Afghanistan Escalation

[Otteralum]

Why didn't tonight's speech sit well with me?

[clover]

Because he didn't stutter.....and it was the same one I heard

[Otteralum]

that must be it.

[clover]

The speech kinda sounded like Lyndon Johnson huh?

[BettyJ]

It's all about "me", "me", "my administration" "I made this decision" ... which proves that there really isn't an "I" in "TEAM". 

Seriously, his speeches are always a turn off to me as they seem so arrogant and ego-driven (is this Obama or his writers?).  Clinton had the same effect on me, BTW.       

[clover]

Nixon Reagan and the Bushes always sounded arrogant to me...but I guess that comes with being elected the Commander In Chief.

[rykat]

shame I had to miss it for a hockey game - guess I will remain ignorant and misinformed unless I can find a replay - cak!
Got the highlights, O, in say.......................one word or less?

[Otteralum]

can't do it in one word or less, but htis is close.

30,000 troops all deployed within six months.  Pull-out begins in 18-months. Security is important, deficit is important, cooperation from Karzai governminet is important.

I've got a feeling that the Taliban will change their degree of aggressiveness based on how the American economy is doing, but that's how we're guaging our fight.  Light on specifics beyond the number of troops and when we're pulling out.  For example, do we know how our strategy will be different, or are we just sending more troops?   Sounded like "Afghanistanization" approach to me, but who knows?

[rykat]

Afghanistanization.....hmmm like Vietnamization? Gottcha!

[ragman]

I don't understand how this is going to work out.  Send troops and have a cutout date.  This makes no one happy and you put obstacles in the way of winning. (Oh, I forgot winning and victory are not words we can use)  You give the enemy a date that if they can hold the line they are all set.  The good guys on the ground now know when we won't be there to protect them so I'm sure they will cooperate with us. He even talks about being partners with the moderate Taliban, hu???

And to top it all off lets talk about a tax to support the war.  That should chisel away some more support at home.  Of course the cost of this is about 4% of the cost of the last Stimulus Bill and there was no tax for that.

Look I guess I'm in the Hawk category but I would rather see the troops come home if we are not in this to win. 

[peterbj7]

It's not just the USA.  Similar themes are coming from Britain.  Though thinking about it, that's really the same thing.

[clover]

First of all the Brits have become the lapdogs for the US....but that's another issue.

As far as sending troops...it's hilarious.  We've been in Afghanistan since October 2001........that's over 8 years........if the last administration couldn't win this war in 8 years....how is it going to be won in the next 18 months?  Obama should have just pulled the plug on this Bush failure on January 20th.

[peterbj7]

It's not about winning, as everyone knows any war in Afghanistan is unwinnable, but about a "graceful retreat" saving as much face as possible.  The fact that more US and UK soldiers will probably die in the process is seen as an unfortunate necessity.

[rykat]

First of all the Brits have become the lapdogs for the US....but that's another issue.

As far as sending troops...it's hilarious.  We've been in Afghanistan since October 2001........that's over 8 years........if the last administration couldn't win this war in 8 years....how is it going to be won in the next 18 months?  Obama should have just pulled the plug on this Bush failure on January 20th.

SOS!

[ragman]

Same opinion as mine.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,664753,00.html

In his speech on America's new Afghanistan strategy, Obama tried to speak to both places. It was two speeches in one. That is why it felt so false. Both dreamers and realists were left feeling distraught.

The American president doesn't need any opponents at the moment. He's already got himself.