'I'm not spending a trillion dollars' on nation-building, says Obama

The title of the thread is an excerpt from a interesting new book written by Bob Woodward. It reveals the battle within the Obama administration and the issues it has with the Military over a US commitment to the Afghan conflict. NO, This isn't a plug for the book. However I find the information contained in it rather interesting if not eye opening.

Obama, an Afghanistan war exit plan, and getting 'rolled'

Excerpts published in the Washington Post this morning show Gen. David Petraeus demonstrating the kind of contempt for his civilian bosses that cost former chief of the Afghan war, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, his job. It shows a President Obama deeply leery of an open-ended commitment to war in a country referred to since the 19th century as the graveyard of empires.

Well the new guy the Obama Administration put into place Gen Petraeus evidently doesn't care for the way the Obama administration is going about the conflict any more than Bush's boy Gen McCrystal did. In either case it does show that Obama is aware of ATSs favorite catch phrase. "Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires."

I love the following bit here...

And it demonstrates that Obama appears to have more in common with the pre-9/11 Republican Party than he does with the liberal interventionist wing of the Democratic Party.

The following is for all the NWO, TPTB and ones screaming about the US Empire etc peeps. It appears to be not so well united in a drive for global dominance etc...

To be sure, on a personal level there are some revelations in the book. Woodward writes that Gen. James Jones (Ret.), Obama's national security adviser, called the president's political aides the "politburo" and the "mafia," and that Petraeus told aides last May that Obama's people were "[expletive] with the wrong guy."

In the end it's just one writers perspective but I thought it worth posting if for nothing more than I can use it later in a debate or for future reference.


I'll leave you with the following...

The portrait in Woodward's book is of a president determined to not be rolled. "This needs to be a plan about how we're going to hand it off and get out of Afghanistan," Obama said to aides in a private conversation. "Everything we're doing has to be focused on how we're going to get to the point where we can reduce our footprint. It's in our national security interest. There cannot be any wiggle room."

Your spin on it?

Yes, a nice contrast to that idiot Brooks' article in NYT a few days ago, titles "Nation Building Works".

We needed to get out of Afghanistan and should there be an AQ base there, just use drones.

Here is another perspective on the subject....

Book says aides doubt Obama's Afghan strategy

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's top advisers spent much of the past 20 months arguing about policy and turf, according to a new book, with some top members of his national security team doubting the president's strategy in Afghanistan will work.

The book, "Obama's Wars," by journalist Bob Woodward, says Obama aides were deeply divided over the war in Afghanistan even as the president agreed to triple troop levels there. Obama's top White House adviser on Afghanistan and his special envoy for the region are described as believing the strategy will not work.

reply to post by buddhasystem


IMHO,

I think the Obama administration should do one of two things.

Either let the military run the war and go for a win [That's what Generals and military train for] or if the administration does not give them what the military needs for that win then we should just GET THE HELL OUT!

reply to post by SLAYER69



Well the new guy the Obama Administration put into place Gen Petraeus evidently doesn't care for the way the Obama administration is going about the conflict any more than Bush's boy Gen McCrystal did.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d3911dff5f04.jpg[/atsimg]





Buyer Beware would seem to extend all the way to the top...and how much does it suck to see REMF's directing policy and procedure of ANY military operation..?

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

IMHO,

I think the Obama administration should do one of two things.

Either let the military run the war and go for a win [That's what Generals and military train for] or if the administration does not give them what the military needs for that win then we should just GET THE HELL OUT!

Win?

Win?!?!

How the hell do you win against a bloody tactic? The war on terror is in itself a oximoron...we will produce terror to end terror.

You cannot win against a tactic...this whole damn war has been a unwinnable line of bull----. Its like winning the war against prone position shooting...or against blowing stuff up.

It is by definition, unwinnable. I don't care how big a bomb you make, unless it is going to eliminate all life on the planet, the war will continue.

The only way to counter terrorism is by not being a target...this means either you produce less terrorists against you, or you promote reason to contain terrorism locally...coming in the form of people having something to lose.

A person whom has a decent job, a home, and a family...highly unlikely to suicide bomb themselves...whereas a homeless person whom lost all he loved in some errant bomb...ya...that guy has nothing left to lose and easily swayed into hating someone for it.

reply to post by facelift


As always star for the wit and interesting point of view.
All opinions are welcomed in my threads whether I agree with them or not is irrelevant.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
How the hell do you win against a bloody tactic? The war on terror is in itself a oximoron...we will produce terror to end terror.

That's a fair assessment.

