Obama more than a year ago called for an Afghanistan surge.

<link>

Didn't he have a strategy then?

Ok, He was not not elected yet.

In November 2008 he called for a surge. Didn't he have a comprehensive plan then?

<link>

Ok, he wasn't president then.

In Feb 2009 Obama called for a surge.

<link>

Didn't he have a plan then?

Didn't you know there was an election in Afghan and this election was tainted and there was a lot of voter fraud!!!! Also in the last few months Pakistan appears to now have the political will to go after the Taliban.

These two events are key to the goals of the USA in Afghan. First if majority of the people in Afghan didn't support the government it would make it a lot harder for the USA to get their support in killing the Taliban.

Second if Pakistan wasn't willing to crack down on the Taliban on their border with Afghan than all a surge in Afghan would of done is push the worst of the Taliban from Afghan into Pakistan. If Pakistan is serrious now than them pushing from the east and the USA pushing from the west could deal a major blow to the Taliban and thus justify a surge by the USA.

Event on the ground change, thus so should the plan. You sound just like Rumfield! Stick to a plan regardless. How did that work in Iraq! NOT.

The election is an excuse. The election was back in August and Obama is using them as an excuse to delay because he has to figure out how to get out of the corner he has painted himself into. If he goes with the surge, he is unpopular with libs who oppose the war entirely. If he denies the surge, then Iraq as a distraction from the "real" war becomes a phony issue. So he will grab at any issue.

When Iraq was a "distraction", Pakistan wasn't going after the Taliban. So why is that critical now and not when Obama sent the first surge to Afghanistan?

The concept that there has to be a "stable" government in Afghanistan is a sham. Beyond Israel no one can name a government that is either stable or legitimate in the entire region. Suppose that same criterion was applied to Africa?

Good point. How representative and stable was the Shah of Iran?

"Beyond Israel no one can name a government that is either stable or legitimate in the entire region. Suppose that same criterion was applied to Africa?"

Ignorance is not a virtue.

Jordan, Egypt, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Dubai, Syria, and those are just off the top of my head. All of them have stable legitimate governments. Hell, according to you fringe right wingers, we dont even have a legitimate government, and if you militia whack jobs get a shot, we wont even have a stable government.

House of Saud is a house of cards; corrupt and tyrannical

Iran just put down a big dissent.

<link>

You don't want to be in India during elections especially if you are Sikh or Kashmir. Nor do you want to vacation on the India/Pakistan border.

Syria and Jordan? Are you kidding? They are considered state sponsors of terrorism.

I'm glad he's being deliberate.

I heard that strategy session Obama's people had in March was a farce. Somebody said, "Let's do COIN, it's really cool" and they all jumped up and down. Of course, they had no clue about the 1:50 ratio because none of them had ever heard of 3-24.

Now there's a little sticker shock, I'd say. Plus the Karzai election fraud's an issue.

But Kagan put together a good briefing on what he would do with 30-40 thousand extra troops, and I think Obama will end up signing off on something similar to that, because it is rational, bounded, and Kagan has a lot of cred.

"Jordan, Egypt, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Dubai, Syria, and those are just off the top of my head. All of them have stable legitimate governments. Hell, according to you fringe right wingers, we dont even have a legitimate government, and if you militia whack jobs get a shot, we wont even have a stable government."

Jordan- King, dictatorship

Egypt- Dictatorship

India-Corrupt democracy (read the news)

Iran-Theocratic dictatorship

Saudi Arabia-king, dictator, very unstable

Kuwait,-king, dictator

Turkey-deomocracy, kurdish problem, islamic unrest

Dubai-Emirate, dictator

Syria- YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING

Are you actualy this dumb or do you borrow everything from the DNC?

?

You said "stable and legitimate" whackjob. Your ignorance just keeps being more self-evident the more you post. Those countries have stable and legitimate governments, there are currently no civil wars in any of them, there are no "Somalias" in that group at all. Just because you dont like their governments does not make it illegitimate, just like not liking Obama does not make our government illegitimate, except in your fevered ignorant brain.

Read and learn a speck of knowledge, if you are ca[able of reading and understanding:

"The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is a constitutional monarchy with representative government. The reigning monarch is the head of state, the chief executive and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The king exercises his executive authority through the prime minister and the Council of Ministers, or cabinet. The cabinet, meanwhile, is responsible before the elected House of Deputies which, along with the House of Notables (Senate), constitutes the legislative branch of the government. The judicial branch is an independent branch of the government.

Since 1989, all elements of the Jordanian political spectrum have embarked together on a road to greater democracy, liberalization and consensus building. These reforms, which were guided by the late King Hussein, have placed Jordan on an irreversible road to democratization. The result has been greater empowerment and involvement of everyday citizens in Jordan's civic life, contributing to increased stability and institutionalization which will benefit the country far into the future."

I understand. Your view of legitimate is the issue. You clearly accept a government that runs every aspect of your life as legitimate. Well, we are almost there. You must love it.

Who is Kagan?

He'a a neocon defense analyst, very smart guy. When Baker came out with his Iraq recommendations a few years ago, Kagan's group came out with a counter-proposal that was the intellectual foundation for the Surge.

Like the man said, you get to have your own opinion, but not your own facts:

Cultural Dictionary
legitimate government

A government generally acknowledged as being in control of a nation and deserving formal recognition, which is symbolized by the exchange of diplomats between that government and the governments of other countries.

<link>

Argue with the fucking dictionary dipwad.