Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 10/08/2009 View Wed 10/07/2009 View Tue 10/06/2009 View Mon 10/05/2009 View Sun 10/04/2009 View Sat 10/03/2009 View Fri 10/02/2009
1
2009-10-08 Home Front: WoT
Obama Rules Out Large Reduction in Afghan Force
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Fred 2009-10-08 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views ]  Top

#1 Sounded better than "Obama rules out taking action". So much for hope and change.
Posted by ed 2009-10-08 00:47||   2009-10-08 00:47|| Front Page Top

#2 TOPIX/WMF > OBAMA VOWS TO HITS AL QAEDA WHEREEVER IT IS. US Mil-led Anti-Terror operations NOT limited solely to AFPAK andor Iraq-Mideast???

Lest we fergit, and unfortunately for POTUS BAMMER = the USA/USSA-USRoA, this scope is also contained in the GORBACHEV-YELTSIN-PUTIN-MEDVEDEV DOCTRINES, i.e POST-COLD WAR RUSSIA RESERVING ITS NATURAL RIGHT TO USE MILITARY + NUCLEAR FORCE TO UNILATER PROTECT RUSS INETRESTS + CITIZENS ANYWHERE, ANY TIME, ANY PLACE, + NOT NECESS WID ADVANCE WARNING [Preemption].

Read, even AGZ the USA INSIDE THE USA, ee GROWING CONUS-BASED JIHADIST, TERROR CELLS + ACTIVITIES.

RUSS DOCTRINES > RUSS VERSION OF REAGAN-BUSH ERA "FLEXIBLE RESPONSE" > it is "sufficient" only that a Terror strike(s) agz Russ Interests and espec Russ Citizens be made by Milits-Terrs TRACED BACK TO A US POINT(S)-OF-ORIGIN.

This is why US GOVT0-INTEL ANALYSTS of the period were worried about these new Russ Dcotrines.
Posted by JosephMendiola">JosephMendiola  2009-10-08 01:01|| na]">[na]  2009-10-08 01:01|| Front Page Top

#3 A joint appearance afterward on the White House driveway by the two top Democratic Congressional leaders demonstrated Mr. Obama's political challenge. "The one thing that I thought was interesting was that everyone, Democrats and Republicans, said whatever decision you make, we'll support it basically," said Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader.

Note to writer: That isn't a political challenge. Obamas political opposition pre-acquiescing to whatever he wants is the exact opposite of a political challenge. Whatever the word for that is.
Posted by Mike N. 2009-10-08 04:54||   2009-10-08 04:54|| Front Page Top

#4 And in the final moments of the meeting, Mr. Obama sought to put to rest suspicions of friction with General McChrystal. "I'm the one who hired him," Mr. Obama said

Translation: I hired him, I can fire him or rondfok him and his army at my leisure.
Posted by Besoeker in Duitsland 2009-10-08 07:50||   2009-10-08 07:50|| Front Page Top

#5 Mike N - i think the challenge line was a reference to the Pelosi eye roll, not the support from the GOP and from Reid.

Besoeker - I read that as BHO admitting what many of us have been saying, that it would be strange and embarrassing for BHO to not give high credence to the opinions of the guy he not only just hired, but whose predecessor he fired somewhat controversially. McCrystal really IS BHO's man.
Posted by liberalhawk 2009-10-08 11:41||   2009-10-08 11:41|| Front Page Top

#6 Even if Obama thinks an additional 40k in troops is needed, it will take some time to implement such a increase. I'm thinking it would take at least 9 months based on the logistics and the fact that our deployable forces are stretched pretty slim already.

This should give Obama some room to try a two or three phase surge (I'm sure it won't be called a surge) and McC could agree to report on the results of phase I before initiating phase II.

This would allow Obama to split the difference between the McC side and the Biden side in a way which causes minimal friction.

This
Posted by lord garth 2009-10-08 13:04||   2009-10-08 13:04|| Front Page Top

#7 My guess is he'll go for the worst of both worlds...

That's what LBJ did.
Posted by Varmint Glath4987 2009-10-08 13:23||   2009-10-08 13:23|| Front Page Top

#8 I think Lord Garth is spot on.
Posted by liberalhawk 2009-10-08 14:13||   2009-10-08 14:13|| Front Page Top

#9 Can't the troops in Iraq be transferred over relatively quickly?
Posted by gorb 2009-10-08 15:16||   2009-10-08 15:16|| Front Page Top

#10 Maybe if they go by way of Iran....
Posted by CrazyFool 2009-10-08 15:17||   2009-10-08 15:17|| Front Page Top

#11 Surely the troops coming out of Iraq deserve a chance for refit and recreation before being sent on to the next war?
Posted by trailing wife 2009-10-08 15:36||   2009-10-08 15:36|| Front Page Top

23:47 Clolulet tse Tung9375
23:23 Spike Crusoth7697
23:10 Spike Crusoth7697
22:31 Frank G
22:27 Rambler in Virginia
22:24 Barbara Skolaut
22:19 Scooter McGruder
22:03 Mike N.
21:53 Zhang Fei
21:45 tipper
21:40 Broadhead6
21:33 phil_b
21:29 Broadhead6
21:19 Broadhead6
21:17 Frank G
21:13 Broadhead6
21:09 tipover
20:53 Alaska Paul
20:50 Alaska Paul
20:50 Broadhead6
20:40 Frank G
20:22 Alaska Paul
20:22 lotp
20:21 Alaska Paul









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com