[herbalviagra]

Obama said that U.S. troops deserve a clear strategy and full support to fulfill their mission.

The things GWB never provided in 7 years.

Let's rag on Obama though. I'd prefer to concentrate over the person IN office than the person that WAS in office, but I suppose it comes down to a decison on substance vs hot air.

[BWJfEkOB]

Can you direct me to your criticism of GWB Afghan policy when he was in office?

Otherwise I'll consider your attacks no more than partisan.

You seriously need to be directed to attacks on Bush's policy on Afghanistan? Iraq? His choice of dinner on any given night?

[Olympicdreams]

You seriously need to be directed to attacks on Bush's policy on Afghanistan? Iraq? His choice of dinner on any given night?

From you Sprayber.

You have been a poster here since 2000. Where are your complaints over those 7 years about GWG's indecision?

Obama has dithered since the McChrystal comments in August. GWB dithered for 7 years.

Have you been consistent over this time or are you really just interested in attacking Obama?

[joanasevilyboaz]

From you Sprayber.

You have been a poster here since 2000. Where are your complaints over those 7 years about GWG's indecision?

Obama has dithered since the McChrystal comments in August. GWB dithered for 7 years.

Have you been consistent over this time or are you really just interested in attacking Obama?

But mommy, sussie hit me first. mommy, sussie called me a poopie head, but mommie sussie delayed her Afghan policy for years.

[strongjannabiz]

And in all fairness GWB didn't really dither for 7 years.
Once he screwed up and made IRAQ a target he no longer had the option of sending additional troops to Afghanistan since they weren't available. Based on his paying attention to his ground commander and authorizing the surge in Iraq, I think it's safe to say that if his commander recommended more in Afghanistan that Bush would have backed the request completely once troops were available. Iraq was the real problem, not Afghanistan.

[HonjUopu]

Hack.

Couldn't rise to the challenge.

The thing is, I don't have to rise to your challenge. I don't have to search through the archives for a post bashing anyone. I prefer to look at the person who is in office NOW who can change things now. But it is fun watching you Call me some more interesting names I find it amusing.

[Xfxhbcxp]

And in all fairness GWB didn't really dither for 7 years.

Define "dither".


Once he screwed up and made IRAQ a target he no longer had the option of sending additional troops to Afghanistan since they weren't available. Based on his paying attention to his ground commander and authorizing the surge in Iraq, I think it's safe to say that if his commander recommended more in Afghanistan that Bush would have backed the request completely once troops were available. Iraq was the real problem, not Afghanistan. This counts as "dithering" to me.

[drugstore]

How does that count as dithering?

I added a wink smiley to my definition question for a reason. A half hearted position...


An argument could be made that launching a war of aggression against a 3rd nation which sapped troops from the real fight (Afghanistan) was dithering.

[NKUDirectory]

I don't think a direct comparison to the Russians is valid.
The missions are completely different. Occupation vs. security.

And there were a lot of people here that thought the surge in Iraq would be an utter failure and look how that turned out for them.

I'm not saying it will work or not, but the commander on the ground has a lot more information available to him that I do about the situation.

[nretdjuend]

Actually, dithering by diversion. Put yourself in a position where you can't do anything.

[sleelverrex]

Actually, dithering by diversion. Put yourself in a position where you can't do anything.

I'm guessing that wasn't the intent of declaring war in Iraq.

[Carfanate]

Actually, dithering by diversion. Put yourself in a position where you can't do anything.

That's no where near dithering. It's just being stupid.

And I still think that while some of the afghan people view us like the soviets that there are many that don't. A lot of people fear the taliban and don't trust us to protect them from them.

[lipitrRrxX]

And I still think that while some of the afghan people view us like the soviets that there are many that don't. A lot of people fear the taliban and don't trust us to protect them from them.

The Soviets were "invited" into the country. That's more than we can say.

The Taliban derive from the Pashtun, the majority ethnic group in Afghanistan. A future partition may be a way to go...

[TOPERink]

The Soviets were "invited" into the country. That's more than we can say.

Since they proceeded to execute the government that "inivited" them, I don't think that really counts.

[Tinasblue]

Personally I think the whole "indecision" argument is a red herring. Even if the general gets the troops he's asking for it will be insufficient. 200K (many of which are NATO non-combatants) is simply not enough. Soviet numbers were closer to 400K (without non-fight caveats) and look how it turned out for them. Which super power is supplying the Taliban again?

The Soviet conflict involved the death of anywhere from 700K to 2M civilians and at least 5 times as many Soviet troops than American troops currently. There is no comparison.