OBAMA: Afg Speech

[LongWire]

Originally Posted by uboat509

On a lighter note, did anyone notice the number of cadets that were falling asleep? It seemed like every time the camera panned over them at least one was checking his or her neck out. My kids made a game of it. I suspect that some cadets are having a very unpleasant day today.

SFC W

I was surprised to see at least one cadet and a female E-7 chewing gum!!!!

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by LongWire

I was surprised to see at least one cadet and a female E-7 chewing gum!!!!

Just curious . . . But, do they let pretty girls attend that vocational school?

[Costa]

It seems that Rummy says differently!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...d-afghanistan/

[dadof18x'er]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

Just curious . . . But, do they let pretty girls attend that vocational school?

look at this cadet....

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by uboat509

On a lighter note, did anyone notice the number of cadets that were falling asleep? It seemed like every time the camera panned over them at least one was checking his or her neck out. My kids made a game of it. I suspect that some cadets are having a very unpleasant day today.

SFC W

The last time I saw so many collegians with expressions of disinterested annoyance was during the last century when I stood before a lecture hall of undergraduates and (politely) chastised members of my discussion sections for venturing out into the cold December morning, with wet hair but without sweaters or jackets the week before a final exam that was going to be brutal.

"What's the point," I asked. "Of working so hard the whole semester to risk getting ill just before the final?"

One student snarked back "Thanks, dad!"

But back on topic, his choice of venue and stiff delivery did nothing to change my skeptical view of the president's oratorical skills.

[Warrior-Mentor]

Originally Posted by dadof18x'er

look at this cadet....

If you read the link that came from, he was reading while waiting for the President. I've been to a Presidential speach before. They pile you into the room 1-2 hours before the start time. There's nothing to do, but sit there and wait. This cadet was smart enough to plan ahead. If you look, he's wearing a CIB, so clearly prior service. Guess his real world experience provided him with a little common sense. Why sit and waste time when you can get something done?

[Richard]

The Afghanistan timeline President Obama outlined Tuesday calls for the 'surge' of 30,000 new troops to abate after only 18 months. That time frame is consistent with what GEN McChrystal has called the 'decisive' period of the war.

And so it goes...

Richard

Obama's Afghanistan Timeline Adheres To McChrystal Assessment
Mark Sappenfield, CSM, 2 Dec 2009

President Obama's decision to set a timeline on the "surge" of 30,000 new US troops into Afghanistan is consistent with a vehement assertion from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan, in his battlefield assessment.

In urgent language, McChrystal stressed the importance of time in America's Afghan venture – suggesting that the next 12 months could well determine the success or failure of the mission.

The timeline Mr. Obama announced Tuesday night appears geared to providing McChrystal with as many boots on the ground in Afghanistan as soon as is logistically possible in an effort to turn the tide of the war.

The consistency between McChrystal's assertions and Obama's words Tuesday appears to provide a military rationale for the timeline, which has been criticized as a purely political ploy made with the 2012 elections in mind.

The timeline

Obama's timeline involves deploying troops to Afghanistan as soon as next month, and then beginning to scale back the surge in July 2011. That timeline essentially gives the surge 12 months at full strength in Afghanistan at the earliest possible date.

In his assessment, leaked to the press in September, McChrystal wrote:

"We face both a short- and a long-term fight ... but I believe the short-term fight will be decisive," he wrote. "Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) – while Afghan security capacity matures – risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."

Obama appeared to reference this idea directly Tuesday – using some of McChrystal's language almost verbatim – as he announced both the surge and the timeline.

"These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan," Obama said.

Backing McChrystal

The decision appears to mean that McChrystal's assertion that the "next 12 months" will be crucial is a fundamental tenet of US strategy going forward: Speed is of the essence, and the sooner America can get more troops to Afghanistan, the better.

Moreover, it also appears to sanction McChrystal's prediction that a robust US response can bring the insurgency to manageable levels by July 2011.

Under this scenario, tens of thousands of US troops would remain to deal with the remnant of the insurgency – McChrystal's "long-term fight" – since only the surge will begin to end in mid-2011, not the entire mission, which stands at 68,000 US troops today.

Moreover, it's clear that both Obama and McChrystal expect to have more capable Afghan security forces on line by 2011, which could lighten the burden on remaining US forces.

A senior administration official said Tuesday that the end of the surge does not mark the end of US involvement in Afghanistan.

The timeline signifies when the US and NATO "will begin to transfer our lead responsibility ... to Afghan counterparts," said the official, who gave the teleconference briefing on condition of anonymity.

The timeline does not, however, "specify the end of that transition process, nor will [Obama] specify the pace at which it will proceed," the official added. "Those variables – pace and end – will be dictated by conditions on the ground."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1202/p02s04-usfp.html

[Warrior-Mentor]

Guess the speech didn't go over so well...

