The Wrath of Obama

[Sir Bandelot]

The Wrath Of Obama

Obama authorizes more Predator drone attacks than Bush ever did-

In 2009, the frequency of Predator strikes in Pakistan has continued to trend upwards. There have already been 31 Predator strikes in Pakistan this year (as of July 18) – nearly matching the total of 36 strikes for all of 2008.

If airstrikes continue at the current rate, the number of strikes in 2009 could more than double the dramatic increase in Predator activity seen in 2008.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/200...r_strikes_3.php

There is evidence that these strikes are planned by using electronic transmitter chips covertly planted on so-called high value targets-

Mysterious 'chip' Is Cia's Latest Weapon

The CIA is equipping Pakistani tribesmen with secret electronic transmitters to help target and kill al-Qaida leaders in the north-western tribal belt, in a tactic that could aid Pakistan's army as it takes the battle against extremism to the Taliban heartland.

These strikes are easy for Obama to execute wihout causing distress to the US public, because they result in no American casualties. Yet their effectiveness in the overall strategy is questionable. Only a small percentage are successful in hitting the intended target. Reports show that the casualties for 2009 under Obama already exceed those of the entire 2008.

Using low-end estimates of casualties (including Taliban, al Qaeda, and civilian) from US strikes inside Pakistan, we have determined that airstrikes resulted in 317 deaths during 2008. Already, the airstrikes in 2009 have surpassed that total, with 365 killed in 2009 as of July 18.

[bush_cheney2004]

....These strikes are easy for Obama to execute wihout causing distress to the US public, because they result in no American casualties. Yet their effectiveness in the overall strategy is questionable. Only a small percentage are successful in hitting the intended target. Reports show that the casualties for 2009 under Obama already exceed those of the entire 2008.

"Distress to the US public" ??? You must be kidding !!

Obama said he would do this..way back on the capaign trail.

[Sir Bandelot]

"Distress to the US public" ??? You must be kidding !!

Latest polls show support by the US public is dropping.

Thu August 6, 2009

A new national poll indicates that support among Americans for the war in Afghanistan has hit a new low. Forty-one percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Thursday say they favor the war in Afghanistan -- down 9 points from May, when CNN polling suggested that half of the public supported the war.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/06/pol...stan/index.html

Obama has to handle things carefully if he is to enjoy being commander in chief over this war to its fullest extent.

[Sir Bandelot]

I think the first question is whether we should have gone into the war in the first place.

The irony is that despite the losses in life and huge amounts of money wasted, the trend now is increasingly headed towards a stand down and political negotiations with the Taliban. The government of Afghanistan and most of the principle players involved agree that this is the way to go. It's just a matter of timing, the Taliban are the ones refusing to negotiate, probably because they feel they are winning this war and have nothing to gain by cooperating with us. They want victory, not reconciliation. The strategy now is to put the Talban in a position where they are WILLING to negotiate, not even to defeat them. That seems to be out of the equation, militarily.

Taliban will eventually have representatives in the government (as if they don't already now..?), harsh sharia laws will continue to be implemented as per the will of the Afghani people, democracy will be looked upon as un-islamic, and we will have achieved jack squat for all our efforts, lives lost and money spent.

The smartest thing Obama should have done would be to cut and run. I suspect he would have done that. I suspectg there's lots Obama wants to do but cannot because he does not really have the power. I suspect Obamas legacy as president will be, The Emperor has no Balls.

[bush_cheney2004]

Latest polls show support by the US public is dropping.

OK...but that is not "distress"......what happened on 9/11...now that is what I call some real "distress".

Obama has to handle things carefully if he is to enjoy being commander in chief over this war to its fullest extent.

Enjoy? Another strange choice....who is going to replace him as CinC? Iggy?

Edited August 7, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

.....The strategy now is to put the Talban in a position where they are WILLING to negotiate, not even to defeat them. That seems to be out of the equation, militarily.

There was never going to be a military solution for Afghanistan, but the military can make it painful enough to force a political solution.

Taliban will eventually have representatives in the government (as if they don't already now..?), harsh sharia laws will continue to be implemented as per the will of the Afghani people, democracy will be looked upon as un-islamic, and we will have achieved jack squat for all our efforts, lives lost and money spent.

Really? When was the last Al Qaeda attack in North America? How many square feet of military bases has Al Qaeda built in North America?

The smartest thing Obama should have done would be to cut and run. I suspect he would have done that. I suspectg there's lots Obama wants to do but cannot because he does not really have the power. I suspect Obamas legacy as president will be, The Emperor has no Balls.

No, the legacy will be, "Some voters are very naive". If you want to cut and run, move to Spain and count the bombing.

