That’s odd. This story coming out has been one of the most damaging things to Obama. The comments weren’t bad. But the article did show that – or represent that – the experts on the subject think Obama and his band of wet-eared-twits are incompetent fools. And it’s not a political thing. Mc Crystal voted for Obama – I’ve heard. Hell, out of all the people feeling like jackasses for voting for Obama, Mc Crystal is in the top ten.

But seriously, who could blame any warrior for bitching about this administration’s attempt at administrating war? The whole group was dead-set against the surge in Iraq. They wanted to leave!!! That’s how Obama got off the ground politically. Before that he was giving pessimistic idealistic cheap-shot shit to Petraeus in senate hearings.

And Biden – good Lord… He’s still against the surge in Afghanistan. His idea was to leave and strike at terrorists with the Navy via missiles and drones. Holy-horseshit Biden, even with soldiers on the ground peaking in windows we’re struggling not to kill civilians and make more terrorists – when we kill terrorists with missiles and drones.

Sometimes democracy produces some seriously stupid events. Unless we plan to stay in Afghanistan for the next couple decades, as apposed to starting withdraws according to Obama’s Lefty time-table, I’m not sure how we’ll pull this thing off. Canning guys like Mc Crystal for this kind of crap isn’t going to help.

Do you get the feeling, when Obama has to step outside and partake in the job of actual leadership, that he feels he’s getting sidetracked? I think Obama saw the President as the guy who get’s to say where we pull over to eat and when, but didn’t realize 99% of the time he’d have to be driving this damn country and not pushing his big fancy agenda.

And that’s what half this thing is about. Obama has his nifty time-line and is still openly planning to start withdraws next July, even though we are currently stuck up to the axles. Everyone with a brain has been screaming and crying about why announcing time-lines to Al Qaeda and the Taliban is extremelyunwise, illogical, and insane – sort of like telling them how you, or that you have, extracted intelligence from one of their failed suiciders.

Obama hits his old problem here: ideology trumping logic. If his Left suspected his Afghanistan commitment was open ended – and some do – they’d turn on his hopy-changey ass. But he’s stuck! He already used 2007-2008 pleasant Afghanistan to hammer on Bush and the, then difficult, efforts in Iraq – calling Afghanistan necessary and not optional and a bunch of other words that would commit even a slimy politician to the effort – at least for a while, until some logical-sounding reason can be found to leave.

At least with Afghanistan some of the criticism is right. You guys know, I’ve always had faith in Iraq. When former Iraqi’s were saying Iraqis aren’t capable of talk, they’ll just hit each other with shoes, I remembered a photo taken just after the fall of Baghdad: Smoke was rising from the city and US troops where holding up traffic going in. The photographer was behind an old pickup FILLED with ripe tomatoes. They had to get those tomatoes to market or they’d rot! I felt then these people had what it would take to build a society without a dictator keeping them inline. I don’t have this faith in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is HUGE, primitive, corrupt, CRAZY, desperate, and just plain generally not-smart. But like McCain said over and over: It’s not troop presence that people are against, it’s casualties. That’s one more thing McCain said that’s proven true. Can anyone think of anything Obama or Biden said that has proven true?  POSERS!!!

I just need this quick rant. Diane Reims read a letter a moment ago. It went something like this, in regard to the new Afghan offensive: I think Obama is taking big gamble. Success is fleeting. The solution is not guns and rockets. I think we should buy the opium harvest outright.

I’d like everyone to tell me their two favorite reasons this idea is Sofa King stupid? And let’s focus away from the “gun’s and rockets” argument, since Liberals will never succumb to the idea that there exists a thing called aggressor for whom only force is understood.

It’s simple. An attempt to “buy the opium harvest outright” would essentially double the demand for opium in Afghanistan, driving the price up. Of course, if would be more than double. There isn’t a co-op or central distribution center to go and right-out buy the whole lot. You’d have to artificially increase the demand several fold – increasing the price several fold.

If you look at any supply/demand curve, you’ll see the left side levels out at some point while the right side slopes up increasingly into a near vertical.

Think of it in these terms: Bananas are about $.50 a pound. They’re this cheep because that is the market price. If Kroger has bananas at $.75 a pound, I’ll wait until I’m at Meijer to get some. If Meijer put bananas on sale, say $.40 a pound, I might grab an extra one. If something happens and bananas drop to $.20 a pound, it probably won’t matter – I won’t buy more than maybe one extra. I’m already buying the maximum number of banana’s I care to eat. So you see the left side of the graph levels out.

