The President's Address on Afghanistan - West Point- 12/1/2009 - Page 2

ONLY 53% of Southerners question Obama's birthplace? (Think he was born elsewhere or don't know)

ONLY 58% of Republicans question Obama's birthplace?

Jesus

Hair splitting aside, surely you'll agree that it's ENOUGH to be considered pretty grim, right?

Two things:
1) We can see what Dranbon was browsing for while surfing FOX and
2) Look at those hot topics! Still with the "War On Christmas" shit? Really?

They're fighting the ancestors of their ancestor's enemies? Holy shit, they're going back in time? Do they not understand the ramifications of messing with the past?

Back to the Future warned us not to mess with the past. The consequences could be disastrous.

If you've spent countless hours in your life learning about war, maybe you should have figured out that you shouldn't be excited about soldiers having to be put in harm's way instead of wanking off to Alexander.

This might be the worst thread in the history of Chud.

Clearly you weren't around for the Chud Boobies Thread.

I was too busy killing Census workers and making it look like suicides that looked like murders.

I've literally lost 5 I.Q. points reading this garbage.

Obama goes against the sense of his party to do the right thing.

That's leadership. That's what I voted for.

Well, sure. It's two weeks before finals, and they had to burn four hours of precious study time so they could be scenery for a Presidential speech.

Bush I gave a speech at USNA around this time of year when I was a midshipman. We were not pleased.

He is the President, after all.

I can't speak for the commissioned side of things, (and of course the President is a much more visible guest, so the preparations must have been hellish) but a fair amount of cursing greeted the news that Mike Mullen was visiting my linguist A-school around the time I was graduating, and about a day prior to a lot of my friends taking their Arabic DLPTs. I'm pleased that some sentiments are timeless.

And you wonder why you're called an obnoxious and blinded Obamaniac.

Is it also leadership to promise something to get elected and then do the opposite? Wait, what am I saying. According to conservatives, of course it is. Fuck you, will of the people!

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

What a fucking joke. Your first post in this thread talks about how you’re hoping Obama was "punking" the military and was going to announce a withdrawal. Now you’re defending the troop surge hours after. I think we can now call you Princess Coulter.

Kate's right. President Obama never promised to get us out of Afghanistan.

You're right. My apologies to President Obama and conservatives.

Now allow me to re-insult them for thinking there's anything to be gained by sending troops to Afghanistan.

By the way, the reason I was mixed up? I was remembering this Obama quote from 2006:

Link.

Obama '09 ought to listen to Obama '06.

The thing that "everybody knows but won't say" (but I have seen it mentioned in some blog posts) is this: We are in Afghanistan to stabilize Pakistan. Drones and Special Forces have already been operating there for years, now you'll see a step up in operations, with or without the Pakistan government's approval. The US is terrified that Pakistan will fall to extremists, or that extremists will get nukes, and will do whatever they can to prevent it. But Obama can't say that publicly, anymore than he can go after Saudi Arabia for funding Islamic extremism.

Well, you've been doing a bang-up job of that so far!

The poll, that I posted, said 28% of republicans (out of a total sample group of 2,400 people) believed he was born outside of the country. If you dig a little deeper, some of these people also believe Hawaii is not part of the country (which only increases their stupidity). The additional percentage that are unsure are probably people that are pissed off about him being elected president, and don't want to be honest in their poll response.

To conclude my thoughts on your posts, I do think republicans (more specifically birthers) are not intelligent. The extreme right-wingers and most neo-conservatives rub me the wrong way. Still, I would not consider most of them to be "evil." Just uniformed or biased by stupidity in their surroundings.

If you look at politics with a real sense of objectivity, and not just fanboyism, there's a lot of bullshit on both sides of the aisle. Very few politicians aren't slimeballs (for democrats look at Barney Frank and Chris Dodd as examples).

Obama does stand out as someone that rises above most other politicians with his sincerity, and I respect him for that. I like Obama, I voted for Obama, and have shook the guy's hand at a rally in Des Moines. But I don't worship the guy, and realize he's still a politician.

Thing is, in 2006, not being president, not running for president, and dealing with the situation of Iraq/Afghanistan in 2006, you can make one statement, and basically be right about it.... and that same statement is not a good idea 2 or 3 years down the road, especially when you are looking to be commander in chief, and when a war most thought of as a done deal blows up in your face suddenly.

Holding a politician of at least SOME sort of integrity to statements 3 to 4 years old is exactly the reason why the "will of the people" is expressed every few years through elections, and not on a daily popularity basis.

Would you deem Joe the Plumber an expert on the afghanistan war, or at least capable of finding it on a map without help? Then why is his opinion, or by extension the "will of the people" suddenly the best idea to make decisions at this level?

In the age of Fox News, MSNBC, Blogs, Twitter and whatnot, public opinion is more liable to change like the weather than ever before. You see how a movement like the birthers gains enough traction with an issue that is simply bullshit? How it worms itself into the thoughts of normal people, and some of them believe there is at least a grain of truth in it, because it was said on television?

