Will Obama's Visits to Afghanistan and Iraq Yield Anything?
As in anything at all? He wants more troops there (to Afghanistan), but doesn't specify anything else about his 'plan' for the country. He is still set on pulling out of Iraq, although he seems a little more cautious about that. At least he has admitted the Surge is working. If I'm sounding vague, it's because he is. I agree the man is a great public speaker, but he lacks the details to be an effective leader in a military situation. At this point, I would like to see details about Obama's meeting with Afghan President Karzai. Is that too much to ask?
UPDATE: Well, just from watching the news, the answer to my question above is a big, resounding, NO!
As for his trip to Iraq, PM Maliki was misquoted/misunderstood/mistranslated, even! Isn't Obama the one who told a crowd recently that every American should learn a foreign language? Well then, let's start with him. Learn Arabic, you dumb ass!
posted by Anonymous @ 06:41
6 Comments:
I suspect that your question is rhetorical
lol
It wasn't when I wrote it. I was really hoping we'd see some real results. BUT that's all it was, obviously, hope.
Wow
You really were thinking it would
Ok, now that you have had your liberal moment for the year....dont EVER go there again!!!!!!!!
lol
There is more peace in Iraq, but you have to be on drugs to give McCain credit.
He made his proposal in late October, 2006. The Manchester Union-Leader, which reported it, said there were 141,000 troops in Iraq at the time. That's consistent with other figures I've seen.
But, almost a year earlier, for months, there had been 160,000 troops in Iraq.
McCain's call for 20K troops would have brought us up to 161K troops. Does anyone think that .625% increase would have done the trick?
I don't give Obama or McCain credit for what is going on in Iraq. The military deserves all of that credit. It is never the politician who comes up with the strategy, but the General. Politicians only make suggestions. Some of these suggestions are based on personal, real world experience (Obama has none) and/or some are based on discussions with military personnel. None should ever be based on what the civilian populace thinks (or the media). They (we) are to disconnected from the situation.
McCain, however, supported the surge, while Obama still insists he would not/does not support it. That is just plain crazy talk.
The "surge" has always meant, until McCain was in front of the cheese aisle in King's supermarket, an increase in troops.
It is crazy talk to say that the surge had anything to do with the decrease in violence.
Here is a military man from RAND disagreeing with adding troops to Iraq. He's a Navy SEAL with 20 years in. So, it is hardly the case that it is "just plan crazy talk." It is also obscene to say that only military people have useful contributions. When the military screws up really badly, then _someone_ needs to be yelling about it. How many wedding parties have we bombed so far?
The RAND corporation recently published another paper that said law enforcement is the way to capture terrorists, not military adventurism. I've been saying that for over 5 years (at the top of my blog). Now, I do have military experience, but none on any battlefield, or even overseas, so, I am almost a civilian, but RAND is a military-connected think tank.
It is not plain crazy talk. The "surge" in troops had basically nothing to do with the increase in security.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home