Topic: US Army sergeant held for civilian shootings in Afghanistan.

[Azrael]

It was never the right thing to go into Afghanistan in force.

[Boom_70]

It was never the right thing to go into Afghanistan in force.

How are you defining "going into Afghanistan in force"?

[Azrael]

It was never the right thing to go into Afghanistan in force.

How are you defining "going into Afghanistan in force"?

Anything bigger than Seal Team 6.

[Boom_70]

This graph makes it fairly clear that the only result of the surge is more US Soldiers killed:

[Azrael]

And who was asking for a 'surge?'

www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/world/asia/01iht-military.4.16620651.html

[Boom_70]

And who was asking for a 'surge?'

www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/world/asia/01iht-military.4.16620651.html

And who agreed?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/obama_sending_more_troops_to_afghanistan_4Zip6gld4A2W7Ziuod71YN

Given the current state of affairs in Afghanistan,it's fair to say that Obama's decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan in 2010 has been an abject failure.

It's telltale that the top 3 Generals who were proponents of the surge are now no longer involved with the operation. General McKiernan and General McCrystall were both relieved of their commands and General Petraeus moved to CIA.

[Azrael]

The Pentagon sold the surge to Bush and then sold it to Obama. If the President had ignored them, the right would be howling that we'd cut and run. C'mon.

[Boom_70]

The Pentagon sold the surge to Bush and then sold it to Obama. If the President had ignored them, the right would be howling that we'd cut and run. C'mon.

You c'mon. Bush was out of office a full year before Obama made the decision to send more troops. The right was not pushing for more troops.

[Azrael]

Seriously?

www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_646768.html?source=rss&feed=7

[Baron Scicluna]

The Pentagon sold the surge to Bush and then sold it to Obama. If the President had ignored them, the right would be howling that we'd cut and run. C'mon.

You c'mon. Bush was out of office a full year before Obama made the decision to send more troops. The right was not pushing for more troops.

McCain was on Meet the Press yesterday. He was bitching that Obama "wasn't showing leadership" by sending "only" 30,000 troops in the surge instead of 40,000.

[Boom_70]

Seriously?

www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_646768.html?source=rss&feed=7

Essentially what you are saying was that Obama needed to send more troops to avoid criticism from the right.
What kind of leadership is that?

[deskslave]

The Pentagon sold the surge to Bush and then sold it to Obama. If the President had ignored them, the right would be howling that we'd cut and run. C'mon.

You c'mon. Bush was out of office a full year before Obama made the decision to send more troops. The right was not pushing for more troops.

Are you kidding me? There's not a problem anywhere in the world that the right doesn't think can be solved with troops, troops and more troops.

And stop questioning the president's decisions in the prosecution of war. As Dick Cheney told me repeatedly, it's treasonous.

[Azrael]

Seriously?

www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_646768.html?source=rss&feed=7

Essentially what you are saying was that Obama needed to send more troops to avoid criticism from the right.
What kind of leadership is that?

No. That's not what I'm saying at all.

What I'm saying is that the president took the best advice of his generals and acted upon it.

A decision with which the American right agreed wholeheartedly at the time.

[Boom_70]

Seriously?

www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_646768.html?source=rss&feed=7

Essentially what you are saying was that Obama needed to send more troops to avoid criticism from the right.
What kind of leadership is that?

No. That's not what I'm saying at all.

What I'm saying is that the president took the best advice of his generals and acted upon it.

A decision with which the American right agreed wholeheartedly at the time.

I'm part of the "American right" and I did not wholeheartedly agree. There were plenty of others
also.

Even Obama's VP spoke out against the surge.

[YankeeFan]

The Pentagon sold the surge to Bush and then sold it to Obama. If the President had ignored them, the right would be howling that we'd cut and run. C'mon.

Can we please stop citing political opposition by the other party as a reason fo doing, or not doing, something?

Do yo really think Obama cares what "the right" thinks about any of his positions? He's shown repeatedly that he doesn't.

I'd also like to think that President Obama doesn't decide troop deployment levels based on politics.

[Azrael]

Republicans are warning President Barack Obama that he will risk losing GOP votes for any troop surge in Afghanistan if he requests fewer than the 40,000 additional troops sought by Gen. Stanley McChrystal.


thehill.com/homenews/administration/64025-gop-warns-obama-on-troop-surge

[Azrael]

The Pentagon sold the surge to Bush and then sold it to Obama. If the President had ignored them, the right would be howling that we'd cut and run. C'mon.

Can we please stop citing political opposition by the other party as a reason fo doing, or not doing, something?

Do yo really think Obama cares what "the right" thinks about any of his positions? He's shown repeatedly that he doesn't.

I'd also like to think that President Obama doesn't decide troop deployment levels based on politics.

He took the advice of his generals. A Republican congress agreed with that advice.