Obama lost 0.6 in approval in one day since delivering it...

Right now he's at 49.9% Approve (Less than HALF the country likes what he's doing)

And at +5.6 RCP Average, he's at the lowest rating of his Presidency to date...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...oval-1044.html

[Richard]

Guess the speech didn't go over so well...

Apparently not in some quarters...such as among his MoveOn supporters...

And so it goes...

Richard

Dear MoveOn member,

Last night, President Obama announced that he will send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan—on top of the 68,000 who are already there.

MoveOn is its members, so after the speech, we asked thousands of members what they think of the president's plan. While some support his decision to send more troops, a significant majority think escalating the war is wrong. Where all of us agree is that we need to begin bringing our troops home as quickly and safely as possible. (You can see more detailed results below.)

As Sandy M. in Oregon put it, "Millions of lives will be tragically altered. Innocent people, by the thousands, will lose their lives. We have plenty of nation building to do, and it's in our country, not others."

While the president acknowledged that our commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended, we have to act now to make sure our representatives and senators hold him to that. President Obama said he'll begin withdrawing troops in July, 2011, but news reports are already suggesting that withdrawal could be very limited, so pressure from Congress will be key.

Congress could take up legislation related to the war this month, so we need to get the message to them quickly. Can you sign our emergency petition calling on Congress to end the war as quickly as possible? Clicking below will add your name:

http://pol.moveon.org/afghan_timelin...62-2VuiEsx&t=3

The petition says, "Congress must push the Obama administration to outline firm benchmarks and a binding timeline to bring all of our troops home from Afghanistan as soon as possible."

When we asked MoveOn members what they think about the situation in Afghanistan, they acknowledged the mess that George W. Bush left for President Obama. Still, nearly all MoveOn members agree that we must have a clear military exit strategy with a firm timeline so we can end the war quickly.

But right-wing hawks like Sen. John McCain are already pushing the President to continue the war indefinitely.2 In the face of this pressure, the majority of Americans, who oppose the war, must speak up.
The costs of this war are enormous—for the men and women of our armed forces who face injury or death, for Afghans who will suffer increased violence and civilian casualties, and for American citizens who are spending billions of dollars without being any safer. The administration and Congress have to hear from those of us who want to see the war come to an end.

Can you sign our emergency petition now telling Congress to work to bring our troops home? Clicking below will add your name:

http://pol.moveon.org/afghan_timelin...62-2VuiEsx&t=4

Thanks for all you do.

–Daniel, Peter, Lenore, Kat, and the rest of the team

P.S. We've been hearing from MoveOn members about Afghanistan for months now, so we wanted to get a sense of what people were thinking in the wake of President Obama's speech. So, since last night's speech, we've asked more than 50,000 randomly selected MoveOn members to let us know what they think about the President's plan.

There's no question the situation in Afghanistan is difficult, and MoveOn members, like all Americans, are wrestling with the lack of good options. But right now, a significant majority of us oppose escalating the war. We've posted the results of the surveys we ran at:

http://pol.moveon.org/afghanistan/po...62-2VuiEsx&t=5

And here's what some MoveOn members had to say:

"War is not the answer. We don't have the money. We need to get our own house in order."—Theresa T., Fort Bragg, CA

"A terrible waste of American and Afghan lives with slim chance of positive outcomes. If Americans are asked to fund anything with a new tax it should be universal healthcare not warfare."—Carol B., Port Hadlock, WA

"I respect President Obama. I respect his opinions and the information he has, that I don't. At the same time, I want us out of the war zone. I am very concerned."—Patricia D., Reno, NV

"I don't feel that it's possible to accomplish whatever it is we're trying to accomplish there, and I want the waste of lives and money to stop immediately."—Barbara E., Rock Stream, NY

"We need to keep our kids here, not send them to fight battles elsewhere."—Beth W., Gold Beach, OR

"We have too many problems here at home. Our national debt is huge. We do not need to be adding more to it."—Marietta H., Carson, CA

"I think this a very tough thing. We cannot run out on the Afghan people, but if they cannot rise to the occasion by 2011, then we should come home and be done!"—Peter M., Newbury Park, CA

[dadof18x'er]

Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor

If you read the link that came from, he was reading while waiting for the President. I've been to a Presidential speach before. They pile you into the room 1-2 hours before the start time. There's nothing to do, but sit there and wait. This cadet was smart enough to plan ahead. If you look, he's wearing a CIB, so clearly prior service. Guess his real world experience provided him with a little common sense. Why sit and waste time when you can get something done?

