Obama unable to make decision?

[bk1998]

Time is of the essence. Make a decision on the McChrystal report.

You've only been sitting on it for months now.

[resnor]

Completely agree.

[bk1998]

Nothing frustrates me more than senior leaders who refuse to make decisions without every single piece of information available.

Anyone can make decisions when they've got 100% information.

You're getting the big bucks to make tough decisions. Get on with it.

[sideoutshu]

Nothing frustrates me more than senior leaders who refuse to make decisions without every single piece of information available.

Anyone can make decisions when they've got 100% information.

You're getting the big bucks to make tough decisions. Get on with it.

He knows what the right decision is. He also knows that if he does the right thing, he is going to spend the next 3 years defending himself to the radicals that elected him.

Politics trumps national security for democrats.

One thing I loved about McCain is that he was the opposite. He backed the surge when it was political suicide to do so, cause he knew it was the right thing.

[MonoxideChild]

Here's the problem. The general is just that, a general. He's been in the military from the womb. The problem is that you cant take just his opinion into consideration. Whenever any commanders are asked what to do in any war, they always say they need more troops. However, McChrystal also said that the objective in Afghanistan could be considered completed. Theres more to it than just saying we need to send in more or leave. There is no endgame. Our motives have been lost and our focus has been shifted. And do you really think we'll have made a decision before we, I mean, the Afghanis elect a new leader?

[bk1998]

Here's the problem. The general is just that, a general. He's been in the military from the womb. The problem is that you cant take just his opinion into consideration. Whenever any commanders are asked what to do in any war, they always say they need more troops. However, McChrystal also said that the objective in Afghanistan could be considered completed. Theres more to it than just saying we need to send in more or leave. There is no endgame. Our motives have been lost and our focus has been shifted. And do you really think we'll have made a decision before we, I mean, the Afghanis elect a new leader?

Have you read the McChrystal report?

I have.

He doesn't say that the objective in Afghanistan could be considered completed.

[YoungVito]

I'm going to say the SAME THING I said when Bush was in office....unless you're SITTING behind that desk, you have no idea what it all entails.

How can you accurately assess something fom the outside looking in?

The majority of the time you'll be wrong.

[MonoxideChild]

Have you read the McChrystal report?

I have.

He doesn't say that the objective in Afghanistan could be considered completed.

He does say it. A few times actually. He says that our original objectives in Afghanistan have been met. He then goes on to say that we have CHANGED our objectives and for our new visions to be achieved as well, he wants more troops. Basically what he's saying is that we're not over there for the same thing anymore, but since we never left when we should have, we need to maintain a large military presence. McChrystal believes the Taliban is not an immediate threat and that Al-Qaeda is ineffective. His "new" concern and view of our mission is concerning more of the India-Pakistan issues.

[Gtrght77]

I am glad he is taking his time, I don't see the need to rush we have already been there how many years now?

The War on Terror is a joke, it's time to bring them all home.

[Gtrght77]

He knows what the right decision is. He also knows that if he does the right thing, he is going to spend the next 3 years defending himself to the radicals that elected him.

Politics trumps national security for democrats.

One thing I loved about McCain is that he was the opposite. He backed the surge when it was political suicide to do so, cause he knew it was the right thing.

The only "Surge" was the surge of money we sent over there to pay off those we were fighting against.

[bk1998]

He does say it. A few times actually. He says that our original objectives in Afghanistan have been met. He then goes on to say that we have CHANGED our objectives and for our new visions to be achieved as well, he wants more troops. Basically what he's saying is that we're not over there for the same thing anymore, but since we never left when we should have, we need to maintain a large military presence. McChrystal believes the Taliban is not an immediate threat and that Al-Qaeda is ineffective. His "new" concern and view of our mission is concerning more of the India-Pakistan issues.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Assessment_Redacted_092109.pdf?sid=ST2009092003140

I disagree with your synopsis, wholeheartedly.

And for those who think that sitting for months on a time-sensitive document is a good idea for senior leaders... do me a favor. Don't bother replying.

[bk1998]

I'm going to say the SAME THING I said when Bush was in office....unless you're SITTING behind that desk, you have no idea what it all entails.

How can you accurately assess something fom the outside looking in?

The majority of the time you'll be wrong.

Senior leaders are paid to make decisions. Anyone can sit around and not make decisions. Hell, I'd make a fine POTUS if not making decisions was the norm.

[resnor]

If anyone thinks that not making a decision here ISN'T political, then they need their head examined. Obama said that Afghanistan was THE WAR we should have been involved in. Now he won't make a decision. You may not have agreed with Bush, but at least he had the balls to do what he believed was right.

[Gtrght77]

If he sends more troops in he will lose my vote.

[YoungVito]

So what...we go in head-first without all of the facts, just so that we can "look" like the superpower we are? I think not.

Get your facts straight...then move.

Advance, when your opponent thinks you will pull back. And pull back when your opponent thinks you will advance. -Sun Tzu-

[YoungVito]

Oh, and unless anyone on this thread works in the White House, we don't really know what is REALLY going on.

Lets wait and see what he does, see the effects...then pick it apart and criticize. I'm in the military, and not for nothing, but I'd like for us to know EVERYTHING before any more of us go out there.

[resnor]

If he sends more troops in he will lose my vote.

I hope he sends more troops then.

[SUPDOG]

Oh, and unless anyone on this thread works in the White House, we don't really know what is REALLY going on.

Lets wait and see what he does, see the effects...then pick it apart and criticize. I'm in the military, and not for nothing, but I'd like for us to know EVERYTHING before any more of us go out there.

Afghanistan is a much different ball game than Iraq because of the terrain, however, IMO, waiting (and playing politics) means more troop deaths. Putting more troops in SAVES LIVES!

[bk1998]

I'm in the military, and not for nothing, but I'd like for us to know EVERYTHING before any more of us go out there.

Which service?

I deal with OSD, and Congress on a frequent basis.

[MonoxideChild]

Afghanistan is a much different ball game than Iraq because of the terrain, however, IMO, waiting (and playing politics) means more troop deaths. Putting more troops in SAVES LIVES!

How do you figure Supdog? If you're sending more troops into a battle, there will inevitabl ybe more casualties. Are they gonna say, "Wow, thats a lot of Marines, we should stop fighting them." ? Not in Afghanistan. That area is notoriously rough on invading countries. Their culture is completely different than anything we've encountered recently. If we're supposedly there to rebuild, lets define wtf that means and do it. If we're there to secure the area, we need to do that. The problem is we're trying too many things at once and have no real clear concise means for measuring success.

Oh, and the CIA should probably weigh whether they want troop safety or a good opium connect.

[bluntsandblacks]

decision. You may not have agreed with Bush, but at least he had the balls to do what he believed was right.

my neighbor believes its his right to slap his wife around all night when he has had a bad day.

another man down the street believes its right to sell crack to local people, despite the fact they will compromise the safety and health of their children to continue using the drug.


every situation will have positive AND negative effects. with that said, i dont find what bush did as very respectable. lets put aside for a second the some what common assumptions that in this case bush was either an a.) puppet or b.) a dimwit or c.) a dimwitted puppet who had no business as a shoe store manager much less governor even much less president of the U.S. who sat on documents indicating a major attack was in the works on U.S. soil and afterward began an illegal war based on lies or faulty information depending on who you ask that costs 1000 of lives, oh wait...
my bad. what i meant to say is that taking time to gather all the facts and then taking time to make a good decision is much more preferable, to me at least, than rushing into something and/or sticking with something just because it has become the norm to do.

with that said, i agree that obama taking a long time to decide is political. i would say its more political in the sense of making the right decision in light of how it effects our standing in the world than it is political in the sense of him wanting the re-election vote in a few years. but thats just how he strikes me and i could very well be wrong.

since we are all desktop generals here perhaps you fellas would like to tell me what YOU would do as president in regards to this war. why would you do it. what would it resolve. im curious to know.

it seems to me that the taliban and the rest get a decent size portion of their funds from the opium trade. seeing as how this is common in other areas of life, does it not seem prudent and rational to legalize these drugs and others? so as to drop the prices of them if nothing else?

[kevin21boston]

I'm going to say the SAME THING I said when Bush was in office....unless you're SITTING behind that desk, you have no idea what it all entails.

How can you accurately assess something fom the outside looking in?

The majority of the time you'll be wrong.

Then you should never have an opinion ever again because you will never have perfect knowledge.