Obama says he will not rush Afghanistan decision

Either Obama has no clear vision or lacks direction/policy in Afghanistan. Is it due to relations with Bush's close ally Pakistan?

Cheney: "The White House must stop dithering while America's armed forces are in danger."

Exactly, exactly.

Waves of boisterous cheers greeted the president. Obama noted that representatives of all America’s military services attended the gathering.

Exactly, exactly.

Besides, Mr Obama is busy taking on the Murdoch boys at Fox! Afghanistan can wait another 10 months.

Websters defines dithering as:

2 : to act nervously or indecisively : vacillate

Maybe if cheney and bush had dithered about there "Slam Dunk" facts and not left the war in Afghanistan, then we might have all these troops home now.

Pentagon: Taliban is defeated but war not over

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/10/pentagon-taliban.htm

Maybe they should have taken a little more time to think these things out. 8 years we've been fighting this war. Another week or two to do it right can't hurt. < :-)

When Obama's need to make hard decision; he blames Bush instead. The white house knows how to stage the sound bites, but to stage the terrain in Afghanistan is very much in doubt. Initially, Biden wanted to divide Iraq into three; and now he wants to divide the war in Afghanistan between Al Queda and Taliban? What is he going to divide next, himself? Brilliant.

I think I hear more whining from the republicans about why Barack Obama hasn't fixed Afghanistan, then I ever heard from the republicans to bush to fix it. You boys sat back and supported bush's stupid decisions to attack Iraq and take the troops out of Afghanistan and forfeit American lives. Now Obama has to fix what went wrong for 8 years.

Obama will fix it, but not to the republicans time table. < :-)

Obama's too busy worrying about his drop in the polls to be bothered with making an actual decision about Afghanistan.

Right Obama's just petrified. < :-)

If cheney says to do something, chances are the exact opposite is the correct action.

Bgood41:

" When Obama's need to make hard decision; he blames Bush instead "

Exactly! I have been wondering how long the press will let him get away with that. Given the ideological leaning of the media, for 8 years?

Tell me I am dreaming.

Hey, USAFdude - Tell us, why hasn't the Ditherer in Chief committed the additional forces our commanders on the ground and our defense secretary have said our troops need?

Making a decision on Afghanistan will cut into Obama's time set aside for shooting hoops or lowering his golf handicap. He's all about priorities, don'cha know.

Hey "Sarge - Because he doesn't blindly jump into decisions. We who actually serve the US appreciate that mindset as opposed to the lethal policies of his predecessor. That's kinda why we helped elect him.

Tell me, "Sarge", how many generals has President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama fired for saying what they believed?

Obama will fix it, but not to the republicans time table.

Exactly, exactly. Don't you worry your pretty li'l head, "Sarge"; we're ready to protect you now and we will be when the Commander-in-Chief gives the order regarding Afghanistan.

Obama is making a big mistake complaining about what a mess he was left with. You asked for the job, you took the job all on the pretences that you would fix it. Let one employee ever come up to me and continue using the last guy's awful job as the reason why NOTHING is fixed, in fact, worse, he is fired and I'd probably go as far as smacking him once he's outside.

does Cheney need to shut up? Well, he is now a private citizen and can say what ever he wants. The best thing would have to just simply shrug him off and ignore whatever he had to say.

Again, "Now Obama has to fix what went wrong for 8 years" are you promising me I'll make more money under Obama than I did under Bush? That's what matters to me. Do you promise us that there will finally be transparency - cause we sure as heck ain't seeing that and don't give me the Bush crap. He doesn't matter!

USAFdude,

Tell me, "Sarge", how many generals has President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama fired for saying what they believed?

Well he can't fire this General. He was already fired by Bush.

By the way here is what he said about Obama and his dithering on Afghanistan.

Curious it only Cheney the Main Stream Media is quoting and ignoring this guy now isn't it?

Anthony Zinni stepped up his call for the Obama administration to quit dillydallying and send more troops to Afghanistan to fight the insurgency.

A counterinsurgency strategy, he said, would work better over the long run than continuing narrower counterterrorism operations that target Taliban and al Qaeda leaders.

