Obama rejects *ALL* the AfPak war options at today’s national security meeting (8th!), pushes for revisions

Still voting present. I am convinced he is waiting for his peace prize pick-up. This must be why Mullen, Gates and Hillary let it be known today all three of them support the high troop reinforcement option (30k+) as requested by McChrystal.  Trying to move the decision along. (Note- Hillary and the Pentagon had let it be known in September that they supported more troops-it was reported in the UK Times but our media ignored it. Sen Feinstein went on record a few weeks after that supporting more troops to guard the women of Afghanistan against the Taliban AND Al Qaeda. Hillary went on record AGAIN in October flatly stating we MUST stay and WIN in Afghanistan.)

And his response is to dig deeper in indecision and delay.  (Typical Obama, on Veteran’s Day he gives a speech pledging support and then kicks the can on the actual support, a man of NO convictions)

Politico has it:

POTUS will not accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, and instead will push “for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government,” AP is reporting.

Obama held his 8th Afghan meeting today, to discuss how long it would take to implement the various options for troop increases he’s considering. The White House stressed that no decision has been made yet, and that the president is insistent that any new commitment will not be open-ended.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday evening that the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, sent out two classified cables to D.C. in the last week, expressing his concerns about sending more troops there until Prime Minister Hamid Karzai shows that it is willing to take serious steps to tackle corruption and mismanagement….

Advertisements

November 11, 2009. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Armed Forces, Obama Administration, Pentagon, Politics, Terrorism. 4 comments.

Americans support more troops in Afghanistan 47/43

Update: 6:57 pm EST Special Report just noted an AP report indicating two military (?) sources saying TOTUS has made a decision and is planning to send 20k troops. All panelists agreed it was a political decision and will be seen as such and Stephen Hayes noted it endangers the entire war effort.

(more…)

October 28, 2009. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Armed Forces, Politics, Terrorism. Comments off.

Hillary on Afghanistan: “if we simply leave and allow the Taliban to return, al-Qaeda “would come right back, and we’d be worse off in Pakistan.” & Sens. Kyl & Levin on Afghanistan strategy & FOX Panel Plus…

First some much needed humor:

Mashup by FleetwoodFactor

In this Parade piece on 24 hours with Hillary, an important insight into her position on our role in Afghanistan and the dangers posed by the Taliban:

(…)We sit at a table away from the crowd. Clinton has a hard edge to her foreign-policy views and generally positions herself to the right of her colleagues in national security. Yet she staunchly defends President Obama and his prerogatives. While she’s “not satisfied that we’re executing as we should” in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere, she nonetheless argues for continuing “present directions” in most areas.

When I question whether the U.S. really has vital interests in Afghanistan, she shoots back that if we simply leave and allow the Taliban to return, al-Qaeda “would come right back, and we’d be worse off in Pakistan. She continues: “Despite how hard Afghanistan is, we have to make progress. And what we do and what happens in Afghanistan will affect Pakistan…

As we have noted here before, the British press has reported that Hillary and Gates while keeping their positions close to the vest, want increased troop levels in Afghanistan, it is essential. The mumbling of Juan Williams on the FOX Panel Plus (clip below) wondering why we should stay in Afghanistan is just ridiculous.

When Dana Perrino, former GWB press secretary points out the important progress we have made in security that allows women to participate in the Afghan society and educate themselves (which will lead to their economic freedom and an amazing economic renaissance for Afghanistan, we see this all over the world when women are able to educate themselves and enter the economy-and Hillary Clinton is very focused on this as well) Juan Williams actually says ‘it is nice for women to rule the world but that’s no reason to be in Afghanistan” He thinks this is funny. Incredible.

WHAT HAPPENED TO HUMAN RIGHTS?

MEMO TO ‘NEOPROGRESSIVES’ AND JOURNOLISTS: WOMEN’S RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS (Sen Feinstein gets it)

THE TALIBAN ARE OUR ENEMY AND PROVIDE AID AND SUSTENANCE TO AL QAEIDA

Continues after the break:

(more…)

October 25, 2009. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Armed Forces, Cabinet, Hillary Clinton, Obama Administration, Pentagon, Politics, Terrorism. 2 comments.

Sen Feinstein supports McChrystal’s recommendations and the women and children of Afghanistan…

Finally someone mentions the women and children of Afghanistan in this discussion of the mythical Taliban ‘moderates’. Feinstein wants to find Pashtoun Tribal Warlords who will work with us and she wants to support General McChrystal’s recommendations. That gives us the full Brass- Petraeus, Mullen, McChrystal, plus Hillary, Gates, and now Sen Feinstein of her powerful intelligence cmte, all on one page. Good. Support the troops, Support the Afghani people we promised to protect.

Courtesy of speakmymind02

October 11, 2009. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , . Armed Forces, Cabinet, Obama Administration, Pentagon, Politics, Terrorism. 1 comment.

Update: USAToday poll shows Americans support reinforcing the troops; Memo to Obama: The Taliban ARE our enemy. The Taliban are terrorists. The Taliban are enemies of the Afghani people.

