Obama just gave his worst speech ever.

Riversider, you are so predictable.

So is Fox News.

We're sending troops to die without a clear mission.

he hasn't finished the speech, and.....he didn't start these wars eight years ago, he's trying to finish them...I feel much better with President Obama than George Bush...give him a chance.

we're putting troops and taking them out in time for his re-election(3 years). Give me a break!

"Riversider, you are so predictable."

So funny. I saw the headline and said to myself, "That'll be a Riversider thread". Even more predictable that a steveF thread, although it's close

Not so funny, we're sending soldiers to die, and the cause is less clear than the unclear Iraq situation.

Riversider - if you disagree with the President at a time of War you are aiding the terrorists........

what war you moron?
you cannot disagree with somebody without being called a terrorist supporter
you are a reactionary idiot
score you IQ and repost

petrfitzm change the name obama to george bush.

petrofrizz's point, and a correct one at that, is that there was never a reason for the US to be in Iraq, and for the first five (?) years all we heard from people who made that point was exactly what peckerzits stated.

The war started as a "Where's Waldo?" parody, in the search of one man who was allegedly being given shelter by an an entire nation.

Sometimes even peznoshitz is right. Riversider, not so much.

ah, bound by your dogma.
ok i get it.
no worries.

you'll never get it.

Obama never had any substance anyway (good thing this is the Internet, you could get clobbered for saying something like that out load). He's a one term boy wonder.

Riversider, I'd like to think that you're deploying irony here.

But if not, what's your brief history of the US-Afghanistan war?

back to the tubes!

Anyone wondering why we're in Afghanistan only needs to look at a map.
That said, I saw no credible game-plan. The three year mission sounded way too political.

I guess Bush is a 2 term boy wonder then. Funny to see people wanting Obama to fail.

wrong, voted for him. he's a let down.

Just passing thru. Nice weather heh?

Fwiw, hatez all politicians. Now if a porn star turned politician,????! Well let's just say his/her opponent's smear campaign would be pretty hard to envision.

Should be a covert operation. Shoot Bin Laden. shoot him dead. But the Taliban is not bound to Afghanistan. Just a failed strategy at this time. People should listen to Gorbachev. He clealy knows.

Gorby still alive? No shit.

Hmmmmmmmmm listen to current prez with hopefully more current info or gorby about to go on russia's dancing with the stars? Hmmmmm hmmmmm hmmm oh shit I gotta chk on cookies.

If Obama fails, it's bad for all of us. However, like W, he may not be equipped to succeed (as President). Anyway, thanks for voting.

This is the United States of America. George Bush or Obama

Is this the best we can do?

perhaps you'll run next time?

Would you vote for him columbiacounty?

i think we've established that i don't answer your questions.

I'm not sure about that. You are actually kind of sloppy in your approach online.

be sure...you're a cockroach.

huh?

hf-scumm, if only I could remember the name of that high-up CIA guy who trained the Taliban when they were fighting against the Reds ... ? It's on the tip of my tongue ... short word, starts with a 'B' ...

young, inexperienced man, unsure of himself, terrified of being weak is dominated by the military.and pushed into an ill-defined mission...OR....pragmatic competent steps up to the responsibility of being President and makes the tough choice necessary for national security

hey, alamefart, politics isn't my game.

Oh, yeah, I forgot ... you delegate that to another user name. It's so hard to keep track.

Which user name are you referencing?

riversider.

columbiacounty, I know you don't answer my questions ...

I think Obama has been a terrible disappointment and his socialist-pushing policy agendas and lenient foreign diplomacy are disasterous, but I will commend him for his standing firm on a good education plan, and for taking Afghanistan seriously. There are no good options there. We can just leave and we can't just rely on Predator drone strikes. But we can't just open-end commit to a huge indefinite military presence. I thought the second half of his speech tonight was oddly sub-par and much of it unnecessary (such as focusing on us having to withdraw in a few years because our economy is down). Surprisingly, I agree somewhat with his decision but thought he communicated it poorly, which is the opposite of how things usually are with Obama.

