obama has never served he does not understand and know the cost of freedom.
Freedom is paid for in blood. The less we spill the better. You must strike your ememy will overwhelming force, fast and hard. win quickley.
No president since Eisenhower has understood this or willing to make this charge. Ronald Raegan May have.
Polititions tie soldiers hands and hamper the cause.
Let the Generals fight the war give them the tools to succeed and allow them to make decissions.
History has proven this. In America, WWI Gen Pershing, WWII McAuther, Eisonhower, Patton, Bradley ect. In Vietnam Gen Abrams tried to do this after taking over from Westmoreland, but was shut down by Nixon. Gen Swartzcoft proved overwhelming military force can defeat the enemy quickly. Sham he could not complete the mission.
If your car is broken down do you take it to an experience Mechanic or the white collar auto dealer owner who only knows how to check the oil and put in gas.

You sound like one of those armchair generals who has never been in the military and has some kind of fetish about war.

I believe is was Rumsfeld who sent the message to the military about doing thier job with less then they need.

General Shensecki <sp?> told the truth when he said we would need four hundred thousand troops to succeed in Afganistan and he was fired. What the hell makes you think that 40,000 more soldiers would give us the winning advantage?