Obama puts brake on Afghan surge

[darrels joy]

Obama puts brake on Afghan surge

Sarah Baxter and Michael Smith

PRESIDENT Barack Obama has demanded that American defence chiefs review their strategy in Afghanistan before going ahead with a troop surge.

There is concern among senior Democrats that the military is preparing to send up to 30,000 extra troops without a coherent plan or exit strategy.

The Pentagon was set to announce the deployment of 17,000 extra soldiers and marines last week but Robert Gates, the defence secretary, postponed the decision after questions from Obama.

The president was concerned by a lack of strategy at his first meeting with Gates and the US joint chiefs of staff last month in “the tank”, the secure conference room in the Pentagon. He asked: “What’s the endgame?” and did not receive a convincing answer.

Larry Korb, a defence expert at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank, said: “Obama is exactly right. Before he agrees to send 30,000 troops, he wants to know what the mission and the endgame is.”

Obama promised an extra 7,000-10,000 troops during the election campaign but the military has inflated its demands. Leading Democrats fear Afghanistan could become Obama’s “Vietnam quagmire”.

If the surge goes ahead the military intend to limit the mission to fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and leave democracy building and reconstruction to Nato allies and civilians from the State Department and other agencies.

The United States has been pushing Britain to send several thousand more troops but there is just as much disagreement and confusion among British defence chiefs over the long-term aim. Gordon Brown is set to receive a full briefing this week.

General Sir Richard Dannatt, the army chief who will step down this summer, has insisted that troops need a rest and believes he can send only one battlegroup, senior defence sources said.

General Sir David Richards, his successor, believes that the two extra battlegroups the Americans have asked for is the minimum the UK should send, the sources said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle5683681.ec

[SuperScout]

[My comments and critique of what was presented in this article will be in red letters, and are meant to present a more fair and balanced perspective.]

Originally Posted by darrels joy

Obama puts brake on Afghan surge

Sarah Baxter and Michael Smith

PRESIDENT Barack Obama has demanded that American defence chiefs review their strategy in Afghanistan before going ahead with a troop surge.
Does Obama even know what are strategy is in Afghanistan? Sure, he's only beenin the White House a couple of week, but before shooting his mouth off, shouldn't one first determine the proper target?

There is concern among senior Democrats that the military is preparing to send up to 30,000 extra troops without a coherent plan or exit strategy.
Uhhh, just who is the Commander in Chief? Have these 'senior Democrats ever spelled out the coherent plan or exit strategy from Kosovo? Would they really know what a coherent plan looks like?

The Pentagon was set to announce the deployment of 17,000 extra soldiers and marines last week but Robert Gates, the defence secretary, postponed the decision after questions from Obama.
Ahhh, yes. The micro-mangagement of the war, by rank amateurs, is nothing more than a return to those wondrous years of yesterday, when LBJ practiced such lunacy in Vietnam. It didn't work then, and it won't work today.

The president was concerned by a lack of strategy at his first meeting with Gates and the US joint chiefs of staff last month in “the tank”, the secure conference room in the Pentagon. He asked: “What’s the endgame?” and did not receive a convincing answer.
Or you mean he didn't receive an answer that was acceptable to his handlers. He's simply not experienced enough in anything, mcuh less military matters, to know an endgame from an Ethopian aviator.

Larry Korb, a defence expert at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank, said: “Obama is exactly right. Before he agrees to send 30,000 troops, he wants to know what the mission and the endgame is.”
Larry Korb is a re-tread hack from the Clinton administration, who was a driving force behind the 'successful' Kovoso operations, while downplaying the threat that AlQaeda presented in the form of 5 attacks on the America or American interests.

Obama promised an extra 7,000-10,000 troops during the election campaign but the military has inflated its demands. Leading Democrats fear Afghanistan could become Obama’s “Vietnam quagmire”.
Didn't they just use that same, trite, stale and discredited description about Iraq? And didn't Iraq just hold a very successful nation-wide election? And didn't The Bastard fail to pay the Iraqi people and government a much deserved compliment for their successful election?

If the surge goes ahead the military intend to limit the mission to fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and leave democracy building and reconstruction to Nato allies and civilians from the State Department and other agencies.
What a concept!! Limiting our warriors to do war-like things. Now, if we can just get our NATO allies, and more importantly, the State Department to cooperate, maybe the warriors can get about their job of killing people - destroying the enemy in politically correct parlance.

The United States has been pushing Britain to send several thousand more troops but there is just as much disagreement and confusion among British defence chiefs over the long-term aim. Gordon Brown is set to receive a full briefing this week.
Are supposed to believe that the Brits didn't receive a full briefing before we asked them to send several thousand troops? Despite how the Obamacrats feel, our military is not that stupid or inept.

General Sir Richard Dannatt, the army chief who will step down this summer, has insisted that troops need a rest and believes he can send only one battlegroup, senior defence sources said.
Whatever.

General Sir David Richards, his successor, believes that the two extra battlegroups the Americans have asked for is the minimum the UK should send, the sources said.
Three cheers for Sir Richard's replacement. It sounds like he has a much bigger pair than Sir Richard.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle5683681.ec