The retired Marine Corps general, who had been the top commander in the Middle East and Central Asia, said the Obama administration needs more forces in Afghanistan quickly. Zinni said his own son was among the troops waiting to be deployed, adding: “I think that we owe them a decision. For the life of me, I can’t figure out why we’re still waiting for one.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/26/zinni-to-obama-times-up-on-afghanistan-decision/

Bgood41: "When Obama's need to make hard decision; he blames Bush instead."

Where have you been since the November election?!? Since THE DAY Obama was elected Republicans have actually been blaming HIM for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with a few posters even suggesting the ridiculous notion that Obama actually STARTED the wars! In other words, the people pointing the most fingers are the people who dealt out this mess to begin with. In a way it's hard to blame them -- no one really WANTS to be responsible for the messes they make, and in the case of the GOP/Repubs they are all the more eager to shift the focus and the blame to their most feared enemy.

sarge: "Tell us, why hasn't the Ditherer in Chief committed the additional forces our commanders on the ground and our defense secretary have said our troops need?"

What are you, four years old? Your lame attempts at name calling aside, Obama has not DECIDED to commit the troops or not because he is going to decide what's best, and take his time doing it -- as ANY serious decision should be taken. Keep in mind that a big reason for the Republicans being slaughtered in the last election is their poor decision making and handling of things in Iraq/Afghanistan. So just because cheney wants to extend that from 'out of harm's way' doesn't make him any less stupid or wrong; it proves Obama is more correct in taking time to mull over the options. Just because you're in denial that doesn't mean it's not so.

Smith,

I guess Former General Zinni is now stupid and wrong also along with Cheney.

The retired Marine Corps general, who had been the top commander in the Middle East and Central Asia, said the Obama administration needs more forces in Afghanistan quickly. Zinni said his own son was among the troops waiting to be deployed, adding: “I think that we owe them a decision. For the life of me, I can’t figure out why we’re still waiting for one.”

2 great Sailwind posts there. Back of the net. Mr Smithiejapan gets his brains handed to him on a platter!

sailwind: "I guess Former General Zinni is now stupid and wrong also along with Cheney."

If he rushed into two wars, one based entirely on lies, and now has the gall to say the president is dithering for his own mess, then yes, he is. My guess is that those generals did not start the wars, though. Can you clarify?

"said the Obama administration needs more forces in Afghanistan quickly..."

That's not quite the 'dithering' and other such drivel that cheney spewed forth, now is it.

"Zinni said his own son was among the troops waiting to be deployed, adding: “I think that we owe them a decision. For the life of me, I can’t figure out why we’re still waiting for one.”'

Ah, so cheney's also a general who has served, and has a kid in the military, eh?

In other words, me calling cheney a dimwitted old fool is not calling the generals such. I have respect for some of the generals on the ground. But hey, this is sailwind we're talking about -- a man who needs to lump everything together into absolute black and white simplicities. Regardless, the generals still have to wait for Obama to make a decision, and he is right in taking his time.

skipthesong: "...I'd probably go as far as smacking him once he's outside."

And you'd face a lawsuit for the stupidity of what you did.

"...are you promising me I'll make more money under Obama than I did under Bush? That's what matters to me."

So why not keep your posts to the business section of JT? This is about committing or not committing troops to Afghanistan, and the president taking his time to do so. It's not about whether or not the President will make YOU money, and likewise you're support based on such personally motivated criteria. The only way this would have any relevance to your reason for supporting a president would be if he did commit to sending more troops, or decided against it, and it made you a lot of money, or you lost a lot of money.

Pretty shallow reasons for supporting a president's decisions on committing more troops, and those troops or the troops already there dying, if you ask me.

As for saying things like, "bush doesn't matter", you're right about that in terms of the man's existence, but not in terms of the decisions that led to the wars in the first place, if we are not to repeat the mistakes made by the former government. Obama is deciding to THINK about it, which can be easily contrasted by the mistake in NOT thinking about it by his predecessor. One must look at history to avoid repeating the same mistakes, no?

This " Wait until after a run off election" is a load of crap. BOTH candidates have called for mare troops. Obama is incapable of making an executive decision. He needs to appoint "Czars" to make all the calls for him.

