The President visits Dover

[Beans]

Precisely.
In regards to foreign policy, Obama has not deviated much from the Bush administration at all. It's funny to see right-wingers bash Obama for the same reasons they praised Bush.

+2 You and Brett have said it more clearly than I did. Obviously, from the perspective of a right-winger, nothing Pres. Obama does can possibly be seen as genuine and good. I mean, even if the current administration tried something that 5 years ago would look truly Republican, like, say, making modest cuts to Medicare benefits to help balance the budget, I bet the folks on the opposite side would turn it against them.

I don't know if President Bush went to Dover, but I do know that he went to Walter Reid and Bethesda regularly and you didn't hear or see it on the news.

Then how did you find out about it?

 

[helolumpy]

If President Obama didn't have news crews filming the episode, I feel that it wouldn't be viewed as a political stunt that some in the media are portraying it right now.
But the President's in a tough spot right now. If he goes against the recommendations of ISAF and the Joint Staff and anything untoward happens in Afghanistan, he loses.
If he goes with the JCS recommendation, and it doesn't go perfectly, then he was just following the advice of the military in much the same manner that LBJ let the Generals dictate policy WRT to Vietnam.
The President really can't win in Afghanistan right now.

 

[Mumbles]

^ did the "Man" ever once consider the gravity of the office he was campaigning for last year??? The world wonders........

 

[S.O.B.]

Then how did you find out about it?

I was there as a regular outpatient.

 

[Mumbles]

One word Beano.... OWNED....

this is actually very very sad for me. The fact that we/us warriors are bickering amongst ourselves as to the motives of our CinC and questioning whether he backs us up or not.

 

[Beans]

One word Beano.... OWNED....

The point I was making was that it was in the news. It was, really. But yeah, that's a decent comeback, especially because it was based in fact. Touche.

this is actually very very sad for me. The fact that we/us warriors are bickering amongst ourselves as to the motives of our CinC and questioning whether he backs us up or not.

So why do you do something that makes you sad?

 

[Mumbles]

The point I was making was that it was in the news. It was, really. But yeah, that's a decent comeback, especially because it was based in fact. Touche.



So why do you do something that makes you sad?

there are more than a few of us that don't think that the Prez holds our organization(s) in very high regard.... the fact that his support for the mission would ever even be in doubt.....this is why.

 

[S.O.B.]

The point I was making was that it was in the news. It was, really.

I'm pretty sure Katie Couric wasn't on the nightly news singing President Bush's praises for visiting wounded soldiers.

The difference is when Obama goes somewhere it's about him.

 

[Bevo16]

In regards to foreign policy, Obama has not deviated much from the Bush administration at all. It's funny to see right-wingers bash Obama for the same reasons they praised Bush.

Can you name a single request for forces made by a commander during President Bush's term in office that was met with the response "be patient"...followed by more than a month of indecision?

Not to mention the naive manner in which Obama has handled Iran, the lack of support for Israel, giving up on European missile shields...should I go on?

Hey, we are going to have a green Navy though. That's cool. Lord knows we have nothing else to be worrying about other than our "carbon footprint".

 

[Clux4]

I was there as a regular outpatient.

I guess you do not watch TV

 

[S.O.B.]

I guess you do not watch TV

Interesting conclusion.

 

[tusk91]

Iraq War troop surge of 2007

Question asked:

"Can you name a single request for forces made by a commander during President Bush's term in office that was met with the response "be patient"...followed by more than a month of indecision?"

Question answered:

Though originally scheduled for late 2006, the announcement on "the new way forward" was delayed to give the President "more time" to gather information. Press secretary Tony Snow said the administration was hoping for the president to deliver the speech before Christmas, although he said the timing was not nailed down.

Source:

Link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007

 

[Clux4]

Can you name a single request for forces made by a commander during President Bush's term in office that was met with the response "be patient"...followed by more than a month of indecision?

Let me juggle your memory a little in case you forgot. When Shinseki and other Joint Chief's asked for the initial troop level at the start of the war, what did they get from the Bush administration?




A big FUCK U. That was all the response D. Rumesfeld was willing to give. So yes the present administration might be a deliberately slow and rational, at least they did not tell the Service Chiefs their collective reasoning was useless.

So what exactly do you have to complain about

 

[desertoasis]

This is actually very very sad for me. The fact that we/us warriors are bickering amongst ourselves as to the motives of our CinC and questioning whether he backs us up or not.

Bingo. This is, in my opinion, a much more insidious problem than any issue our current President or the previous one could dream up. If we, as members of the military, are in disagreement about what our Commander in Chief is doing and his reasons for doing it, then there are much bigger problems to deal with than we as citizens simply not liking him (or the previous him either). It shows a lack of trust in our leaders and those who are informing their decisions. That bothers me a lot more than Obama having his picture taken in Dover. Unfortunately, there's not much to be done to fix it, at least nothing I can think of.

I'm not saying that we should blindly follow, mind you. Blind followership is the antithesis of progress, because it causes everyone to move in one direction or another without any understanding of WHY they're moving in that direction. Instead of slamming our leaders, whether or not we are justified in doing so, maybe we should try to look at it from a balanced (dare I say bipartisan? ) standpoint, since I think military members should be politically neutral anyways. I say that because the Constitution is not a Democratic or Republican creation; so we should not be only in support of those parts which are left- or right-leaning. I don't know about you, but I'm in favor of supporting and defending the whole darn thing!

Also, whoever it was earlier who said that everything a President does is a political move is exactly right. It goes back to the dual role of the President as head of government and head of his political party. You have to do both at the same time, so every decision you make is therefore colored by the fact that you're making it with your political party in mind. I'm pretty sure the last President to not be political was a guy named George Washington, and he (among others from his time) said that political parties will be detrimental to our nation. I'm not sure I can look at the current party spread and disagree.

 

[helolumpy]

There was a lot of 'direction' from SECDEF to the planners for OIF; troop levels, timelines and most important Phase IV considerations. Haven't seen anything written that says Bush was behind the direction, it seems Rumsfeld was directing the show and Bush trusted his SECDEF. The outcome now is obvious...
GEN Shinseki opposed Rumsfeld on the number of troops required to do the job. The original OPLAN called for 450K. Multiple scenarios ran between 400K-500K for personnel required to defeat and then occupy Iraq. Rumsfeld wanted to do it on the cheap and consistantly dictated an end-strength of 125K. Shinseki opposed SECDEF and was shown the door. GEN Shinseki showed honor, courage and commitment (I've heard these words somewhere before...)
As for the current situation, ask yourself this; how do you envision Afghanistan in 5 years? In 20 years? You need to answer those questions before you determine your strategy. You have to have a defined end-state; which is something we've been lacking in recent years. "Democracy" is not the right answer.... there are too many permutations of what Democracy is to have that be the strategy.
The President is trying to answer the question of how do we define success. I'm not talking about a Vietnam era declare victory and go home. How do we achieve victory in a location that is referred to as 'the graveyard of empires'. If there is no strategy, then there can be no plan. With no plan, then we are just sending our brothers and sisters into a war zone with no clearly articulated plan.
We can't do the Powell Doctrine of a clearly defined exit strategy because we won't know where to go or how to get there, so we'll never know when it's time to leave.
If the President wants to spend a few weeks to get some answers before you dumps a few more Billion dollars into a sh!thole country, then I say we give him the opportunity to get it right.
The bigger question should be, where is this strategy from our military leaders? If the President doesn't like thier plan, then get a new plan or new leadership. The monkey is on the back of the military to get a good strategy and provide the civillian leadership with a feasible, sustainable and realistic plan!!