How do we win in Afghanistan?

[volsarelife1]

You might be right.

But the alternative seems to be to make Afghanistan a permanent ward of the US.

If only Obama had followed through with his campaign, maybe we wouldn't still be there.

 

[Grand Vol]

I've seen it now.

Other than the timeframe, it was exactly the same speech Obama gave.

It's confusing. It's unclear. It's vague. It has no point. It identifies no goal. It describes no plan.

It's just word salad. Total nothing burger. And now it's Trump's nothing burger.

Good grief, just STFU.

 

[Zetter]

I've seen it now.

Other than the timeframe, it was exactly the same speech Obama gave.
It's confusing. It's unclear. It's vague. It has no point. It identifies no goal. It describes no plan.

It's just word salad. Total nothing burger. And now it's Trump's nothing burger.

It's confusing. It's unclear. It's vague. It has no point. It identifies no goal. It describes no plan.







I think that was the point of his speech. How this continues to go over your head is pretty amazing.

 

[hog88]

Ok.

From what you are saying, trump basically said it sucks. What we've done hasn't worked. We will send some more troops. We will have some conditions.

We don't know what they are yet.

This is not anti Trump. This is me saying fine, if you want to say we will have a b c goals in order to leave. But we need to know the goals.

Sounds to me like he punted on the issue of what the goals are. Which is the key.

You, the public and especially the enemy do not need to know what the specific goals and conditions are. That's the same as telling them the day we will be leaving.

 

[Grand Vol]

I don't have one. Never claimed I did. A couple of years ago Trump said he knows more than the generals and we need to leave Afghanistan. Now he's saying we have some sort of plan, maybe, and we'd like others to help us (duh), and just more of the same.

As far as I can tell, no one in the administration including the generals really is willing to say the obvious: there's no such thing as being "finished" in Afghanistan.

Here's a pretty good summation even though it's ABC news:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trum...ase-us-presence-afghanistan/story?id=49333734

And a key point?

"My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like following my instincts," said Trump Monday night. "But all of my life I heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office."

That's about as close as you're going to get to him admitting he was wrong and had his mind changed.

 

[hog88]

Here's a pretty good summation even though it's ABC news:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trum...ase-us-presence-afghanistan/story?id=49333734

And a key point?



That's about as close as you're going to get to him admitting he was wrong and had his mind changed.

Probably the most "Presidential" thing I've ever heard him say.

 

[Grand Vol]

You, the public and especially the enemy do not need to know what the specific goals and conditions are. That's the same as telling them the day we will be leaving.

LG tried to say up front he wasn't going to make a partisan anti-Trump spin on his comments and questions. But what does he do?

Makes it partisan and anti-Trump from the start. Typical LG...

I support getting the eff out as soon as humanly possible, but I did like hearing Pakistan was on notice from last night. And I liked the fact he didn't say we would be nation building any longer (that's a failed strategy of both previous Administrations). But most importantly, I liked the fact he is taking the WH out of tactical decision making and slipping the leash on our commanders over there.

We'll see what comes down from this.

 

[lawgator1]

LG tried to say up front he wasn't going to make a partisan anti-Trump spin on his comments and questions. But what does he do?

Makes it partisan and anti-Trump from the start. Typical LG...

I support getting the eff out as soon as humanly possible, but I did like hearing Pakistan was on notice from last night. And I liked the fact he didn't say we would be nation building any longer (that's a failed strategy of both previous Administrations). But most importantly, I liked the fact he is taking the WH out of tactical decision making and slipping the leash on our commanders over there.

We'll see what comes down from this.

You can't change it from being the quagmire that it is. No one can.

 

[SWIL]

How do we "win"? We leave.

 

[Grand Vol]

You can't change it from being the quagmire that it is. No one can.

You also can't change the fact he put Pakistan on public notice last night that it cannot continue to harbor terrorists killing American Service Members.

And to pour salt into the wound, he invoked getting India's help in resolving the problems. That's like smacking Pakistan in the face then following up with a shin kick.

And you still missed the most important reversal of US policy in probably the last 60 years of not nation building in the aftermath of a military conflict. That's huge, yet you completely gloss over it.

Of course, your heroine and idol Pelosi goes full partisan just like you did. Especially in light of things like this:

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/166843-pelosi-backs-obama-on-libya

And this Administration?

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/3...ongressional-scrutiny-after-saber-rattling-on

While saying Trump has no strategy on Afghanistan. Which pretty much says Mattis, Tillerson, Dunford and McMaster have no strategy on Afghanistan. But that's perfectly okay since your Golden Calf had no strategy, but you didn't whine about it that I recall.

So, do try to stop being a partisan **** and actually revisit this in three years during the next election cycle. I trust the National Security Council to give him good advice. You should too since it's no longer filled with political hacks that have no idea how to run a military.

 

[lawgator1]

You also can't change the fact he put Pakistan on public notice last night that it cannot continue to harbor terrorists killing American Service Members.

And to pour salt into the wound, he invoked getting India's help in resolving the problems. That's like smacking Pakistan in the face then following up with a shin kick.

And you still missed the most important reversal of US policy in probably the last 60 years of not nation building in the aftermath of a military conflict. That's huge, yet you completely gloss over it.

Of course, your heroine and idol Pelosi goes full partisan just like you did. Especially in light of things like this:

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/166843-pelosi-backs-obama-on-libya

And this Administration?

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/3...ongressional-scrutiny-after-saber-rattling-on

While saying Trump has no strategy on Afghanistan. Which pretty much says Mattis, Tillerson, Dunford and McMaster have no strategy on Afghanistan. But that's perfectly okay since your Golden Calf had no strategy, but you didn't whine about it that I recall.

So, do try to stop being a partisan **** and actually revisit this in three years during the next election cycle. I trust the National Security Council to give him good advice. You should too since it's no longer filled with political hacks that have no idea how to run a military.

Naive. You think that because Trump utters the words "no nation building" that that means something new is afoot. No it isn't.

Tell me, how are we going to get to this magical point where there can be political discussions and a resolution unless we are building a nation there? A strong government, capable of controlling its own territory. Capable of dealing with insurgencies and in particular radical Islamic terrorist cells, be the Taliban or something else.

Grow up, it's all the same. It's still nation-building. Trump just heard that phrase repeated to him a whole bunch over the weekend, he has no idea what it means, and he's just reading it off of a teleprompter.

If you were right, and this was a meaningful change, then what are the conditions that will spell success that aren't some form of nation-building?

 

[golfballs]

This aged well
[twitter]https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/301525664178245632[/twitter]
[twitter]https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/256576278818353152[/twitter]

 

[lawgator1]

This aged well
[twitter]https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/301525664178245632[/twitter]
[twitter]https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/256576278818353152[/twitter]

I really don't think you want to compare presidential tweets on Afghanistan right now.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Here's a pretty good summation even though it's ABC news:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trum...ase-us-presence-afghanistan/story?id=49333734

And a key point?



That's about as close as you're going to get to him admitting he was wrong and had his mind changed.

Always pull out...

 

[golfballs]

I really don't think you want to compare presidential tweets on Afghanistan right now.

oh yeah?

 

[Grand Vol]

oh yeah?

No, this is one LG is correct on.

 

[lawgator1]

oh yeah?

Trump's prior tweets on the subject could not have been clearer. Last night, he tried to pass that off as, well, now I'm sitting in the chair and so I have a different perspective. GV tries to give him credit for admitting he was wrong.

What Donald "I know more than the generals do" Trump SHOULD have said, if he was being honest, is that when he sent out those tweets before he was talking out his azz and his arrogance is catching up to him.

 

[Grand Vol]

Naive. You think that because Trump utters the words "no nation building" that that means something new is afoot. No it isn't.

Tell me, how are we going to get to this magical point where there can be political discussions and a resolution unless we are building a nation there? A strong government, capable of controlling its own territory. Capable of dealing with insurgencies and in particular radical Islamic terrorist cells, be the Taliban or something else.

Grow up, it's all the same. It's still nation-building. Trump just heard that phrase repeated to him a whole bunch over the weekend, he has no idea what it means, and he's just reading it off of a teleprompter.

If you were right, and this was a meaningful change, then what are the conditions that will spell success that aren't some form of nation-building?

No, I applaud a new Administration for a somewhat new direction on Afghanistan as well as calling out our so called "allies" in the region. I might even be saying the same thing if Hillary were President. I still, repeating this because you can't read, think we should run at the first available opportunity, but if we are putting the bulk of forming a government on the Afghani people, this is a bad thing? If they decide to make the Taliban part of the peace process or new government, we really cannot say dick about it since our policy is no longer "nation building." If the Afghani government plays that card, it gives Trump the excuse to depart like he wants to. We'll see how it works.

And furthermore, if going on the direct offensive against the Taliban and it brings them back to the negotiating table, this is another bad thing? Remember, the Surge in Iraq worked until we set a clear timeline for departure (something missing here) and the insurgents waited us out. Key ingredient missing here? An arbitrary timetable that gives them a clear "let's wait it out" period.

I will say lol at grow up. I wasn't the one acting like a child last night nor am I the one acting childish over the fact this is Trump's direction. You certainly didn't complain about Afghanistan when Obama was in office, but suddenly the paradigm changes because it's Trump? Get real.

 

[lawgator1]

No, I applaud a new Administration for a somewhat new direction on Afghanistan as well as calling out our so called "allies" in the region. I might even be saying the same thing if Hillary were President. I still, repeating this because you can't read, think we should run at the first available opportunity, but if we are putting the bulk of forming a government on the Afghani people, this is a bad thing? If they decide to make the Taliban part of the peace process or new government, we really cannot say dick about it since our policy is no longer "nation building." If the Afghani government plays that card, it gives Trump the excuse to depart like he wants to. We'll see how it works.

And furthermore, if going on the direct offensive against the Taliban and it brings them back to the negotiating table, this is another bad thing? Remember, the Surge in Iraq worked until we set a clear timeline for departure (something missing here) and the insurgents waited us out. Key ingredient missing here? An arbitrary timetable that gives them a clear "let's wait it out" period.

I will say lol at grow up. I wasn't the one acting like a child last night nor am I the one acting childish over the fact this is Trump's direction. You certainly didn't complain about Afghanistan when Obama was in office, but suddenly the paradigm changes because it's Trump? Get real.

I have no problem with calling out Pakistan for harboring the enemy. I guess I just don't put as much stock in that as you seem to that it is going to make a difference in the quagmire of Afghanistan.

 

[golfballs]

Trump's prior tweets on the subject could not have been clearer. Last night, he tried to pass that off as, well, now I'm sitting in the chair and so I have a different perspective. GV tries to give him credit for admitting he was wrong.

What Donald "I know more than the generals do" Trump SHOULD have said, if he was being honest, is that when he sent out those tweets before he was talking out his azz and his arrogance is catching up to him.

Presidential tweets?

Obama said definitevely as President we'd be out in '14.

 

[Mick]

I have no problem with calling out Pakistan for harboring the enemy. I guess I just don't put as much stock in that as you seem to that it is going to make a difference in the quagmire of Afghanistan.

Looks like Trump is rolling with his negotiating abilities in order to get cooperation. We'll see.

 

[lawgator1]

Presidential tweets?

Obama said definitevely as President we'd be out in '14.

And Trump said a half dozen times we should get out immediately.

He changed his mind when he learned the consequences. Now, you can decide whether the consequences he wanted to avoid were 1) don't leave because then the Taliban takes over, or 2) don't leave because then politically you are the president who is viewed as having surrendered and given up.

My money is 25 percent the former, 75 percent the latter.

 

[golfballs]

And Trump said a half dozen times we should get out immediately.

He changed his mind when he learned the consequences. Now, you can decide whether the consequences he wanted to avoid were 1) don't leave because then the Taliban takes over, or 2) don't leave because then politically you are the president who is viewed as having surrendered and given up.

My money is 25 percent the former, 75 percent the latter.

Clearly he changed when informed of the situation. Obama was informed in '12 and '13 - after an entire term as President - what the situation was, and he uniquivocally proclaimed we would be out.

I think Trump looks dumb now, but at least he isn't stupid AND dishonest like Obama.

 

[Grand Vol]

I have no problem with calling out Pakistan for harboring the enemy. I guess I just don't put as much stock in that as you seem to that it is going to make a difference in the quagmire of Afghanistan.

It's giving us an easier out. Again, there is no reason we should be shouldering the load at this point. If, let's what if, six months to a year from now no progress has been made. Do you think the DoD can still hang onto the "just a little more time" theory with a POTUS that wants to be out per his statements last night? No, it gives us an excuse to GTFO and let them sort it out.

And you should be glad we're calling out Pakistan. We drop $18 billion a year in foreign aid to Pakistan. Drop in the bucket, budget wise, but still money we don't have to send to prop up a government that's harboring terrorists like Bin Laden.

Last, but certainly not least, you should be extremely happy we aren't into doing the nation building thing. If Trump was smart (and he's smarter than you give him credit for) he would have his staff come up with a 21st Century equivalent to the Marshall Plan. Loans (stress the loans), lines of credit, technical assistance, etc. But make these nations do the building/rebuilding themselves. Obviously the KBR route hasn't worked as it does little more than breed resentment, so do something that's worked before.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

And Trump said a half dozen times we should get out immediately.

He changed his mind when he learned the consequences. Now, you can decide whether the consequences he wanted to avoid were 1) don't leave because then the Taliban takes over, or 2) don't leave because then politically you are the president who is viewed as having surrendered and given up.

My money is 25 percent the former, 75 percent the latter.

I would rather be the president labeled as surrendering and giving up than one foolhardy enough to keep throwing money and lives down a bottomless pit.

How can you lose something you can't win?