Correction: We CAN'T just leave . . .

Ooh, excuse me. We CAN just leave.

Ooh, excuse me. We CAN just leave.

just f*cking don't get it. how on earth the gov is still confusing the taliban with al-qaeda? al-qaeda is a highly mobile organization with many new heads ready to pop up as soon as bin laden is gone. you just cannot win with an invasion. let alone nobody yet defeated afghanistan, neither the british nor the russians.

read the FT's article of today in which russian veterans say that USA is making exactly the same mistakes they made themselves. did USA even bother to learn from the british and russian failure before the invasion?

still wonder whether using secret services to bring down the network in low key operations wouldn't have been more effective than what the gov is doing for the last 8 years. a terrorist network needs to be defeated with intelligence, not with brute force that kills civilians. that's only making it easier for al-qaeda to recruit new members.

"hf-scumm, if only I could remember the name of that high-up CIA guy who trained the Taliban when they were fighting against the Reds ... ? It's on the tip of my tongue ... short word, starts with a 'B' ..."

bingo! the mother of all the unintended consequences that was.

"did USA even bother to learn from the british and russian failure before the invasion?". Agree, admin. I fear Americans have become too dumbed down to be cognizant of history. Either we fight this war properly or we should get out. I'm hearing soldiers are afraid to fight because they fear prosecution for war crimes.

Great straight to the point speech and he is taking a big gamble, but it just shows that he is a strong leader.

I love BO!!!

strong political gamble*

smells like vietnam. I love(d?) Obama, but he's making an error here .......................
Feel sorry for the youngsters who'll be headed off to get blown apart by IEDs ...........

Bring Back the Draft
By CHARLES B. RANGEL
Published: Tuesday, December 31, 2002

I believe that if those calling for war knew that their children were likely to be required to serve ? and to be placed in harm's way ? there would be more caution and a greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq. A renewed draft will help bring a greater appreciation of the consequences of decisions to go to war.

Service in our nation's armed forces is no longer a common experience. A disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military, while the most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent.

Riversider,

Good to know you are now a big supporter of Charlie Rangel. I remember seeing you out on the streets in that frigid February protesting the Iraq invasion. Your anti-Bush posts were memorable. I remember fondly how you told us all that going into Iraq would deter us from the mission in Afghanistan. How we needed to finish the job there, before we even considered invading and occupying a country that was not a threat to our way of life. You were spot on with your prediction. If only George Bush had listened to your wise words. I just love your consistency.

Not a Rangel supporter. He's thoughtful and sincere on some issues, however his personal finances are a problem. Take care broxboy.

People who say we can just pull up and leave Afghanistan are just too naive and not serious about our national security. Do you have any idea the hell that would occur in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and how that would endanger America, if we just left the country for the Taliban to take over?

1. that is precisely what was said over and over as we escalated in vietnam.

2. how can anyone realistically assume that anything will change in afghanistan in another 18 months given the last 100 yrs of historical context there?

Vietnam & Afghanistan are not the same. South Vietnamese were supported by the Chinese accross the border. We were powerless to stop this, as we were not going to declare war on China. I have not heard that Russia is replicating what China did in Afgahnistan by supporting the Taliban.

North Vietnamese..

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,664753,00.html

Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond "enthusiastically" to the speech. But it didn't help: The soldiers' reception was cool.

One didn't have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama's speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan -- and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war -- and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.

Just in Time for the Campaign

For each troop movement, Obama had a number to match. US strength in Afghanistan will be tripled relative to the Bush years, a fact that is sure to impress hawks in America. But just 18 months later, just in time for Obama's re-election campaign, the horror of war is to end and the draw down will begin. The doves of peace will be let free.

You must be willfully blind if you can't see the differences between Afghanistan and Vietnam. The Vietnamese were not a direct security threat to America.

