| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Afghanistan | |
| General: Obama Ignored Military's Advice on Afghanistan | |
| 2011-06-29 | |
| Lieutenant General John Allen told the Senate Armed Services Committee today that the Afghanistan decision President Obama announced last week was not among the range of options the military provided to the commander in chief. Allen’s testimony directly contradicts claims from senior Obama administration officials from a background briefing before the president’s announcement. In response to questioning from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Allen testified that Obama’s decision on the pace and size of Afghanistan withdrawals was “a more aggressive option than that which was presented.” Graham pressed him. “My question is: Was that a option?” Allen: “It was not.” Allen's claim, which came under oath, contradicts the line the White House had been providing reporters over the past week—that Obama simply chose one option among several presented by General David Petraeus. In a conference call last Wednesday, June 22, a reporter asked senior Obama administration officials about those options. “Did General Petraeus specifically endorse this plan, or was it one of the options that General Petraeus gave to the president?”
| |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #8 @#6 Glenmore ... BULLPUCKY Bush not only listened to his military advisors, he engaged in thoughtful deliberation with many of them before making military and strategic decisions regarding Iraq. |
| Posted by: Mikey Hunt 2011-06-29 13:15 |
| #7 victory is NOT the objective People advocating victory in Afghanistan are obliged to define it first. Since the US never had a clear idea of what victory in Afghanistan might actually consist of (no matter what the US did, Afghanistan would never resemble Kansas), victory could not be, never could have been, the objective. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-06-29 13:10 |
| #6 President Bush (W.) ignored advice of almost all on Iraq... In that case, with victory as the objective, Bush would 'own' a defeat. In this case, victory is NOT the objective, so Zero won't really own a defeat; he'll own the 'victory' of having withdrawn. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2011-06-29 07:42 |
| #5 My vote for snark of the day to #4. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2011-06-29 03:41 |
| #4 I believe their RoE's were a little different. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2011-06-29 03:00 |
| #3 Alexander, Saffarids, Arabs, Ghaznids (sp?), Genghis, Timur. That's just from memory. |
| Posted by: Eohippus Phater7165 2011-06-29 01:56 |
| #2 NO One has ever "won" in Afganistan |
| Posted by: 746 2011-06-29 00:52 |
| #1 Allen soon to be known for the handling of this made his reccomendation and Petraeus also backed it. Politics won. Objective was having won the southern districts, they wouls sweep by the east to eventually clean out the north. Allen will draw down unless he sees he is losing grip. It's a meat grinder. |
| Posted by: newc 2011-06-29 00:26 |