Afgahnistan?

[Richard Halstead]

Obama also did not set a time frame to have all our troops home and safe. If McCain had been elected, he said we would be there 100 years.

Obama clarifies: can remove combat troops in Iraq in 16 months. Iraq speech Tuesday 7/14/2008
Obama: As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal. in carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments.

Selective memory?

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008...emove_com.html

[Roger Perry]

But McCain was not elected.

And George Bush is not President anymore.

[road kill]

And George Bush is not President anymore.

Correct, Rahm Emmanuel is.

[HuntsmanTollers]

Far too early to tell. Getting out of Iraq is definately good...better late than never

As a member of the military currently in Iraq, I hope you are right. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 10 years. Iran is starting to push the envelop again. What else is going to happen in the Middle East. The only real deterrent is our word. Now that only means something if its popular. We are a want it now society. Our enemies are willing to wait.

[HuntsmanTollers]

1)

I can't believe that our military is so devoid of military strategists to not use the lessons learned from history. If I am correct, then is there some other reason (i.e. political) that we are not doing better at this? Are the people sitting safe & cozy in DC not allowing the military to use the knowledge they have available?

We took too much credit for the failure of the Soviets in Afghanistan. There has been fighting in this area for centuries. One of the first lessons taught in War College is to have a successful land campaign you have to be able to hold the ground after you advance. The Soviets couldn't hold the ground. The question is are we going to be able to hold it? Listening to the news, we are asking for more Afghani forces and more troops for this very reason. The strategy part is easy executing that strategy in that environment is not.

[YardleyLabs]

Obama clarifies: can remove combat troops in Iraq in 16 months. Iraq speech Tuesday 7/14/2008
Obama: As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal. in carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments.

Selective memory?

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008...emove_com.html

I also remember clearly both the 16 month time frame and the statement that any such plans must be managed carefully and with some flexibility but that it was essential for the Iraqis to understand that were were leaving. That plan was laid out in some detail following the inauguration and signed off on by both the US and Iraq. It has been getting implemented, most recently involving the withdrawal of US forces in Iraq from primary combat responsibilities. Hopefully the plan will continue on schedule and the Iraqis will be successful in fulfilling their responsibilities under the plan. But so far, it appears to me, that Obama has been carrying through on his campaign pledge with some precision.

In Afghanistan, Obama pledged to step up our forces to confront Taliban and al-Quaeda insurgents, including addressing actions needed to prevent those insurgents from finding safe haven in Pakistan. It seems to me that he is also following through on this pledge. Obama has never suggested that this would be easy. He actually said it would be hard because of the errors already made. That was not an excuse for inaction, but an explanation for the magnitude of the actions needed. Once again, it seems to me that he is simply doing what he promised. The situation that was left behind by Bush is Bush's fault. What Obama does with that situation -- good or bad -- is Obama's fault. Nothing that Obama does mitigates Bush's responsibility for the past, and nothing that Bush did will excuse mistakes that Obama makes on his own. However, there are no guarantees that a good result is possible. That is not an excuse, it is a statement of fact.

[HuntsmanTollers]

I'm sure the estimated 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians appreciate not living under dictatorship.

I actually wrote more, but decided to erase it, its a waste of time.

How many Iraqis have you seen interviewed on the news? Have you seen opinion polls asking if they are better now or before Hussein was overthrown? You are right writing more is a waste of time because you will never see the other side. Always believe what you see in the media. They always get the story right. The quality of life for Iraqis has not improved? Nation building takes time. The Iraqis are forming a democratic nation faster than we did especially considering that they didn't have any voice during his regime and they are just learning how to compromise and share power. You do a disservice to their dead. Most of the "dead civilians" you are referring to were killed by AQ or other warring factions trying to suppress their struggle for democracy. I have met a Police Chief here who has lost most of his family because he is supporting the new government. He has been blown up at least twice, yet he refuses to surrender and is still fighting for his dream of a democratic Iraq. I would guess from his actions and the costs he has personally endured that he would continue to fight.

[HuntsmanTollers]

If Bush did not start the war in Afghanistan then who did? Next thing you will say is Bush did not start the war in Iraq.

It is not Obama's war. It is a war he inherited.

Read my lips, Obama's party is not my party. I an a registered Independent, free thinking American.

Bush's name will be synonymous in the history books with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Technically, by your logic Afghanistan should technically be Clinton's War because they were a threat and were planning the attack during his tenure. Iraq was Bush senior's war that has lasted thru 3 presidency's to date. The 4th president has promised to withdraw all the troops.

[Gerry Clinchy]

Yardley

Nothing that Obama does mitigates Bush's responsibility for the past, and nothing that Bush did will excuse mistakes that Obama makes on his own.

Absolutely. So, re-hashing of how it's Bush's fault we are where we are, does not help us focus on how to move forward. Our focus must be on evaluating what we are doing now. Past events are relevant for what they teach us about how to handle the future.

Yardley

However, there are no guarantees that a good result is possible. That is not an excuse, it is a statement of fact.

I think we have to be careful how we accept that statement. If we do not believe that we can effect a good result, that attitude alone will assure defeat.

If one believes that A'stan is key to the safety of the U.S. from Al Queda's terroristic goals, then do we have a choice to give up trying to establish a stable A'stan?

If we do not believe that we can secure a good result ultimately, then is this just an exercise in futility?

O may have set a time frame on withdrawal from Iraq. Maybe it will work. Maybe not. I don't believe he set a time frame on withdrawal from A'stan.

[YardleyLabs]

Technically, by your logic Afghanistan should technically be Clinton's War because they were a threat and were planning the attack during his tenure. Iraq was Bush senior's war that has lasted thru 3 presidency's to date. The 4th president has promised to withdraw all the troops.

I think that the logic for calling Iraq and Afghanistan Bush's wars is that GWB is the one, as Commander in Chief, who decided to invade those countries. In the case of Afghanistan he did it with broad national and international support because of the clear role of Afghanistan in the 9/11 attacks.

In the case of Iraq, he did it without broad national or international support following substantive particular.g a massive and misleading propaganda campaign alleging conditions that proved to be false with respect to every There was nothing inevitable about either war and neither war would have happened without his direct commitment.

If you want equivalents, you could say that the first Gulf War was entirely based on decisions by Bush Sr. and that the war in Bosnia had its roots under Bush Sr. but was prosecuted by Clinton. You could say that the war in Kosuvo rested entirely on decisions made by Clinton. All of these disputes have roots that go back a long way. However, responsibility for the decisions made is pretty clear.