Showing posts with label Iraq War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq War. Show all posts

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Obama, the man of action against al Qaeda becomes a 'decider'

Peter Baker, NY Times:


President Obama rushed to the Oval Office when word arrived one night that militants with Al Qaeda in Yemen had been located and that the military wanted to support an attack by Yemeni forces. After a quick discussion, his counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, told him the window to strike was closing.


“I’ve got two minutes here,” Mr. Brennan said.


“O.K.,” the president said. “Go with this.”


While Mr. Obama took three sometimes maddening months to decide to send more forces to Afghanistan, other decisions as commander in chief have come with dizzying speed, far less study and little public attention.


He is the first president in four decades with a shooting war already raging the day he took office — two, in fact, plus subsidiaries — and his education as a commander in chief with no experience in uniform has been a steep learning curve. He has learned how to salute. He has surfed the Internet at night to look into the toll on troops. He has faced young soldiers maimed after carrying out his orders. And he is trying to manage a tense relationship with the military.


Along the way, he has confronted some of the biggest choices a president can make, often deferring to military advisers yet trying to shape the decisions with his own judgments — too much at times for the Pentagon, too little in the view of his liberal base. His evolution from antiwar candidate to leader of the world’s most powerful military will reach a milestone on Tuesday when he delivers an Oval Office address to formally end the combat mission in Iraq while defending his troop buildup in Afghanistan.


A year and a half into his presidency, Mr. Obama appears to be a reluctant warrior. Even as he draws down troops in Iraq, he has been abundantly willing to use force to advance national interests, tripling forces in Afghanistan, authorizing secret operations in Yemen and Somalia, and escalating drone strikes in Pakistan. But advisers said he did not see himself as a war president in the way his predecessor did. His speech on Tuesday is notable because he talks in public about the wars only sporadically, determined not to let them define his presidency.


Where George W. Bush saw the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan as his central mission and opportunities to transform critical regions, Mr. Obama sees them as “problems that need managing,” as one adviser put it, while he pursues his mission of transforming America. The result, according to interviews with three dozen administration officials, military leaders and national security experts, is an uneasy balance between a president wary of endless commitment and a military worried he is not fully invested in the cause.


...


Obama never really grasped the military issues in Iraq, thus he opposed the successful surge. His passive aggressive stance toward the situation in Afghanistan was a gift of valuable time to the enemy. In some areas he has been more aggressive such as Pakistan and Yemen and he deserves some credit for those decisions.


He will get little credit for the situation in Iraq and deserves even less. In Afghanistan, the jury is still out. His deadline for departure was a strategic mistake that is costing us lives this year and is giving the enemy hope. He has also not manage Karzai well.

Source: http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2010/08/obama-man-of-action-against-al-qaeda.html

»»  read more

Obama, the man of action against al Qaeda becomes a 'decider'

Peter Baker, NY Times:


President Obama rushed to the Oval Office when word arrived one night that militants with Al Qaeda in Yemen had been located and that the military wanted to support an attack by Yemeni forces. After a quick discussion, his counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, told him the window to strike was closing.


“I’ve got two minutes here,” Mr. Brennan said.


“O.K.,” the president said. “Go with this.”


While Mr. Obama took three sometimes maddening months to decide to send more forces to Afghanistan, other decisions as commander in chief have come with dizzying speed, far less study and little public attention.


He is the first president in four decades with a shooting war already raging the day he took office — two, in fact, plus subsidiaries — and his education as a commander in chief with no experience in uniform has been a steep learning curve. He has learned how to salute. He has surfed the Internet at night to look into the toll on troops. He has faced young soldiers maimed after carrying out his orders. And he is trying to manage a tense relationship with the military.


Along the way, he has confronted some of the biggest choices a president can make, often deferring to military advisers yet trying to shape the decisions with his own judgments — too much at times for the Pentagon, too little in the view of his liberal base. His evolution from antiwar candidate to leader of the world’s most powerful military will reach a milestone on Tuesday when he delivers an Oval Office address to formally end the combat mission in Iraq while defending his troop buildup in Afghanistan.


A year and a half into his presidency, Mr. Obama appears to be a reluctant warrior. Even as he draws down troops in Iraq, he has been abundantly willing to use force to advance national interests, tripling forces in Afghanistan, authorizing secret operations in Yemen and Somalia, and escalating drone strikes in Pakistan. But advisers said he did not see himself as a war president in the way his predecessor did. His speech on Tuesday is notable because he talks in public about the wars only sporadically, determined not to let them define his presidency.


Where George W. Bush saw the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan as his central mission and opportunities to transform critical regions, Mr. Obama sees them as “problems that need managing,” as one adviser put it, while he pursues his mission of transforming America. The result, according to interviews with three dozen administration officials, military leaders and national security experts, is an uneasy balance between a president wary of endless commitment and a military worried he is not fully invested in the cause.


...


Obama never really grasped the military issues in Iraq, thus he opposed the successful surge. His passive aggressive stance toward the situation in Afghanistan was a gift of valuable time to the enemy. In some areas he has been more aggressive such as Pakistan and Yemen and he deserves some credit for those decisions.


He will get little credit for the situation in Iraq and deserves even less. In Afghanistan, the jury is still out. His deadline for departure was a strategic mistake that is costing us lives this year and is giving the enemy hope. He has also not manage Karzai well.

Source: http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2010/08/obama-man-of-action-against-al-qaeda.html

»»  read more

Monday, August 16, 2010

Should US Combat Troops be pulled out of Iraq?

Should US Combat Troops be pulled out of Iraq?


As of this moment: 20,000 additional United States Soldiers will be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of this month, basically ending all US Combat Troop operations in the war-torn Nation that's still without a functioning coalition government, even though their National Election was held several months ago. This policy is similar to President Nixon's approach to South Vietnam, which you might remember was a failure.


NeoConservatives have mostly opposed the launch of Operation New Dawn for quite some time, but with increasing violence, a potential resurgence of the al_Qaeda, a stalled government, and Iraqi Lt. General Babaker Zebari calling for US Troops to remain in the Nation until perhaps 2020, the calls to continue to defend the Iraqi people are no longer NeoConservative pleas, but a crucially important realism that will hopefully be realized in time.


Leaving Iraq would be suicide at this point. We have definitely Won the War, but now we need to make sure that our Victory will be the ultimate success for centuries to come. We freed the Iraqi's and we secured their Nation, but such as the United States struggled with threats after our arrival in world affairs in 1776, so is Iraq in 2010. The only difference is that the struggling new Nation has a friend who can help; and who must help.


We cannot leave Iraq.


What say you?


Subscribe


Bookmark and Share


Consider advertising on our site!

Source: http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2010/08/should-us-combat-troops-be-pulled-out.html

»»  read more