Unlike others in your 100 year context, we are not trying to occupy, rule or colonize Afghanistan.

what are we trying to do in afghanistan? and what happens if we don't finish in 18 months?

and...perhaps you may want to read up on the domino theory. once vietnam went, the rest would follow. and then there would be a direct threat to us.

which is not the same comparison to Afghanistan. Thanks for proving my point.

What would you like to see us do columbia? Just withdraw entirely? You actually think that is the best thing to do? You can't be that isolated and obtuse to really think that?

Iraq is/was the problem. Afghanistan wouldn't be much of an issue if it weren't for the mistake in Iraq.

either withdraw or define a mission. i listened carefully and still don't understand the mission. the problem in afghanistan is crippling poverty and lawlessness. how can that possibly be fixed in 18 months with 100,000 soldiers?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/12/01/krauthammer_obamas_afghan_speech_was_defensive.html

cc, didn't he lay out the four points in the speech? The military increase is to provide security from the extremists, which would then allow (according to the plan) civil improvements to take hold.

What do you think should be the defined mission? Don't just throw out a pithy statement, explain yourself.

i have no idea; that's why i think we should leave. think about what you just said: do you really think these amorphous civil improvements will magically materialize in such a short period of time? if that was true, how could we have been so foolish for 8 plus years?

The same people and party whose policies caused the unbelievable global mess we are in are criticizing Obama for not fixing the Republican mess created over the last 30 years in 10 months....

You are partisan moron tools who dont want what is best for the country, you just want your party in power even while it means the detrmiment of the country, the military, the global economy.

I never said I agreed with a set timeline to withdraw.

Do you have any idea of the consequences of just leaving???? Do you want to see the Taliban and Al Quaeda take over Pakistan? Do you realize how this would affect India, and more importantly, the direct security threat to the U.S.? Your mindset is just utter carelessness.

Here come petrfitz with his dumb "It's all the Republicans fault for everything" mantra.

Didn't the Democrats control the Congress and the Presidency for significant periods of time over those 30 years?

Republicans are a bunch of whiney pussies that dont take credit for the disater that you obviously caused.

Man up. Take credit for what you did. Then and only then will you have any credibility in the discource as to where the country should go from here.

Or you can just continue to blame everyone else for your failures and the failures of your same old tired disasterous policies.

We should stay focused on our goal of finding Waldo, and stay in for 300 more years if that's what it takes. No withdrawal timelines. Commies!

Oh, I forgot to mention: let's launch this successful 300-year Waldo-finding mission with a giant "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner, and dress Bam up in a nice little Commando G.I. Joe costume!

Ah, the stagecraft of warcraft ... I do so miss it.

I think that the only way we can win this war is what the Great Republican Adminstration said when they started these disasterous wars - "all citizens should take out home equity loans on the pump up valuations we caused by lowering rates and deregulating, and it is yor patriotic duty to spend that equity on a bunch of crap"

That will win these wars....oh that and the richest of us getting HUGe tax breaks, and the gays not being able to marry...

LICC - precisely...the Democrats had huge control for the last 30 yrs. can't blame everything on Republicans. It all goes back to Carter!
I think we need a third party in this country, both parties really stink!

The big mistake Bush made was to go into Iraq and not bomb the hell out of the Afghanistan and Pakistan mountains and take care of the lunatics that attacked the USA.
But then we also have to thank Clinton for not getting Osama especially after the attack on the USS Cole and the US Embassy in Nirobi.

Obama is going to be a one term president like Carter....the only reason he won is because so many Americans hated Bush! He is making one mistake after another and especially with the US economy since he has tax evaders as his policy advisers!!!

Has anyone ever thought why the USA GIFTS all these countries so many BILLIONS every year????

What is this all about? It's as if you gave a friend money to be your friend!
Then the friend HATES you and is JEALOUS of you because maybe you aren't gifting enough and wants to live the same lifestyle you live!!!

We are hated by all these countries that we taxpayers GIFT to...why bother with this global gifting when we don't have the money for our own in this country!!!!

Has anyone ever thought why the USA GIFTS all these countries so many BILLIONS every year????

Ever see "The Mouse that Roared"?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053084/plotsummary

"We are hated by all these countries that we taxpayers GIFT to...why bother with this global gifting when we don't have the money for our own in this country!!!!"

Uhhhhh, so we can control the world economy (and petrogeopolitics) for three or four generations with all those carrots and fewer sticks?

Riversider,

Krauthamer and Charlie Rangel all in one day. Priceless. Someone, sadly, has to try to clean up the catastrophic mess the Bush administration left all Americans.

or better yet---face the truth and get us the hell out.

Yes ----- get us the hell out. Pakistan hates the U.S., Afghanistan hates the U.S., all of Europe knows that this is a lost cause .. and China sits by and watches ....
Smells like Vietnam ............
Hmmmm. Obama slowly transmogrifying into LBJ . . . .
Maybe back here at home we'll get some half-assed national health insurance ......
Five minutes before we're all blown to kingdom come by Pakistani nukes ......
Well, it's a possible scenario.
Too many tinderboxes sprinkled globally ..

Yes ----- get us the hell out. Pakistan hates the U.S., Afghanistan hates the U.S., all of Europe knows that this is a lost cause .. and China sits by and watches ....
Smells like Vietnam ............
Hmmmm. Obama slowly transmogrifying into LBJ . . . .
Maybe back here at home we'll get some half-assed national health insurance ......
Five minutes before we're all blown to kingdom come by Pakistani nukes ......
Well, it's a possible scenario.
Too many tinderboxes sprinkled globally ..

This was Obama emulating George W Bush and the Iraq surge, but he screwed it up. He told the Taliban we're ending it in 18 months in time for his re-election campaign. Obama is basically conveying a message that the U.S. is not THAT committed, and gives the enemy every motive to hang in there.

One lesson of IRAQ, from a military standpoint. is you either go all out or you don't. A half assed effort fails and just risks more lives than you thought you were saving.

that's the lesson from iraq? are you more nuts than usual? too bad we didn't send in a million troops? really?

Obama transmogrifying into LBJ ....
Obama such a good guy in so many ways .......
But doesn't know history ......
Stinks like classic American militarized imperialism.
Obama is such a traditionalist ........
(Hey, he's a great improvement on Bush .......)

so was lbj.

thanks to him for medicare.

thanks to him for civil rights.

"we're ending it in 18 months in time for his re-election campaign"

Yeah, stay on script. Stay on script.

Check for new GOP soundbite.

Imperialism??? I really don't understand what is in some people's heads . . .

May 21, 2004

Retired General Anthony Zinni is one of the most respected and outspoken military leaders of the past two decades.

From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command, in charge of all American troops in the Middle East. That was the same job held by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf before him, and Gen. Tommy Franks after.

Following his retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush administration thought so highly of Zinni that it appointed him to one of its highest diplomatic posts -- special envoy to the Middle East.

But Zinni broke ranks with the administration over the war in Iraq, and now, in his harshest criticism yet, he says senior officials at the Pentagon are guilty of dereliction of duty -- and that the time has come for heads to roll. Correspondent Steve Kroft reports. There has been poor strategic thinking in this, says Zinni. There has been poor operational planning and execution on the ground. And to think that we are going to stay the course, the course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change course a little bit, or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course. Because it's been a failure.

Zinni spent more than 40 years serving his country as a warrior and diplomat, rising from a young lieutenant in Vietnam to four-star general with a reputation for candor.

Now, in a new book about his career, co-written with Tom Clancy, called "Battle Ready," Zinni has handed up a scathing indictment of the Pentagon and its conduct of the war in Iraq.

In the book, Zinni writes: "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."

I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was dereliction in lack of planning, says Zinni. The president is owed the finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. He got the latter. He didnt get the first two.

Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong strategy. And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress: This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I dont feel it needs to be done now.

But he wasnt the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.

Zinni believes this was a war the generals didnt want but it was a war the civilians wanted.

I can't speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that this situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly, no-drive zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him, says Zinni.

Now, at the same time, we had this war on terrorism. We were fighting al Qaeda. We were engaged in Afghanistan. We were looking at 'cells' in 60 countries. We were looking at threats that we were receiving information on and intelligence on. And I think most of the generals felt, let's deal with this one at a time. Let's deal with this threat from terrorism, from al Qaeda.

One of Zinni's responsibilities while commander-in-chief at Centcom was to develop a plan for the invasion of Iraq. Like his predecessors, he subscribed to the belief that you only enter battle with overwhelming force.

But Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld thought the job could be done with fewer troops and high-tech weapons.

How many troops did Zinnis plan call for? We were much in line with Gen. Shinseki's view, says Zinni. We were talking about, you know, 300,000, in that neighborhood.

What difference would it have made if 300,000 troops had been sent in, instead of 180,000?

I think it's critical in the aftermath, if you're gonna go to resolve a conflict through the use of force, and then to rebuild the country, says Zinni.

The first requirement is to freeze the situation, is to gain control of the security. To patrol the streets. To prevent the looting. To prevent the 'revenge' killings that might occur. To prevent bands or gangs or militias that might not have your best interests at heart from growing or developing. Last month, Secretary Rumsfeld acknowledged that he hadn't anticipated the level of violence that would continue in Iraq a year after the war began. Should he have been surprised?

He should not have been surprised. You know, there were a number of people, before we even engaged in this conflict, that felt strongly we were underestimating the problems and the scope of the problems we would have in there, says Zinni. Not just generals, but others -- diplomats, those in the international community that understood the situation. Friends of ours in the region that were cautioning us to be careful out there. I think he should have known that.

Instead, Zinni says the Pentagon relied on inflated intelligence information about weapons of mass destruction from Iraqi exiles, like Ahmed Chalabi and others, whose credibility was in doubt. Zinni claims there was no viable plan or strategy in place for governing post-Saddam Iraq.

As best I could see, I saw a pickup team, very small, insufficient in the Pentagon with no detailed plans that walked onto the battlefield after the major fighting stopped and tried to work it out in the huddle -- in effect to create a seat-of-the-pants operation on reconstructing a country, says Zinni.

I give all the credit in the world to Ambassador Bremer as a great American who's serving his country, I think, with all the kind of sacrifice and spirit you could expect. But he has made mistake after mistake after mistake. What mistakes?

Disbanding the army, says Zinni. De-Baathifying, down to a level where we removed people that were competent and didnt have blood on their hands that you needed in the aftermath of reconstruction alienating certain elements of that society.

Zinni says he blames the Pentagon for what happened. I blame the civilian leadership of the Pentagon directly. Because if they were given the responsibility, and if this was their war, and by everything that I understand, they promoted it and pushed it - certain elements in there certainly - even to the point of creating their own intelligence to match their needs, then they should bear the responsibility, he says.

But regardless of whose responsibility I think it is, somebody has screwed up. And at this level and at this stage, it should be evident to everybody that they've screwed up. And whose heads are rolling on this? That's what bothers me most.

Adds Zinni: If you charge me with the responsibility of taking this nation to war, if you charge me with implementing that policy with creating the strategy which convinces me to go to war, and I fail you, then I ought to go.

Who specifically is he talking about?

Well, it starts with at the top. If you're the secretary of defense and you're responsible for that. If you're responsible for that planning and that execution on the ground. If you've assumed responsibility for the other elements, non-military, non-security, political, economic, social and everything else, then you bear responsibility, says Zinni. Certainly those in your ranks that foisted this strategy on us that is flawed. Certainly they ought to be gone and replaced.

