AP: Troops, Families Mixed On Obama's Afghanistan Plan

Despite any real, or perceived bias, even the AP knows the score when it comes to fighting a war. You either fight it to win, or it makes little sense to fight it at all. I can't recall a single instance in which America deployed significant numbers of troops with an objective other than winning. The AP went directly to the most effected source for their take on Obama's Afghanistan strategy, or lack thereof.

Frankly, Obama isn't sending more troops off with the straight-forward objective of winning. He is sending them off with a time-line to fulfill. I fear this marriage between commander and troops will not end well for anyone, not the troops, not Obama and not the United States, or Afghanistan. If so, it will prove a bitter pill for all to swallow in the end. But there should be no confusion, now. This is Obama's plan, Afghanistan is now Obama's war just as surely as it ever belonged to President Bush.

JACKSONVILLE, N.C. (AP) -- Battle-weary troops and their families braced for a wrenching round of new deployments to Afghanistan announced Tuesday by the president, but many said they support the surge as long as it helps to end the eight-year-old conflict.

As President Barack Obama outlined his plan to send 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan - while pledging to start bringing them home in 2011 - soldiers, Marines and their families interviewed by The Associated Press felt a tangle of fresh concerns and renewed hopes. Some took in the televised announcement as they played darts in a barroom near their base, while others watched from their living rooms.

"All I ask that man to do, if he is going to send them over there, is not send them over in vain," said 57-year-old Bill Thomas of Jacksonville, N.C., who watched Obama's televised speech in his living room, where photos of his three sons in uniform hang over the TV.

One of his sons, 23-year-old Cpl. Michael Thomas, is a Marine based at neighboring Camp Lejeune. He'll deploy next year to Afghanistan.

An ex-Marine himself, Thomas said he supports Obama's surge strategy. But he shook his head when the president announced a 2011 transition date to begin pulling out troops.

"If I were the enemy, I would hang back until 2011," Thomas said. "We have to make sure that we are going go stay until the job is done. It ain't going to be as easy as he thinks it is."

Comments

[David R. Graham]

"I can't recall a single instance in which America deployed significant numbers of troops with an objective other than winning."

Korea and Vietnam.

[mark l.]

this is straight out of the wisdom of solomon...

raise your hand if you want to get out.
raise your hand if you want to follow the commanders in the field.

time for the remaining 35% of the room to clap.(see gallup)
I think obama missed reading the part about not actually cutting the baby in half.

my hats off to those 35%. These aren't even people with strong opinions one way or the other, because they are just too stupid to care. The 35%ers? This is the demographic that is willing to applaud obama sneezing.

this plan the messiah has hatched is a beauty.
garrison up.

the eventuality is that the garrison will gain control of a 'town' and the jihadis will just set up elsewhere. control the region, establish a local govt that can stand on its own, and move on to the next lukewarm town. they are going to pull this off in 18 months, though?

bwaahaaaha...

[FGMorley]

Some of the ROE being implemented by McChrystal:
• 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.

These and others are insane. This is all a show with our forces being used as pawns.

[Ran / Si Vis Pacem]

FGM is exactly right. The ROEs are intended to prevent warriors from bringing true H3ll to the enemy... without regard to the fact that the enemy have no ROEs tying them back. It is PC insanity. Matter of fact, Holder gave fewer ROEs to the Feds at bloody Waco.

Add to that the fact that the Custer in Chief promised the enemy a timetable... 18 months. Plenty of time to relax, rebuild, recruit.

Add to that the fact that 30,000 is half the number requested. It might be enough if Congress gets some balls and over-rides the ROE restrictions and let the Marines be Marines...

Add to that the fact that this Justice is likely to more aggressively pursue any soldier of ours for doling-out fat lips and broken noses than they will real enemies for bombings, and you have a recipe for utter disaster.

My prayers go out for our volunteers in the Forces.

Time now to aggressively pursue electing patriot legislators at all levels, people. Politics is best viewed as a player, not as a spectator.

[Drider]

Well, I can fully understand the military families mixed message on this plan with a surrender date attached.

I imagine that the troops themselves probably feel this is simply a contrived,weak, political plan that simply allows the POTUS to technically make good on a campaign promise, using their lives as a type of make up, that covers up political blemishes of the "one".

I am quite certain that all military plans have various exit strategies built in being that the exit part of any campaign is huge but you NEVER, EVER,EVER publicize it.To do so just gives our enemies a massive advantage, in fact, reaching any of our goals in Afghanistan will more than likely be impossible now.

I would very much like to hear our Commander and chief's "goals" for the war in Afghanistan, leaving the mess there to come back and bite us in the ass is obviously one of them but please tell me it isn't the only goal, if it is, and I am unaware of any other goals, then why wait until 2011 to achieve his goal?

[James]

I remember the Vietnam war. Our soldiers and pilots faced constraints too, but not as strong as described above. We were on the verge of a Korean type negotiated stalemate though North Vietnam laid low to invade the South at a later time. Democrats like Ted Kennedy stopped funding the war effort, and we know what happened next. I believe our forefeture led indirectly to the current war against Jihadists.

Republicans too through deeds and implication have put soldiers and civilians in harm's way only to say "never mind." Hungarians who assumed we would come to their aid during the fifties, and Kurds who after the first Gulf War misread our words are two examples.

I wish, just once those politicians would be subjected to the mockery and scorn their supporters inflicted on returning veterans like me when we came home.

[Winetext]

Store Track,growing restaurant fix somewhat combine tone notice merely regional kind supply human horse commission bottom boat who active addition fashion usual citizen order blue aid past avoid attractive study settle wave tree responsibility doctor save united some daughter second ring to prospect identify kind youth describe chain thing away party remain mention perhaps welcome back country bar wave picture separate problem only code public pension award teacher together game train noise including yesterday commission some emphasis wait evidence future food exchange frequently answer prove capacity switch recently front provision finish largely writer local mile engineering technology factor