US troops to stay in Afghanistan
So while I was partying at Walter Reed yesterday, the President, Shotgun Joe Bite Me, Ashton Carter and the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs announced that those ten thousand troops in Afghanistan will remain there after this administration leaves office. Well, it’s no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention. In 2009, the President and the rest of the White House was told that a “surge” of less than 60,000 troops to Afghanistan wouldn’t have any real impact against our enemies there. The politicians ignored this advice and half-assed the surge with a political compromise.
Now the Taliban is controlling more of Afghanistan than they have since they were removed from power in 2001. They’re making more advances everyday – mostly because they want to give us a boot in the ass on our way out the door. Ashton Carter told the media that “there is still much work to be done”. Yeah because no one was willing to make the commitment six years ago. Obama didn’t want to completely piss off his anti-war base. Bad military decisions have a cost.
Just a few years ago, this administration wouldn’t even let the US troops arm themselves in the presence of our enemies, creating an opportunity for green-on-blue murders. And then they blamed our own troops for the attacks.
The administration’s strategy in Afghanistan really isn’t a strategy at all. It’s a big waiting game for a new administration that has the gonads to actually fight the war. But that administration has it’s job cut out for it. Not only is the Taliban stronger, ISIS has also made some gains in the country, in fact, there has been some fighting between the two, which isn’t unwelcome.
The Fiscal Times says that keeping troops in Afghanistan longer is “bad news” for Biden’s campaign;
Obama and Biden campaigned hard in the last election on their plan to end U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, which the U.S. invaded after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Voting for their Republican opponents, they warned, was voting to keep U.S. troops stationed in the volatile region indefinitely. That now appears to be the Obama administration’s plan as well.
[…]
The problem for Biden is that U.S. policy in Afghanistan has been, in large part, his policy.
Actually, it should just remind voters that Joe Biden has been on the wrong side of history on every single foreign policy issue over the last thirty years.
Category: Terror War
More concise headline: “Obama kicks the can, says ‘good luck with that’ to his successor.”
Just one of many he’s kicked.
Off topic but read this now. http://theweek.com/speedreads/583641/elderly-veteran-fought-knife-attack-bare-hands-save-16-children
So, how many more of our people over there are going to get whacked by those twigs?
IS THERE ANYTHING touched by B. Hussein 0bama & Company that hasn’t turned to shit and gone to hell in a handbasket?
Hmmm…SOMEBODY didn’t get the talking points, so let me break it down for you:
If a “good” thing happens, Obama gets the credit.
If a “bad” thing happens, Bush gets the blame.
I’m sure that if space aliens enslave the human race in 2256, liberals will find a way to blame W for it.
The left and the media (but I repeat myself) aren’t going to let something so inconsequential as actual reality stand I the way of their “Obama triumphs” narrative.
As far as how conservatives (for which I suppose Republicans are a convenient substitute) are treated by the left and the media (but I repeat myself again) I am reminded of this piece of wisdom: “you don’t need a God to have a religion, all you need is a dogma and a devil”. They’ve got dogma in spades, guess what conservatives are to them in that equation.
People on welfare think he’s doing a great job.
So do many with free cell phones.
Even his NCAA brackets:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/romney-obama-ncaa-championship-bracket-duke-wisconsin-116681
Depending on what you mean by “touched,” his space policy has favored private launch companies over a new NASA launch system such as SLS.
Bit of a puzzler given his Progressive preference for the gubmint running everything…
I don’t think ‘anti-war’ means what this Administration thinks it means. If I were President, and anti-war, I would pull ALL of our troops out of EVERYWHERE they might be in harm’s way. This ‘300 here, 500 there, 3000 in a war zone left to fend for themselves’ garbage isn’t anti-war, it’s anti-military, because it certainly is going to get warriors hurt and killed.
He’s doing what Clinton did in the 90s. Reduce the military to “save money” and then deploy the rest anywhere around the world to do stuff.
Now he’s even sending troops after Boko Haram.
To be fair, Clinton followed the lead of Bush ’41 and Dick Cheney, who made substantial cuts in 91-93.
I have no problem kicking Slick Willie around, but let’s acknowledge that the “peace dividend” fantasy was bipartisan back then.
“Hope” is still a battle plan apparently. Good thing we RIFed all the combat troops.