Zinni is talking about a group of policymakers within the administration known as "the neo-conservatives" who saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to stabilize American interests in the region and strengthen the position of Israel. They include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith; Former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Zinni believes they are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq.

I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were trying to do, says Zinni.

And one article, because I mentioned the neo-conservatives who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy and those who propose it. I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I'm not interested.

Adds Zinni: I know what strategy they promoted. And openly. And for a number of years. And what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don't believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn't know where it came from.

Zinni said he believed their strategy was to change the Middle East and bring it into the 21st century.

All sounds very good, all very noble. The trouble is the way they saw to go about this is unilateral aggressive intervention by the United States - the take down of Iraq as a priority, adds Zinni. And what we have become now in the United States, how we're viewed in this region is not an entity that's promising positive change. We are now being viewed as the modern crusaders, as the modern colonial power in this part of the world. Should all of those involved, including Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, resign?

I believe that they should accept responsibility for that, says Zinni. If I were the commander of a military organization that delivered this kind of performance to the president, I certainly would tender my resignation. I certainly would expect to be gone.

You say we need to change course -- that the current course is taking us over Niagara Falls. What course do you think ought to be set, Kroft asked Zinni.

Well, it's been evident from the beginning what the course is. We should have gotten this U.N. resolution from the beginning. What does it take to sit down with the members of the Security Council, the permanent members, and find out what it takes, says Zinni.

What is it they want to get this resolution? Do they want a say in political reconstruction? Do they want a piece of the pie economically? If that's the cost, fine. What theyre gonna pay for up front is boots on the ground and involvement in sharing the burden.

Are there enough troops in Iraq now?

Do I think there are other missions that should be taken on which would cause the number of troops to go up, not just U.S., but international participants? Yes, says Zinni.

We should be sealing off the borders, we should be protecting the road networks. We're not only asking for combat troops, were looking for trainers; were looking for engineers. We are looking for those who can provide services in there.

But has the time come to develop an exit strategy?

There is a limit. I think its important to understand what the limit is. Now do I think we are there yet? No, it is salvageable if you can convince the Iraqis that what we're trying to do is in their benefit in the long run, says Zinni.

Unless we change our communication and demonstrate a different image to the people on the street, then we're gonna get to the point where we are going to be looking for quick exits. I don't believe we're there now. And I wouldn't want to see us fail here. Zinni, who now teaches international relations at the College of William and Mary, says he feels a responsibility to speak out, just as former Marine Corps Commandant David Shoup voiced early concerns about the Vietnam war nearly 40 years ago.

It is part of your duty. Look, there is one statement that bothers me more than anything else. And that's the idea that when the troops are in combat, everybody has to shut up. Imagine if we put troops in combat with a faulty rifle, and that rifle was malfunctioning, and troops were dying as a result, says Zinni.

I can't think anyone would allow that to happen, that would not speak up. Well, what's the difference between a faulty plan and strategy that's getting just as many troops killed? Its leading down a path where we're not succeeding and accomplishing the missions we've set out to do.

One lesson of IRAQ, from a military standpoint. is you either go all out or you don't. A half assed effort fails and just risks more lives than you thought you were saving.
***************************************************************************************

I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was dereliction in lack of planning, says Zinni. The president is owed the finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. He got the latter. He didnt get the first two.

One of Zinni's responsibilities while commander-in-chief at Centcom was to develop a plan for the invasion of Iraq. Like his predecessors, he subscribed to the belief that you only enter battle with overwhelming force.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/12/02/cbs_bob_schieffer_obamas_afghan_strategy_isnt_logical.html

CBS' Bob Schieffer doesn't "understand" how he can set a deadline while trying to defeat the enemy.

Schieffer: "I don’t understand, I don’t understand Katie, how you can set a deadline on what you’re going to do. This is not a football game where there’s a clock where the time runs out. To win this war you have to defeat the enemy. How can we say in the beginning that we’re going to do that when we don’t know what’s going to happen?"