[xul]

The smartest thing Obama should have done would be to cut and run. I suspect he would have done that. I suspectg there's lots Obama wants to do but cannot because he does not really have the power. I suspect Obamas legacy as president will be, The Emperor has no Balls.

As a politician, the smartest thing Obama should have done is what he has done. Nowaday the newspapers and TVs are full of bad news and Obama has no power to bring some good news instead. It is unwise for him to come forth on TV and tell American that there will be another big bad news---the war has failed.

A political leader of a nation is just like the locomotive of a train. Even if he wants stop, he can not stop moving in a second, because the inertia of the cars will push and turn over him, so he must lets the reality to tell his people the truth. If anyone reviews the history of the Vietnam War, he will find Nixon escalating the war by bombing north for a time before the withdrawal carried out. Maybe "naive" people wonder what on earth is the porpose of the bombing, which was responsible for killing tens of thousand Vietnamese civilians, if Nixon had known the war was unwinnable. The cause is simple---he just wanted to go to TV telling Americans that he had done what he could do so there would be nobody to blame him. If he called back soldiers before everyone had realized it had to be done, he would be attacked by his political rivals like what happened on another President Bush, I mean that one who stopped American troops to go deep into Iraq.

On the other hand, political leaders are more like gamblers. When they stand beside the table watching other gamblers, they thought, "how thick these fools are!". But once they seated on the seats, they will do the same things gambling that they may be more lucky than other fools.

Nonetheless, Afghanistan is not Vietnam, I mean there are not great powers behind it against American, so American did have chance to win the war. And in my opinion the Pentagon did have figured out a correct way to win the war, though it may be too late, and merely 20,000 troops is unlikely enough to constantly control thousands of villages in a vast mountainous area to carry on the strategy.

Edited August 9, 2009 by xul

[Sir Bandelot]

What a callous assessment. Of course I was speaking from a rational and humanitarian view, but not only that. A president should not be concerned about the effect of his media sound-bites, running a country involves making decisions for future, in the best interests of the nation and its people. In war there are real problems that cannot be ignored forever, they WILL come up and get you if you pretent they don't exist. In these times of fiscal restraint, it is simply stupid to continue pouring money into the black hole that is Afghanistan, when there is no outcome of any value whatsoever to the people of our western nations. If this was about revenge for 9/11, we have made our point now and can quietly go home. But to stay the course regardless of facts on the ground, or to play it out a bit longer for making good political appearances is not only foolish but inhumane.

Afghanistan expected to cost US dearly

As the Obama administration expands U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, military experts are warning that the United States is taking on security and political commitments that will last at least a decade and a cost that will probably eclipse that of the Iraq war.

Years to come’

Military experts insist that the additional resources are necessary. But many, including some advising McChrystal, say they fear the public has not been made aware of the significant commitments that come with Washington's new policies.

[bush_cheney2004]

....In these times of fiscal restraint, it is simply stupid to continue pouring money into the black hole that is Afghanistan, when there is no outcome of any value whatsoever to the people of our western nations.....

Well, that is the most callous view of all.

[Sir Bandelot]

Well, that is the most callous view of all.

Nope... I made the humanitarian argument earlier. This is politics now

[bush_cheney2004]

Nope... I made the humanitarian argument earlier. This is politics now

Let's see...if you did make such a humanitarian argument, then surely the Marshall Plan was folly too?

[Shady]

I suspect he would have done that. I suspectg there's lots Obama wants to do but cannot because he does not really have the power.

Actually, this is the tin foil view.

[Sir Bandelot]

In these times of fiscal restraint, it is simply stupid to continue pouring money into the black hole that is Afghanistan, when there is no outcome of any value whatsoever to the people of our western nations.

"The United States has spent more than $220 billion since the U.S.-led invasion of 2001, plus billions more toward aid and development projects. By the United States' own admission, much of the aid money was wasted."

US General: Taliban force troop shifts

Bush_Cheney, time to take your hard earned money out of the bank, and give it to Mr. Gates et al... to feed the black hole some more. enjoy

[Bonam]

In these times of fiscal restraint...

Hah! Where do you see "fiscal restraint"?

[Sir Bandelot]

Hah! Where do you see "fiscal restraint"?

I know.

It's a personal pun... my employer uses that line in every email whenever there is a request to do something, like improve moral, get a water cooler installed. etc.

Then we're told, "You're welcome to come upstairs to the admin area, and use our water cooler... "

[Moonlight Graham]

It's sad that we Canadians have never given political support to this mission and so our politicians never committed the resources required. Some 2000 Canadian troops deserve credit for holding the fort in such a wide area.

I agree that our troops should be given big credit for doing a great job during their time in Afghanistan. Very brave and competent men and women.

