Obama's Wars

Deadliest September Yet for U.S. Troops in Afghanistan; More Than One U.S. Soldier Dying Per Day on Obama’s Watch
Click to expand...
Yes, soldiers die in wars. It's a shame. Any suprise more soldiers die once more are introduced into the warzone?

BeAChooser said:
I just hope those soldiers know the majority of Americans fully support the mission they set out to fulfill, and are concerned about this becoming another Vietnam instead, due to Obama.
Click to expand...
I hope you know soldiers act on the will of the President and other military leaders and not their own personal desires. Their "mission" is dictated BY the Commander-in-chief. Without the President they would have no mission.

And what exactly is the "mission" they set out to fulfill? To defeat terrorism? Besides the goal to kill Bin Laden, I think we'll find this so-called war will be about as futile and pointless as the war on drugs.
 
Last edited:
Juniversal said:
Their "mission" is dictated BY the Commander-in-chief. Without the President they would have no mission.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And that seems to be the problem here.

Juniversal said:
And what exactly is the "mission" they set out to fulfill?
Click to expand...

Good question.

Woodward's book seems to indicate that Obama says one thing publically, but privately seems to think the "mission" is making sure he doesn't "lose the whole Democratic Party".

I wonder how our soldiers feel about putting their lives on the line for THAT?
 
BeAChooser said:
I asked how they feel about it.
Click to expand...

Might want to ask Pat Tillman.

And btw, I was paying pretty close attention during the lead-up to the Iraq war (which I initially supported) and even though you might be able to make some technical argument that the administration deliberately fell just short of an "imminent threat" argument in their rhetoric, they were pushing very hard to give the impression that the threat was so tangible that we couldn't fail to invade, because doing so might result in a "mushroom cloud".

Now, seriously, to come out and say that to the American people... that's clearly a deliberate effort to give the impression of a threat which, if not imminent in the sense of it-could-happen-tomorrow, was of such a high risk that we simply could not fail to act.

As it turned out, Doug Feith (who Tommy Franks, among other military higher-ups, considered to be plain old "stupid") was busy cranking out "alternate intelligence", which meant that he -- in classic Bush admin style -- was simply taking intelligence reports and redacting them so that they said what he believed to be true.

Right-wingers make a big deal out of previous admins' estimates that Saddam might have continued WMD programs. But they ignore the fact that no one else considered this possibility to be solid enough to go to war over it.

Bush's arrogantly named Bletchley II group found that Saudi Arabia and Iran were our greatest potential sources of terrorist threats, but also that there was no way we could act against either one of them.

So Bush decided to blow the hell out of Iraq instead. With no plan for the post-war. Mind you, not a flawed plan, but literally no plan at all.

In any case, when Obama says that he's not willing to stay in Afghanistan another ten years, not willing to go another trillion, I say, "Me neither."

I agree that there's no way to "win" the Afghan conflict, given what it's become, which is a far cry from the original intent to find and kill bin Ladin.

The real world is not a game of Risk.
 
BeAChooser said:
And Rika, perhaps the answer to that question explains why Obama's DOJ doesn't care if soldiers in Afghanistan get their ballots in time for the election?
Click to expand...

This has been going on for years. Well before Obama.

And the problem with the states is more complex than the article lets on.

If your state has a primary that's not resolved until, say, the end of September, then you have to print the ballots and mail them and get them where they're going in time for folks to have a month and a half to return them.

Which isn't always possible.

In fact, one state printed a dual ballot which gave two scenarios: If it turns out that candidate A wins the run-off, here's your slate; if it turns out that candidate B wins the run-off, here's your slate.

It's all they could do, logistically, but of course there was a hue and cry about that.

Reality is seldom, if ever, as simple as it appears in your ideology, BAC.
 
BeAChooser said:
Exactly. And that seems to be the problem here.



Good question.

Woodward's book seems to indicate that Obama says one thing publically, but privately seems to think the "mission" is making sure he doesn't "lose the whole Democratic Party".

I wonder how our soldiers feel about putting their lives on the line for THAT?
Click to expand...
Not unusual for a political figure to do what best serves the interest of him and his party politically. And i'm not sure what he would do that to serve the Democratic party that would betray his public sentiments. Widthdraw the troops? Sounds good to me.
 
Rika said:
the fact that political concerns may direct military actions?

I imagine they're aware of this possibility.
Click to expand...

Not only "may" but "must".

Military strategy is always at the service of a political strategy, never the other way around.

If you do have armed aggression in the absence of any political goal, it's simply a mob action.
 
How many years should Obama have continued Bush's policies before they would work? How many years should a stupid war be continued before the majority of the people in the party of the president who initiated that war concede that it was stupid?

As BAC said, we invaded Afghanistan less than a month after 9/11. And is the Taliban still there? Yes. Is Osama bin Laden still there? Yes. Are terrorists from that region still a threat to the US? Yes.

So explain to me again, how is this a success? And on top of that, if our mission was a response to 9/11, to Osama bin Laden, to Al Quaeda, to the Taliban, to terrorists located/based in Afghanistan, how is voluntarily deploying troops hundreds of miles to the west of Afghanistan in a completely different country not a distraction from that mission?
 
