Presidential Address from Afghanistan

[nems]

the great or even the better military minds than yours would disagree

How so? Who are these military minds that think we have made progress in Afghanistan during the last 4 years?

Casualties aren't going down. The Taliban is about the same. The flow of arms and people from Pakistan is the same.

But what measure have things improved?

[McKinneyTXHusker]

I'm glad the military minds are getting together on this...could you all explain to us dummies why a base would be good?

...guess not. It seems like everything goes quiet when the President comes out with an obviously centrist proposal.

Or maybe its because Pops asked the question at 10PM last night, and the other participants weren't sitting at their computers hanging on every Cafe post? I know I surely wasn't.

Or maybe its because Chi had already answered the question quite eloquently hours before Pops asked it. Here, let me repeat it for you both:

I didn't comment on it because I don't think there was anything new or groundbreaking in the speech. I know my friends on the left will disagree, but I am disappointed that by 2015, we will not have any permanent bases in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Both countries are strategically important, and the presence of a base or two in either country could help establish a long-term strategic deterrent against future terrorist movements taking hold in either country. The OBL archives that will be released tomorrow will show that OBL was actively planning for AQ to return to Afghanistan just as soon as the US military was gone from the country.

FWIW, I am not proposing that we continued operations in either country -- just that we have a base there. Given that we liberated both countries from two of the most notorious regimes on the planet, I think we are entitled to a presence in both countries as a strategic deterrent. It would have been especially important in Iraq given the risks of that country becoming an Iranian client state, if it hasn't already.

You can agree or disagree with what he said, but you can't say that no one is willing to answer the question, which was already answered in the thread earlier.

And, according to the policy analysts this was not a "centrist proposal" because it wasn't a proposal at all. No new policies were announced, no new proposals made. It was a campaign stump speech, done at "dark-thirty" in the wee hours of the morning in Afghanistan, so not for the benefit of the Afghanistan people OR our soldiers who were mostly sleeping, I'm sure. It was done purely so that the cameras could be rolling during primetime in US time zones to broadcast the campaign speech.

[Husker Mort]

Or maybe its because Pops asked the question at 10PM last night, and the other participants weren't sitting at their computers hanging on every Cafe post? I know I surely wasn't.

Or maybe its because Chi had already answered the question quite eloquently hours before Pops asked it. Here, let me repeat it for you both:



You can agree or disagree with what he said, but you can't say that no one is willing to answer the question, which was already answered in the thread earlier.

And, according to the policy analysts this was not a "centrist proposal" because it wasn't a proposal at all. No new policies were announced, no new proposals made. It was a campaign stump speech, done at "dark-thirty" in the wee hours of the morning in Afghanistan, so not for the benefit of the Afghanistan people OR our soldiers who were mostly sleeping, I'm sure. It was done purely so that the cameras could be rolling during primetime in US time zones to broadcast the campaign speech.

Sigh. It was only an accord to define the relationship (with a nation that has had, at best, a shaky history of rooting out terrorists within its own borders) and strategy for ending a major military conflict on the anniversary of the death of public enemy #1. Yeah, nothing worth putting any thought into there. Does it have a political upside? Sure. Was it more than a "stump speech"? It certainly was.

[McKinneyTXHusker]

Sigh. It was only an accord to define the relationship (with a nation that has had, at best, a shaky history of rooting out terrorists within its own borders) and strategy for ending a major military conflict on the anniversary of the death of public enemy #1. Yeah, nothing worth putting any thought into there. Does it have a political upside? Sure. Was it more than a "stump speech"? It certainly was.

You're certainly entitled to your opinions - on whether it was more than a "stump speech." I've previously noted that even such media outlets as that conservative mouthpiece the New York Times seem to disagree with you - noting that (contrary to your statement) there were no new policies or strategies announced, and the "accord" was a general document with almost no specifics whatsoever - just a "we'll support you, promise." The NYT also points out (where I got the info) that the speech was given in the middle of the night in Afghanistan, when most countrymen AND most of our service men and women there were asleep - but it DID happen to be "primetime" in the US, to make sure that stump speech was heard in the US.

If it was such an important policy speech, it would have been in the news, and analysts and politicians on both sides would have been talking and debating it in the press. As it is, the story came and disappeared in a few hours from virtually all the media - just like all the other campaign stump speeches.

[Husker Mort]

You're certainly entitled to your opinions - on whether it was more than a "stump speech." I've previously noted that even such media outlets as that conservative mouthpiece the New York Times seem to disagree with you - noting that (contrary to your statement) there were no new policies or strategies announced, and the "accord" was a general document with almost no specifics whatsoever - just a "we'll support you, promise." The NYT also points out (where I got the info) that the speech was given in the middle of the night in Afghanistan, when most countrymen AND most of our service men and women there were asleep - but it DID happen to be "primetime" in the US, to make sure that stump speech was heard in the US.

If it was such an important policy speech, it would have been in the news, and analysts and politicians on both sides would have been talking and debating it in the press. As it is, the story came and disappeared in a few hours from virtually all the media - just like all the other campaign stump speeches.

...so now you rely on the "lamestream media" to tell you what is/is not news? Good to know that the Times is a conservative rag, though.