But, but, but ... didn't Obama say on the campaign trail that the war in Afghanistan was absolutely necessary?

Looks like Obama is gonna cut and run in Afghanistan as well as Iraq.

The evil doers always win on the DEms wtach, just like with Carter and Clinton.

Shame we don`t have a military man running our great nation.

If it is necessary, Obama added, “we will back you up to the hilt.”" Ok, then back the guys that are already there, sent there by a government you NOW represent. Backing them should either be removing them or giving them what is being asked.

I see smitty is back to name calling again. "The only way this would have any relevance to your reason for supporting a president would be if he did commit to sending more troops, or decided against it, and it made you a lot of money, or you lost a lot of money." No, my statement was in response to another poster's statement! We closing in on a year now. I see nothing moving in the right direction except a better looking guy leading us.

And then this: "“By being here, you join a long, unbroken line of service at Jacksonville—naval aviators from World War II to Korea to Vietnam, among them a great patriot named John McCain,” he said." Oh come on. Enough with the butt kissing. John McCain needs to fade away too!

skipthesong: "...I'd probably go as far as smacking him once he's outside." And you'd face a lawsuit for the stupidity of what you did. " And then I'd slap in the head again!

Dick Morris:Shame we don`t have a military man running our great nation." As far back as I can remember, I don't recall a military man running the country. In fact, the only president in my life that had military experience was Carter.... and I think Bush Sr. were in for a very small amount of time. Who would you be referring to?

The war-monger democrats will not stop until the whole world is conquered and appropriately taxed. Bow-down to the Obama-god and pledge your allegiance -or be crushed. The Obama-god has spoken.

The war-monger democrats will not stop until the whole world is conquered and appropriately taxed. Bow-down to the Obama-god and pledge your allegiance -or be crushed. The Obama-god has spoken.

HAHAHA

The fundamental problem w/ Afghanistan is that there is no definable target - it is a decentralized grouping of well versed fighters. Anyone taking a glance at the Soviet experience can see that w/ some modern armaments, the warlords can seriously hit and evade a much more powerful force. The battles the US can win, but the crux of the problem is the warlords can fight indefinitely, draining the resources of the US. Without a clear, accountable strategy, it behooves the Obama Administration to take a serious look at all possible options w/ an exit strategy. The US would be in serious trouble if this operation extends indefinitely.

I can see effective tactics in Afghanistan, but I am already in enough hot water. Not my field of research.

DickMorris:

" But, but, but ... didn't Obama say on the campaign trail that the war in Afghanistan was absolutely necessary? "

That was on the campaign trail. On the campaign trail he also promised there would be no partisanship, no porky earmarks, an honest discussion with the opponents of his health care plan and so on and so on.

That was then and this is now.

Wait til the next election season for the next batch of great-sounding lies.

Jimmy Carter redux.

Obama says he will not rush Afghanistan decision

It's obviously above his pay grade.

Jimmy Carter redux

Obama and his F-Troop is making Carter look like a brilliant military tactician.

Obama and his F-Troop is making Carter look like a brilliant military tactician.

Actually Jimmy Carter's Afghanistan strategy worked out quite well if I remember correctly...

I don't recall a military man running the country

Actually, skip, nearly every U.S. president since FDR has worn the uniform of our U.S. military. The only two are, of course, democrats: Clinton and the community organizer.

Actually, skip, nearly every U.S. president since FDR has worn the uniform of our U.S. military. The only two are, of course, democrats: Clinton and the community organizer.

Reagan and GWB's service barely qualifies them for military service in my book.

Romeo, a person who "has worn the uniform" is a far cry from a "military man." First off, I don't think anyone can seriously call Regan, Bush Jr., or Carter a "military man" although each technically donned a uniform for the country. Doesn't someone have to at least see combat to earn the "military man" title? BTW, John Adams didn't serve either so I don't think failing to serve is a negative reflection on a President.

