Obama Speeds Up Afghanistan Deployment, Shortens Commitment

If I'm reading this correctly, Obam-academic believes you can run a war like a faculty meeting. I have to get home to my wife base tonight, folks. So let's speed it up. Unfortunately, that comes with risk. Military goals are often adjusted out of prudence based upon caution. It seems to me that cuts two ways here.

One, if our forces conduct certain operations before their time, they could come under increased risk. And two, if we pull out prematurely, it will likely all be for naught. But that's okay, Charles Barack is in charge. It is absolutely his war, now. He owns the plan more than anyone.

WASHINGTON (AP) - A White House spokesman says President Barack Obama is ready to lay out an end-game scenario for U.S. involvement in Afghanistan because "we can't be there forever."
 
Robert Gibbs also told MSNBC that Obama's prime-time West Point speech also will lay out a faster deployment plan than initially envisioned in a war review written submitted by commanding Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Gibbs said the troop build up "will be accelerated. We're going to get in there quickly" and transfer responsibility for security to the Afghans quickly. Gibbs called that "an end game" for the American commitment. He said, "They're going to get in sooner, quite frankly, than the original assessment asked them to get in"—less than the two year deployment that was once under consideration.

Comments

[Lala]

Chris Muir is keeping track of O's progress

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2009/11/29/

[x11b1p]

I am curious to hear what the Victory/Off Ramp Strategy is and is not? I never got an op order from my LT where he said that we are doing a mission and our goal is x, oh and btw while in route to your target we will drop off one of your troops every 100 meters, and S&T will pick them up b/c they are shipping back home, so make sure you can accomplish the mission with with a much smaller size element than you start off with. It was said that it takes 7 people to support one infantryman ( today i don't know), hence the reason why there are more support services than actual infantrymen, so either the plan is to reduce the number of support people for the infantry or reduce the number of infantry thus reducing the number of support people in the theater of war. The later seems more logical when it comes to "off ramping" wich leads me to the question now - why send more troops if you plan on exiting as soon as they get into Afghanistan? I guess time will tell and I hope that our men and women don't suffer unnecessary casualties b/c we seem to be fighting a war based on "small p politics". It will be interesting to read a book on this war in 10-15 years to see what tactics and strategies worked and failed in a country where for thousands of years now it has been nothing more than a place where soldiers go to die.

[richard mcenroe]

We've been in Europe for 60+ years. Why does Obama hate brown people?

[Bob]

"It will be interesting to read a book on this war in 10-15 years to see what tactics and strategies worked and failed in a country where for thousands of years now it has been nothing more than a place where soldiers go to die."

Now that's more like it. An intelligent and thoughtful post from x-whatever. I was starting to think you didn't have it in you.

[x11b1p]

"x whatever" is x11b1p - it means i was an airborne infantryman or a paratrooper, thanks for the compliments bob. i am reading a book on Fredercik Douglas and Abraham Lincoln "Giants", you should read it! I might be able to return the quote that you so graciously gave me ;-)

[Bob]

""x whatever" is x11b1p - it means i was an airborne infantryman or a paratrooper, thanks for the compliments bob."

That's pretty cool. I really enjoyed that HBO series, "Band of Brothers," about the 101st Airborne during WWII. I'm sure you must have seen it. The scene where they jumped out in the dark on D-Day amongst the anti-aircraft fire and all hell breaking loose was pretty hair-raising. One can only imagine what it must have been like.

[x11b1p]

Yes, I've watched Band of Brothers several times. Bob, my uncle had 4 combat jumps with the 82nd in WW2 (including D-Day), and 2 glider insertions in Italy. He said that not only was it a cluster because everyone was scattered, to avoid the flak the pilots gained altitude and got of course leaving the paratroopers in the air longer - not a good thing. I think today's combat jump -mass attack like a day invasion could be done at 500 ft - just enough time for your chute to deploy and hit the ground, i can't imagine jumping from 2,3 or 4k feet in flak you spend about 20 to 30 seconds coming down, those chutes were not box, not very controllable. it is an amazing site when you are sitting on a dropzone in the day and a thousand chutes open up above you, it creates shade, and at night (if no illum) a guy smoking a cig on guard duty could take his eyes of his post for 5 minutes and 500-600 infantrymen could be staring him down by the time he puts out his smoke. i served in the 82nd, unfortunately the 101 stopped being an "airborne" unit some time ago, they keep the tab - "Airborne" for historical reason, they are now "Airmobile" the guys that fast rope out of helos and get around by airmobile transport. If you ever drive through fayetteville - stop at the new special forces/airborne museum, its pretty interesting and has interactive models in it.

[Bob]

"Yes, I've watched Band of Brothers several times. Bob, my uncle had 4 combat jumps with the 82nd in WW2 (including D-Day), and 2 glider insertions in Italy."

Yeah, those glider insertions looked particularly hairy. From what I've heard, it sounds like alot of them basicaly crash-landed. I bet your undle has some amazing stories to tell, and fortunately he survived to tell them!