BeAChooser said:
I wonder what it's like to be a soldier in Afghanistan fighting for a President who they now know has spent the last two years looking for an exit strategy so he wouldn't "lose the whole Democratic Party"? I just hope those soldiers know the majority of Americans fully support the mission they set out to fulfill, and are concerned about this becoming another Vietnam instead, due to Obama.
Click to expand...
You could ask a soldier, you know, instead of make silly rhetorical attacks against the president.

I've spoken to republican and democratic military. Liberal and conservative. Women and Men. And you know what? their opinions have been as varied as the "American People's". After all, they are american people.
 
http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/...us-soldiers-free-insurgents-caught-red-handed

Several Taliban detainees who had been captured in February after being observed placing bombs in the culverts of roads used by civilians and military convoys near Kandahar were fed, given medical treatment, then released by American troops frustrated by a policy they say is forcing them to kick loose enemies who are trying to kill them.

Despite what American soldiers say was a mountain of evidence, which included a video of the men planting the bomb and chemical traces found on their hands, there was nothing the soldiers who had captured them could do but feed and care for them for 96 hours and then set them free.

In another incident, members of a unit attached to 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment survived an attack by a suicide bomber on their convoy when his device failed to detonate. Soldiers managed to capture the would-be martyr, but he too was released after being held for four days.

"We put our lives on the line to capture the enemy," a soldier with the Stryker regiment told The Washington Examiner. "Since my deployment, every insurgent we've captured has been released."
Click to expand...

If true, can this be described as anything other than another Obama failure? More Stuck On Stupid?
 
Looks like American soldiers aren't the only ones annoyed …

http://www.theage.com.au/world/revolving-door-for-taliban-suspects-20110326-1cb3h.html

Revolving door for Taliban suspects

Tom Hyland and Bette Dam

March 27, 2011

A SENIOR Taliban leader accused of killing Australian troops has been released from jail and rejoined the insurgents, just two years after the Australian army claimed his capture as a major coup.

… snip …


His release will reinforce concerns about a ''revolving door'' for detained Taliban suspects, most of whom are released within days of being captured. Others jailed by Afghanistan's barely functioning courts are often freed early.

… snip ...

While Bari Ghul was subjected to some form of trial, most Afghans detained by Australians are freed after a basic three-day screening process. Troops are barred from interrogating them.

… snip …

''What's annoying the Diggers is that they're risking their lives to capture these blokes, then they're not allowed to interrogate them, and too many of them are being released and are ending up back on the battlefield,'' Mr James said.
Click to expand...
 
Cain said:
Hear, hear! We should elect you. Remember when Kerry wanted terrorism to go back to being a "nuisance"? America wisely re-elected Bush, who took a strong view rather than a naive one. When asked what he'd do about terrorism, President Bush said "defeat it." It's suicidal to think America is strong enough to sustain another attack. The patriots who really love our country -- but refuse to live in the unamerican metropolitan targeted -- would be forced to overthrow the Kenyan born poser in office. I'm sure the libtard media would have a field day spinning that one. Good thing some of us are too smart to fall for it.
Click to expand...

I don't know how much you're kidding or not kidding... but I wanted to comment on some of the ideas here.

I disagree with your characterization of Bush's view as "strong" vs. "naive". It seems to me decidedly naive to presume that we can completely secure our nation against terrorist attack. If we could kill every Al-Qaeda member or sympathizer with the press of a button, America would still have and gather enemies--and these enemies would sometimes attack us, and sometimes hurt us. That the only way to do so is through the sneaky and cowardly means of terrorism is a sign of how secure we are to begin with.

Despite our best efforts, we could not keep Americans from being sometimes harmed by enemies even if we spent absolutely as many dollars and resources as we could possibly sustain on that task. So it seems to me that reducing terrorism to a "nuisance" level is an admirable goal--it carries with it the goal of reducing the attacks themselves, but also reducing our necessary investment in money and blood to do so. If you think about it, that money and blood trying to protect ourselves is just another way that terrorism harms us. I like a goal that tries to minimize both.
 
gnome said:
That the only way to do so is through the sneaky and cowardly means of terrorism is a sign of how secure we are to begin with.
Click to expand...
Terrorism isn't cowardly. By definition, terrorists fight against an overwhelmingly superior enemy. That's generally considered brave. Of course bravery is cheap if you live a ******** instead of luxerious Harlem (by comparisson), but still.
And fair fights are for losers. Anyone who wants to win fights sneaky. That's the whole point of all this expensive stealth technology.

But you're right. No military power in the world can ever protect you against enemies who hate you so much they want to lash out at you whatever the cost. There'll always be some a-symmetrical means for them to hurt you.

Best try to piss off a bit fewer people.
 
egslim said:
Terrorism isn't cowardly. By definition, terrorists fight against an overwhelmingly superior enemy. That's generally considered brave. Of course bravery is cheap if you live a ******** instead of luxerious Harlem (by comparisson), but still.
And fair fights are for losers. Anyone who wants to win fights sneaky. That's the whole point of all this expensive stealth technology.
Click to expand...

Terrorism is not defined by fighting against a superior enemy--it is defined by attacking non-combatants to create a fear of danger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom