McCain Urges Obama to Decide on Troops

http://news.aol.com/article...ecide-on-more/740315

WASHINGTON (Oct. 27) -- Sen. John McCain called on President Barack Obama to make a decision quickly on sending additional troops to Afghanistan, saying U.S allies are nervous and military commanders are frustrated.

McCain said in a nationally broadcast interview Wednesday that the war policy in Afghanistan "has been reviewed time and again" and that it's now time to act.

Interviewed on CBS' "The Early Show," the Arizona Republican said the drawn-out decision-making process on Afghanistan "is not helpful to our effort" in the war-torn nation.

On Tuesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama will announce his next step "in the coming weeks," a phrase he has used before.
******************

President "Community Organizer" Obama was elected to lead this nation, I'm thinking he needs to start as Commander and Chief, leading.

Is that too much to ask?

Ron

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Is that too much to ask? Ron

Yes. It's hard to commit more troops to war when you campaign on full withdrawal in 9 months.

Either send more of us in or bring them all home.

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: Yes. It's hard to commit more troops to war when you campaign on full withdrawal in 9 months.

That was Iraq. He said that we should not have been fighting in Iraq, that we should have been fighting in Afghanistan. He palyed strong on defense with that lie.

I look for a policy change in Afghanistan, to moving back into the cities, hunkering down, and letting the countryside go to the Taliban.

At some point, the facade will be floated that the Afghans can handle their own security and all foreign troops will be withdrawn.

The whole country including the captol will fall to Taliban no later than 6 months after that withdrawal.

I think Obama is waiting for the Afghan runoff election to be decided. It wouldn't be wise to send in more troops and the new leader decides he wants all foreign troops out. Foreign troops already outnumber the Taliban by at least 10 to 1 so what difference will another 50,000 troops make in the overall friendlies to bad guys ratio? I am not an Obama fan nor am I a Bush backer but I'd hate to inherit the surging violence in Iraq and the neglected mess in Afghanistan. Bush kicked out the Taliban and ignored them for seven years while he chased windmills in Iraq. Michael Scheuer is the darling of the talk show circuit but his book "Marching Toward Hell" is a great read.

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: Yes. It's hard to commit more troops to war when you campaign on full withdrawal in 9 months.

Did you actually listen to what he campaigned on?
No, of course not. You probably voted for him.



He campaigned on pulling out of Iraq and sending more troops to Afghanistan. His mind seemed pretty made up on the campaign trail.

It's interesting that when nationalizing U.S. businesses or pushing sweeping reforms that transfer power from the private sector to the government it's an emergency and we cannot afford to wait - we must take action NOW!

... and when it's our troops in harms way, fighting and dying every day - he needs to mull things over for weeks at a time before making a decision whether to send them help or bring them home. Or maybe he'll just let them keep twisting in the wind. I mean, it's not like his delay is costing people their lives, right? Right. He's quick to say people are dying every day we delay health care reform.... but apparently that's not a problem with military actions.

What a moron.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 10-28-2009).]

Hello Im not a fan of his policy or lack of, but to be fair didnt he send in almost 15,000 troops a few months ago.

[This message has been edited by normsf (edited 10-28-2009).]

quote Originally posted by starlightcoupe: I think Obama is waiting for the Afghan runoff election to be decided. It wouldn't be wise to send in more troops and the new leader decides he wants all foreign troops out. Foreign troops already outnumber the Taliban by at least 10 to 1 so what difference will another 50,000 troops make in the overall friendlies to bad guys ratio? I am not an Obama fan nor am I a Bush backer but I'd hate to inherit the surging violence in Iraq and the neglected mess in Afghanistan. Bush kicked out the Taliban and ignored them for seven years while he chased windmills in Iraq. Michael Scheuer is the darling of the talk show circuit but his book "Marching Toward Hell" is a great read.

I though when he became president the violence in Iraq was at an all time low, and it has since then escalated back to pre-surge levels.
Does Michael's book say otherwise?
Just curious.

He is stalling - this indecision contorversy takes the focus off his fleecing of America - while we are all looking at Afghanistan, he is backdooring all his little projects through. He is a Magician - an expert on bait and switch - it's all smoke an mirrors - at what cost?

quote Originally posted by katatak: He is stalling - this indecision contorversy takes the focus off his fleecing of America - while we are all looking at Afghanistan, he is backdooring all his little projects through. He is a Magician - an expert on bait and switch - it's all smoke an mirrors - at what cost?

Dems don't like the military anyway. The longer he stalls, the fewer Republicans there are to vote in the next election.
No, I don't think that's why he's stalling. He's just enjoying the side benefit.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: I look for a policy change in Afghanistan, to moving back into the cities, hunkering down, and letting the countryside go to the Taliban. At some point, the facade will be floated that the Afghans can handle their own security and all foreign troops will be withdrawn. The whole country including the captol will fall to Taliban no later than 6 months after that withdrawal.

/\ I said that, but it would not surprise me at all to wake up one day in the next couple of weeks to hear all troops are being pulled out of Afghanistan--and maybe Iraq as well.

Well, if they're not going to be given the equipment and manpower to complete their mission, bring them home.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Well, if they're not going to be given the equipment and manpower to complete their mission, bring them home.

He keeps screwing around and I wouldn't blame them if they decided to come home on their own.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: He keeps screwing around and I wouldn't blame them if they decided to come home on their own.

Dammit Don.
Me, myself, I would definitley think about it. I was too young to appreciate the decisions of the draft dodgers. All I know is that I would not dessert my brothers in arms.
Hmm, as I said, I was too young, correct me if my thinking is flawed. The draft dodgers dodged because we were not there to kick azz.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Did you actually listen to what he campaigned on? No, of course not. You probably voted for him. He campaigned on pulling out of Iraq and sending more troops to Afghanistan. His mind seemed pretty made up on the campaign trail. It's interesting that when nationalizing U.S. businesses or pushing sweeping reforms that transfer power from the private sector to the government it's an emergency and we cannot afford to wait - we must take action NOW! ... and when it's our troops in harms way, fighting and dying every day - he needs to mull things over for weeks at a time before making a decision whether to send them help or bring them home. Or maybe he'll just let them keep twisting in the wind. I mean, it's not like his delay is costing people their lives, right? Right. He's quick to say people are dying every day we delay health care reform.... but apparently that's not a problem with military actions.

Very well said. The man was elected to lead.

One thing I know, you can lead, follow or get the hell out of the way but, as President, you had to ask for the job, you had to campaign and convince at least the majority of voters you could do the job.

Well, he won, now LEAD Damn IT or get the hell out of the way!

Ron

Interesting that he did a photo op yesterday, saluting dead Americans recently killed in Afghanistan. Me thinks he is setting up his decision to withdraw.

quote Originally posted by Formula88:

All I hear is campaign promises.... blah blah blah... Obama is waiting for the media to focus on something else, and then he will act.

J.

Apparently, Organizing a Community is somewhat easier than Commanding our Armed Forces and setting our foriegn policy. Hmm, who'd that thought that.

I personally know quite a few 08/09 Obama supporters that are kicking themselves now. Unfortunately, we're all paying the price for that decision.

Yeah, I'm not a fan.

Ron

quote Originally posted by partfiero: I though when he became president the violence in Iraq was at an all time low, and it has since then escalated back to pre-surge levels. Does Michael's book say otherwise? Just curious.

Scheuer, who describes himself as a Ronald Reagan Republican, mostly addressed Afghanistan in his book. He was CIA station chief for Afghanistan and when he went before the Senate (or was it the House???) intelligence committee, he brought reams of documents to show the situation was dire and to what extent Al Qaida had spread its influence. He was never called and the committee made its recommedations about Afghanistan to Bush based on their opinions and not facts.

When the minority Sunnis saw they couldn't defeat the Shiites in Iraq, they began to lay low and stopped confronting the "coalition" troops(meaning the US Army and Marines). Now that the mission is being turned over to the Iraqis, they are coming out of hiding and want to reestablish their former status.

The truth of the matter is that we dont' have enough troops to deploy to both Afghanistan and Iraq. The entire Army is smaller today than the number of troops in Vietnam when I was on my first tour in 1968. We are using the "back door draft" by activating and sending National Guard and Reserve troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. My tour in Vietnam was one year but thousands of soldiers have served multiple 15 month tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. The method they use to deploy entire units versus the individual replacement system we had in WWII, Korea and Vietnam is great for cohesiveness but is screwed up because every time a unit replaces another unit, they need three to four months to learn the mission and reestablish relations with the locals whom they need to depend upon to defeat the bad guys. The end result is that there is no consistency but the military is wedded to the unit replacement policy. But what do I know? I was only a sergeant.

I would like to believe that I am apolitical because I think both the Neocons and the knee jerk liberals are totally screwed up. We need to definitively adhere to some kind of consistent foreign policy because with a change of presidential leadership, our foreign policy changes. Remember that troops are our enforces of foreign policy and are deployed when our foreign policy has failed except in the case of Iraq. Bush, to me, was a disaster and obama isn't proving to be any different or any better. I constantly hear Lush, Insanity, etc say they want to ban the Democratic party and those idiots from the left such as Ed Schultz and company say the same about the Republicans. I have read similar posts here on this forum as well but I ask this question:Are you really advocating one party rule? Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Mao, Ho Chi Minh and the clown in Venezuela all wanted the same thing.

Getting back to the original post, I have ultimate respect for John McCain and voted for him in 2008. I am proud to say I voted for Daffy Duck as a write in candidate in 2004 to avoid making a choice between two losers.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: ... and when it's our troops in harms way, fighting and dying every day - he needs to mull things over for weeks at a time before making a decision whether to send them help or bring them home. Or maybe he'll just let them keep twisting in the wind. I mean, it's not like his delay is costing people their lives, right? Right. He's quick to say people are dying every day we delay health care reform.... but apparently that's not a problem with military actions. What a moron.

This waffling on Afghanistan is bad enough. Imagine if there were a real, immediate crisis or threat that pops up, one that needs a decision not in 2 months, but in 2 hours or even 2 minutes? How will our teleprompter-in-chief respond? Or will he just mull over the decision until the crisis solves itself?

quote Originally posted by starlightcoupe: Getting back to the original post .

Next time I'm out that way, I'd love to sit down over an Iced Tea and talk with you. Sergeants were, are and always will be the backbone of the military. What you know, think and feel probably represents more than you realize. We won't agree on everything but, you make a lot of sense.

Ron

Not making a decision...IS a decision.

Obama: "I'm mulling the options."

Reality: No. I'm not sending more troops. I MIGHT change my mind and send more troops.


Mulling options! Are there more troops over there RIGHT NOW? No. Then what was the decision?

"He never made one."

Yes, he did. Right now. The answer was no. Now it just remains to be seen whether SOMEhow, he is convinced to CHANGE his mind. But he isn't mulling over what decision to make. His mulling IS a no.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Not making a decision...IS a decision. Obama: "I'm mulling the options." Reality: No. I'm not sending more troops. I MIGHT change my mind and send more troops. Mulling options! Are there more troops over there RIGHT NOW? No. Then what was the decision? "He never made one." Yes, he did. Right now. The answer was no. Now it just remains to be seen whether SOMEhow, he is convinced to CHANGE his mind. But he isn't mulling over what decision to make. His mulling IS a no.

Agreed. He is trying quite desperately to not send any additional troops.

If a republican was in office the left would take to the streets about now. The Dems in office would be hammering for a decision, and claiming the war is lost.
Where is the new left, have they compromised their values in the name of saving a Democratic president.
They old left crucified both LBJ and Nixon as the war dragged.

The new left are just sheep, and BO is the herder.

Topic: McCain Urges Obama to Decide on Troops

of course - "no win" scenarios are fun to push
crap bagel or turd muffin - c'mon - bite one

Didn't Obama consult the Nobel Peace Prize Committee? How about France and Germany? Didn't he talk to them to find out what he should do? Maybe he should talk to the Hugo Chavez....

J.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: Topic: McCain Urges Obama to Decide on Troops of course - "no win" scenarios are fun to push crap bagel or turd muffin - c'mon - bite one

No thanks. Do you have any road apples?

He is stalling because he cant make his mind up without someone holding his hand through it. Its very simple. He says He "does not want to send troops into harms way". Well guess what numb nuts, their already there in harms way! Sitting on your ass and doing nothing is getting the troops that are there killed and in more danger. Their spread thin. By sending them more forces, your securing the AO and fortifying the troops there. Safety in numbers. Anyone who thinks siting around and waiting while our troops are fighting has their head up their ass and are ignorant to the facts of reality. The fact that the Democrats have the audacity to politicize the troops speaks volumes about their character. Remember when they were blocking the funding Bush was trying to get the troops to spite Bush? Another fine example of how they "support" the troops. It all party loyalty with these clowns.

Just listen to Kerry, "when you don't graduate high school, you end up in Iraq" remember? that's what they think of our troops. Speaking of Kerry, I was listening to him the other day rail on about how Mcchrystal, a General was wrong on his strategy. Nice to know shoot myself in the ass and claim a purple heart Kerry is so "knowledgeable" about War strategy. Listening to him talk about Afghanistan is like listening to an Ostrich Speak about standing tall in the face of danger.

[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 10-29-2009).]

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: Agreed. He is trying quite desperately to not send any additional troops.

Then man-up and SAY it.

HIS hand-picked general said he needs more troops to win. Obama SAID it was important to win.

If he doesn't send more troops, then Obama saying it was important to win was just talk.

Hmm. Obama just being all talk. Novel.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Your implication with your post is that McCain is just taking an easy political shot at Obama. That is false. McCain hasn't been that way on this issue, ever. And when he is urging Obama to decide, McCain HAS said what he means by that. He means he wants Obama to authorize the troops.

he's just being his usual trollish self--he can't help it.

The lack of resolve that he is showing is the most dangerous thing he could possibly be doing, or not doing! Our enemies are getting very excited, It is showing up an all fronts now.

I have really tried to give him the benefit of the doubt but this is getting beyond ridiculous. I wish he was giving the same attention to the economy.

Eh, lemme just say this.
Most of the soldiers I met have been to Iraq. I met a few that have been to Afghanistan too. However, I met more Iraq veterans than Afghanistan vets. My friend deployed to Afghanistan a year plus ago and he told me he had to move from one FOB to another because the Taliban overwhelmed the troops there. They had to evade.

My conclusion is that the Afghanistan war needs more troops. There have been increases and that is good. However, the president of Afghanistan, Sen. McCain, and Afghanistan commander says we need more troops. From my experience, I believe they need it. To much attention was given to Iraq. Iraq is okay now. There are some instances of terrorism in the country, but not as great as Afghanistan. I have been stationed and done a convoy in Iraq for 12 months. Nobody has gotten hurt at all.

Therefore, Obama should make the right decision and send more troops in Afghanistan. We have a job to do. We need to implement our counterinsurgency method and help the men and woman in Afghanistan protect their own. We can win the war.

I am all about liberalism and helping people, spending taxes and what not. However, the military thrives with a republican leader. I did not vote for Obama because I reenlisted in the Army. I knew what consequences can happen when a democratic leader is in charge. How do I know? All the retirees and experienced NCO's inform me. It makes sense to me. Obama has some good intentions in my opinion, but he needs to act, lead, and stop procrastinating.

my 2cents

quote Originally posted by ghost187x: Obama has some good intentions in my opinion, my 2cents

Your 2 cents are worth a lot. Thanks for posting.

Good intentions...well, you've seen what THOSE are worth.

quote Originally posted by ghost187x: but he needs to act, lead, and stop procrastinating. my 2cents

If, I said if, President Obama had any real commitment to winning this war, he would have placed this issue infront of most of the other items on his agenda.
Some times when you're the leader, you have to make some hard decisions you don't like making but, they have to be made.
But, it's more important to this President to get his social agenda passed before the next election so, guess what, the people (military) he has maintained in harm's way are paying the price. Yeah, I'm not a fan.

BTW, thanks for serving our country.

Ron

quote Originally posted by blackrams: If, I said if, President Obama had any real commitment to winning this war, he would have placed this issue infront of most of the other items on his agenda. Some times when you're the leader, you have to make some hard decisions you don't like making but, they have to be made. But, it's more important to this President to get his social agenda passed before the next election so, guess what, the people (military) he has maintained in harm's way are paying the price. Yeah, I'm not a fan. BTW, thanks for serving our country. Ron

can you describe what would actually constitute "winning" this war?
is it even a war?

quote Originally posted by ghost187x: We have a job to do. We can win the war. I did not vote for Obama because I reenlisted in the Army. I knew what consequences can happen when a democratic leader is in charge. my 2cents

The most important points in this thread. BTW thank you for serving our country, especially during wartime.

I can't. But the general in Afghanistan apparently can. (I don't know how he is defining it.) And since he is the one "on the ground", I'd let him make the call.

Well, he MADE the call. And as I recall of the campaign, Obama said it was important to win.


So, yeah, it is an interesting conversation as to what constitutes a win. But regardless, within the parameters of this thread, it is moot because THEY have some sort of working definition, McChrystal is telling Obama what it will take, and Obama is...mulling.

a win is kicking the living crap out of them, and from then on keeping terror activity suppressed. There will not be a win in the traditional sense. This is a war on ideology, Wahabi Islam vs the West. This is like the "war on crime" or the "war on disease". It is a philosophical war that will continue. Radical Islam through the means of technology has reached a place in history where distance, oceans, and communication are no longer safe barriers. They are trying to spread their will through violence, and technology is a force multiplier. Because of this, we will have to fight this as a common place problem. The same as cops fight crime in the street. I don't go on patrol expecting to win and eradicate crime for good. It only suppresses it.

People are looking at the terror issue wrong. We now have world criminals who wish to do harm to all that do not conform to their ideology. They wish the world to operate under Sharia law. If the world does not wake up, we will only see more mass killings from terror attacks. Allies must come together to combat terror as a world criminal element. And fight it at all cost. Much like the British did to eradicate piracy on the open seas in the past. As soon as people realize this is never going to be over, the sooner we can get back to the mission at hand. Killing terrorists and suppressing their power.

If we don't fight them, we will only have more 9/11's. So....its fight back, or terror attacks will come unchallenged. I know the liberal never have the stomach for a fight, but this is the world we live in. Without protection of the warrior, the pacifist would be extinct.

[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 10-29-2009).]