|| posted on 23-11-2009 at 11:23
|Bomb now and worry about it afterwards, that's the American way.
|| posted on 23-11-2009 at 09:14
|| posted on 23-11-2009 at 02:41
|Assuming this to be true, the U.S. did behave badly.
But, now there is a U.S. President who is almost all talk, and no action. His own Afghanistan commander told him that more troops were needed THEN,
or the mission was in danger of failing. Obama is still thinking about it.
Every week, more troops--American, and those of other nations--die, but Obama continues to dither.
He has said that he hasn't had enough time to decide. He's had enough time to play basketball, to play golf, and to jet to Europe for his failed
effort to get the Olympics for Chicago (He was so self-centered that he spoke on how great it would be for him to walk from his home in Chicago to the
Olympics, and how great the Olympics would be for Chicago--as if people's lives revolved around what HE would like, and HIS city--instead of speaking
on how Chicago would be good for the Olympics). But, he doesn't have time to decide whether to commit enough troops to keep from failing--even
though, in his campaign, he said that Afghanistan was the necessary war, and had to be won.
Presently, Obama is gifting the enemies in Afghanistan with all the legal rights of U.S. citizens. When enemies are captured, they are told that they
have a right to a lawyer, and need not say anything which might incriminate them.
Back to the OP--the surge strategy in Iraq eventually worked. If the U.S. had listened to the British military commanders, would the winning strategy
have been adopted sooner?
|| posted on 22-11-2009 at 23:15
Teflon had ulterior motives? No... I simply can't believe it...!
I think the "special relationship" ended in about the nineties, when we started sitting on command to the US prompts, so our Govt's of the time
could feel like they had friends and could influence people... Look at me, I'm chums with Mr Super Power.
Down boy. Fetch.
|| posted on 22-11-2009 at 22:52
|The Chilcot Inquiry is about to open into Britain's involvement into the Iraq invasion. (One of the reasons our Tone was said to be so keen on the
President of Europe role.)
One of our colonels, Col Tanner - chief of staff to General Stewart - has made the following devastating statement.
Apparently the British military prefer jaw-jaw and the American military prefer war-war.
Should be an interesting inquiry.
But whatever happened to the oft purported "special relationship"? If America wants to do things the American way then shouldn't America go it
alone in places like Iraq and Afghanistan?