Obama's 'dithering' hurts Afghan mission, British sources say

Alan

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
62,474
Reaction score
2,588
The Daily Telegraph has learned that there is growing frustration in Whitehall at the US president’s prolonged deliberations over Afghanistan.

Since early September, Mr Obama has been considering a review of Afghan strategy by General Stanley McChrystal, who has advised the president to send an extra 40,000 US troops to Afghanistan.


Afghan Police is an easy target for the Taliban As well as troop numbers, Mr Obama and his advisers are also considering the fundamental Western strategy in Afghanistan, trying to decide how much emphasis to put on counter-insurgency operations against the Taliban and how much to put on hunting down al-Qaeda terrorists.

The president’s long decision-making process has led to accusations of “dithering” by his Republican opponents. The White House says the decision is too important to hurry, but the wait is causing growing exasperation in London and other European capitals.

One British source said that the absence of a clear strategy from the US, the largest troop contributor in Afghanistan, is hampering the British Government’s attempts to maintain public support for an increasingly unpopular conflict.

“The truth is that until we have some clarity from Obama, it’s going to be hard for us to explain to people what we’re doing there,” the source said.

Britain is urging Hamid Karzai to send more Afghan forces to Helmand province to support British troops there.

Mr Karzai was returned for second term this week after an election widely agreed to have been flawed and corrupt.

“We need the Americans to have a clear message for Karzai about what he has to do, but that’s just not there at the moment,” said the British source.

The private frustrations of British ministers and commanders were echoed by General Lord Guthrie, a former Chief of the Defence Staff, who said the American deliberations had brought the Afghan mission to a pivotal moment.

“It’s a tipping point because of President Obama’s delayed decision on whether to send more troops,” Lord Guthrie said.

Speaking in Paris, Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, also suggested that the lack of leadership from Washington was hampering the Afghan mission.

“What is the goal? What is the road? And in the name of what?” Mr Kouchner was reported as saying. “Where are the Americans? It begins to be a problem.”

Downing Street said the Prime Minister supported Mr Obama’s deliberations, and said it was “important that he comes to a considered decision” but hinted that a quick decision would be welcome.

A spokesman for Gordon Brown said: “Obviously, we are waiting for the US announce the outcome. Let’s hope we can come together soon.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...hurts-Afghan-mission-British-sources-say.html

I see U.S military moral is dropping fast in Afghanistan. Can't say I blame them. Then again we shouldn't be too harsh. Tough war time executive decisions is a big step up from simply reading off a teleprompter :erm:
 
Last edited:
Why does the rest of the world sit with their thumbs up their arses waiting for the US to make a decision?
 
Why does the rest of the world sit with their thumbs up their arses waiting for the US to make a decision?

Because the US is by far the most dominant power in Afghanistan and without them, that whole coalition there -and NATO itself will fall apart.

US is also the only country which does serious fighting - the British do some but no way near as much as the Americans.
 
He could always hurtle in blindly without weighing up the options then a few weeks later hold a victory parade aboard the nearest carrier....

How long ago was that banner raised...?
;)

PS: I'm sure Mr O does not lose too much sleep over the mumblings of a party on its way out the door.
 
Last edited:
He could always hurtle in blindly without weighing up the options then a few weeks later hold a victory parade aboard the nearest carrier....

How long ago was that banner raised...?
;)

Cheap shot, but every other president would have invaded Iraq at that stage.
 
Oct. 2. 2002 Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama gives speech opposing war in Iraq. He said he did not oppose "all wars," but he opposed "dumb wars," and wanted to finish the job against al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden rather than start a new war in Iraq. He predicted that "even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

Correct, correct and correct.
 
Oct. 2. 2002 Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama gives speech opposing war in Iraq. He said he did not oppose "all wars," but he opposed "dumb wars," and wanted to finish the job against al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden rather than start a new war in Iraq. He predicted that "even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

Correct, correct and correct.

Nice find.
 
Why does the rest of the world sit with their thumbs up their arses waiting for the US to make a decision?

Why doesn't Obama who is supposedly so popular in Europe go there and tell them to start taking up the fight? Germany for example is doing practically nothing. If the British, Dutch and Canadians can fight so can the Germans. Oh but that would cost the Obamasiah his precious popularity :rolleyes:


Didnt Obama vote against the Iraq war?

His "foreign policy" expert VP voted for the war and so did his secretary of state. :o


Correct, correct and correct.


and he vehemently opposed the surge. So did his VP and SOS.

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there; in fact, I think it'll do the reverse.

