Obama Breaks Another Promise (Re: Afghanistan). Thoughts?

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 06:23:41 -0400

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/officials-obama-to-keep-troops-in-afghanistan-beyond-2016/ar-AAftiPy?li=AA54ur

Officials: Obama to keep troops in Afghanistan beyond 2016

Obama's decision casts aside his promise to end the war on his watch and instead ensures he hands the conflict off to his successor.

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Oct 15 at 2015 6:24 AM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 06:24:25 -0400

The president is expected to announce the changes Thursday morning from the White House.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Oct 15 at 2015 6:33 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 06:33:55 -0400

Would we prefer he keep promises he made before he was aware of the tactical situation and receiving daily briefs? Or would we prefer he do what is tactically and technically required for the situation?

Only an idiot would keep a misguided promise in the face of evidence that it's a poor idea...

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Oct 15 at 2015 8:19 AM

SCPO David Lockwood — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 08:19:19 -0400

No surprises! What did people think we were just going to pack everyone up and leave one day?

Response by PO1 John Miller made Oct 15 at 2015 8:24 AM

PO1 John Miller — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 08:24:59 -0400

But, but, but... he promised he would have our people out of Afghanistan by the end of his first term! ;-)

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2015 8:37 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 08:37:58 -0400

Yes there are a lot of international drug supply lines that must remain open. Don't you know ???.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Oct 15 at 2015 8:41 AM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 08:41:59 -0400

Yep, it never ends. Just enough troops to be able to claim he's engaged and contributing, yet not near enough to be successful. We will follow the same Nixon "Vietnamization" play-book, with the same results. Hole up in your bunkered firebase and wait for your tour to be over. While the CinC claims success.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2015 8:42 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 08:42:21 -0400

COL Mikel Burroughs, Yes, sir, saw that as an alert as soon as I turned off my alarm this morning, 5,500 troops, I believe.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2015 8:51 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 08:51:33 -0400

Col Burroughs, as soon as we leave the Talibs will move back in and take control of southern Afghanistan. We've spent so much money, time and blood there that we should leave but if we do and the country falls back to the Taliban, everything we did and every life lost could be seen as a waste. Tough decision to make.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2015 8:53 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 08:53:30 -0400

The President made that promise to appease an electorate...realities change, as do plans. Just one more reason we shouldn't make strategic decisions based on popular opinion.

Response by MSgt Manuel Diaz made Oct 15 at 2015 9:12 AM

MSgt Manuel Diaz — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:12:00 -0400

Depends, is he gonna keep enough troops to do anything or gonna just set up a cia shop to funnel weapons to ISIS/ brotherhood like he did in Libya.... bengazi.but more security

Response by Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin made Oct 15 at 2015 9:20 AM

Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:20:03 -0400

I am completely annoyed and frustrated with the President's decisions in Afghanistan. I was deployed to Shindand AB as an Air Advisor back in 2012, when we had the understanding we would be given 3 years to complete our mission, and train the Afghan Air Force on how to manage all aspects of an Air Force base, from flying combat missions, to maintaining the aircraft, to base operations (Comm, CE, finance, C2, Air Traffic Control). The President cut us short by two years and all the millions of dollars in infrastructure we built was essentially wasted. This all happened as we just presented our 3 year plan and even then we knew it would be tight. Our concerns made it up the chain to Gen Dunford's level (ISAF Commander at the time), which they all agreed with us 100%. Cutting us short not only gave us a year to do our mission, but we also had to pack up the base at the time as well (taking more focus off their training).

Before the decision, the flying mission, with regards to training, was well on track, and we had just convinced leadership that the focus had to shift to base operations and maintenance (without which the flying mission would fail). Shortly after our success in changing the focus, the two year cut dropped and we had no choice but to watch our hard work get pushed into a failing strategy. Our failures in Afghanistan can be placed squarely on the President's decisions alone. We were on track, progress was being made, and he cut us short unnecessarily. There are some really great Afghans out there trying to make this work, but they are still dealing with the older generation Soviet trained mentality along with the tribal differences. The younger generations of Afghans are the only hope for their success, but without the kind of coalition support they once had out there, I am not very optimistic.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2015 9:25 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:25:09 -0400

hmmm.....guess he just cant keep any promise he made the military. .....so glad he can't run again. Anyway God Bless America

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Oct 15 at 2015 9:26 AM

LTC Bink Romanick — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:26:43 -0400

Sgt Tom Cunnally I think that situations change and that promises made on the campaign trail 8 years ago are meaningless in light of the situation on the ground. Your political ideology and axe to grind blinds you to reality.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Oct 15 at 2015 9:30 AM

COL Jon Thompson — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:30:43 -0400

Has anyone seen reports if other NATO and coalition countries will remain as well?

