"Obama: 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan"
Then what the heck is our goal in Afghanistan? The opposite of "Victory" is "Defeat" is that our goal? Is our goal to give a little butt whipping and then retreat?
We have had thousands of American Soldiers die or wounded in Afghanistan. Many Soldiers are still haunted by the memories of the intense battles they had to engage in with this enemy and now their Commander-in-Chief says this.
Then what the heck is our goal in Afghanistan? The opposite of "Victory" is "Defeat" is that our goal? Is our goal to give a little butt whipping and then retreat?
We have had thousands of American Soldiers die or wounded in Afghanistan. Many Soldiers are still haunted by the memories of the intense battles they had to engage in with this enemy and now their Commander-in-Chief says this.
Would you have ever thought you'd hear an American President publicly state that "Victory" is not our goal in any war or conflict that we have been involved in around the world. I'm sure the Brits, French, and Jewish Survivors, etc. are glad this was not the attitude of President Roosevelt in WWII.
In this war, is it more difficult to identify to enemy? Yes, of course, but anytime you have American Soldiers put their lives on the line to protect Americans from future attacks like 9/11 your #1 goal should be "VICTORY".
In this war, is it more difficult to identify to enemy? Yes, of course, but anytime you have American Soldiers put their lives on the line to protect Americans from future attacks like 9/11 your #1 goal should be "VICTORY".
This attitude is exactly why Vietnam is now under Communist rule. American Soldiers could have won if the US Government had allowed them to. Their hands were tied, so we tucked our heads between our legs and left millions of Vietnamese to be slaughtered.
"We're not dealing with nation states at this point. We're concerned with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Al Qaeda's allies". . . .
This statement proves the Bush Administration's argument that you do not have to give Geneva Convention status to Al Qaeda prisoners captured on the battlefield, because according to John Yoo and James Ho: "In short, the United States government has concluded that the attacks of September 11 have placed the United States in a state of armed conflict, to which the laws of war apply. It has also determined that members of the al Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban militia are illegal combatants under the laws of war, and so cannot claim the legal protections and benefits that accrue to legal belligerents, such as prisoner of war status under the Third Geneva Convention of 1949*." Obama and the Democrats want to give Miranda Rights to these terrorists. . . ."you have the right to remain silent", etc.
Do you think these terrorist thugs give our Soldiers the courtesy of obeying the rules of the Geneva Convention? Only a soldier that has been there could tell of the horrors they witnessed at the hands of this enemy.
"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory'. . . .
Obama sure as hell wasn't worried about using the word "VICTORY" on election night was he?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Here's more of the article:
Obama: 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan
President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy agenda, but "victory" in the war-torn country isn't necessarily the United States' goal, he said Thursday in a TV interview.
"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.
The enemy facing U.S. and Afghan forces isn't so clearly defined, he explained.
"We're not dealing with nation states at this point. We're concerned with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Al Qaeda's allies," he said. "So when you have a non-state actor, a shadowy operation like Al Qaeda, our goal is to make sure they can't attack the United States."
Full article at:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/23/obama-victory-necessarily-goal-afghanistan/
President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy agenda, but "victory" in the war-torn country isn't necessarily the United States' goal, he said Thursday in a TV interview.
"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.
The enemy facing U.S. and Afghan forces isn't so clearly defined, he explained.
"We're not dealing with nation states at this point. We're concerned with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Al Qaeda's allies," he said. "So when you have a non-state actor, a shadowy operation like Al Qaeda, our goal is to make sure they can't attack the United States."
Full article at:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/23/obama-victory-necessarily-goal-afghanistan/
*correction made 7/26/09. . . .I had put the wrong reference to the Geneva Convention in my previous article