How desperate to argue he wouldn't have got the U.S into a war when the he's in the middle of one at the moment. The question is can he win one. So far the answer is clearly no. He didn't know what to do in Iraq and now he's evidently clueless in Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
The fundamental question remains: WTF are the Americans and their NATO allies doing in Afghanistan? This war was started under false pretenses and there's no valid reason for the continued occupation of this country.
 
The fundamental question remains: WTF are the Americans and their NATO allies doing in Afghanistan? This war was started under false pretenses and there's no valid reason for the continued occupation of this country.

What false pretenses were those?
 
Why doesn't Obama who is supposedly so popular in Europe go there and tell them to start taking up the fight? Germany for example is doing practically nothing. If the British, Dutch and Canadians can fight so can the Germans. Oh but that would cost the Obamasiah his precious popularity :rolleyes:




His "foreign policy" expert VP voted for the war and so did his secretary of state. :o




and he vehemently opposed the surge. So did his VP and SOS.



How desperate to argue he wouldn't have got the U.S into a war when the he's in the middle of one at the moment. The question is can he win one. So far the answer is clearly no. He didn't know what to do in Iraq and now he's evidently clueless in Afghanistan.

The only thing that will move the Germans or French is a Russian invasion of their country, and then they will beg the Americans and Brits to help them. As for the Italians, I think the US and UK are happy to keep them as far away from combat as possible.
 
The fundamental question remains: WTF are the Americans and their NATO allies doing in Afghanistan? This war was started under false pretenses and there's no valid reason for the continued occupation of this country.

I believe it had something to do with a couple of jets flying into some buildings in the US. Osama Bin Laden's team did the deed. Then the Taliban who where in charge in Afghanistan, decided that it was cool to let Osama stay there and continue to train for more attacks on the US. These are the totally false pretences, you turd.
 
I believe it had something to do with a couple of jets flying into some buildings in the US. Osama Bin Laden's team did the deed. Then the Taliban who where in charge in Afghanistan, decided that it was cool to let Osama stay there and continue to train for more attacks on the US. These are the totally false pretences, you turd.

Oh really, so where's your evidence? As you might recall, the official 9/11 investigation was terminated prematurely by Cheney in 2002. No factual evidence with sworn testimonies of these fantasy claims have ever been brought before an impartial commission of inquiry. If the fact were so irrefutable, then why this cause of action? You might want to ease up on believing all the propaganda, turd.

I find it amusing that you take as gospel every word said about the justification of the Afghanistan invasion by the very same people that told you that Saddam had nukes without any evidence being provided in either case. I'll be so bold as to mention a more likely cause for the whole adventure and it involves the CIA and poppies.
 
Oct. 2. 2002 Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama gives speech opposing war in Iraq. He said he did not oppose "all wars," but he opposed "dumb wars," and wanted to finish the job against al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden rather than start a new war in Iraq. He predicted that "even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

Correct, correct and correct.

Lucky shot. By the same standards they should have surrendered to the Soviet Union, not built bases in Europe, not founded NATO, not defended Taiwan, Japan and Korea from the Red peril either.

In that speech he appeals to emotions - free slaves, free the victims of Oswiecim and so on, but I these were not the reasons why the Americans went into those wars. There were secondary positive consequences however, but had the Union not been in danger - the Civil War would not have occurred.

The Iraqi War occurred to help secure the middle east and for similar reasons, safeguard the oil supply and to a degree protect Israel - the main US ally in that region. The Americans were fed fake information and Bush believed that the Iraqis would side with the Americans the way the Europeans had - eg Eastern Europeans. The US dependence on oil is an important security issue for America. The Americans thought that the Iraqis would be more reasonable.

Obama had no idea this would happen.

His points about freeing the people of Saudi Arabia and Egypt is playing folly and would create worse than Iraq - the populations in those countries are pro-very strict Islamic Fundamentalism.

That whole speech is nice on the surface but with even a little bit of analysis it comes out as populist hogwash.

So what is Obama doing to help wean America off ME oil?
What is Obama doing to free the people of Saudi Arabia and Egypt?
What is Obama doing to help disarm a resurgent Russia?
 
Last edited:
I find it amusing that you take as gospel every word said about the justification of the Afghanistan invasion by the very same people that told you that Saddam had nukes without any evidence being provided in either case.
Wasn't it chemical and biological weapons, and not nukes?
 
it involves the CIA and poppies.

Not sure what you're getting into but it was an independently established fact that Al Quada operated in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The groups in those regions had support of the Pakistani intelligence apparatus.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X