There is absolutely nothing that Barack Obama can do that will ever make him look as stupid as george bush and dick cheney. It takes nothing to start wars. It takes no brains to stay the course for 6 years. But we'll see the republicans whine that Obama rush in and make a decision that will effect 1000s of American lives.

bush/cheney didn't think about these troops when they lied to start the war, but the republicans whine like cheney when Obama doesn't decide fast enough.

bush/cheney are traitors who should be charged with crimes against humanity. < :-)

Um, daydream, it's been 10 months since Obama took office. I think the "rush in" and make decisions window is pretty much sealed shut at this point.

My guess is that he's waiting for the run-off, but he can't really say it. If he does then it looks like he has 2 different plans depending on who wins (which probably is the case), at which point it looks like he's influencing the elections. But in reality I don't know. Karzai is going to win anyway, but by waiting this long to make a decision he's forced to wait even longer since the recent election was tainted. If the writing was on the wall that Karzai was going to stay then he should have had a plan in place earlier which would have made the election a slam dunk.

But he didn't....and you don't have to be a Bible-thumping GW supporting redneck Republican to ask why. It's a reasonable question, and I'm sure I'm not the only Democrat asking.

Not making a decision is called indecision. So we have a president who can't make a decision. Not my words, Obama's words...

The troops that were authorized earlier this year have just now gotten into country. It takes time to get these actions completed. He's already sent in troops and he made that decision fairly quick. Now when he's taking a little more time to consider the circumstances and situation he's being hounded to act faster.

I don't think he's waiting for the run off. That's still going to take several weeks to get done. Just my take.

bush/cheney acted fast and make mistakes that can never be retracted. < :-)

It is a weird feeling for the president takes that long to think about making this important decision..and still thinking, thinking, no conclusion yet. On one hand he may be super careful , on another hand he may simply confuse, not knowing exactly what to do. This is a long war, with no end insight; and America is usually good at short ,massive war where massive power is required ; and Obama is no military man.No wonder it takes so long even with so many advices from McChrystal ,McCain, Joe Biden...

President Obama is extremely astute to delay any decision about sending more troops until the dust has cleared with the Afghan political situation. The greatest growth in violent factions within the country have been among the Pashtun ethnic group who have been increasingly opposed to the corruption of the Karzai government.

Fareed Zakaria of CNN conducted an interview this past week with President Karzai in which he confronted Karzai with the above fact. What I sense is that the US accepts that Karzai is likely to win the runoff election, but wants to see how strongly his main opponent fares. If he runs a strong second, there will be pressure applied to form a coalition government.

For his part, Karzai is in favor of additional U.S. troops, but only on the condition that they are not seen as a force that simply goes after the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but protectors of the entire country. Translated, this can mean that as his corrupt regime pushes his nation closer to civil war, he wants the U.S. to side with him. Again, President Obama is very wise to wait a bit longer before committing more troops to what could easily become an Afghan internal fiasco.

daydream:

" But we'll see the republicans whine that Obama rush in and make a decision that will effect 1000s of American lives. "

Did you forget already that Obama ran on the platform that Iraq is the wrong war and Afghanistan the right one, and that he would shift troops from one to the other?

But I guess you have answered that...

Breaking News -

U.S. official resigns over Afghan war

Foreign Service officer and former Marine captain says he no longer knows why his nation is fighting. "I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan," he wrote Sept. 10 in a four-page letter to the department's head of personnel. "I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end."

Maybe he should ask the idiots in the previous U.S. administration whose limp-wristed strategy (if you can call it that) over the last 8 years has led directly to the mess we now see?

Sorry, a link:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603394.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009102603447

Well Sushi, President Bush has to think about it carefully before he makes his next move in Afghanistan. I think he should make a decision or at least let people know what the status is, but in the end I can't force him to do anything. The Foreign Service officer might not like Bush's current or future strategy for Afghanistan, but that's his choice. Hopefully Bush will soon release details about "to what end" the conflict will come to.

I'm quite confident that President Obama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, will do his best to bring our troops home ASAP from an unjust war that Bush and Cheney started to enrich their oil buddies.

Superlib, it seems like my point sailed completely over your head. :-)

Yes, it would be great if we could all just forget about bush and his litany of mistakes, but hey, that's a prime way to foster an environment where those same errors will be repeated, hence my "ongoing tirade" (ha ha) against bush and cheney.

To learn from the past, you have to remember what happened.

