Why do we think that the President and his administration can only work on one issue at a time? Do we really believe that Sec Clinton is not working on "State" issues and is putting all of her efforts into healthcare?

 

Or is it possible that the administration works just like all administrations do? Isn't that why we have departments?

 

Who is saying he or they can only work on one thing at a time? I've seen a comment about his priorites, but I missed someone saying he could only do one thing at a time.

 

Yes. Yes. At least that is what I hope and it's most certainly what I beleive.

 

Was he or was he not adamant that the most important war to fight was the one in Afghanistan? What happened to that? If it changed so much why? Did he lie to us or did he have terrible info about the situation? If he had terrible info who is to blame?

Wouldn't the general in charge of the theater be the best person to ask regarding this subject? As such this general has asked for more troops.

 

1. Remember also that this is Obama's selection as general in charge after he had removed the person that was in charge of the theater.

 

2. Part of the reason for the request was to make the security of the 60,000 troops presently there better.

Clue??

 

Winner.

Obama was elected in large part because of the public's perception of him as being a break from the "Ask-Questions-Later School of Important Decision-Making" the previous president seemed to adhere to. As such, I don't begrudge him for taking his time, considering multiple opinions, and coming to a confident and pragmatic conclusion.

And soldiers continue to die while he does nothing. He's in so far over his head and it's costing US troops. He needs to give them support, but instead they get nothing.

It seems that this is a situation that Hillary's 3 AM call has come true.

I assum you all are now familiar with Eiken. . . .somethings memo who says the government is too corrupt and unstable for us to continue to send our troops into harms way . . . that we cannot train their forces to eventually take over and that sending any new troops would be a horrible idea. McChrystal memo focused on what he thinks he needs to be successful at War - Eichensomething is looking at where all of this ends up and there can be no exit strategy.

 

Coach Bucket, your one switch idea, which I understand is hyperbole, does not work in Afghanistan. You do realize there are poor and impoverished boys and girls that live in those mountains who have done nothing, and may never do anything wrong - one switch - kills them . . . I would think your religious beliefs would prevent you from even considering the killing of innocents. Deciding where all of these pockets of Taliban are is almost impossible.

 

It really sounds, however, that you would be for VP Biden's idea of more drone attacks so that we are not putting troops in harms way.

 

FWIW i have a book I will loan you when football is over that talks about the good people in the AFPAK region. It is called "Three Cups of Tea" about an American who goes about building schools there - it is believed that his schools do much more to end terrorism and the hate of the west that any gun, tank, or bomb might do. Maybe we should try another approach.

And soldiers continue to die while he does nothing. He's in so far over his head and it's costing US troops. He needs to give them support, but instead they get nothing.

 

 

The only question I have to this is:

 

Are soldiers going to stop dying if we send a plethora more troops?

I assum you all are now familiar with Eiken. . . .somethings memo who says the government is too corrupt and unstable for us to continue to send our troops into harms way . . . that we cannot train their forces to eventually take over and that sending any new troops would be a horrible idea. McChrystal memo focused on what he thinks he needs to be successful at War - Eichensomething is looking at where all of this ends up and there can be no exit strategy.

 

Coach Bucket, your one switch idea, which I understand is hyperbole, does not work in Afghanistan. You do realize there are poor and impoverished boys and girls that live in those mountains who have done nothing, and may never do anything wrong - one switch - kills them . . . I would think your religious beliefs would prevent you from even considering the killing of innocents. Deciding where all of these pockets of Taliban are is almost impossible.

 

It really sounds, however, that you would be for VP Biden's idea of more drone attacks so that we are not putting troops in harms way.

 

FWIW i have a book I will loan you when football is over that talks about the good people in the AFPAK region. It is called "Three Cups of Tea" about an American who goes about building schools there - it is believed that his schools do much more to end terrorism and the hate of the west that any gun, tank, or bomb might do. Maybe we should try another approach.

 

Shoud/Could we get out now? I'm actually more for that than anything if it's possible. I honestly don't know enough about that. Isn't it a direct contradiction of what Obama said the entire campaign process? When and why did that change? I'm not trying to be smart. I'm just asking someone who seems to know.

 

If the support is needed to help the current troops shouldn't they get that rather than waiting? That's my only real concern. The General Obama assigned asked for more troops months ago. IMO either get our guys out now or send them help.

Who is saying he or they can only work on one thing at a time? I've seen a comment about his priorites, but I missed someone saying he could only do one thing at a time.

 

Yes. Yes. At least that is what I hope and it's most certainly what I beleive.

 

Was he or was he not adamant that the most important war to fight was the one in Afghanistan? What happened to that? If it changed so much why? Did he lie to us or did he have terrible info about the situation? If he had terrible info who is to blame?

 

How do we know how he prioritizes?

I really don't care what anyone promised we need to get out of an unwinnable war as fast as possible.

The only question I have to this is:

 

Are soldiers going to stop dying if we send a plethora more troops?

It's a war, so no.

 

You, as I recall, were all for this war. Where do you stand now? Do you think the president is handling this right?

I really don't care what anyone promised we need to get out of an unwinnable war as fast as possible.

How do you know it's not a war we can win?

How do you know it's not a war we can win?

 

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I will through my two cents in:

 

You cannot win a military war against ideas. There is not a territory to overtake, or a government to topple.

 

In this battle, with guns, the only way to win is to completely vanguish the enemy. For every Taliban or Al Quaida member we kill, there are others who are converted to the ideology/struggle.

 

The idea thing for us to do is to capture the leaders . . . or kill them I guess. The tough part here is that the government is not on our side, or even capable of helping. Afghanistan is not a unified country. It is ruled in various areas by Tribal leaders. Some are pro-American and some are not.

 

How about we spend our money in Afghanistan by building schools bigger and faster than the Taliban and Al Quaida forces do so that the children are not educated to hate Americans. As long as we are killing their people they will grow up to hate us, and then we will try to kill them too . . . thus the war never ends.

How do we know how he prioritizes?

 

I don't. Neither do you I would guess. It's a matter of opinion.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I will through my two cents in:

 

You cannot win a military war against ideas. There is not a territory to overtake, or a government to topple.

 

In this battle, with guns, the only way to win is to completely vanguish the enemy. For every Taliban or Al Quaida member we kill, there are others who are converted to the ideology/struggle.

 

The idea thing for us to do is to capture the leaders . . . or kill them I guess. The tough part here is that the government is not on our side, or even capable of helping. Afghanistan is not a unified country. It is ruled in various areas by Tribal leaders. Some are pro-American and some are not.

 

How about we spend our money in Afghanistan by building schools bigger and faster than the Taliban and Al Quaida forces do so that the children are not educated to hate Americans. As long as we are killing their people they will grow up to hate us, and then we will try to kill them too . . . thus the war never ends.

To think, for even an instance, that you can educate children to not hate Americans when Wahhabism is in such control there is laughable. You're a good guy, ace and it would be nice if that were possible, but it's not and will only get worse when we pull out of the region.