Now look at the right side of the graph. Let’s say the demand doubles. What will this do to the banana price? It means there won’t be enough bananas to go around, so the price will double, triple, and keep growing until the market find its price – all depending on how much people want a banana.

This is the same thing that will happen in Afghanistan with opium. The price will – certainly – more than double. And what happens to either opium or bananas when the price rises, or when the demand goes up? Farmers struggle to fill the demand. Just like when we started funding ethanol fuel, there were food shortages in south America because farmers were switching from the local staple food – corn – to growing corn for fuel. Likewise, Afghan farmers will switch from rice and other staples to opium. And thus the price for staple foods will go up pricing more Afghans out of the market.

Will this take opium from the Taliban and make them unable to sell it and finance their guns and rockets? No, it will just make opium cost more at first, until the farmers catch up. Opium cost to the drug trade at the farmer-buyer lever is like water costs to a tire factory. All the drug trader’s costs are in smuggling and enforcing – and Taliban are probably considered something of both.

And if the US wanted to keep the price up, they’d have to dump more and more money into the drug market every year to compensate for the increased growing, continuing the cycle of skyrocketing food costs. So – it would just be stupid.

This might lead one to image a different market solution. It might seem a good idea to start buying up another crop. If you could raise the price of something besides opium, farmers would grow that instead of opium. There one problem with this – actually two. There’s of course the problem that Afghans already pay most their income for food and are easily priced out. But the fundamental problem is in HOW the crops are priced. Rice or fruit have price curves that are low, because the demand is dependent on people already at max output – they really can’t spend more on food. And if they could, they wouldn’t buy a whole lot more of it. You only need so much food regardless.

Opium is different. The price curve can rise very high. Opium demand depends on world demand for opioids, efforts governments make at regulating opioids, number of suppliers fighting over the market, trends in opioid use, and all the other regular world trade variables. In other words, even if you multiplied the price for a non-opium Afghan crop by 10, opium would still price its way into holding the amount of crop land it needs to fill the demand – because the actual opium cost in the final illegal opioid drug in pennies on the dollar – if that.

It’s better use guns and missiles to damage the Taliban’s ability to buy and ship opium and what they buy with the opium. Cutting off a smuggling routs and otherwise making the opium business an extremely deadly one drives the price up quite a bit!

There are a bunch, handed down from Karzai and Mc Chrystal. Here are a few.

- No night or surprise searches.
- Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.
- ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches.
- U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.
- U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present.
- Only women can search women.
- Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid.
- U.S. soldiers can’t engage a person unless they are actually holding a weapon.
- 96 hour, or catch-and-release rule, US soldiers have to release a detainee if they can’t transfer then into Afghan custody in less than 96 hours – so most go free.
- No rough language at detainees

So a single Tali can hold up a whole Marine squad by sitting on a roof and picking at them all day long while the Marines get all the people out of the area. Then the Tali can set down his rifle, walk out the front door, pull down his pants and slap his dirty little butt cheek at them and stroll down to the local hashish dealer to reward himself for a hard day of doing God’s work.

Here’s a short article on the subject: http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/02/19/rules-of-engagement-under-the-microscope/?test=latestnews

Here’s a longer one: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/16/us-troops-battle-taliban-afghan-rules/

I can’t imagine how frustrating it is following these rules, but our guys are doing it. Besides the English, I wonder if any army in the world would be this capable of such amazing discipline? Talk about the Marines being your best friend of your worst enemy…

As for the rules them selves, fundamentally I have a serious problem with politics creeping in – like Karzai or Obama earning political points, or trying to keep American support. But so far, it looks like the ROE is tactical – essential to the overall strategy of taking, holding, and protecting – and not search and destroy.

This strategy has been glaringly evident in how we’ve conducted the Marjah offensive. We warned the damn place like days in advance, so the pansy Taliban could flee and the really angry crazy ones could stock up and prepare.

And it’s been a costly strategy. We’re taking casualties. But if the strategy is sound we’ll actually get this dirty job

I’m amazed at the optimism some have when Obama is the subject. If he’s not a Left wing-nut no one is. This decision on Afghanistan had less to do with ideology and more to do with drinking the lesser political poison.

