Afghan surge was never meant for victory.

Based on all these post can you think Obama wants victory?

WOODWARD BOOK PAINTS DYSFUNCTIONAL OBAMA ADMINISTRATION...
Professorial president assigned 'homework' to advisers...
Critical players in national security team 'doubt strategy in Afghanistan will succeed'...
Axelrod 'complete spin doctor'...
Rahm cheers drone attacks: 'Who did we get today?'...
Obama: 'We can absorb a terrorist attack'...
President 'avoided talk of victory' as war objective...

[mookiemookie]

Hey look, it's another Obama thread!

[AVGWarhawk]

3rd Man...that is direct from Drudge. That site loves to bash Obama and anyone associated with Obama.

Hey look, it's another Obama thread!

But its an Obama thread about how he isn't winning a war that can't be won.
You can be rest assured if it was McCain/Palin in power the sore losers who are like a embarrasing rash recently wouldn't be writing about them not winning a war that can't be won.

[AVGWarhawk]

a war that can't be won.

Exactly.

[Bilge_Rat]

Exactly, Obama is not wasting his time to win a war that can only be won by pouring hundreds of thousands of troops and billions of dollars into Afghanistan, neither of which is going to happen.

I am more impressed that he layed down the law to the Pentagon and wrote a six page memo setting down his explicit orders. Looking forward to reading that part.

[AVGWarhawk]

Problem is....the old eye on the ball speech during his campaign.

[Bubblehead1980]

This war CAN be won.I am so sick of people with defeatest attitudes.

Would require us to get a lot tougher and more aggressive in Afghanistan and then the everyone would whine and complain but we could win there.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Hey look, it's another Obama thread!

Originally Posted by Tribesman

...a war that can't be won.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

This war CAN be won.I am so sick of people with defeatest attitudes.

Would require us to get a lot tougher and more aggressive in Afghanistan and then the everyone would whine and complain but we could win there.

How tough? How many civilian casualties? How much damage to the US government?
Rest assured, you hit hard, the Taliban will hide itself in the civilian population even more, then what do you do? Bomb the civilians? Yes, you'll hit the Taliban, but you'll give them the biggest propaganda boost since 9/11 and even more martyrs will join the cause, even more terrorist attacks against the US will be plotted and the chance of one of them succeeding will rise.
Even if you nuke every single square mile of Afghanistan into a lake of glass, that will not stop the martyrs coming from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and every other Muslim country (including Muslims in the West already), if anything it will make them even more fanatical.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Afghanistan is a catch-22, if you go too hard then you turn your people against you for being a warmonger but if you go too soft then you turn your people against you for being too soft. Finding the right balance is something that at least three invaders of Afghanistan have failed to do so far.

[Tchocky]

What is the definition of "winning" in Afghanistan?

Note - asking this question does not make you defeatist.

This war CAN be won.I am so sick of people with defeatest attitudes.

Isn't that the bunker rant?

Would require us to get a lot tougher and more aggressive in Afghanistan and then the everyone would whine and complain but we could win there.

Due to the nature of that country that is exactly the path to a very humiliating defeat.

[Skybird]

Bad attitude and easymindedness at the beginning, now bite back. If you go to war, make sure you fight in the way that is needed to kill all the enemy and all who help him inside and outside Afghanistan. That must start with Pakistan. If you do not like to do that, don't go to war.

This was not payed attention to, and so one is trapped in the Afghan maze. The war got lost many years ago. The Taliban will run the country again sooner or later - with official acceptance by the West and by Washington and London. Feel invited to take me by my word sometime in the forseeable future - it will not take another 9 years: promised.

At least as long as it is not decided to wipe Pakistan and Afghanistan off the map, forever.

[Happy Times]

Loosing in Afganistan will take all credibility from the west in the muslim world.
They will think we only bluff, dont have stomach for a fight and have feet of clay.
They will be right in thinking so.

Lot of the credibility will be lost allready when Israel will be left alone to deal with Iran.
The attack against Irans nuclear program is to be expected in the next 6-9 months. It will light up the region atleast in Afganistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza.
There will be a flow of new recruits for the jihad.

New fronts are opening allready in Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Chad, Niger, Mali, Mauritania, Algeria, Morocco etc..

Its only a matter of time when they get full control of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt. We can call that the tipping point, after that others will fall in line.

It could very well be that the we need a nuclear attack on western cities before the gloves come off.
People are really so detached from reality that they dont have the stomach to deal with the use of force anymore.
If the battles resemble Omdurman we should be happy, not in angst over guilt.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

What is the definition of "winning" in Afghanistan?

Note - asking this question does not make you defeatist.

I second this. What do you mean by winning? What will force be "used" for? Are we on our good old genocidal streak again? If so, that surely marks a fine confluence between the recent (anti-)Obama and (anti-/kill-all-)Muslims threads. Hey, the usual suspects for both are already here...