I would prefer to have another forum board in which to post threads on the topic of middle east conflicts other than the one this has been posted in. "War on terror" just doesn't seem to fit IMO. I suggested another name for a new board called the "The New Great Game" [Which had some support] becuase there is a lot more to this story than fighting the Taliban or hunting for Al queida etc.

Thanks for posting a reply.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Either let the military run the war and go for a win [That's what Generals and military train for] or if the administration does not give them what the military needs for that win then we should just GET THE HELL OUT!

Unless you are willing to take actions akin to what Nazis did in occupied Belarus in 1940s, you can't win against an enemy that is supported by local civilian population and into which the insurgents can easily melt. Add to this Pashtunwali code of behavior, and you have your answer. If the Soviets didn't quite succeed, it was not for lack of trying. By the end of the war, the Soviets were trying to pull out at all costs and even that was problematic, so they dispensed with a lot of civility exactly at that stage -- first-hand accounts I heard were such that if a Russian convoy came under fire as minor as one shot coming from a village, they would hunker down and call an airstrike. Village kaput.

I call any notion of "victory" in Afghanistan a thorough and utter cr@p. The most we can hope for is make peace with a few warlords and then leave.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Interesting point of view.

However we do have the majority of the Afghanistan populations support. The vast majority of Afghans do not want the Taliban to return to power. It's not like they are the most popular people in the neighborhood.

Afghanistan civilian deaths up 31% this year, says United Nations

UN Report says Taliban responsible for 76% of All Civilian Casualties

In either case the thrust of the book was on the division within the Obama administration over the situation.

Obama is more real than Bush, gotta give him that.

As far as winning in the area, it seems the idea is that it wouldn't be possible. We need other countries to pick up some of the slack. Russia would have interests in keeping the area secure, wonder where they stand on it.

reply to post by ghaleon12


I believe the situation is far grander than just hunting Taliban and the Al qaeda remnant in Afghanistan etc. The Russians are moving their influence into the Region. [Central Asia] so are the Chinese. The US/West-NATO are in Afghanistan.

The war on terror is IMHO a side show. Major influence on or control of Central Asian resources is the goal.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/981ad67e11b3.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by SLAYER69

The following is for all the NWO, TPTB and ones screaming about the US Empire etc peeps. It appears to be not so well united in a drive for global dominance etc...

Unless you consider that all these are just the actors in this play..
The directors are behind the scenes and probably not at all pleased with some of the adlib being seen by the public..

Also, actions speak louder than words..
It's nice to hear Obama is against the war but how does he act?
More troops and more money poured into a war that no one seems to know the reason for anymore...

reply to post by CynicalM


Thanks for posting and sharing your point of view.

we should spend that trillion growing our own opium and creating new jobs growing and harvesting it so we can supply all our own junkies.

keep that money at home

just dont forget to grab all the ganny seed on the way out the door

reply to post by aliengenes




I starred that becuase it made me laugh. I was just waiting for somebody to pop off like that.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by aliengenes

 

I starred that becuase it made me laugh. I was just waiting for somebody to pop off like that.

THANKY

I agree with the person who said you can't win a war against a "tactic"

It's very silly now that I think.
We blow up innocent homes, and killed thousands of innocent people..so if we are victorious..those who still live on whats left of the battle field.. will feel the "terrors" of war.. and will probably just grow up to hate America even more.

Every country can't be a good country.. america and first world nations should only help first world nations.
You can't donate or try to save a piece of #, if all its ever been is a piece of #.

When it comes to Afghanistan Obama refusal to let the US military to do its job and push congress to undertake the required nation building that would ultimately win the conflict in that country is a major embarrassment . The lack of nation building in what has or is the more stable Northern and Central parts of the country is unforgivable . People who are employed and paid a decent wage are a lot less likely to fight . Had the job been done properly to begin with then unemployment in the USA would now be two percent less because of the economic benefits of nation building . Japan would have contributed more in financial matters to the effort as well . Rather then any of that Obama and Congress delivered the fraudulent stimulus package .

I think the cat is now out of the bag China may end up occupying Afghanistan in the future as it wouldn't want its newly found middle class suffering from the end product that comes from Poppy's that are grown in that country . If that happens then the Taliban will end up wishing they had played ball with the current Afghan government .

reply to post by xpert11

When it comes to Afghanistan Obama refusal to let the US military to do its job and push congress to undertake the required nation building that would ultimately win the conflict in that country is a major embarrassment .

There was once a great ATS member by the name of dooper who reasoned the way you do.
Great poster who told it like it was.