Update, Ace HQ:

From Goldfarb’s Tweet: A USA Today poll says Joe Biden’s brilliant strategy of leaving our troops to twist without reinforcement or plan of victory commands 7% support.

Pull out? 38%.

Give them the reinforcements and resources they need? 48%….

warning video content is disturbing and violent

HotAir:

(…)Obama’s developing strategy on the Taliban will “not tolerate their return to power,” the senior official said in an interview with The Associated Press. But the U.S. would fight only to keep the Taliban from retaking control of Afghanistan’s central government — something it is now far from being capable of — and from giving renewed sanctuary in Afghanistan to al-Qaida, the official said…

Bowing to the reality that the Taliban is too ingrained in Afghanistan’s culture to be entirely defeated, the administration is prepared, as it has been for some time, to accept some Taliban role in parts of Afghanistan, the official said. That could mean paving the way for Taliban members willing to renounce violence to participate in a central government — though there has been little receptiveness to this among the Taliban. It might even mean ceding some regions of the country to the Taliban

Obama kept returning to one question for his advisers: Who is our adversary, the official said.

In other words, rather than eat crap by forthrightly admitting he’s prepared to abandon huge swaths of the country to Islamist fascists rather than invest another 40,000 troops, he’s going to create an artificial distinction between the Taliban and Al Qaeda to let him save face by claiming he’s focused on “the real enemy.”

What happened in Basra when American troops withdrew? What happened to the women we promised to protect?

AceHQ:

(…)This is dangerous and cynical. They don’t want to be seen as bugging out, so they’re going to leave our troops in the meat-grinder without any actual intention to resource and reinforce them and give them a chance at actually accomplishing anything besides defending the Democratic Party’s interests.

Disgusting…

October 8, 2009. Tags: , , , , , . Armed Forces, Obama Administration, Terrorism. 2 comments.

Update: TOTUS’ comments from WH/Congressional leadership meeting on AfPak a bad sign?: TOTUS ready to vote present again, this time in Afghanistan?

Update 2: Oh this is IMO a very very bad sign. It sounds like TOTUS will do what McChrystal called the worse case scenario. Send in less troops than the Generals say is needed but not withdraw, leaving our people unprotected:

(…)“Mr. Obama seemed to be searching for some sort of middle ground, saying he wanted to “dispense with the straw man argument that this is about either doubling down or leaving Afghanistan,” as White House officials later described his remarks.”..

Update: Richard Cohen WaPo of all people:

(…)But the ultimate in realism is for the president to gauge himself and who he is: Does he have the stomach and commitment for what is likely to continue to be an unpopular war? Will he send additional troops, but hedge by not sending enough — so that the dying will be in vain? What does he believe, and will he ask Americans to die for it? Only he knows the answers to these questions. But based on his zigzagging so far and the suggestion from the Copenhagen trip that the somber seriousness of the presidency has yet to sink in, we have reason to wonder.

God Bless the troops, their families and the Afghani people. We need leadership, we have an empty suit. Reuters reports TOTUS is about to take the MIDDLE WAY sending in only 10-15k more troops, and McChrystals worse case scenario. Ironic considering he will not meet with the Dalai Lama no? We cannot excerpt Reuters as they are toolz about it Please go read the linky.

Meanwhile General Petraeus is making it known he fully supports Gen McChrystal’s call for 40k troops, courtesy of AllahPundit at HotAir:

(…)he knows how these comments will be interpreted. More military weight thrown at The One:

Gen. David Petraeus, the head of the U.S. Central Command, said that the situation in Afghanistan needs “sustained and substantial” commitment.

His statements echoed the assessment made by the senior U.S. general in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal.

However, Petraeus, in his comments Tuesday to a convention of the Association of the United States Army (AUSA), refused to detail what a substantial commitment means and whether it would translate to sending more troops into Afghanistan….

October 6, 2009. Tags: , , , , , , , . Cabinet, Obama Administration, Politics, Terrorism. Comments off.

Update: Chuck Hagel to replace Gates? McDonough replaces Lippert and speechwriter Ben Rhodes will take on National Security duties; Backlash? Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser Resigns(Lippert was Obama’s NSA adviser during the campaign also)

Update: Ace HQ posts on a ROY that Hagel is in and Gates out within a year. Sounds like peeps are getting clued into the antiHawk stance of TOTUS and withdrawing from posts. Get out of there Hillary!

As Think Progress notes, last night the boss floated a very well-sourced rumor that Secretary Gates will be out by the end of the year and replaced by Chuck Hagel, who the boss described as an “advocate of retreat everywhere.”

Politico:

Taking Lippert’s place as chief of staff to the National Security Council will be Denis McDonough, a deputy national security adviser, and chief foreign policy speechwriter Ben Rhodes will step up to assume some of McDonough’s responsibilities, the administration announced.

(more…)

October 1, 2009. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Politics. Comments off.

%d bloggers like this: