The Decider Decides To Send 40K Troops. No, Wait, He Doesn’t

We are fast approaching Obama being Coronated as President, and, he has finally made a decision on Afghanistan

Tonight, after months of conferences with top advisors, President Obama has settled on a new strategy for Afghanistan. CBS News correspondent David Martin reports that the president will send a lot more troops and plans to keep a large force there, long term.

The president still has more meetings scheduled on Afghanistan, but informed sources tell CBS News he intends to give Gen. Stanley McChrystal most, if not all, the additional troops he is asking for.

And not long after CBS News made that pronouncement, CNN and Bloomberg, among others, called BS on it, forcing CBS to print

Editor’s note, 9:57 p.m. EDT: The White House has issued the following response to this story, attributed to White House National Security Advisor James Jones:

“Reports that President Obama has made a decision about Afghanistan are absolutely false. He has not received final options for his consideration, he has not reviewed those options with his national security team, and he has not made any decisions about resources. Any reports to the contrary are completely untrue and come from uninformed sources.”

He’ll get around to deciding when he decides it is time to make a decision on deciding. Remember this artwork Barry bought for the White House?

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  • Snapped Shot (November 10, 2009)
    Indecision is Not To Be Confused with Leadership... William Teach (who needs your support, stat!) has an interesting story about our Commander in Chief, who is having something of a problem coming to a decision over Afghanistan. A decision which has been pending since August, I might add. It's good t...

12 Comments

Comment by Reasic Subscribed to comments via email
2009-11-10 08:57:05

Right on, Teach. He should just mindlessly throw troops at the problem, without considering any of the potential alternative solutions and their consequences, or the political circumcstances in the nation. Hey, maybe we should put Bush back in office! Then, he can fix it with tax cuts! Yeah, that’s what we need!

 
Comment by TFMo
2009-11-10 09:23:08

Or better still, maybe he should follow the advice of the general he hand-picked to assess the situation.

 
Comment by Reasic Subscribed to comments via email
2009-11-10 10:39:02

Yes, he should ONLY follow the general’s advice, if he’s ONLY concerned with military strategy. That was Bush and friends’ mistake with Iraq. They assumed they could just go in and get rid of Saddam, and then everyone would love us and everything would be hunky dorey. It didn’t quite work out that way, though. Gee, maybe they should’ve put more thought into that war effort, like Obama is doing now with Afghanistan.

 
Comment by Trish
2009-11-10 10:48:52

Reasic must be John Ryan’s alter ego. There’s nothing but time, huh Reasic? Our military aren’t in harms way right now, right? So as long as there’s a golf outing, a healthcare bill to ram down our throats, and a personal video to send to the Berlin wall, in place of our fearless leader, he can hold off on this decision.
What part about appointing the man he thought was best suited ot a job, then LISTENing to that man’s advice, do you not get?
I think it’s clear, the president does not have the experience for this job.

 
Comment by Reasic Subscribed to comments via email
2009-11-10 11:37:38

lol. You guys are killing me. Bush and Cheney neglected Afghanistan for seven years, and now that Obama’s President, the clock is ticking! Why didn’t he increase troops earlier?! The troops are in harm’s way! This is a travesty!

Guess what? The troops were just as much in harm’s way during Bush’s Presidency. Don’t give me this ticking time bomb act, when you sat on your hands for seven years while Bush and Cheney ignored the troops in Afghanistan.

 
Comment by TFMo
2009-11-10 11:43:28

Reassic, what part of WAR do you not grasp? When you are at war, the objective is to WIN. You WIN by reducing your enemy to a level that makes them unable to continue. You don’t do that by talking them to death. You don’t do that by abandoning your own troops. You don’t do that by refusing to devote the resources your soldiers need. And you sure as hell don’t win by letting the enemy get a nuclear weapon.

You WIN by listening to the people who actually have a freaking clue what they are doing, like maybe oh I don’t know, a GENERAL YOU HAND-PICKED.

Otherwise, you have politicians running a war; people who generally can’t find their own asses with both hands, a GPS, and a flashlight. This is largely why Viet Nam turned into a disaster: politicians thinking they know more about war than the people who are TRAINED IN WARFARE.

 
Comment by Reasic Subscribed to comments via email
2009-11-10 14:51:04

TFMo, I assume you realize that all of your criticisms of Obama in this case apply directly to Bush and Cheney. They ignored this war for seven years, and now it’s all of the sudden Obama’s responsibility to “win” it. He’s already increased troop levels, and is considering another increase. That’s FAR beyond anything Bush ever did.