Time is totally on the Taliban’s side. Think about it for a couple minutes. They don’t have control now – not of the urban areas anyway – and control isn’t necessary for their goals, not right now anyway.

1. Have you been listening to the radio? NPR is even having trouble finding people who support “Obama’s war” without them being disgusted with the three month stall and – at least perceived – lack of commitment. The Taliban doesn’t need public support. They hardly even need public complacency.
2. Obama has announced a time line (ffs lol). The Taliban sends people on attack who plan on spending the rest of their lives on that attack.
3. Our guys cost around $million a year and each fighter take 10 other guys to support him. Their guys bring guns and money, are free, or work for a few dollars a week and get supplied by a donkey.
4. The new strategy calls for defending the populous, mainly in the cities. The Taliban lives in the mountains and valleys where they maintain control with simple terror and isolation.

The Taliban can afford to sit on their asses – in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or where ever else – and only make the easy attacks. Essentially, all they have to do is not lose. That’s one of the prickly things about guerillas. They can rest for weeks and attack at their convenience. They have nothing to protect but their own bodies and ammo dumps. If we want something protected we have to man and supply it.

The Taliban keeps power in the country side because they function as a government. The new strategy will hopefully get the Afghan army trained up, but there’s little anyone can do about the ingrained corruption. So people will have the choice between fanatical Muslims or corrupt officials.

If I were the other guy I would focus on infiltrating the Afghan government, police, and army while my dumber fighters store weapons and hid. Eventually an opportunity would open up for a serious Tet-like offensive, maybe in 18 months, maybe sooner, maybe later. 18 months isn’t long at all.

Or how about this logic? Time isn’t on Obama’s side is it? I mean, if this deadline works out it will be his first one. Stuff is already getting pushed back deployment wise. So, if time is not on Obama’s side, and the enemy of your enemy is your friend, then time is definitely on the Taliban’s side.

Oh yeah, and also not on Obama’s side is his fancy talk and strange habit of blurting out accusatory beliefs he has. I think he got into that habit bashing America and Bush though the campaign. Well, the Pakistanis didn’t like him accusing them of being half friends of the Taliban and not being able to protect their nukes.

LOL – I think I’ve brought up the odd Obama phenomenon before. It’s where people vote for and support him because of the image he’s produced – an image that makes you assume he’ll do the right thing (what you think the right thing is) regardless of his stated intentions.

A perfect example of one of these fools is a lady I just saw on Fox. Bill Hemmer was interviewing the founder of Code Pink, Medea Benjamin.

Bill: “When President Obama was elected to the Whitehouse did you think he was going to end the war in Afghanistan?”

Medea: “Well, we didn’t know because he did call Afghanistan the ‘good war’. But we thought once he was in power he would be a smart president and he would give us an opportunity to have a different attitude toward the rest of the world instead of facing it with guns and – a – and military might – we would use diplomacy.”

LOL – Code Pink should have voted present. It’s so ridiculous. It’s like those people who vote Democrat because they think they’ll lower taxes. LOL

LOL – Medea Benjamin (founder of Code Pink) claimed that the presence of more troops equates to more civilian deaths. And her solution is to stop military intervention and focus on economic development – LOL. Someone should ask her what happened to the fucking Kandahar freeway – LOL.

Perhaps she should go in and be the first to lead this economic development.  Indeed, and get acid thrown on her for being outside the house, especially dressed the way she was on the show – such a whore. I wonder what part of the economy she’d start developing? Opium? Ancient irrigation ducts? Because those are the only things the Taliban will allow.

Or maybe she could help build schools. Girls won’t be allowed there though. And the boys graduating will be like those robots that attacked India: they won’t know how to use a drinking fountain but they’ll know their way around the AK-47 and have the Quran memorized.

And the other funny thing is that the extra troops are being deployed for a strategy that switches from going after the Taliban to protecting the citizens from the Taliban… People need to at least understand what they’re protesting against before they start organizing and distributing pink shirts. It’s like blaming the dog for having fleas.

LOL – the leak was right-on. These kids… Whitehouse High school.

They did say a Jeffersonian-type democracy was impossible in Afghanistan. From what I hear though, Afghans are somewhat known for their brazen thievery. So, all they need is some deep-seeded racial tension and an undeserved sense of entitlement, and they’ll be all set with a Washington democracy.

I just heard the Taliban’s response to Obama’s sermon. LOL – they said the strategy won’t work and that Obama is only doing it because of pressure from the military and contractors. LOL, like Obama could give a polite little shit about either of those groups. The Taliban needs to learn their enemy.

