Comments on: Boots on the Ground Report: Obama Focused on the Wrong Election

By: garment business daily

garment business daily — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 22:55:23 +0000

Superb website…

[...]always a big fan of linking to bloggers that I love but don’t get a lot of link love from[...]……

By: Steynian 396 « Free Canuckistan!

Steynian 396 « Free Canuckistan! — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:51:28 +0000

[...] BOOTS ON THE GROUND Report: Obama Focused on the Wrong Election …. [...]

By: A.J. Tata

A.J. Tata — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:19:56 +0000

In my Cost of Delay column posted on Oct 25 (but written on Oct 21), I very clearly outline not having sufficient troops on the ground to influence the runoff as one of those costs. Even if he had acted when my column was written or posted he could have had some 82nd Airborne troops on the ground to help out. Two or three weeks is enough time to get at least one if not two battalions on the ground from the 82nd Airborne Division. That's a potent force.
On the Bush administration, I've been a vocal critic of the lack of grand strategy starting on 9/12/2001. Gen Franks lacked experience and imagination in Afghanistan, having never served in rapid deployment units; the neocons were leading everyone around by the nose toward Iraq; we didn't get boots on the ground in Pakistan; and shifting focus to Iraq ripped out most of the intel and comms architecture needed to fight and win in Afghanistan. There's no doubt that the Bush administration's focus on Iraq debilitated our goals in Afghanistan. When I deployed to Afghanistan in 2006, the U.S. had one and a half brigade combat teams in Afghanistan versus 20 in Iraq.
Gates was a breath of fresh air after Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al, as he got it. He understood. Was it typical of the Bush Administration's action prior to Gates? No. Did Gates act with decisiveness? Yes, absolutely. And he made a difference by understanding the urgency of the situation and resourcing the troops on the ground, something this President seems unwilling or unable to do.

By: A.J. Tata

A.J. Tata — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:28:05 +0000

Scott, Thanks for your comments. Not Monday morning QB'ing at all. It isn't even Monday yet, figuratively speaking. The runoffs would have been tomorrow. I've been very consistent in my BH and BG columns that Obama needs to make a decision pronto. As I contemplated this inexcusable delay, I began to see the irony between Obama providing no additional resources for the Afghan runoff, though he was a critic of the Afghan general elections overall. Aren't we supposed to try to provide solutions to problems? If he was bothered by them, why didn't he do something about it? Then it occurred to me he was indeed focused on not upsetting his base, yet appearing engaged, walking that tightrope. That was my logic. In my Cost of Delay column posted on Oct 25 (but written on Oct 21), I very clearly outline not having sufficient troops on the ground to influence the runoff as one of those costs. Even if he had acted when my column was written or posted he could have had some 82nd Airborne troops on the ground to help out. Two or three weeks is enough time to get at least one if not two battalions on the ground from the 82nd Airborne Division. That's a potent force.
On the Bush administration, I've been a vocal critic of the lack of grand strategy starting on 9/12/2001. Gen Franks lacked experience and imagination in Afghanistan, having never served in rapid deployment units; the neocons were leading everyone around by the nose toward Iraq; we didn't get boots on the ground in Pakistan; and shifting focus to Iraq ripped out most of the intel and comms architecture needed to fight and win in Afghanistan. There's no doubt that the Bush administration's focus on Iraq debilitated our goals in Afghanistan. When I deployed to Afghanistan in 2006, the U.S. had one and a half brigade combat teams in Afghanistan versus 20 in Iraq.
Gates was a breath of fresh air after Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al, as he got it. He understood. Was it typical of the Bush Administration's action prior to Gates? No. Did Gates act with decisiveness? Yes, absolutely. And he made a difference by understanding the urgency of the situation and resourcing the troops on the ground, something this President seems unable to do.

By: Syntax_game

Syntax_game — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:59:57 +0000

Yer right! Bush worked for Arbustro oil which became Harken energy which was financed by Saleem Bin Laden. It was Richard Armitage that was employed with Unocal and Condy Rice was employed by Chevron and the two companies merged.

By: cliffpopkey@live.com

cliffpopkey@live.com — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:30:29 +0000

Obama is more concerned with how he looks than how America looks. It is treasonus the lack of concern for America this man has. He's busy selling us down the river to anyone in the rest of the world that wants us. The President is supposed to be the front man for the country, not for a handfull of weak minded idiots who happen to have few dolars to waste by paying him to go and beg for forgiveness from world's worst human rigts violators and oppressors! If i hear one mor time that Obama didn't hear Rev. Wright bitching about America, i'll puke! it just another lie by Obama. Speaking of lies! The left used to say, Bush lied and people died! What about Obama and his lying and his lack of decission making while he plays golf and basketball. maybe if the leftwing had any integratity they'd say, While Obama plays, our soldiers they will slay! Maybe he's trying to Blame the Afhgans for his indecission after all they had vote fraud in their last election. Why it's, it's just like our last election! Do they have Acorn there as well? Wake up America! Obama wants to be a dictator and he'll steal your rights to get there. Wake Up America!

By: Thinking_Man

Thinking_Man — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:53:35 +0000

Oh he is a real fighter, he loves fighting Americans, minor detail and most of his base well understood this, he won't quit until he knocks us our, or we knock him out.

The only reason he is so brave with us is that he knows we follow the rules, the rest of the word isnt bound by such outdated conventions.