By the way, why is everything so overly simplistic for you people? Yes, this is war, Captain Obvious, but it’s not a conventional war. This isn’t like wars of the past, where you fight back the enemy until they surrender. We’re trying to keep violence down among various insurgent groups, some tied to the Taliban, some not, and some who most likely wouldn’t even be fighting if we weren’t there. The Taliban is already deposed, but the political situation is still unstable.

We’ve gone beyond “war” to nation building. You don’t “win” in this situation with more simply more troops. Sure, the head of the military effort recommends more troops, but there are political, cultural, and economic implications to be considered for every possible scenario. I, for one, am happy to finally have a Commander in Chief who will thoughtfully consider all options, and listen to advisers, rather than fly blindly.

 
Comment by TFMo
2009-11-10 18:03:19

First off, please point out where I have been cheerleading for Bush OR Cheney.

I have had strong disagreement with how Bush conducted both the war in A-stan and in Iraq. But by all means, deflect every criticism for your Lord and Master. He certainly does it every chance he gets.

Regardless of what has transpired in the previous administration, it’s OBAMA’S RESPONSIBILITY NOW. He’s the President. He is supposed to be leading us and protecting this country. So far, all he has managed to do is renege on nearly every campaign promise he’d made to get the job, and blow billions on paying back favors, with promises of TRILLIONS lost in the years to come if his agenda succeeds.

Thoughtfully considering all options while he goes golfing (psst, he’s logged more time on the links in the past year than Bush did in both terms.) While he thoughtfully considers his options, the troops in A-stan are NOT getting the support they need. Which puts them in greater danger. I’ve got five members of my family in this war, two of which are in A-stan, asshole. So forgive me if I think getting reinforcements to help keep my two cousins alive is a little more important than deciding which putter he wants.

 
Comment by John Ryan Subscribed to comments via email
2009-11-11 12:59:12

McChrystal did not give Obama his request, he gave it to his superior officer Gen Petraeus. Gen Petraeus did not gve it to Obama, Petraeus gave it to his superior. This is called “the chain of command” OH and one other thing arm chair strategizers, last Friday when teh Joint Chiefs of Staff met with Obama they said that they would NOT RECOMMEND sending any troops over that had been back in the USA for less than one year. And guess what ??? That means no large troop increase until at least next summer. Now of course if YOU think that troops should be sent over immediately after returning from overseas, that is your own opinion BUT our troops have been fighting non stop for 8 years. Our Army is stretched thin and the strain is showing. Generals ALWAYS want more troops, more of anything. But the JCS know that they can not be given everything they ask without further strains on our army. At this time we do not have any troops that are ready,trained and refitted to go. Who wants to send them anyway ? Not me. Maybe others do but not me. Also are you aware that in the month of October 16 soldiers committed suicide ? That is more than died at Ft Hood. This record amount of suicides this year shows the strain our troops and their FAMILIES are under. And TFMo is a real good example of families cracking under the strain. Here is a link showing what our Joint Chiefs of Staff had to say to Obama. It was in the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125720469173424023.html
So TMFo do you think that we should send the troops over who aren’t yet deemed ready ? Do you think that we should keep all over our troops that are in Afghanistan over there on extended duty until we win ?
I don’t. But let’s here what you have to say. Oh and if you feel you have to use name calling, go ahead it only makes your arguments look even weaker.

 
Comment by John Ryan Subscribed to comments via email
2009-11-11 13:57:20

Trish put up another post AFTER you read the Wall Street Journal article OK ?

 
Comment by Trish
2009-11-12 09:20:20

This is a disturbing story to be sure John, and I hope that they are capable of helping the soldiers cope with the depression and other causes that leads them to this horrible end.
But, what the f does that have to do with not making a decision? I have heard the stories of how long it is going to take to deploy them properly, and think it would be better to make a decision NOW, and work on the logistics with the commanders. But the waffler in chief can’t make a decision, which is the crux of the problem with electing a completely inexperienced person for PRESIDENT OF THE USA!

 
Comment by John Ryan Subscribed to comments via email
2009-11-12 11:16:45

Trish 40,000 men is at least 2 divisons. We do not have them now, they are already doing all that they can to get ready for their next deployment. At this point the only way that we can continue to supply the men we have over there is to pay the Taliban 500 dollars per truck to let us drive down there roads. The Joint Chiefs of Staff has said no more troops, now, because we do not have any that are ready to go. What you are asking Obama to do is to make a decision NOW on something that cannot happen now. It is like asking him to make a decision on troop levels in 2012, but in this case it is on making a decision that cannot be implemented until the summer of 2010, 8 months from now.
These repeated deployments are tough, and probably tougher on the wives and children than on the soldiers themselves. When individuals are separated from their loved ones, it is ALWAYS tougher on the families.

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9148 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE