8pm tonight he is giving the speech at West Point on the new strategy toward Afghanistan.

By the looks of it he is taking a hybrid COIN strategy, sending in 34,000 troops (near the 40,000 requested), with an additional 5,000-10,000 NATO troops. In addition, the strategy will outline an endgame (something the COIN strategy lacks really) and metrics that the Afghan government will have to accomplish. This includes joint missions and an increase in Afghan security forces.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/01/AR2009120101231.html?hpid=topnews

It sounds really good and I applaud the President for taking the time needed to really hammer out a strategy. I look forward to hearing the details, but by the sound of things it will be a solid strategy.

I want to know what ABC is doing about Charlie Brown Christmas

Haha, good question. Most likely the speech will go on about 35-40 minutes, so everything will probably get pushed back.

Anyone want to guess how many times he blasts the Bush Administration in his speech?

He's setting this up for failure and US troops to be killed.

Giving the enemy an end date (which by reports I've seen so far he's going to do) is all but setting the whole thing up to fail. Common sense says you don't tell your enemy at what point you will simply pull the plug.

If he's going to do that, I'd prefer he simply cut & run right now. May as well save the lives of those he will put in harm's way in the interim.

Other than that, it's interesting that he's using a strategy he blasted as a failure (and he opposed) when he was campaigning...once again.

Seems he likes to go back on what he said as candidate Obama now that he's President Obama.

Writerbuckeye wrote: He's setting this up for failure and US troops to be killed.

Giving the enemy an end date (which by reports I've seen so far he's going to do) is all but setting the whole thing up to fail. Common sense says you don't tell your enemy at what point you will simply pull the plug.

If he's going to do that, I'd prefer he simply cut & run right now. May as well save the lives of those he will put in harm's way in the interim.

Other than that, it's interesting that he's using a strategy he blasted as a failure (and he opposed) when he was campaigning...once again.

Seems he likes to go back on what he said as candidate Obama now that he's President Obama.

You're against a decision made by our president? I'm SHOCKED!!!

I'll watch it on the internet when I get home. I was listening to the BBC last night and NPR this morning. To be honest, I'm not real happy that so many troops are being sent to Afghanistan. But, I know President Obama stated during the campaign he believed Afghanistan was the focal point for the war on terror, so I'm not surprised he is adding more troops.

At this point, I just don't see more troops being the answer, and this is also going to require "nation building" at a time when we could use "nation building" here in this country. I have no clue where the money is going to come from to pay for this, and with the Afghan government being a total mess and the lack of real help from Pakistan this just looks to me as if it's going to be an exercise in futility.

I support the troops, but I wish the decision had been that all troops will be leaving Afghanistan in 6 months, and then let the Afghans take care of their own mess of a country.

writer,

Actually, Obama stated during the campaign he was going to send more troops to Afghanistan, so this is following through on a campaign pledge. As for the strategy, he admitted during the campaign that this strategy in Iraq had worked, but he stuck to the belief that invading Iraq in the first place was a mistake. And, if the US had not invaded Iraq, there would have been no reason for a "surge".

Also, if the US had not invaded Iraq, and instead focused on Afghanistan and implemented the plan they are going to be using in 2010 back in 03-04, then Afghanistan might be in much better shape today. The question I have is at this point, can this strategy be effective in Afghanistan, because it is going to require cooperation and lots of support/work on the part of the Afghan government, Afghan military and also Pakistan. And, at this point, I'm not sure those parties are capable of adding much positive to the mission the US troops will be embarking on in Afghanistan.

The biggest debtor nation on earth...both from a negative trade imbalance and the public debt stand point, will now announce to the world that the annexation of both Iraq and Afghanistan is now complete.

According to White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, each soldier will cost 1 milion a year. Simple math tells you that 35,000 X 1 million = 35 billion.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091125/pl_afp/afghanistanunrestusmilitarycost_20091125205656

But the good news...Barrack will announce a "timeline". Excuse me Mr. President, but didn't you announce a timeline for Iraq? How'd that work out for ya?

Two minutes into this speech and guess what's already been implied and basically stated?

CenterBHSFan wrote: Two minutes into this speech and guess what's already been implied and basically stated?

That twinkies are the best treat ever?

I guess I was just hoping that he would be "OVER" the whole Bush-bashing and blame game thing and that he would have committed to this speech concerning Afghanistan on his own two feet.
I really was!

Besides, Hostess cupcakes have always been better than Twinkies!

CenterBHSFan wrote: I guess I was just hoping that he would be "OVER" the whole Bush-bashing and blame game thing and that he would have committed to this speech concerning Afghanistan on his own two feet.
I really was!

Besides, Hostess cupcakes have always been better than Twinkies!

Kind of hard to give the background on Afghanistan without mentioning the fact that the Bush administration did ignore and try a counter terrorism, war by proxy policy.
Not Bush bashing at all, just stating the fact that the previous administration did let the country fall and is a factor why we are where we are.

So far so good in my view.

Ha, I knew he would be blaming Bush. It's so childish, you'd think after a year they'd be over it.

He'd be stupid not to blame one of the most criticized Presidents in history. Why would he accept some of the blame when he can just push it off on Bush and try to maintain face?

All the sheeple on the left will nod along and say good point. If Bush had blamed Clinton for all the problems (and I'm pretty sure he did for a few) then all the sheeple on the right would nod along and say good point.

ccrunner609 wrote: Obama is such a hypocrit. THe stuff he is saying is the total opposite before he was president. I guess from the inside out it looks a little different hugh Obama?

How is that different than any other President including Bush who criticized Clinton for nation building?

I don't understand why people are surprised when they find out a President has lied.

ccrunner609 wrote: Obama is such a hypocrit. THe stuff he is saying is the total opposite before he was president. I guess from the inside out it looks a little different hugh Obama?

Care to explain? He said during the campaign he would send more forces to Afghanistan. You are mistaken.

As for policy, it is a good one. I like the troops, with COIN focus.
The date for withdraw is not important in my view, as he did state in the speech it will be focused with the situation on the ground. So, if the situation is still dire, then the timeline will be pushed back. If things are going well, then the timeline will fit.

I highly doubt if the metrics are there met then forces will be withdrawn.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:Kind of hard to give the background on Afghanistan without mentioning the fact that the Bush administration did ignore and try a counter terrorism, war by proxy policy.
Not Bush bashing at all, just stating the fact that the previous administration did let the country fall and is a factor why we are where we are.
So far so good in my view.

Ok, so you don't mind being told that history lesson AGAIN. Fine.

I am kind of sick of being preached to about it. It's like... "we get it".
- You weren't President at the time President Obama, Okayyyyy we knowwwww.
- You didn't cause the situation we are currently in President Obama, Okayyyy we knowwwwwwwwww.
- America went about things in an incorrect manner and you were not the President at the time President Obama, Okayyyy we knowwwwww.
- You are now going to do things differently and better than the last administration President Obama, Okayyyy we knowwwwww.

That's where I'm at with the whole Bash-Bush-Blame-Game now. It's overdone and overplayed.
<sigh>

:-/

At this stage, continuing to blame Bush is WHINING.

Nobody likes a whiner, least of all the American public.

He isn't the only president to take office when things were difficult.

Oh and by the way...he KNEW they were difficult when he was running. So why complain about it after you got the job YOU WANTED TO GET?

Just do what you're supposed to do and shut up. You're the president now and nobody is going to give you any breaks because it was a tough situation when you started the job.

ccrunner609 wrote: Hey the next president is going to be able to do alot of Obama-bashing. Because he is well on his way to leaving a huge pile of shit behind. I believe that will start sometime early 2012.

Better hope that whoever it is will be an excellent speech maker.
Also better be a person who's not cowtowed to certain parties and isn't afraid to call shenanigans.

Otherwise, we've got Obama again.

Blah blah blah blah ,, He is an embarrassment to the USA.

I think he wants to bash republicans so the democrats in congress will listen and support his proposal, especially the speaker and her buddy from Nevada plus the bag from Cal. and all the other bleeding heart do good liberals.

Hesston,

Here's the thing. He doesn't have to convince those people. They are already in his back pocket! He will have no problems from the dems in charge. They're shoved so far up his personals, that they could report on what he had for lunch whenever he passes gas.

I am going to support his decision to send more troops and for the exit strategy. I wish we didn't have to send more troops. In fact, I wish that the troops were coming home. But he's made his decision and I respect it.
That is not my issue with him.

I just think he needs to kick the crutches away and allow his decisions to stand on HIS OWN MERIT. I also think he can do that without [size=large]incessant[/size] "history lessons".

I like how people are bashing the start of the speech rather than the actual content and policies.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I like how people are bashing the start of the speech rather than the actual content and policies.

You mean like this:

I am going to support his decision to send more troops and for the exit strategy. I wish we didn't have to send more troops. In fact, I wish that the troops were coming home. But he's made his decision and I respect it.That is not my issue with him