HOWEVER, the entire gameplan NATO has in Afghanistan is a joke. I can't believe how many of you smart people on these boards support the current war. We have been in Afghanistan for 8 freaking years, and we have clearly seen that we are not going to defeat the Taliban militarily. The best we've been able to do is push the Taliban from a impoverished, militarily weak country and into a much more powerful & unstable nuclear-armed country that helps fund them courtesy the ISI.

At least we've given the poor folks there some employment opportunities as members of an unrelenting insurgency.

When are people, politicians, and military leaders going to get it? The Afghans don't want us there, don't want us deciding their fate for them, and will not stop fighting until we are gone. We need to focus our efforts & money on helping them build their own country...if they want us to. We need to give them reasons not to hate us and reasons not to want to support a group that wants to blow-up our subways and crash planes into our buildings, unlike what the West has been doing for decades and centuries in Afghanistan.

The NATO mission is a joke. Making little headway and doomed for failure with the current philosophy. If we install a puppet gov't like we've done, the moment we leave there will be a coup. If we try to train an Afghan police/military security force, the moment we leave they'll be slaughtered by the Taliban/insurgents that massively outnumber them (the rate of new Taliban recruits vs the rate of new adequately trained Afghan police/military men is a joke).

A military solution for Afghanistan/Pakistan is not possible. Why then do we continue the military approach? Let's get the Taliban to the table & find realistic solutions. Yes, the higher ups in the Taliban (and most Afghan elite) are brutal war criminals and drug lords. Welcome to Afghanistan.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Moonlight Graham

[Guest janoli]

U.S. troops have launched a major operation against Taliban fighters in southern Afghanistan, U.S. military officials announced in Afghanistan early Thursday.

About 4,000 Americans, mostly from the Marines, and 650 Afghan soldiers and police launched Operation Khanjar -- "strike of the sword" -- in the Helmand River valley, the U.S. command in Kabul announced.

The push is the largest since the Pentagon began moving additional troops into the conflict this year, and it follows a British-led operation launched last week in the same region, the Marines said. It is also the first big move since U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal took over as the allied commander in Afghanistan in mid-June.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/07/0...tion/index.html

Change you can't believe in...

Obama announced the deployment of more than 4,000 additional troops, hundreds of civilian specialists and increased foreign aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan. He acknowledged that his decision could try the limits of Americans’ patience – particularly the new investments in civilian nation-building.

“At a time of economic crisis, it is tempting to believe that we can short-change this civilian effort,” Obama said. “But make no mistake: our efforts will fail in Afghanistan and Pakistan if we don’t invest in their future.”

Ab-circle-pro

[bush_cheney2004]

The NATO mission is a joke....

The NATO mission in Afghanistan is most certainly not a "joke". To charcterize it as such speaks volumes about your understanding of the mission(s) and objectives.

[M.Dancer]

The NATO mission in Afghanistan is most certainly not a "joke". To charcterize it as such speaks volumes about your understanding of the mission(s) and objectives.

But it's got one hell of a PUNCH line

[Bonam]

The NATO mission in Afghanistan is most certainly not a "joke". To charcterize it as such speaks volumes about your understanding of the mission(s) and objectives.

No, but it's been terribly managed. Rather than go in there with crushing, overwhelming force, we pretty much committed just enough resources to the mission to sit in stalemate with the terrorists. We've purposely handicapped ourselves, condemning our soldiers and our treasuries to years of protracted conflict. Same thing as we did In Iraq for many years, just enough troops to keep the stalemate but not to progress, until the "surge" near the very end of Bush's term, which finally made some progress.

If you're gonna fight a war, you need to put all your force behind it, and crush the enemy as quickly as possible, rather than sitting back and letting a stalemate play itself out for years. NATO should have had half a million troops in Afghanistan, every village, town, city, etc, guarded 24/7, with patrols all throughout the countryside. With such an effort we could have eradicated the Taliban in just months, while protecting the civilians from retaliation, and the war would have been long since over, with less casualties and less money spent.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, but it's been terribly managed. Rather than go in there with crushing, overwhelming force, we pretty much committed just enough resources to the mission to sit in stalemate with the terrorists. We've purposely handicapped ourselves, condemning our soldiers and our treasuries to years of protracted conflict. Same thing as we did In Iraq for many years, just enough troops to keep the stalemate but not to progress, until the "surge" near the very end of Bush's term, which finally made some progress.

Not sure I follow you here vis-a-vis "we"....NATO and US forces are different things...there were different objectives early on from ISAF, PRTs, etc. Many here at MLW argued Bush diverted resources to Iraq, even while Canada hardly mustered all available resources for Afghanistan. So that doesn't wash.

