About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 11:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Unfortunately, this isn't even close to being true. Plenty of presidents have engaged in even more stupidity and immorality than this -- Wilson, FDR, and the second Johnson, to name just a few.

Partisan hyperbole.

Post 1

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 11:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim, is that your take on the entire column, or just on the use of exaggeration present in the sentence quoted? Do you disagree with the conclusions made by Peters, when they are stripped of emotionally charged wording?

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 2:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

In order to know what "this" is in the quote of Peters you have to read the article:

Just plain nuts: That's the only possible characterization for last night's presidential declaration of surrender in advance of a renewed campaign in Afghanistan.

President Obama will send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan -- but he'll "begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011." Then why send them?

If you're going to tell the Taliban to be patient because we're leaving, what's the point in upping the blood ante? For what will come down to a single year by the time the troops hit the ground?

Does Obama really expect to achieve in one year what we haven't been able to do in more than eight?

Adding to the confusion, Obama qualified his timeline by insisting that "we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground."
If conditions of the ground are key, why announce a pullout date?

And what did this "new strategy" come down to, otherwise? More of the same, but more: More troops, more civilians, more partnership.

Well, the troops will go, the civilians won't -- and the partnerships are a fantasy.

Our president is setting up our military to fail -- but he'll be able to claim that he gave the generals what they wanted. Failure will be their fault.

He's covering his strong-on-security flank, even as he plays to our white-flag wavers. His cynicism's worthy of a Saddam.
Obama's right about one thing, though: The Afghans "will ultimately be responsible for their own country." So why undercut them with an arbitrary timeline that doesn't begin to allow adequate time to expand and train sufficient Afghan forces? Does he really believe that young Afghans are going to line up to join the army and police knowing that we plan to abandon them in mid-2011?

Does the 2012 election ring a bell?

What messages did our president's bait-and-switch speech just send?

To our troops: Risk your lives for a mission I've written off.

To our allies: Race you to the exit ramp.

To the Taliban: Allah is merciful, your prayers will soon be answered.

To Afghan leaders: Get your stolen wealth out of the country.

To Pakistan: Renew your Taliban friendships now (and be nice to al Qaeda).

This isn't just stupid: It's immoral. No American president has ever espoused such a worthless, self-absorbed non-strategy for his own political gratification.

Read the entire article.

Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 3:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Again, Obama hits all the sound bytes he thinks people want to hear, without giving any thought to the consequences of his actions.. Not telling your enemies when you plan to quit is a pretty basic concept. Sending fewer than the minimum requested troops undercuts military strategy, and creates more risk for those we do send. It is disgusting, really.

jt

Post 4

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 3:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I can't help but think Obama's trying to play a Braveheart parody, but without the actual smarts and passion Wallace had (let alone a graspable, rally-able cause).  I'm wondering how many Afghans can read technical material, or read at all?


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 4:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
How pathetic is it that a tiny country like Georgia facing its own aggressive enemy is pledging more troops for Afghanistan than Britain, Germany and France combined? The EU has the largest standing army in the world, coming in at a hefty 1.98 million active personnel. And they can only scrape together 3000 troops? Gee thanks guys, but I'm glad you like our President, 'cause that's all that really counts.

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.