Prezdizzle interrupts my TV shows again, or the presidential war speech thread

[Ed Anger]

Saying "my shows" makes you sound like a senior citizen.

S was saying the same thing about me bitching about the same thing.  BTW, Ed, I call Pauley Perrette.  Comes pre-equipped with handles for bondage.

You can have her. Not my type.

[Ed Anger]

Anywho, I'm missing out on our brave wartime Prez's speech.  Not that I usually watch live TV anyway, but I'm stuck watching Polar Express for at least the 7th time in as many days.  It's almost over, but I have a feeling I will be watching Santa Buddies right after that

When did you get sent to Gitmo?

Late January 2008.  The first phase of torture was sleep deprivation, a lot of high pitched screaming, being vomited on, and being forced to clean up poop.

The current phase involves the repetitive videos & music, as well as all my belongings getting broken or totally hidden from me.

I broke a long time ago, so I don't know why the torture continues

Learn the mail song.

[Malthus]

Anywho, I'm missing out on our brave wartime Prez's speech.  Not that I usually watch live TV anyway, but I'm stuck watching Polar Express for at least the 7th time in as many days.  It's almost over, but I have a feeling I will be watching Santa Buddies right after that

When did you get sent to Gitmo?

Late January 2008.  The first phase of torture was sleep deprivation, a lot of high pitched screaming, being vomited on, and being forced to clean up poop.

The current phase involves the repetitive videos & music, as well as all my belongings getting broken or totally hidden from me.

I broke a long time ago, so I don't know why the torture continues

[Caliga]

I broke a long time ago, so I don't know why the torture continues

Spare the rod, spoil the child.

[derspiess]

Spare the rod, spoil the child.

No comment

[KRonn]

I can support Pres Obama on this over all plan. Though I wish he had made a more passionate speech about the reasons for being there, still he did talk about some of the history and reasons he feels we are there. And from what I understand, what's been said by Defense Secretary Gates, and the White House, that the 18 month time is not a withdrawal date or any kind of firm exit strategy. More a time frame to set some goals and any troop deployments will still be based on conditions in Afghanistan.

I see that such notables as Michael Moore, and others of like minded views threatened to withdraw support, or just came out very publicly against Obama's plans. Good for you Mr Obama! With some friends, who needs opponents!   

Senator Kerry supports the President, which I was glad to see, even though Pres Obama didn't really define a strong exit strategy. Though I figure, as things heat up and if the going gets tougher, my illustrious State Senator will then be crafting his own exit strategy from the Obama plan.   

[KRonn]

The goings will be tough though. Plus a lot of catching up to do, given the years that focus on Afghanistan was lacking due to Iraq. I see that NATO nations are also pledging quite a few thousands of additional troops.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/04/afghan-training-mission-faces-tough-obstacles/

Afghan Training Mission Faces Tough Obstacles

AP

Continuing obstacles provoke skepticism from Congress about whether the U.S. military can train the Afghans quickly and effectively enough to begin to replace American forces by Obama's proposed exit start date of July 2011.



WASHINGTON - America's eight-year effort to build a functional Afghan security force has been a study in slow motion, raising doubts about President Barack Obama's new plan to get the nation's army and police quickly in shape so U.S. forces can begin to leave in 18 months.

A lack of competence, resources and confidence have hampered Afghanistan's army and police, as have illiteracy and corruption. Those continuing obstacles provoked skepticism from Congress this week about whether the U.S. military can train the Afghans quickly and effectively enough to begin to replace American forces by Obama's proposed exit start date of July 2011.

"It seems to me that the large influx of U.S. combat troops will put more U.S. Marines on street corners in Afghan villages, with too few Afghan partners alongside them," Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, a Democrat, said at one hearing.

The untested Afghan force is the linchpin in Obama's twinned surge and exit strategy. It would have to grow and improve rapidly to take up the fight against the Taliban as the Americans start to leave.

In announcing his reworked approach to the war on Tuesday, Obama said the 30,000 extra U.S. troops and a smaller contingent of new allied forces "will increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight."

The theory is that Afghan soldiers can be sufficiently motivated to defeat insurgent groups, including the Taliban, if given the proper resources. But, as in Iraq at the height of its insurgency in 2006-07, instilling basic competence is an easier task than forging a sense of national purpose.

As in Iraq, there is a risk of rushing the transfer of security responsibility from U.S. and NATO forces to the Afghans. The tide turned there after President George W. Bush decided that the handoff to Iraqis was failing and sent extra U.S. combat troops to step up the fight in early 2007.

That bought more time for the Iraqi forces to prepare to stand on their own.

With 30,000 American troops now bound for Afghanistan, U.S. and NATO officers plan to push more Afghan recruits through the training pipeline over the critical next 18 months while also trying to increase their staying power and professionalism on the battlefield.

The key to improving their performance, often spotty in the past, will be pairing newly trained Afghan combat units with U.S. and NATO units, said the top U.S. military official in charge of the training operation.

"That partnering is absolutely essential, and we're putting a lot of emphasis on that," said Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell, who recently arrived in Afghanistan as the new head of the training mission.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates made a similar point Wednesday in defending the new approach during testimony on Capitol Hill. He said the U.S. military saw in Iraq that partnering with local troops gave them confidence, which led to improved performance.

Nearly a brigade-sized complement of U.S. trainers -- between 3,000 and 4,000 -- is expected to be part of the new influx of forces. Administration officials said the rest of the combat troops also will play a role in training or mentoring.

Caldwell's first task is to increase the size of the Afghan national army to 134,000 troops by Oct. 31 next year. Today it stands at about 97,000, according to Lt. Col. David Hylton, a U.S. spokesman in Kabul. The Afghan police force of 94,000 also is pegged to rise by nearly 3,000 officers.

But those numbers will not be sufficient to replace U.S. forces. Adm. Mike Mullen, the senior U.S. military man in uniform as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a congressional panel Wednesday that the administration aims for 170,000 Afghan soldiers by the July 2011 start of the U.S. exit.

Overall U.S. commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal set a goal of 400,000 Afghan forces by 2013 in his review of the war strategy. But that high goal is being reconsidered by Pentagon officials. A skeptical Rep. Jane Harman, a Democrat, said Tuesday that she believes the numbers will fall well short.

"My two visits to the region this year persuade me that less than half this number is achievable," Harman said. "This means that any `exit' based on a trained Afghan force is years or decades away."

Caldwell insists he is building on a solid foundation, but he acknowledges progress has been slow in a country torn by wars.

"They had warlord-type armies around the country, but there wasn't a national army," Caldwell said in a telephone interview from Kabul. "So we really have been growing this from the ground up."

Trainers are still scarce, and it remains to be seen whether allies will provide more on top of the infusion of American help. NATO has promised at least 5,000 new troops, and talks to be held in Brussels in coming days are likely to give an early indication of how many will be trainers.

Building a competent Afghan army begins with Caldwell, who took on the job after a stint as commander of the U.S. Army's main Combined Armed Center. He previously spent a year in Iraq as chief spokesman for the U.S. military command.

Among the officials Caldwell consulted before beginning his new assignment was James Dubik, a retired three-star Army general who headed training of Iraqi forces during the "surge" of U.S. troops.

Dubik said the idea is to build on the Afghans' basic training by having them operate under battlefield conditions with veteran U.S. forces.

"If you just crank out numbers and send them immediately into the battle space," he said, "you end up with units that are inproficient and unconfident in themselves."

[Fate]

During Gates' visit in Kabul today Karzai said that we are going to have to fund his army for another 15 years.

Does America really have the stomach for that kind of long term commitment? I know Berkut does!

[Admiral Yi]

And from what I understand, what's been said by Defense Secretary Gates, and the White House, that the 18 month time is not a withdrawal date or any kind of firm exit strategy.

From everything I've heard and read it is a date for the start of withdrawals.  "This is not an exit strategy" is just spin.

[KRonn]

During Gates' visit in Kabul today Karzai said that we are going to have to fund his army for another 15 years.

Does America really have the stomach for that kind of long term commitment? I know Berkut does!

Sure, why not? We've been funding Israel and Egypt with several billion a year for decades now. We shouldn't want to stop funding the Afghans if they're doing ok, making progress, after we've put the efforts in to get them going well.

[KRonn]

And from what I understand, what's been said by Defense Secretary Gates, and the White House, that the 18 month time is not a withdrawal date or any kind of firm exit strategy.

From everything I've heard and read it is a date for the start of withdrawals.  "This is not an exit strategy" is just spin.

It may be spin. But also, this may be like Pres Clinton saying we'd only be in Bosnia for one year. Been there for at least a decade; I think he said that to keep critics quiet about a long commitment. Obama may be doing the same thing - keeping critics quiet, buying time.

[Sheilbh]

And from what I understand, what's been said by Defense Secretary Gates, and the White House, that the 18 month time is not a withdrawal date or any kind of firm exit strategy.

From everything I've heard and read it is a date for the start of withdrawals.  "This is not an exit strategy" is just spin.

The we will 'begin' to withdraw, dictated by the situation on the ground modeled on the Iraq withdrawal.  That sounds like a lot of wiggle room.

[Admiral Yi]

The we will 'begin' to withdraw, dictated by the situation on the ground modeled on the Iraq withdrawal.  That sounds like a lot of wiggle room.

That's a lot of wiggle room on when the last guy to leave turns out the lights.  It's no wiggle room at all on when the first troops leave.

[Sheilbh]

That's a lot of wiggle room on when the last guy to leave turns out the lights.  It's no wiggle room at all on when the first troops leave.

Unless the situation on the grounds no good and the Iraqi model indicates we shouldn't.

[Admiral Yi]

Unless the situation on the grounds no good and the Iraqi model indicates we shouldn't.

Sometimes you act as if statements like this are contracts that get litigated in court.  The American public expects him to start drawing down in 18 months and if he doesn't there will be hell to pay.

All the post-speech "clarification" stressed the fact that it was *just* a start date, i.e. everyone was not going to run for the embassy roof on that date.