LOL. Yeah and Bush initially went into Afghanistan because of pressure from the Unions and NAACP. That reminds me of another thing I heard out of those fools. I heard captured Taliban assumed all our aviators were women, because who else would fly around for half an hour watching before carefully and consistently blowing the hell out of Taliban without kill civilians or hitting schools.

Obama better get some serious support from the Republicans on this…

So what do you think the actual motivation is behind Obama’s troop decision? I support the decision, assuming Mc Crystal’s strategy is followed properly. I know – Obama had no business taking an entire three months of fall season to decide on this, and then call for them to be deployed quickly. Wars have been started and finished in less time.

My main area of concern and suspicion is the time-line announcement. Mc Cain was certainly upset by that, with good reason. BTW – that man is one energetic and amazing individual. One thousand Mc Cains could take over the world. But anyway – there simply isn’t anything more helpful you could do for the Taliban leaders than to tell them your plans. So what’s going on here?

I’ve got two theories. Here’s the first one, and the one I’m hoping is the truth: Obama sees the need to actually stabilize Afghanistan, but he needs his political base. So, he committed the minimum number of troops Mc Crystal thought he’d need, hoping not to ruffle Leftist feathers to much. And that’s also the reason for the timeline. He announced it knowing full well it would be helpful to the enemy, but also knowing full well we’d be keeping significant forces in country well after the 18 months. For example, he’ll send in the extra 30k just long enough to turn the momentum then start pulling out a number less that 30k – depending on the situation. The bottom line being, he’s fighting to win the war but in a way that will allow him the political support to continue his domestic social engineering. So if the Taliban makes plans based on the timeline, like laying low for a while to plan a major offensive, they’ll end up disappointed. Regardless, time is on their side.

My second idea is more sinister but in many ways more realistic: He’s only sending troops in to validate his campaign claims and to show he’s not weak on defense. He sent the minimum to symbolize that. He announced the time-line and will stick to it. He knows the Taliban will spend the 18 months on guerilla staples: hiding, catching, and training. As the withdraw begins the Taliban will pull a Tet-like offensive which will chase the remaining troops out and embarrass the hell out of the US and UN. Obama will have fully withdrawn conveniently in the summer preceding 2012 – eloquently explaining in yet another address how Afghanistan is simply untenable and always has been – Alexander the Great, Attlia the Hun, British Empire, and the Soviet Union.

People like to compare Obama to Lincoln for some reason. Here’s a good exercise though: How do you think – Dr. Dove especially – Obama would have handled the southern states succession and acquisition of US forts in southern territory?

He would probably have fought a war. Here’s a better question: How would Obama have handled Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11? He probably wouldn’t have done the right thing by making Iraq the top priority, while leaving Afghanistan to the dogs. Damn, he sure is a bad president.

Are you sure Dr. Dove?  I remember you commending Bush on taking the month or so he took figuring before Crippling the Taliban in Afghanistan. I remember you comparing it to the day-after Tomahawk strikes good old Billy used to pull – the type that had the crazy Muslims calling it a distraction from Monica. I doubt Obama would have even sent SF like Billy used to do.
And would Obama have pushed for something like the Patriot Act, you know, the thing that has been allowing us the intell that has stopped the post 9-11 attacks, like the Sears Tower that we know of, and the intel we didn’t use about the Fort Hood shooter?

And I agree. Obama wouldn’t have attacked Iraq. Sadam would still be jerking him around like a gullible nephew – like Iran and N Korea are. Instead of the world seeing a dictator pulled out of a rat hole for not complying with the national community, they’d see what they are seeing now, an impotent UN and a polite and likable US President they can ignore and go about their Nuclear aims. You know, like Iran is.

But what about this? What if Bush was correct? What if Iraq was as strong as it looked and a few years from having nukes? How would your man have prevented that? Or would he have? And will he with Iran or N Korea? Or does that even matter in this post-racial society where everything comes down to race – lol?

I think Bush did well to take time before going into Afghanistan. The initial attack on the Taliban was brilliant. The problem was Rumsfeld thought we only needed a handful of soldiers and CIA after the initial assault, and Bush granted him his wish. The assessment was totally wrong, and allowed Afghanistan to become the fiasco it is today.