Under such circumstances, any "will of the people" crap doesnt fly for a country with a global role, and in the middle of one of the nastiest ground war slogs of the last decades.
Yes, history may prove Obama wrong, and I sure dont envy the women and men going down to Afghanistan on these orders, but you guys elected the man because, hopefully, he has good judgment, and he just used this judgment in what looks like a carefully contemplated and noticably non-partyline decision. This is EXACTLY what leadership, what the presidents job is about.

Obama is still human. Obama can be wrong. Obama can be right now, but events may happen that turn this into a bad idea. But from where I am sitting, this decision was made with the interests of the USA, Afghanistan, the soldiers and the general, original intention of this war in mind, and if an intelligent guy with a heap of staff, advisors and insight is coming, after taking his time, to this conclusion, I am not so sure that many of us are qualified to outright claim he "obviously" made a mistake.

During my service years, I was involved at ground level (read: behind a steering wheel of a patrol jeep) in what you could call a retreat, or redeployment, in kosovo, by 3 companies of german soldiers.
You know, a retreat actually requires more manpower than an assault if you dont want to increase risk. If you wish to pull troops out without exposing them to bad retaliation, you either need a strategic genius and flawless execution to have multiple forces back each other up, or you need more manpower. Sending 30.000 Troops may well be done with the intention of not just adding more, but to keep those already there more safe.

I think on the "will of the people" level, this really has little to do with informed opinions. Its more about a general "pro" and "contra" stance on the war, where people think "we gotta get out!", and anything that doesnt look like its going to have that result immediately is a bad call.
You cannot just sound the horns tomorrow and have everyone board a conveniently waiting plane and fly back the USA.

Excellent post, Khaunshar.

I agree 100% with your post Kaunshar. Thank you for posting something in this thread that is well thought-out and rational.

But can't you just as easily say that people who are outside the system can identify the problem, but when they get inside the system they find themselves beholden to certain interests?

All I know is that these wars have been an endless string of justifications and excuses for occupying countries to nebulous ends. It'd be very nice if Obama had some awesome method for permanently stabilizing Afghanistan such that American troops didn't have to stay there forever, but since I think the problem is one of basic philosophy and goals rather than methods, colour me skeptical.

Obama has always framed the Iraq war as being the "dumb war" that distracted us from Afghanistan. Anybody who did not see us getting involved in Afghanistan again in a big way at some point in his first year was just not paying attention during the primary debates or his speech at the DNCC. He literally vows to capture Osama Bin Laden in that speech. If I were a betting man, I'd wager the "conditions on the ground" he's looking for by 2011 are for the CIA incursions into Pakistan to produce a capture or a kill with Bin Laden.

Also, I'll second Bloody Wankers alarm over overly zealous Obama supporters. Unfortunately, they're numerous. Organizing for America is filled with those types. They go into full meltdowns if you say anything that is not worshipful of the guy.

Excellent post, Kaunshar. Thanks for your contribution.

...And 3 days after Obama's speech a major US offense is launched!

Who is the guy that gets to name these missions? talk about an awesome job.

You're welcome.

you are my hero sir.

I can’t believe the traction the withdrawal date is getting, what with the fact that it’s entirely contingent upon “conditions on the ground.” It’s aspirational at best.

Cobretti's Cobras.

By the way, the timing of the speech was planned to pre-empt the pro-Christian message of A Charlie Brown Christmas.

No, really.

Yeah the idea of a withdraw date was meant to appease the Left and Democrats in Congress. Obama knows most Americans are sick of the wars and this is a placebo.

Of course, to those soldiers that date seems like a promise, and it may motive them (and the Pres, and the DoD) to really push things to make that date.

Here's a good editorial in the Washington Post about liberal reaction to the President's position on Afghanistan and a number of other issues.

Great editorial, Frank. I do remember Obama's saying that he was planning on increasing troops in Afghanistan during his campaign, and love how forgetful some of his supporters get.

I also love the fact that the guy's only been in office a year, yet many expect him to work miracles in that time. Believe me, I want socialized medicine, a balanced economy, and our troops home but it takes TIME.

Here's another great article from my local paper. It's about the sausage - making aspect of how the President came to his Afghanistan strategy.

I love this stuff. One of my career goals is to go from "guy who sits next to the wall at meetings of guys who sit next to wall at meetings of guys who sit next to the wall at this meeting" to "guy who sits next to the wall at this meeting."

Great article, Frank!

Excellent Article. If that is how a decision-making process in the Obama administration looks like, for the heavyweight stuff anyway, I re-state that I am pretty convinced this is in fact the best plan many smart and experienced guys can come up with to achieve the original, and realistical, intent of that war.

And Frank, you got my vote, as long as you dont hog all the nice radiator warmth in those meetings at the wall