Sadly, it seems folk like the GOP and yourself would have us all forget the past in a hurry.

That's not going to happen.

Sarge - "I'm quite confident that President Obama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, will do his best to bring our troops home ASAP from an unjust war that Bush and Cheney started to enrich their oil buddies."

Sarge, I think you put more thought into that post than you put into any and all of the posts you have made in the last 8 years on Japan Today.

Well done, :-)

,

To learn from the past, you have to remember what happened. Sadly, it seems folk like the GOP and yourself would have us all forget the past in a hurry.

You know, the person posting here as 'superlib' doesn't really strike me (I'm American) as a member of the GOP. This must be a crushing disappointment for someone still grinding and blindly swinging the same axe since December of 2000, an axe which most sensible opponents of the RINO George Bush put down some time around, oh, nine months ago or so.

Seriously, do posters like sushisake 3 care anything for the people of Afghanistan?

I get a very clear picture of what guys like you and smithinJapan and adaydream want to say to former president Bush.

But when I imagine you face to face with a representative of Al Qaeda or the Taliban I can only see you trying to outdo them in a display of hatred for a democratically-elected leader of a country that fought on behalf of Moslems in places like Serbia and Kosovo, in Somalia, and in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan; a country that under Bush spent tens of billions on AIDS programs in Africa, large parts of which are Moslem; a country that has welcomed millions of Moslem immigrants...

If Obama is actually taking time to formulate a proper plan for the future of the Afghanistan war, then good on him, it's a set in the right direction. If he is just stalling then another campaign promise bits the dust.

While the weak criticisms from some posters above about my 'Bush obsession' is humorous at best, I can understand the rationale behind it - if I had backed the poorly planned invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, I would want people to forget it in a hurry, too.

Well, that's if I had any semblence of a conscience.

I think what we are seeing from Pres. Obama is the absolute polar opposite of "you go to war with the Army you have; not the Army you want."

Neither rushing in with no clue or idea or waiting until it's too late to act are optimal, however, a late plan, in my opinion, is better than none at all.

Taka

Eight more servicemembers lost their lives today in Afghanistan bringing the death total for October to 55, making this the deadliest month since 2001. When will Obama find time between golf outtings and White House lawn parties to make a decision to support our troops? This administration is by far the most indecisive one ever in U.S. history.

Time to define the mission requirements. So far it's been an unclear objective, and the Taliban now roam the poppyfields in the shadow of Karzai's outhouse. How will NATO know when it's won? Nobody seems to know.

Romeo,

too bad we lost 5000 soldiers already. All you wingers cheered shock and awe and now you are pacifists? What a joke. The only thing that is consistant about the rightwing is their inconsistancy and their complete idiocy.

More troops are dying in Afganistan because Obama has put more troops in the country. McCain and most of the mainstream republicans want even more troops in the country.

Its amazing how petty and shallow the Obama haters are on this board. They are obsessed with the black President and still cannot admit they lost the election. Coming up on a year now boys, get over it.

"More troops are dying in Afganistan because Obama has put more troops in the country. "

Obama's administration won't let them fight. The war, like everything else they gain control of, is overlawyered. It's the Democrat way.

And Obama's crony pals in Congress just last week diverted 20 million from troop funding to build a memorial to the late Ted Kennedy.

He had a plan in April after very careful consideration. Now, all of the sudden he has no plan. What happened to his original plan? Why does he hesitate to follow through with the plan that his "hand-picked" general gave him? Does he somehow understand the military and political situation on the ground better than his "hand-picked" general? I don't think so.

President Obama has stated that Afghanistan is the central front in the war against "man-caused disasters". It's time to step up to the plate Mr. President and take on the enemy in Afghanistan like you promised during the election campaign and reitereated as recently as this past August. Don't worry, conservatives in America will support you.

More troops are dying in Afganistan because Obama has put more troops in the country. McCain and most of the mainstream republicans want even more troops in the country.

The US put more troops in Iraq and the number of troop deaths declined dramatically. President Obama has no plan now - and he can't make up his mind what to do next. Obama needs to get some courage and make a decision and get things turned around. One gets the impression that he is afraid to increase the number of troops because of opposition from his base. That is not how to lead during a war. He needs to stop campaigning for re-election and get the situation in Afghanistan under control.