Iraq was a horrible idea. The post-war planning was even worse. Iraq was no more of a threat than half a dozen other countries, and we didn’t go attacking them.

We took over Iraq to establish a military base in one of the most oil-rich places on earth. There is no other reason. The weapons of mass destruction fear was smoke and mirrors. The intelligence was cooked. The administration pressured the CIA to cook it.

I think your second idea is right on. There is no way a modern war could turn a profit on the short term. However, with China and India growing, they are going to need energy. Iraq is a great place to find it. I think the administration was afraid our new growing competitors would go after the resources in Iraq in a way we couldn’t (i.e becoming allies with Iraq/Saddam Hussein). Bush and Cheney saw that as bad. They needed to beat China to the punch, and saw war as the best means to do so.

I have trouble with that. Maybe it’s because I’m a hippy, and I don’t think economic gain is moral justification for taking over a sovereign country, even if the leader is an evil guy.

I just want honestly about the whole thing. We didn’t go in because of links with Al Qaeda, WMDs, or freedom fries. We went in to secure an important natural resource for ourselves. We should be discussing if that was morally right or wrong. The rest is smoke and mirrors.

I’m with Obama. An alternate energy source that we could produce here (and make jobs for our people) is a much better alternative to military action in our nascent global competition with China. There is a way. We just need to find it.

I know the Cowboy image the Left likes to propagate. And I understand the version of history you guys like to remember. But you haven’t answered any of my questions. Are you using a debate tactic and know you can’t answer any national defense questions about Obama without leaving him lacking?

Are you really trying to say Obama not only would have sent troops to Afghanistan, but he would have sent manymore than Rumsfeld thought was necessary?

Are you trying to say Obama would have listened more closely to the Generals, contrary to his current actions?

And are you really sticking to the Cooked-Books conspiracy theory??? Just in case, let’s focus on the known-knows. Assuming, as we all did in 2001, we suspected Sadam of having WMD. He wouldn’t allow inspections. Without hindsight, and without imaginary theories, and without assuming Obama has actual god-like powers – would Obama have threatened military force then? And after Sadam continued to evade inspections would Obama have followed up on that threat?

And what about the legislation the Cowboy congress passed, the Patriot Act, which gave us the intel we used to stop numerous terror attacks in the past 8 year? You know sure as shit that wouldn’t have happened.

And here’s another one: Would Obama have been elected for a second term in 2004? Assuming he followed the policies he advocated during his campaign and acted the way he’s acting now, we wouldn’t have had the intel to stop the attacks. So we would have seen at least one more major attack and who knows how many small ones in his first term.

Debate tactics are for morons who can’t think. I like to think I don’t belong in that category.

In the world of if and buts and candy and nuts, I don’t know what Obama would have done. I just think it would have been done in a less reckless way. In the current situation in Afghanistan, I think he’ll listen to his generals and increase troop numbers. We’re going to lose otherwise. We’ll all find out tomorrow.

Regarding the “cooked books conspiracy theory.” It isn’t a conspiracy theory. That the Bush administration pressured to CIA to find evidence that Saddam had WMDs is well documented fact. Why they did it is more of a question.

Holy shit Dr. Dove. Don’t you realize how bias you are being? You’re willing to look so deep and thirst for a suitable truth from Bush’s actions. But you’ll take Obama’s actions at face value – many of which are contrary to his campaign promises. You see no motive behind health reform besides giving needy people healthcare – even though it’s not reform, is more representative of a takeover, and is being written in the opposite on-CSPAN bipartisan way Obama promised? And do you see cap’n trade as a sincere effort to control the earth’s temperature – even though it will increase carbon release and is really nothing more than a complicated tax on energy with a market the government would have control of?

Remember when I asked you about the Fort Hood shooting? Remember your bias answer, the one fitting this world view you’ve chosen? How did that work out? That fucker wasn’t even counseling Vets. He was counseling soldiers before they went over. The military accepted his worthless ass in his lat 20’s or early 30’s – giving his a second chance at life – and gave him a world class education. And he decided to give Jihad a try to thank them. One of the initial conclusions was right. Mine was partially right. Your’s was totally wrong!

Hey, if it was a Christian doing Crusade would you have had the same initial opinion, or would you have brought up how religion can help a man to overcome empathy?