Response by LTC John Shaw made Oct 15 at 2015 10:00 AM

LTC John Shaw — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 10:00:02 -0400

COL Mikel J. Burroughs Honestly, I am surprised by this decision. In the long run the Afghan government and forces must decide if they want to control vs the Taliban.
I hope they take the chance we are providing, but in the end they are the ones who must do it.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2015 10:15 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 10:15:46 -0400

It's such a difficult situation Sir, it's hard to know what the right thing to do is. I know a CPT is far, far below the level of anyone who has influence over such things, but if I were to give an opinion I would say there are enough historical lessons for reference that one could guess the likely outcome of prolonged involvement in the region. I would also say that the Department of Defense has the primary responsibility of defending our own nation, and 14 years of effort in trying to build up another nation is probably more than enough. As every decent Soldier does, I will of course drive on with whatever orders I'm given and complete them to the best of my ability, but those are my thoughts.

Response by MAJ James Woods made Oct 15 at 2015 10:57 AM

MAJ James Woods — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 10:57:35 -0400

Well what are his military advisors and Commanders in theater saying? We blame him for Iraq but it was Bush who set the time table and the Iraqi govt that refused out conditions for staying. We obviously don't want Afghanistan to revert to turmoil but if we withdrew and ISIS grabs a foothold wouldn't we be bashing Obama for not leaving and troops as advisors to prevent that? It's a political no win situation; yet I'm tired of the US being the world police.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Oct 15 at 2015 11:37 AM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:37:50 -0400

A few thoughts:
- Presidential candidates make all kinds of "promises" to get elected (both parties). These "promises" should be understood to be their strategic intent of how they think and what they intend to do so voters can make educated and informed decisions on who will represent them. We as a nation would be better off if candidates described their vision and intent for the nation more and made promises less.
- Presidents should be guided by a strategic understanding of the environment, clear idea of end state, and current facts on the ground to educate and inform the decisions that they make. Tactical decisions can and should change but the strategic end state should not. Our problem as a nation is that our elected officials consistently redefine our end state so that we can always declare that we "won".
- Good politicians always speak in vague terms so that people can read what they want into their words and thus anything can mean anything. That is why good politicians are almost never good Soldiers and visa versa. Soldiers are expected to communicate in clear, concise and accurate means such that their intent can never be misunderstood or interpreted by other Soldiers.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Oct 15 at 2015 11:45 AM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:45:37 -0400

And the lesson of the day is: Don't make promises you can't keep.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2015 11:58 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:58:44 -0400

I feel bad for those sons of bitches that have to stay or deploy there. Couldn't imagine how bad it'd have to be to stay the whole deployment on a super fob.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2015 12:00 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:00:01 -0400

I remember an interview that President Bush given privately, the interviewer ask President Bush, what will happen to the war on terror if Obama win the presidency? President Bush ensure him not to worry, Candidate Obama then will have no choice when he become president.

This statement ring so much truth to me even until today ... President try to change ... and in many way he did changed a lot, but ... at the end ... he still need to do what needed to be done ...

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Oct 15 at 2015 12:02 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:02:10 -0400

Can't win for losing, can he? He was a fool to bring troops home from Iraq, but now he's a fool for keeping troops in Afghanistan.

In any case, I suspect this has more to do with the new Daesh-affiliated group kicking the piss out of the Taliban than the Taliban itself. We can sorta negotiate with the Taliban.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Oct 15 at 2015 12:07 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:07:51 -0400

Please we need to stop the insanity of breaking promises, as Commander in Chief the President has to make decisions as they relate to present situations. We are warriors and not whiners and those that served in Afghanistan always knew we would stay.

Response by SPC David S. made Oct 15 at 2015 12:14 PM

SPC David S. — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:14:06 -0400

The U.S. government (White House) has been obfuscating the issue here rather than dealing with the inconvenient truth - the Taliban are a terrorist organization — even by the U.S. government’s own definition. Its obvious what T-man's intentions are with the latest attack. NATO moves out T-man moves in. It will be the same when we eventually pull out. In the meantime they will sit and wait - training and recruiting. Where is the win strategy in this?

