Obama and Afghanistan

@ParaTed2k (22980)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
June 24, 2009 5:28pm CST
Can anyone here tell me what Obama's definition of success is in Afghanistan? For years the incompetent press dogged Prs. Bush with questions about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of the questions were legitimate, and others were asking knowing the president wouldn't answer them. I wonder though, Obama has been the Commander in Chief for almost half a year now. Not only hasn't he seemed interested in defining the mission in Afghanistan, he hasn't been challenged by the press in the least.
2 people like this
9 responses
• United States
24 Jun 09
Frankly, Afghanistan is old news. The American people don't care, and when the media mentions it, Americans tune out. Since Afghanistan doesn't get ratings, media doesn't ask about it. Find a way to get Americans interested in Afghanistan again, and you'll see pressure put on the President.
1 person likes this
• United States
24 Jun 09
Maybe you tune out gabrielgadfly, but I don't tune out. I like to know what is going on. Thanks
1 person likes this
• United States
24 Jun 09
Then you're in the minority, clutterbug. Most Americans are more concerned with the latest happenings with that obnoxious Jon and Kate couple than they are about the wars their country is involved in.
@ParaTed2k (22980)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
25 Jun 09
When troops are out fighting, I don't care what the incompetent press is interested in. I also piss on anyone who says it doesn't matter.
@clutterbug (1051)
• United States
24 Jun 09
What I kept hearing when Pres. Bush was in office were people crying every single day to bring the troops home; constantly they bashed Pres. Bush on this subject, and now with Pres. Obama, we don't hear a peep, no one is crying about it now. I don't get it. Why isn't Obama getting the third degree on this? Thanks
1 person likes this
• United States
25 Jun 09
As far as I know, Obama still has a timetable for troop withdrawal -- August 31, 2010. I don't think anyone expects troop withdrawals to be instantaneous, but Obama declaring a date for it is at least more than Bush had ever done. Obama's plan would leave 50,000 troops in Iraq until 2011, and while that seems like a lot, consider that we maintain 26,000 troops in South Korea, 33,000 in Japan, and 57,000 in Germany -- and we've had high troop values in those countries for decades.
2 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22980)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
25 Jun 09
Because the incompetent press is nothing but his worthless cheering section. They serve no real purpose whatsoever anymore.
• United States
25 Jun 09
It depends on which Obama you're talking about. During the campaign, he excoriated Bush for not going after Osama Bin Laden and focusing more on Iraq. While I think some chiding was in order, it's obvious now that Obama had no intention of going after Bin Laden either. It was a classic bait and switch. As a matter of fact, Obama in his Cairo speech declared Bin Laden insignificant. Unfortunately, as much as I'd like to say he will have to own it if we don't achieve victory in Afghanistan, I think he'll still pin it on the Bush administration and every news story will be about how dumb, mean old Bush messed things up so bad that brilliant Obama couldn't untangle it. It's funny, but they call Bush a chimp, so does that mean Obama was outsmarted by a chimp?
• United States
25 Jun 09
Hey scottyreynolds, I just finished reading your comment, and just wanted you to know how much I enjoyed it. You put it all in a nutshell, with great humor at the end. Best of all it is truthful! Thanks.
@msceek (3)
• United States
25 Jun 09
I think President Obama will have to stay the course that Bush set for a while. It would be unwise to take or make a big change in wars that have been going on for years. President Obama will have to study these wars and be advised on how to handle them, then make changes. Half of a year isn't a long time in any office. Unfortunely, the United States has major problems (ecomonic) to handle. If we can't get a handle on those issues we might have a war in our own country.
@ParaTed2k (22980)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
25 Jun 09
If half a year isn't long enough for him to make decisions about a war, how is he going to be able to handle an immediate situation? The fact that the war has been going on for years means that he should already have an idea of what should be done. He was full of shots at how Bush handled things... so what are his alternatives? If being Commander In Chief is too much for him, he shouldn't be President of the United States.
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
25 Jun 09
President Bush was on the Job less than 9 months when he had to fact the worst attack on the US since Pearl Harbor and he was also dealing with a recession and trying to deal with all the other world and national problems. When elected the person has to be ready to take on any problems and take on all comers from Day One. You can not sit there and select the problems you are going to deal with.
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
25 Jun 09
President Obama is treating the War like a game. You set a time and who ever is ahead when the time is up is the winner. He doesn't understand that to win means to defeat the enemy. You can't have victory or peace with out winning the war. The only peace comes from total victory.
@ParaTed2k (22980)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
25 Jun 09
Too bad he didn't see it that way when Bush was in the White House.
@xfahctor (14126)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
25 Jun 09
There may well be a plan in place as well as defined goals. You just won't here about it. The liberal press and media aren't interested in military matters unless they can use them to bash conservatives and the conservative press and media won't talk about any of this because they can't have it looking like the adminstration might have a plan and goals. Pretty much boils down to the media and press either way one looks at it.
@ParaTed2k (22980)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
25 Jun 09
Correction, the pustules in the incompetent press don't care about anything unless they can use it to bash conservatives.
@flydanman (114)
24 Jun 09
I think Obama ended up having to make the war in Afghanistan his war simply because he was so against the Iraq war and the reason that he gave for being against it. Iraq to Obama was taking America's "eye off of the ball" in the war on terror and going after The Taliban. Necessariliy Obama therefore had to focus on Afghanistan. Victory appears to be the destruction of The Taliban, which ultimately will probably never be achieved. The rural and underdeveloped nature of Afghanistan makes progress towards a stable democracy that much harder than in Iraq. Ultimately Afghanistan could end up being Obama's Vietnam. The fuss over healthcare and the economy has pushed the war in Afghanistan down the pecking order of priorities for the US government and the media will never call him on it. Never has a president enjoyed a fawning media quite like Obama.
@ParaTed2k (22980)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
25 Jun 09
You're right, so what does he plan to do about it?
• United States
25 Jun 09
Capturing Osama Bin Laden would be success, and I am assuming that that is what he thinks success is.
@aerous (13461)
• Philippines
25 Jun 09
I think there are some success in that country. One is that they liberalize people. In some other terms is that more people aware now about freedom. Even there some points in that area cannot understand the basis of the government to provide progress. Some will be success. In Afghanistan, maybe not 20 years to liberalize people here due to there old laws and treaties. If those people and educate those new generations I think Afghanistan, will stable.