Obama's Afghan Hesitation Makes No Sense...

[packerconvert]

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – Despite Republican pressure to act quickly, President Barack Obama says he won't rush his decision about whether to send more troops to Afghanistan where 14 Americans died in the deadliest day for U.S. forces in more than four years.

"While I will never hesitate to use force to protect the American people or our vital interests, I also promise you this — and this is very important as we consider our next steps in Afghanistan: I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm's way," Obama said Monday during a visit to Naval Air Station Jacksonville. "I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary."

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_troops

Obama's rhetoric is inconsistent.

Isn't he putting American lives at risk by not sending more troops?

A rising American death toll in Afghanistan, I feel, falls under the "absolutely necessary" column of sending more troops

That fact alone would force most leaders to act, but I understand Obama is not like most leaders. He's special and unique endowed by greater power and wisdom than those who occupied the Presidency before him.

[TW]

Excuse me if I have a smirk on my face. I don't understand your logic.

Obama will be sending in more troops, but he's looking to get more of an involvement from our allies instead of it just being American troops.

I really get tired of righties being more than willing to throw thousands and thousands of young Americans in harms way.

Will we increase the numbers? Yes. But how much of an increase should we make, and our allies make?

[TMWight]

Maybe we should ask W why a decision just like this sat on his desk and the vice-president's desk for more than 8 months. Obama has had this on his desk maybe less then a month?

[packerconvert]

Obama has had this on his desk since he took office.

For TW: So much for listening to Generals aye? McCrystal will probably be replaced. I also find it ironic that NOW it's NATO's war(something I have been saying for the last two years in futility

[TW]

You're just looking for "anything" to piss and moan about. If he stepped in, and sent the troops McChrtystal sees as necessary, without trying to invoke aid from our allies, you'd be off and ripping him because he did it.

Face facts. No matter what he does, you're opposed, because you simply do not like him.

If I thought for a moment your position was valid, I'd agree with you.

[packerconvert]

Myopic memory? Cripes, this sight barely had enough bandwith to keep up with the numerous bitching and moaning posts about Bush, now you want to dismiss my concern to a "bytche and moan."

Obama comitted to Afghanistan long before his inauguration. Shouldn't we hold him to his committment or should we let him stay the course?

[TW]

Committing doesn't necessarily mean rushing another 60,000 troops in there.

[packerconvert]

I agree, but it also doesn't mean sitting on one's hands while our troops are being picked off on foreign soil. Perhaps Obama shouldn't be so focused on Iraq and start focusing on winning the war in Afghanistan.

[packerconvert]

Keep on thinking Obama...you schlub!

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091027/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

[amoeba15]

Schumer: True cost of Afghan stability could be too high for America

The true cost of bringing stability to Afghanistan might simply be too high, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on Tuesday morning.

"It cost us $6 trillion and 4,500 lives, approximately, to bring stability to Iraq," Schumer told MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "Just in terms of the loss of life and treasure, do we want to do the same exercise in Afghanistan?"

Schumer said the U.S. might be able to keep itself safe without bringing stability to Afghanistan. Many lawmakers and analysts think that a destablizied Afghanistan would breed terrorism, but Schumer suggested counterterrorism efforts might contain the threat.

"If we can accomplish the first part — protecting ourselves from terrorism — without bringing stability to Afghanistan, which I think is a very long, expensive and iffy process, we should try to do it," Schumer said.

Schumer suggested the U.S. might scale back its military presence in Afghanistan and rely more heavily on unmanned drone attacks.

thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/64937-schumer-stability-in-afghanistan-isnt-a-must

[gopackgo2000]

Oct 27, 2009 21:54:15 GMT -5 @amoeba15 said:

Schumer: True cost of Afghan stability could be too high for America

The true cost of bringing stability to Afghanistan might simply be too high, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on Tuesday morning.

"It cost us $6 trillion and 4,500 lives, approximately, to bring stability to Iraq," Schumer told MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "Just in terms of the loss of life and treasure, do we want to do the same exercise in Afghanistan?"

Schumer said the U.S. might be able to keep itself safe without bringing stability to Afghanistan. Many lawmakers and analysts think that a destablizied Afghanistan would breed terrorism, but Schumer suggested counterterrorism efforts might contain the threat.

"If we can accomplish the first part — protecting ourselves from terrorism — without bringing stability to Afghanistan, which I think is a very long, expensive and iffy process, we should try to do it," Schumer said.

Schumer suggested the U.S. might scale back its military presence in Afghanistan and rely more heavily on unmanned drone attacks.

thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/64937-schumer-stability-in-afghanistan-isnt-a-must

That is fine. If that is what they want then just do it! Bring our boys home and let the unmanned aircraft bomb the bombers!!! Just do something is what I say!! If you stay you have to support them! If you provide no more support you might as well bring them home.

[packerconvert]

Agree with gopack. Schumers response is typical. As long as his HDTV works and he has chicken pot pies in the oven...life is good.

[packerconvert]

So much for listening to your Generals on the ground. The great and all-knowing politician is thinking about going with a plan that would have less troops.

[TMWight]

Oct 27, 2009 15:36:17 GMT -5 packerconvert said:

Obama has had this on his desk since he took office.

For TW: So much for listening to Generals aye? McCrystal will probably be replaced. I also find it ironic that NOW it's NATO's war(something I have been saying for the last two years in futility

This new decision to send in more troops has been on his desk for less than a month, that's what I was referring to.

[packerconvert]

Oh..you mean after Obama's new shiny and aggressive approach to win Afghanistan in April was implemented.

Gotcha. Thanks.