The tweet that leaves me cold

[beachmom]

Via Spencer Ackermann:

http://twitter.com/thejointstaff/status/6255206795

Fully support the President's strategy for Afghanistan. Ready to EXECUTE.

11 minutes ago from web

Retweeted by 35 people

Reply Retweet thejointstaff
Adm. Mike Mullen

I realize this is the proper language of the military, but it sounds final and ominous.

On a lighter note, this is the vibe I got from Pres. Obama's speech, too:

https://twitter.com/pourmecoffee/status/6254530376

Merits aside, this speech has unconvincing tone similar to "why Jurassic Park will be just fine" from beginning of movie.

36 minutes ago from Seesmic

Retweeted by 13 people

Reply Retweet pourmecoffee

Now I am not some Out Now anti-war type, and frankly, it's not like I have much of a better idea. But to quote Han Solo from Star Wars, "I have a bad feeling about this".

And damnit all that Kerry is going to be selling this new strategy (that still was not entirely clear to me from the speech) on MSNBC tomorrow.

[TayTay]

1. I have no idea what is being sold here

I found the speech unclear. I have no idea what Pres. Obama or Sen. Kerry will be "selling"? We need to put 30K troops in so they can come out in 18 months? Why? What good will that do?

[wisteria]

3. I agree the speech was missing details, but then again, it is hard to relay details in a short

speech. I am sure the details will follow shortly.

[karynnj]

11. I think the goal was what led to the lack of details

I think that Obama wanted 3 messages out:
1) This was a mess of long duration - partially because of bad policy and missed opportunities. That was why he went through all that rhetoric (or history)

2) The plan's three points which he re-iterated:
- a surge of troops
- a civilian surge
- an enhanced relationship with Pakistan (beyond the enhanced relationship with Kerry/Lugar/Berman)

Like you said, there were almost no details on what either surge will do - and no mention of poppies, though Obama mentioned agriculture, then let it drop.

3) We will start getting out in July 2011. (Now this is weird in its level of detail, while meaning nothing. What does it mean to "start" to leave in July 2011? That the force numbers in June 2011 become the maximum and then it trends down? )

As to detail on what the troops would do, compare this to Kerry's short statement. It sounds like what Kerry is speaking of is that they intend to do is to clear areas where the Afghanis can immediately govern and secure them - which is what Kerry explicitly proposed, but which Obama did not say directly.

I suspect that this had to be intentional because, as can be seen from Kerry's speech, a basic summary of what the strategy is is not hard to do. Though I am reluctant to say it on GD-P, I don't think this speech was as good as I would have expected it to be.

[ProSense]

5. It seems to me

that there is something else going on here. It will be interesting to see the details, and I hope the focus is on withdrawal.

[wisteria]

8. Yes, the speech was vague and lacked a lot of details. Something else just might be going on. n/t

[ginnyinWI]

9. I think it's about Pakistan and nukes.

You can't shore up Pakistan and leave Afghanistan a failed state. You have to work at both. Al Qaeda seems to be like some rash that keeps moving around to wherever it can spread. And the nuclear threat is one that Obama (and Kerry) wouldn't want to turn their backs on I don't think.

[wisteria]

2. I have a good feeling about the outcome of this new strategy.

I have more confidence in Obama making the right decision than I would if Clinton was at the helm. And, I had a sick feeling when in December 2003, Bush announced we were invading Iraq.

[Blaukraut]

4. It makes sense, sort of....

Here's what I got from the speech and the strategy.

1. More troops are needed in Afghanistan to stabilize the government and train its troops to keep the Taliban from reemerging and to fight Al Qaeda.

2. Pakistan is already fighting Al Qaeda with some success, but is getting frustrated by Afghanistan's situation, because AQ is always able to retreat into Afghanistan unhindered.

I'm guessing that Pakistan is getting indirect help by a stabilized Afghanistan that can work in cooperation in fighting Al Qaeda.

As to whether it will work within the desired time frame and our troops will be in and out by 2011, that's another story, but I do understand the reasoning.

[wisteria]

7. You explained it very clearly. Thank you. n/t

[Inuca]

10. Well put

I think (hope). Tough days! I stayed home these last couple of days and watched the health care debate in the Senate. As I said, tough days...

[wisteria]

6. I agree with you on the details. I was hoping for details, because they are an important part of the

strategy there. I heard none,publicly yet. Perhaps some of the details need to remain unknown for now.

[beachmom]

12. I recommend everyone watch this CNN report on the former Soviet commander

of Afghanistan operations:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/12/01/afghanistan.soviet.lessons/index.html

I think there ARE differences between now and then (um, back then the CIA through the ISI was helping the mujahadeen), but I was struck by there being some similarities.