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Oct 15 at 2015 12:23 PM

SSG Warren Swan — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:23:07 -0400

I wouldn't call it a "promise". It was an ideal that seemed "novel" to him, and something he thought as CINC he could handle. Honestly it's not even a bad one in an ideal situation. But he bore witness to what happened to Iraq and what's is currently happening in Iraq, and doesn't really want a round three. I do not think we need to stick in either area too long; we've beaten both countries into the last Ice Age and now what's being done is those same "liberated" countries are bleeding us dry in blood and dollars. Iraq needs to fall and fall hard so we can see how dedicated they really are in regards to self protection and preservation. The Stan needs to do the same. We've pumped in billions in dead no ROI contracts and we need to invest in ourselves now. The military needs a true "reset" to get men and equipment properly taken care of, new equipment issued or at least field tested, get the Navy back on track with the proper number of ships NEEDED not wanted, and place them in the correct AO's that would benefit the best interests of the US and our allies. The AF leadership either needs to be sacked or seriously counseled for their wanton determination to end the A-10 even when mandated by congress to keep the planes flying. They should also be sacked for the debacle that the F-35 has been through cost overruns and in it's case; failed capabilities. The USMC, I can't really say they need anything more than additional bodies, much the same as the Army. The US needs out of the ME. Preposition stockpiles in case needed, and watch with a curious eye to monitor events in case an intervention is needed. I'm tired. Tired of body bags filled with Janes/Joes for a failed mission. I'd like to see planes, trains, ships, and automobiles filled with Janes/Joes who are alive and ready to lead us into the future.

Response by SPC Nathan Freeman made Oct 15 at 2015 12:25 PM

SPC Nathan Freeman — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:25:21 -0400

The lesson here is: Don't make promises when you don't know all the facts. You look foolish when you make the promise and foolish again when you can't keep the promise.

Response by MAJ James Woods made Oct 15 at 2015 12:26 PM

MAJ James Woods — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:26:42 -0400

Did he break his promise or realized he needed to make an informed decision?

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Oct 15 at 2015 12:48 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:48:50 -0400

He's keeping SMs in Afghanistan after seeing what happen to Iraq which is what I am guessing.

Response by PO2 Mark Saffell made Oct 15 at 2015 12:49 PM

PO2 Mark Saffell — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:49:14 -0400

The liberals will crucify him but its the right thing to do.

Response by 2d Lt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2015 1:01 PM

2d Lt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:01:17 -0400

We've seen in Iraq what happens when we leave a small force and expect them to do multiple jobs. A team of 5000 cannot train Afghani troops while simultaneously performing a counter-terror mission.
This war isn't going to end anytime soon. It's an ideology issue, not a military one.

Response by PO1 Kenneth Cardwell made Oct 15 at 2015 1:29 PM

PO1 Kenneth Cardwell — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:29:19 -0400

Thing changes. When I was active Navy, they promised no more than 6 months deployments. Those promises were broken when the situation changed. That is life!

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2015 2:02 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:02:57 -0400

This is the correct course of action, but I can't help noticing what is missing: 9,800 troops to do what, exactly? The mission and objectives that those Soldiers have will tell the tale on whether this will be effective or not.
It is pretty obvious that as soon as USF pull out, unsavory elements will take over large tracts of the country. How will those Soldiers prevent that from happening, now just further forward in time?

Response by SSG Todd Halverson made Oct 15 at 2015 2:16 PM

SSG Todd Halverson — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:16:42 -0400

It is the best decision, but he must be willing to commit the proper amount of troops to finish the job. They must develop a logical and reasonable end state and then plan what it will take to reach that end state and not just say "We have the Taliban under control and they are no longer a factor in Afghanistan." Knowing that all they did was tuck tail and run back to Pakistan and hide until we become combat ineffective with our troop levels.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Oct 15 at 2015 2:28 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:28:00 -0400

Which is the more important issue: A politician's promises or a President's strategic decisions? Of course the President has broken promises. It's sad but expected. Promises are nothing more than a political adaptation of a ruse de guerre used to get elected. No one seriously expects those elected to keep them, do they? If we're going to have a discussion, let's discuss the wisdom of the President's decision to keep troops in Afghanistan beyond his earlier announced departure date. To do this we need to understand the strategic and tactical considerations underlying the decision. We need to understand the mission. Do you know any of this? I don't. To be honest, I haven't had a clue about anything this President has done. Many suspect the worst, that he is intentionally attempted to destroy the nation. I'm not prepared to go there, are you? Some suspect he is merely ignorant. I have seen no evidence of his vaunted intelligence ("He's so intelligent that Republicans simply can't understand him.") have you? He's a Constitutional Scholar who actively espouses the reinvention of the architecture of government and individual rights espoused in the Constitution despite the fact that he has sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. What's up with that? Help me out here, friends...