Wolfpack,

you statements represent the selective narrow spinning that the rightwing just loves. The facts are that the surge was put in place after years and years of failure. And it took months and months to plan for the surge. Fact is that the reduction in violence was achieved not by more troops in Iraq but by bribing various groups to stop killing americans.

Your last statement about re-election is really choice given that Rove planned the Iraqi invasion to win in 2004.

Given the years of failure and hundreds of thousands of needless deaths in the two failed wars the republicans have nothing to say with credibility on these matters. As is so often the care the democrats have to fix what the republicans have broken. But still the republicans blather on as if they didnt cause this whole massive problem in the first place.

As is so often the care the democrats have to fix what the republicans have broken.

So start fixing and quite dithering. Is that so hard?

sailwind

So start fixing and quite dithering. Is that so hard?

Of course not, cream puff! Once the C-in-C has made a decision based on all the information, he'll let you know. Well, he'll let US know; you can read about it on the news.

USAFdude,

I look forward to reading about his wise 'decision' on the news sometime in the future. Im lucky I should be around to actually hear it not like these 55 Americans.

The casualties bring to 55 the total number of Americans killed in October in Afghanistan.

I wonder if his 'decision' would have been two months ago when his General on the ground requested more troops, how many of these 55 would still be with us.

sailwind:

I wonder if his 'decision' would have been two months ago when his General on the ground requested more troops, how many of these 55 would still be with us.

The tragic answer is, none of them. Neither President Obama's decisions nor the timeframe in which he makes them could prevent either helicopter accidents or inhuman extremist scum from committing atrocities.

Patience, Grasssmoker, patience... Wouldn't wanna play into the enemy's hands like bush the Impotent "Cowboy", now would we?

WilliB I remember what he said. I also heard him say he'd bring the troops home. There's no need to send 1000s troops to Afghanistan if they aren't needed. Whatever is the correct amount of troops, I'd rather see the right amount sent in then some super amount, that should be able to come home instead of serving a 3rd or 4th tour overseas fighting this war that will go on for another 10 years by some experts.

If we're going to be involved in this war for that extended time, then we have to start giving our men some kind of break. You can't keep sending the same men to combat over and over without some significant break. < :-)

@adaydream:

In war the "right amount" is to overwhealm the enemy. Supremacy in the field. Ask any marine.

SushiSake: Superlib, it seems like my point sailed completely over your head. :-)

Did it? I figured that you were against the war in Afghanistan but you like Obama so you won't publicly disagree with the man. Instead you make up some stuff about "reminding us about Republicans" so you can criticize US policy without having to mention Obama's name. That's to say you've muzzled yourself from criticizing Obama even when you disagree because you're too afraid of the right-wingers.

Wasn't that the point of your message?

Taka313: "I think what we are seeing from Pres. Obama is the absolute polar opposite of "you go to war with the Army you have; not the Army you want"

Scenario 1: Pres. Obama: I want an Army that achieves victory without killing or injuring any civilians: until then, we ain't going to war."

Scenario 2: Pres. Obama: Dang, I don't want defeat on my watch! Heck with the Nobel Peace Prize, we're going to war with the Army we have!

Nothing really wrong in principle to look at all sides before a decision. There are some personality types however that have a hard time making a decision and the wait seems endless. Obama may fit in to this personality type. He needs to step up and voice it soon.

The commanders on the ground have already given their recommendations of what is necessary. Any other opinions are just uninformed politics. Either give the commanders what they asked for or get out. No more dithering! Show some leadership, for pity's sake.

ca1ic0cat: You're definitely on the money, either give the 4 star the 40,000 troops or pull out completely. Why is Obama thinking less or a partial of that amount? He doesn't want to risk any more lives but what about the troops on the ground? I don't understand the rationale behind his intent. Can someone please enlighten me if I'm missing any facts.

Obama's indecision is planned. By dithering on troop assignment, he placates those doves that voted him into office. In the end, Obama will fail in both wars and lead the U.S. in the worst economic environment since Jimmy Carter.

Why rush? It's not like people are dying