If you're gonna fight a war, you need to put all your force behind it, and crush the enemy as quickly as possible, rather than sitting back and letting a stalemate play itself out for years. NATO should have had half a million troops in Afghanistan, every village, town, city, etc, guarded 24/7, with patrols all throughout the countryside. With such an effort we could have eradicated the Taliban in just months, while protecting the civilians from retaliation, and the war would have been long since over, with less casualties and less money spent.

But that wasn't the objective in 2001. Nobody thought that a total military solution was possible or even desirable for long term stability for the region, let alone using "all force" (which usually means mostly the USA).

[Bonam]

Not sure I follow you here vis-a-vis "we"....NATO and US forces are different things...there were different objectives early on from ISAF, PRTs, etc. Many here at MLW argued Bush diverted resources to Iraq, even while Canada hardly mustered all available resources for Afghanistan. So that doesn't wash.

I realize NATO and US forces are different things, but for the purposes of wars against terrorism, I tend to view the West as one whole, of which I am a part, hence the term "we". You're right though, I should have differentiated between when I meant NATO forces and when I meant US forces.

As for resources, that is precisely what my point pertains to. More resources should have been put in right at the very start, because in the long run it would greatly decrease the resources required. Sending 100,000 troops and being trapped in a stalemate for decades is far more of a drain than sending 500,000 troops and finishing the war in a year.

But that wasn't the objective in 2001. Nobody thought that a total military solution was possible or even desirable for long term stability for the region, let alone using "all force" (which usually means mostly the USA).

What wasn't the objective in 2001? Victory? Perhaps that is the problem. The only possible solution against a foe like the Taliban is a military solution - we cannot peacefully co-exist with such an ideology. What solution do you consider desirable? Eternal continuation of the current stalemate? Even Obama seems to have smartened up by sending more forces into Afghanistan and going on the offensive, at last.

As for the use of "all force" meaning mostly the US, that is true, and reflects quite disgracefully on the rest of NATO. Canada likes to be proud of its role in Afghanistan, and perhaps we did do a reasonable job given the resources available, but the reality is that our only achievement has been to stave off total defeat, while the Taliban gradually grew stronger. And that is where it would have stayed, our politicians having only enough will to avert total disaster, but not to do what is necessary for victory. It is only the US that seems to still have the will to succeed, and even that is wavering and uncertain these days.

[Moonlight Graham]

The NATO mission in Afghanistan is most certainly not a "joke". To charcterize it as such speaks volumes about your understanding of the mission(s) and objectives.

It is a joke. The objectives will never happen the way their going about it.

Oh, and i love that part of the NATO and ISAF objective is "reconstruction" (and as if this is an honourable thing). You can't reconstruct a country unless you deconstruct it first.

You know you're history BC, why can't you learn from it?

[Sir Bandelot]

The Wrath of Obama was the original title of this thread, intended to discuss how Obama is not the bringer of peace he is perceived to be, by some. It's not hard to prove...

Wed Jan 13, 10:03 AM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama plans to ask Congress for $33 billion in emergency war funding for a major U.S. troop buildup in Afghanistan this year, defense officials said on Wednesday.

The money, mainly for the deployment of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and other war costs in the current 2010 fiscal year, would come on top of Obama's expected request to increase the Pentagon's overall budget in fiscal 2011 to a record $708 billion, the officials said on condition of anonymity.

Fiscal 2010 Defense Department funding, including war costs in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as military construction, already comes to $660 billion. If approved by Congress, the $33 billion emergency funding request, in line with estimates released last month by the Pentagon, would push that 2010 total to $693 billion.

Obama to ask for $33 billion more for Afghan war

-----------

One persons viewpoint and analysis:

When President Obama requested a $106 billion “emergency” was funding bill in early 2009, it was promised that this would be the last time the administration would ever seek such a supplement, and that they would instead simply increase the size of their regular defense funding bill to cover the wars.

And indeed, the FY 2010 defense funding bill indeed included a massive bump in funding for the assorted ongoing wars, one that was shrugged off however as it was said to replace the annual “emergency” requests.

In spite of this, President Obama is now planning to ask for another $33 billion in “emergency” war funding to pay for his latest escalation of the war in Afghanistan, as well as to purchase yet more attack drones.

http://news.antiwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/obama.jpg

Edited January 13, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[bush_cheney2004]

The Wrath of Obama was the original title of this thread, intended to discuss how Obama is not the bringer of peace he is perceived to be, by some. It's not hard to prove...

Obama was never the "bringer of peace", just the "bringer of votes" to achieve political party objectives. Even as a candidate, Mr. Obama clearly articulated an escalation in military operations (and cost) for Afghanistan and Pakistan. That some would see and hear this obvious message as "peace" remains a mystery.