And as for Iraq, we were worried about Sadan having WMDs even during the first Gulf war – Kuwait. And as far as response goes, bush was following the policy Bill Clinton advocated during his presidency. So let’s not act like we’re stupid. Sadam was doing everything he could to get nukes. He used WMD on his own people. Stay out of the conspiracy drawer full of fake moon landings and Bush-planned 9-11.

Unless you think – maybe – Bush thought there were WMD and the CIA just wasn’t magical enough to find the evidence glaring and clear.

This isn’t an if’s and but’s. This is serious. You’re under a delusion about Obama doing everything, no matter what it is, in a better way, whatever that is. It’s the blissful poetry he sold you guys with.

It’s perfectly honest and logical to study how different leaders would have dealt with different past issues – based on their philosophies and motivations – in order to predict how they will hand current issues and future issues. And in this case it’s not ambiguous. Obama has discussed these vary past issues and how he would have handled them.

I imagine he’ll ‘listen’ to our Generals as well. Of course, that depends on your definition of ‘listen.’ Do you think he’ll actually send the 40k the Generals say is NEEDED to not LOSE? Because you seem to assume Obama is staying with the strategy he set out months ago – one that includes securing peace and freedom in Afghanistan.

What happens when he hedges the bet, compromises, and only half-measures the troops number? Because that’s what I think he’ll do – just my prediction, based on his past actions. I think he’d order withdraw if he hadn’t politically painted himself in a corner.

And if you don’t want to be listed in the moron category, answer questions when posed, and don’t use debate tactics.

I think we should give up talking politics for a year or so. Our viewpoints are incongruous. You interpret the world through a lens that thinks conservative thinking is right and liberal thinking is wrong, and I’m just trying not to lose my faith in humanity. Our opinions reflect our viewpoints and goals. Case in point, regarding the Fort Hood guy, I think the evidence clearing indicates the guy snapped. He acted alone, and conflict between his obligation as a soldier and his religious affiliation helped snap him. Jihad can only be used loosely to describe what he did. I think I was right, and you two were wrong. I think the evidence supports my initial instincts.

I support Obama because he’s trying foster a world where nations cooperate to achieve a common good. I refuse to become cynical.

The second argument is valid. Bush and Cheney were both from industries with business models 50+ years long. So they certainly would have seen our lack of influence in the ME as a threat to our energy security.

Of course, that would only be a bonus motivation. Anyone making business plans 50 years long knows that it’s more likely you’re assumption will be wrong – things change a lot. Who knows what the ME would be in 50 years, except that we will need oil from there.

The fact is, we were going to have to fight Sadam again eventually. He was far too destabilizing of a character. Had there been a reasonable post-war strategy we wouldn’t be discussing it. Iraq would be a shining example of productive American intervention as I believe it will soon, assuming Liberals don’t write ALL the history books.

As for the original question about predicting Obama’s actions, assuming the intel was accurate and Sadam did have WMD, what then? Or, in reality as he didn’t, would he now if Obama was President instead of Bush?

And by the way, 2 guns remember. Two guns. That’s what I’d do if I were planning a terror attack. The last thing you’d want is to only have one damn gun in a war for your Lord and have Satan cause a malfunction leaving your victims properly matched to you.

This leaked out like three days ago. Obama said he would can whoever let it slip – if he finds out who it was. They really need to clamp down at the Whitehouse – seriously. First they say the President can take forever deciding what to do because it will take forever to get troops mobilized – but then once the President decides to send troops he also, supposedly, wants them there fast. They say there won’t be a time table in the speech, then they say there will… Obama needs to sit everyone down and tell them to stop speaking for him – or at least stop releasing his decisions while they’re in beta.

It’s a relief Obama is sending troops. It’s not the 40k, but he intends to sweet talk Europe into sending the other 10k. I hope this means he’s staying with a strategy for victory – however he defines it. I just hope they nail down a clear strategy and get it moving before spring. The Taliban have had the initiative for some time now while we’ve been dilly-dallying. And every day we spend without following a strategy with clear goals extends the time we’ll eventually be there by a week.

I’m going to listen to the address this evening. It better have some substance damn-it. I just don’t have the constitution to listen to more poetry about how everything will be rainbows and lollypops – ambiguously achieved. Politically this announcement will be interesting – assuming the report is correct. 40k troops is going to wrinkle and pucker-up Obama’s base. Code pink is already starting wars.

Kevin –

Indeed. Assuming Obama does discus dates – which I would not be surprised by in the least – that alone could totally destroy a well thought out and clear strategy.