I wonder how much PT that cadet has done since his pic has made the WWW

[LongWire]

Originally Posted by Richard

Apparently not in some quarters...such as among his MoveOn supporters...

Richard

With a name like that organization you cant figure that they would like standing still, or even supporting the status quo........

The rolling stone gathers no moss.

[BoyScout]

Originally Posted by uboat509

On a lighter note, did anyone notice the number of cadets that were falling asleep? It seemed like every time the camera panned over them at least one was checking his or her neck out. My kids made a game of it. I suspect that some cadets are having a very unpleasant day today.

SFC W

My mom called me just to make sure I did notice. She paid more attention to that than what he said.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by dadof18x'er

I wonder how much PT that cadet has done since his pic has made the WWW

Probably as much as he felt he needed. There is no organized PT during the academic year for cadets. They take a semi-annual APFT that becomes part of their academic grade for Phys Ed, along with an indoor obstacle course (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzBPt0WQg7k) several times during the 4 years that also counts towards their Phys Ed grade. A cadet can choose to blow off doing PT, but as the saying goes you can't cram the night before for a PT test, so their grade would suffer, which has lasting effects in terms of branch and post assignment post commissioning.

As far as punishment, if the Chain of Command felt that was necessary, he'd walk the Area for a number of hours on the weekend(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...ea,_May_98.jpg).

[Richard]

The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 – the fastest pace possible – so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility – what’s at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.

NATO antes up.

NATO Pledges 7,000 More Troops for Afghanistan
Mark Landler and Steven Erlanger, NYT, 4 Dec 2009

Responding to American entreaties for more soldiers in Afghanistan, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO secretary general, announced Friday that the alliance had agreed to contribute a further 7,000 “new forces” to the coalition there following Washington’s decision to commit some 30,000 American reinforcements.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/wo...er=rss&emc=rss

But...

NATO Promises Troops, Some Members Stall
Der Spiegel, 3 Dec 2009

NATO has promised to send at least 5,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan. The question is: Where will they come from? Some nations, including Germany, say they will not make any decisions until next year, while other nations are saying that their soldiers can go -- but not fight.

<snip>

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...664990,00.html

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02

[lindy]

Address on Somalia (October 7, 1993)
Bill Clinton

After American soldiers were killed in Somalia, President Clinton addresses the nation regarding U.S. military involvement in Somalia. He outlines the goals for continued U.S. involvement, including protecting U.S. troops, securing the area, and keeping the flow of food and supplies open. Clinton stresses that the United States will only leave Somalia on its own terms, and the U.S. military must increase its strength so it can do its job and bring our soldiers home.

This transcript contains the published text of the speech, not the actual words spoken. There may be some differences between the transcript and the audio/video content.

Transcript

My fellow Americans:

Today I want to talk with you about our Nation's military involvement in Somalia. A year ago, we all watched with horror as Somali children and their families lay dying by the tens of thousands, dying the slow, agonizing death of starvation, a starvation brought on not only by drought, but also by the anarchy that then prevailed in that country.

This past weekend we all reacted with anger and horror as an armed Somali gang desecrated the bodies of our American soldiers and displayed a captured American pilot, all of them soldiers who were taking part in an international effort to end the starvation of the Somali people themselves. These tragic events raise hard questions about our effort in Somalia. Why are we still there? What are we trying to accomplish? How did a humanitarian mission turn violent? And when will our people come home?

These questions deserve straight answers. Let's start by remembering why our troops went into Somalia in the first place. We went because only the United States could help stop one of the great human tragedies of this time. A third of a million people had died of starvation and disease. Twice that many more were at risk of dying. Meanwhile, tons of relief supplies piled up in the capital of Mogadishu because a small number of Somalis stopped food from reaching their own countrymen.

Our conscience said, enough. In our Nation's best tradition, we took action with bipartisan support. President. Bush sent in 28,000 American troops as part of a United Nations humanitarian mission. Our troops created a secure environment so that food and medicine could get through. We. saved close to one million lives. And throughout most of Somalia, everywhere but in Mogadishu, life began returning to normal. Crops are growing. Markets are reopening. So are schools and hospitals. Nearly a million Somalis still depend completely on relief supplies, but at least the starvation is gone. And none of this would have happened without American leadership and America's troops.

Until June, things went well, with little violence. The United States reduced our troop presence from 28,000 down to less than 5,000, with other nations picking up where we left off. But then in June, the people who caused much of the problem in the beginning started attacking American, Pakistani, and other troops who were there just to keep the peace.

Rather than participate in building the peace with others, these people sought to fight and to disrupt, even if it means returning Somalia to anarchy and mass famine. And make no mistake about it, if we were to leave Somalia tomorrow, other nations would leave,