Obama pulls out!
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=188599
Printed Date: 01 March 2026 at 11:29pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Obama pulls out!
Posted By: impulse418
Subject: Obama pulls out!
Date Posted: 22 June 2011 at 4:42am
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/21/barack-obama-and-pentagon-split-on-afghanistan - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/21/barack-obama-and-pentagon-split-on-afghanistan  The time frame is a bit coincidental......, but good none the less. But I bet he hopes it doesn't backfire on in that close to elections.  |
Replies:
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 23 June 2011 at 12:37am
| What a douche. |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 23 June 2011 at 11:25am
|
We need to get the hell out. -------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 23 June 2011 at 1:55pm
|
While I support pulling the troops out of Afghanistan, it always makes me nervous when the White House conflicts with military leaders on military decisions. I guess I'm just too ill informed to really have a distinct opinion on this yet, but I'd hate to cut the remaining 70,000 troops short just to fulfill a campaign promise in time for elections.
Also-we need a new front to fight wars on. I'm tired of looking at the desert in military shooters. I'm thinking somewhere cold, but not Russia. Maybe invade Switzerland or something. ------------- 
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 23 June 2011 at 3:39pm
Wait a minute.... (scratches chin and looks north) ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
stratoaxe wrote:Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 23 June 2011 at 3:57pm
I agree, it can be a bit unsettling. However I'm also a subscriber of the Allison theory of organizational-processes model, in that people in the military are most likely, when asked for advice or presenting advice, going to give a pro-military estimate. It's a "where you stand depends on where you sit," idea. That doesn't mean the Pentagon is wrong by any stretch, but I also think that their own stakes play in to their rationalizations.
 I love it. And, for all the conspiracy nuts, they have oil!
|
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 23 June 2011 at 4:06pm
|
Switzerland? Why them? There is nothing there worth taking other than chocolate, beer and and watches.
------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 23 June 2011 at 4:23pm
Wouldn't that also mean that they would know better about how much we actually need over there? Canada is already leaving at the end of this year and the U.S. is supposed to be taking over the FOBs that Canada now controls when they leave. It just sounds kind of bad to me to cut back troops when spreading out. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 23 June 2011 at 4:26pm
Possibly. Or possibly not. The OPM is a basis for unintentional irrationalization. If the conditions of those irrationalizations are holding in this situation, it could be that the Pentagon believes it needs more boots on the ground than it actually does. Again, this is all just guesstimations on my behalf.
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 23 June 2011 at 6:12pm
|
I'm more inclined to think (partly due to Whale's comments, but I thought this beforehand as well) the military would choose the decision that best enabled them to succeed at whatever directive given to them. "Winning" is almost certainly the desired outcome, so military officials would likely not be very fond decreasing their personnel by the tens-of-thousands. ------------- 
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 23 June 2011 at 6:52pm
The U.S. took over most of our FOBs ages ago- and typically they replaced one of our companies with one of their battalions. Telling, that. Our last combat rotation is rotating out now. The new mission is a 'behind the wire' training operation up in Kabul, with only about 40% of the manpower and much less heavy equipment. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 23 June 2011 at 7:15pm
Did you guys see the Daily Show, were they talked about Canada being the #1 supplier of oil. I lol'd hard. |
Posted By: GroupB
Date Posted: 23 June 2011 at 8:19pm
Seems to me like this goes without saying. If you are asking a military leader, who's job it is to achieve a military victory, of course their answer is going to be oriented towards military victory. That's why the military is controlled by civilians. Generals tell them what's best militarily, and the civilian decides if that's good for the country or not. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 23 June 2011 at 9:22pm
No. The civilian in charge decides if it's good for his election or not. What's good for the country is getting rid of terrorists and their safe areas. ------------- 
|
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 23 June 2011 at 11:28pm
Such a narrow scoped view point. ... Over there they call us Terrorists. ------------- |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 24 June 2011 at 12:31am
So? lol. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 24 June 2011 at 1:16pm
It's not just that their answer will be oriented towards military - it's that it could be an overestimation in the advice. It's a counter to the idea that the POTUS not listening to the military's suggestion will be a bad thing. It could be, but it's not a guarantee. |