[Boom_70]

Republicans are warning President Barack Obama that he will risk losing GOP votes for any troop surge in Afghanistan if he requests fewer than the 40,000 additional troops sought by Gen. Stanley McChrystal.


thehill.com/homenews/administration/64025-gop-warns-obama-on-troop-surge

So basically what you are saying is that Obama staked his political future on the lives of 40,000 US troops.

[Azrael]

Republicans are warning President Barack Obama that he will risk losing GOP votes for any troop surge in Afghanistan if he requests fewer than the 40,000 additional troops sought by Gen. Stanley McChrystal.


thehill.com/homenews/administration/64025-gop-warns-obama-on-troop-surge

So basically what you are saying is that Obama staked his political future on the lives of 40,000 US troops.

Nope.

[Boom_70]

Republicans are warning President Barack Obama that he will risk losing GOP votes for any troop surge in Afghanistan if he requests fewer than the 40,000 additional troops sought by Gen. Stanley McChrystal.


thehill.com/homenews/administration/64025-gop-warns-obama-on-troop-surge

So basically what you are saying is that Obama staked his political future on the lives of 40,000 US troops.

Nope.

So where does the buck stop then for the surge decision? Who ultimately owns it? Obama, The Pentagon?
The Republican Congress?

[Azrael]

Why are you looking to blame someone? Or make this political?

The responsibility falls to all of us.

[Boom_70]

Why are you looking to blame someone? Or make this political?

The responsibility falls to all of us.

Not looking to blame someone, not looking to make it political. You're the one who introduced "the American right" into the mix. 

I am looking to discuss whether the decision made in 2009 to triple down on the amount of troops was a good one.

Based on current state of Afghanistan it does not appear that it was.

I would hope that there was no political basis for decision. I'm sure that the families who lost loved ones would hope this too. One thing that is clear, the surge has lead to a lot more American soldiers getting killed in action.

[Baron Scicluna]

Why are you looking to blame someone? Or make this political?

The responsibility falls to all of us.

Not looking to blame someone, not looking to make it political. You're the one who introduced "the American right" into the mix.  

I am looking to discuss whether the decision made in 2009 to triple down on the amount of troops was a good one.

Based on current state of Afghanistan it does not appear that it was.

I would hope that there was no political basis for decision. I'm sure that the families who lost loved ones would hope this too. One thing that is clear, the surge has lead to a lot more American soldiers getting killed in action.

Because the "American right" are the ones who started this war, which I actually agreed with. Only, the "American right" decided to do this war on the cheap, and then decided to invade another country that had nothing to do with the attack on our soil for their own political (and financial) gains. They fucked that up, and now we had two fuck-up wars on our hands.

Then Obama had to decide whether to continue the "American right's" fuckups or discontinue them. He continued one, and stopped the other.

To use a baseball analogy with Afghanistan (I know, I know, please bear with me), it's like Bush allowed three runs and put three runners on base in the first inning  before getting yanked out for Obama. Obama comes in, gets the most dangerous hitter out, then gives up a gopherball. And the right-wingers start shrieking that Obama gave up four runs, while Bush only gave up three, even though rightly, it's Bush's six runs to Obama's one.

[Boom_70]

Why are you looking to blame someone? Or make this political?

The responsibility falls to all of us.

Not looking to blame someone, not looking to make it political. You're the one who introduced "the American right" into the mix. 

I am looking to discuss whether the decision made in 2009 to triple down on the amount of troops was a good one.

Based on current state of Afghanistan it does not appear that it was.

I would hope that there was no political basis for decision. I'm sure that the families who lost loved ones would hope this too. One thing that is clear, the surge has lead to a lot more American soldiers getting killed in action.

Because the "American right" are the ones who started this war, which I actually agreed with. Only, the "American right" decided to do this war on the cheap, and then decided to invade another country that had nothing to do with the attack on our soil for their own political (and financial) gains. They fucked that up, and now we had two fuck-up wars on our hands.

Then Obama had to decide whether to continue the "American right's" fuckups or discontinue them. He continued one, and stopped the other.

To use a baseball analogy with Afghanistan (I know, I know, please bear with me), it's like Bush allowed three runs and put three runners on base in the first inning  before getting yanked out for Obama. Obama comes in, gets the most dangerous hitter out, then gives up a gopherball. And the right-wingers start shrieking that Obama gave up four runs, while Bush only gave up three, even though rightly, it's Bush's six runs to Obama's one.

So are you saying that Obama decided to continue the war in Afghanistan so as not to be accused of being weak by "the American right"?

Obama certainly gets some credit for being against the war in Iraq from the beginning but there were more Democrats who agreed with Bush at the time including John Kerry. We can bring back the quotes if you want.

[Azrael]

So, to recap.

Republican president + Democratic congressional agreement = consensus and statesmanship.

Democratic president + Republican congressional agreement = craven politicking.

Interesting.