Response by LTC Mo Vanderslice made Oct 15 at 2015 3:00 PM

LTC Mo Vanderslice — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:00:09 -0400

Promises made to military personnel by politicians are never promises.

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Oct 15 at 2015 5:05 PM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:05:16 -0400

He might have broke a campaign promise but it was a smart thing to do. Once we leave that country, it will fall to the Taliban again.

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Oct 15 at 2015 6:27 PM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:27:01 -0400

WASHINGTON — As he described the factors that went into his decision to keep American troops in Afghanistan, the one word President Obama did not mention on Thursday was Iraq.

Four years ago, he stuck to his plan to pull out of Iraq, only to watch the country collapse back into sectarian strife and a renewed war with Islamic extremists. Facing a similar situation in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama has opted not to follow a similar course.

Whether keeping a residual American force in Iraq would have made a difference is a point of contention, but the president decided not to take a chance this time. In reversing his plan to pull out of Afghanistan by the end of next year, Mr. Obama abandoned his desired legacy of ending the two wars he inherited in the hopes of avoiding a repeat of the meltdown in Iraq.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/lessons-of-iraq-loom-over-obama%e2%80%99s-decision-to-keep-troops-in-afghanistan/ar-AAfuFhK?li=AA54ur&ocid=spartandhp

Lessons of Iraq Loom Over Obama’s Decision to Keep Troops in Afghanistan

Four years after pulling troops out of Iraq, only to watch it collapse into war again, President Obama opts for a different course in Afghanistan.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2015 11:29 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:29:45 -0400

Sgt Tom Cunnally Are you surprised? I'm not. It's not about Obama it's about politicians in general. They tell lies aka tell us what we want to hear and we fall for it over and over again. Somehow each election we think this one will make a difference and or that for whatever reason that this one is better than the others. Then they are not and we act shocked. If it's not a let down about their abrupt about face between what they said to get elected and what they really do, then it's about their personal behavior that we are disappointed. Really? It's a vicious cycle and we repeat it over and over.

Response by MAJ Byron Oyler made Oct 16 at 2015 1:51 AM

MAJ Byron Oyler — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 01:51:39 -0400

We are never going to get out of there unless we starting fighting a war to win, killing people, or admit they do not want change and get the hell out.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Oct 16 at 2015 12:45 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 12:45:58 -0400

Sgt Tom Cunnally Presidents make campaign promises that are way out of the scope of their ability to fulfill. THis is an example where the facts of the ground necessitated a reassessment. I am glad that he reassessed the situation and has not attempted to parallel the path we took in Iraq.
I think it is probably a good idea to announce that we are not drawing down and out of Afghanistan. Announcing our intention to draw-down our forces and exit by a date certain has previously courted disaster for the folks left behind who supported us.
I don't expect an external power will stabilize Afghanistan. However maintaining a force level while other Americans are helping out in groups such as Doctors Without Borders will help some of the younger generations realize there is hope for Afghanistan and that other people care about the Afghans. Building a sense of community within Afghanistan among the various groups and externally is an important step in the Afghans building stability within Afghanistan.
[I posted similar response in a discussion about this yesterday which was merged into this one. I didn't see nay of those posts here though.]

Response by COL Ted Mc made Oct 16 at 2015 7:11 PM

COL Ted Mc — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 19:11:07 -0400

Sgt Tom Cunnally - Sergeant; How is it that when President Obama does what the "conservatives" keep demanding he do the "conservatives" accuse him of breaking his promises but when he doesn't do what they keep demanding he do they accuse him of refusing to listen to wiser counsel?

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Oct 17 at 2015 2:02 PM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Sat, 17 Oct 2015 14:02:58 -0400

Obama doesn't have a very good record for keeping his promises over the past 7 years i.e Guantanamo Bay, Iraq , Energy Independence, Climate Change, Immigration Reform, Gun Control, Affordable Health Care, & Changing the Culture in Washington DC......so add Afghanistan to this list

Response by Sgt James Howard made Nov 10 at 2015 12:28 PM

Sgt James Howard — Tue, 10 Nov 2015 12:28:59 -0500

I'm not a big fan of the president, but it seems like he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. We constantly criticize him for not having a more aggressive stance against terrorism, which in many cases is a legitimate criticism. However, can we at the same time criticize him for sending troops back to Afghanistan?
However, I do think it is a fair point that the president seems to want it both ways: he wants the political points of both sending troops to fight terrorism, and "ending the war in Afghanistan."
The result puts the men and women serving in the region in a difficult situation militarily. We should either be all in or get the heck out.