Reply With Quote
He didn't say anything along the lines of that.
In his speech he said something along the lines of this.
How?
Will anything pulled him into one?
Will this hurt his party?
I think he will continue the special operations...But those guys have been fighting for over a decade. Their deployments haven't stopped when most military units have. They are still recruitiing hard for spec ops and trying to increase their numbers. most spec ops units, in the army, like to get theirs from Airborne units and Ranger Bats. But Rangers are hurting hard and trying to recruit from the regular army. WIth the army draw downs, it will be even harder to draw good soldiers. I don't think he will be able to get as much done in the next four years, through this route, and would definitely hurt Hillary's ability to respond to future attacks.
With BHO surrounding himself with nothing but yes men, I don't see him responding towards anything with real force. Even a 9-11. Maybe bombings like Clinton did.
I have no clue if this will hurt his party... I am completely out of touch with the average voter in america. Bush was able to say he was against nation building and at the same time say that Clinton and the Dems were weak on national security. I don't know, when the Repubs use this attack, if it will work like it did in 00.
I think as long as the Dems promise federal spending to solve all problems with no Pay-go, then people seem to be happy. Not saying Repubs don't do it (although it's ridiculous to say that the GOP does it on the same level as the Dems), but the Dems have had super majorities and a majority of the Congress since BHO has been in office.
He didn't say anything along the lines of that.
Yeah right...
Dems never had supermajority of Congress while BHO was in office either.
find your "something" here:
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news...full-text?lite
this part, SnC?We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war. Our brave men and women in uniform, tempered by the flames of battle, are unmatched in skill and courage. Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we have lost, know too well the price that is paid for liberty. The knowledge of their sacrifice will keep us forever vigilant against those who would do us harm. But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war, who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends, and we must carry those lessons into this time as well.
We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law...
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-22-2013 at 04:58 PM.
vapid speech, tbh
here is some truth for a change:
“I don’t want to hear that he’s going to bring 5,000 troops home or 10,000 troops. We need to have a significant change in foreign policy, which means that all the troops come home and turn that country back over to the Afghans. And let them deal with it,” Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas, told us on ABC’s “Top Line” today.
Paul brushed aside concerns about an increased terrorist threat if U.S. troops leave, arguing that a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan will actually make the U.S. safer.
“We’ll have less danger to us if we don’t occupy foreign countries, because that’s the top motivation for the desire to come here and kill Americans — is because we’ve invaded their land,” Paul said. “What if another country did that to us? Every American would be together. If the Chinese did to us what we do to other countries, no American would say, ‘Aw, that’s okay, they’re nice people. Maybe we can learn their culture and their religion.’ It would be insane.”
Paul swatted aside the critique of fellow presidential contender Tim Pawlenty, who said that he fears the GOP field is moving toward “isolationism” in wanting a swift withdrawal out of Afghanistan, and an end to hostilities in Libya.
“I think they don’t know the definition of isolationism,” Paul responded. “Isolationism is — is something that the protectionists want. They want to close borders for people coming in, and they want to close trade, and I have no desire to do that all, because I’m a free trader and I want as much travel and communication with other countries as possible. This is what the Founders advised. We were never given the authority to be the policemen of the world.”
a cessation of hostilities would be bad for readiness? seems you're suggesting we're obliged to continue the war in Afhghanistan, to maintain the quality of our special ops. would that be fair?
No I was saying with Obama cutting 10 Combat Brigades, only about 7 Brigades able to deploy at a time, it would be more difficult to react to any kind of situation. My point though is that if Obama would continue to conduct most of his engagements with spec ops, it would make it more difficult as time went on. Due to in large part their already high attrition and their decreased pool of talent.
Then I wondered how Hillary would be able to use them
fair enough, but isn't this consistent with the declared policy aim of drawing down in 2014 and seeking to make some kind of peace in the meantime?
As far as Afghanistan? IMO OEF is over. Dems want out and the Repubs won't fight them too hard on it.
was this the part of the speech you meant?America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe; and we will renew those ins utions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad, for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than its most powerful nation.
or this?
We will support democracy from Asia to Africa, from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom . . .
seems to me Obama left the door open for a lot of things
The terrorist attack in Algeria that left three Americans and 34 other hostages dead shows that al Qaeda is “committed to creating terror" no matter where its members are located and that America has "got to fight back," Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Monday.
“I’m glad we were able to get some rescued, but we did lose three Americans,” Panetta told a small group of reporters Monday as he left the inaugural lunch at the Capitol. “That just tells us al Qaeda is committed to creating terror wherever they are, and we’ve got to fight back.”
From what I and alot of others thought - from the left and right - is that war is over, in his eyes. Couple that with his downsizing of the military and he is creating a way where we would not be able to do much.
Don't get me wrong, they could change the rules on deployments and go in with all 40 Combat Brigades (including Marines)
We could implement the draft again
We could just wipe out any problem with the amount of rockets (non Newclur [good ol Bush]) we have
But as it stands, we cannot maintain occupying a country with the force they plan on having within a year. Maybe Obama is setting up so he can point to that, if something came up. IDK. Obama will still use drones
Obama will still use Spec Ops
Panetta is out. His opinion, although alot more vocal (much like Gates) is worthless.
In that case, a lot of people can't listen or read.
seems to be the plan. rumor has it there'll eventually be a rump of 5-10k advisors, plus however many people are needed to support them.
I think that if we have the capacity to invade, then inertia will force is into invading. I'd rather we limit our forces in a concrete way to prevent spreading ourselves to thin.
LnGrrrR: All politicians saw the popularity of Iraq go away in four years. I don't think there is a political stomach for another war.
@winehole: I'm talking in general, militarily. Yeah Afghanistan is over. When the Taliban start openly taking back their territory, those "advisors" will just keep moving farther and farther west. I don't see Taliban ever taking full control like they did before but they'll be able to hold most.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
