Victory!
 

I am curious, why Obama during a nationally televised speech about Afghanistan never said we will be victorious..

He talked about handing over contriol, and karzi, and peace and blah blah blah, but never said vitory is the ultimate goal.

Anyone else notice this?

Everyone did. He laid out his goal(s). Victory is not one of them.

Heaven help the military with a C-I-C like that.

good mornin' CSA and Daddio!

well me friends, lets be fair. i give'm points fer honesty, then.

lord help a president who makes the term "vittory" so elastic that he redefines it on a day to day basis, to the point whar even the ordinary american citizen can see right through the ploy.

aye.

- MeadHallPirate

Iraq was "Mission Accomplished" how many years and dead American soldiers ago?

I think its smart to make the war about transitioning power from us to the Afghanis. Otherwise we look like an occupier, and we know how well that goes over in muslim countries.

Yes, he did not claim to want a victory he was not interested in this time as he did indicate as a candidate.

*nods to Daddio*

well, perhaps matey, perhaps.

i sorta look at whats played out and just take president Obama at his word. i believe that he thought that vittory in Afghanistan (now pakistan) was worth pursuein' a year or so ago. he probably believed 'twas possible.

now 'tis possible that the president no longer believes that the vittory he envisioned can be secured. as i said, i give'm points fer honesty and candor.

at the very least, i salute him fer not goin' in front 'o our military professionals and wavin' pom poms, given' them a pie-in-the-sky sales pitch.

i gotta head off to work now, me friend, avast ye!

- MeadHallPirate

What is victory in Afghanistan?

Andrew

good question andrew. we won't find it I can tell you that, in 18 months, meh....

I'm more interested in defining victory conditions than being able to declare "Victory".

I don't think Obama set clear victory conditions.

It's pretty much the same vague agenda as Iraq. Bring the local army up to a point where they can stand on their own and leave. The problem is that that will take forever and doesn't mesh with his timetable. There is no real victory in either Iraq or in Afghanistan. On both counts we initially dominated, but we haven't proven that there was a net improvement in stability until we are able to leave without the house of cards falling down.

Dear God.

Really, guys. It's clear that many of you are bitter that Obama was elected to POTUS. This is getting out of control, though. Picking at every nit will get you nowhere.

$th post in and you come out with "Bush sucked so Obama can suck too" well atleast you are saying the name anymore.

the fact the Commander in chief does not need to be victorious in a war, before declaring troops will begin comming home is NOT a little thing..

Well I guress to you it is, but to most people its not.

Bullshit.

You're assuming facts that are not in evidence.

Um, I'm pointing out that bush said the exact opposite, and in fact was wrong. So actually Obama (might) have learned from bush's mistake which would be a point in his favor.

I agree, even a caveman would wave around his big stick just to be sure everyone knows who the bad ass is. Oh.... I guess that's why. http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

As long as he says Mission Accomplished when we leave, we're good.

What is victory? As we're more referees and not players, especially in Iraq, what is the over concern with cheerleading words?

Helping another to solve his problems needs sucess, not Victory.

Now the foreign forces in Afghanistan have succeeded in getting the Afghans and the Pakis off of their asses and fight Talibs and AQ themselves.

If with Victory you mean defeat and destruction of AQ, you´ll never achieve it.
They just spread around the globe and to defeat them with the standard US tactics you would have to war in every country in the world, including your own.

If you want to defeat them, the only way would be to create an army of assassins or thugees and take them out one by one.
And even then there will never be a "victory" as AQ operates the same way.
But at least, they could be reduced in numbers, cut off from supplies and thus be rendered relatively ineffective.

Some folks need that.
Just like those, parking their fat asses in a Stadium, munching popcorn and imbibing a sixpack only to declare later "we won" and all supporters of the defeated team were useless morons and weaklings.

Another discussion about winning the war in Afghanistan with still no definition on what “winning” means.

If winning means an Afghanistan that no longer can mount large terrorist attacks against the west then we won in the first couple of weeks.
If winning means a stable and prosperous Afghan nation with a large middle class and a functioning democracy then it will take trillions of dollars and three or four generations to build the infrastructure and educate the people out of the middle ages.

Before talking about willing, lets define it first, otherwise we will never win.

I’ve spent the last few years working in Afghanistan, we are losing by any definition, security is less everywhere and the Taliban operate their own government in many places, especially the south.

No nation has ever won an indigenous insurgency with massive military force. The last large scale attempt was here in Afghanistan when the Soviets, despite a willingness to employ draconian tactics, lost. A coordinated plan with civilian, military and diplomatic means is necessary, unfortunately the doves only can say spend more on aid and the harks say bomb them back to the stone age.


The US lost Viet Nam, The Brits lost twice before in Afghanistan in the 1800’s and they lost the 13 colonies which was the first war of insurgency. You simply cannot win against an insurgency by military force alone. You need to change the social and cultural conditions that gave rise to the insurgency in the first place and that will take time.

No wonder we are losing with no coherent plan or even an idea of where we are going.