3 Months late and giving a date of when they will start to pull out. :idunno:

 

Read a quote from Obama addressing the late issue...he said EVERY plan presented to him was for additional troops in 2010. NONE, I repeat NONE, of the proposals asked for troops before 2010.

 

His plan, as I understand it will have troops headed that way before Christmas.

 

Now, anyone in P & R can tell you I am not an Obama fan, but it seems if his claims are true, he was not late with what he was asked.

 

How about that TB&G, me said something nicey about our President.:D:D:D:thumb::thumb::thumb:

That said, anyone find the timing of the troop pullout ironic?

 

When will the race for the Presidency in 2012 begin?

When was the date of the troop pullout?

Coincidence?

Read a quote from Obama addressing the late issue...he said EVERY plan presented to him was for additional troops in 2010. NONE, I repeat NONE, of the proposals asked for troops before 2010.

 

His plan, as I understand it will have troops headed that way before Christmas.

 

Now, anyone in P & R can tell you I am not an Obama fan, but it seems if his claims are true, he was not late with what he was asked.

 

How about that TB&G, me said something nicey about our President.:D:D:D:thumb::thumb::thumb:

 

I appreciate the gesture, but I'm not asking for "nicey." I'm asking for consistancy in expectations. We had a multipage thread on here about Obama NOT sending in the requested troops and how awful he was for that. Now that he is sending them, most on here simply can't be pleased with that. Instead, it's time to put some spin on it and make it a negative.

Where's the foul, guys? He's agreed to add nearly the amount of troops that his generals asked for.

 

I guess that I shouldn't be suprised, though. There must be a negative spin on it somehow.

Nearly half, not nearly. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see him send more troops, that's not really the problem I have with his plan. It's the unreal time frame he has to accomplish what he claims he wants to. Also, why tell the enemy how long you're going to be there?

Nearly half, not nearly. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see him send more troops, that's not really the problem I have with his plan. It's the unreal time frame he has to accomplish what he claims he wants to. Also, why tell the enemy how long you're going to be there?

 

^ What he said. :thumb:

Nearly half, not nearly. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see him send more troops, that's not really the problem I have with his plan. It's the unreal time frame he has to accomplish what he claims he wants to. Also, why tell the enemy how long you're going to be there?

 

I'm confused on the bolded.

 

Here is a quote from an article you posted in previous thread:

 

The president was considering options that include adding 30,000 or more U.S. forces to take on the Taliban in key areas of Afghanistan and to buy time for the Afghan government's small and ill-equipped fighting forces to take over. The other three options on the table Wednesday were ranges of troop increases, from a relatively small addition of forces to the roughly 40,000 that the top U.S. general in Afghanistan prefers, according to military and other officials.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2009/Nov/11/official__obama_wants_his_war_options_changed.html

 

Percentage-wise, I guess that we are closer to 75% the amount of troops that were requested.

 

Regarding the timeline, what do you think that giving a timeline will do? To me, it sets up expections. We expect to "have the job" done by X amount of time. If we don't, then I would assume that timelines can change.

 

Some may say that all the enemy will do will be to "sit and wait" until we are out. Can't they do that if there is NO timeline, too? I can see where people are coming from if they feel that the goal is just an abritrary number. To me, it's similar to hiring a contractor to do work. The contractor is hired to complete a job within a certain timeframe. If that expectation cannot be achieved, then the contract may be renegotiated. However, you don't hire a contractor and let him finish the job at his leisure.

 

Some are going to decry that analogy. You're right. It's not great. A contractor will be paid a certain amount of money for the job, regardless of the timeframe. War is different. The longer the job takes, the more money has to be poured into it.

 

In short, I think we all agree that we get the job done as quickly as possible. Setting a goal to have the job completed should be a positive thing.

I'm confused on the bolded.

 

Here is a quote from an article you posted in previous thread:

 

 

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2009/Nov/11/official__obama_wants_his_war_options_changed.html

 

Percentage-wise, I guess that we are closer to 75% the amount of troops that were requested.

 

Regarding the timeline, what do you think that giving a timeline will do? To me, it sets up expections. We expect to "have the job" done by X amount of time. If we don't, then I would assume that timelines can change.

 

Some may say that all the enemy will do will be to "sit and wait" until we are out. Can't they do that if there is NO timeline, too? I can see where people are coming from if they feel that the goal is just an abritrary number. To me, it's similar to hiring a contractor to do work. The contractor is hired to complete a job within a certain timeframe. If that expectation cannot be achieved, then the contract may be renegotiated. However, you don't hire a contractor and let him finish the job at his leisure.

 

Some are going to decry that analogy. You're right. It's not great. A contractor will be paid a certain amount of money for the job, regardless of the timeframe. War is different. The longer the job takes, the more money has to be poured into it.

 

In short, I think we all agree that we get the job done as quickly as possible. Setting a goal to have the job completed should be a positive thing.

 

Nothing?

I'm confused on the bolded.

 

Here is a quote from an article you posted in previous thread:

 

 

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2009/Nov/11/official__obama_wants_his_war_options_changed.html

 

Percentage-wise, I guess that we are closer to 75% the amount of troops that were requested.

 

Regarding the timeline, what do you think that giving a timeline will do? To me, it sets up expections. We expect to "have the job" done by X amount of time. If we don't, then I would assume that timelines can change.

 

Some may say that all the enemy will do will be to "sit and wait" until we are out. Can't they do that if there is NO timeline, too? I can see where people are coming from if they feel that the goal is just an abritrary number. To me, it's similar to hiring a contractor to do work. The contractor is hired to complete a job within a certain timeframe. If that expectation cannot be achieved, then the contract may be renegotiated. However, you don't hire a contractor and let him finish the job at his leisure.

 

Some are going to decry that analogy. You're right. It's not great. A contractor will be paid a certain amount of money for the job, regardless of the timeframe. War is different. The longer the job takes, the more money has to be poured into it.

 

In short, I think we all agree that we get the job done as quickly as possible. Setting a goal to have the job completed should be a positive thing.

 

Nothing?

60,000 troops was the low-risk option and what he actually wanted.

 

The timeline tells a very patient enemy to just sit back and wait for one. Secondly, there is NO way he can get done it that short time frame what he claimed will get done.

 

You have to understand that these are very uneducated people, you can't educate them that quickly.

 

I'll explain more when I have time.

60,000 troops was the low-risk option and what he actually wanted.

 

This is what I have heard: The 40,000 troop number was not the number of troops preferred by General McCrystal. The 40,000 number was the official request that came in after the general was told there was no way he was going to get what the general had unofficially been circulating as the number of troops he really needed.

 

IMHO, most of the UN troops aren't very useful since most countries won't let their troops perform front line duty. IMHO, OBama is sending about half of the troops that the commanders in charge in Afghanistan think they really need.

 

Also, the decision making process has been going on for much longer than 3 months. It's really been going on for almost 9 months and it's only been made public for 3 months.