More Troops into Afghanistan?

[spurster]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/world/asia/21afghan.html

General Calls for More U.S. Troops to Avoid Afghan Failure

By ERIC SCHMITT and THOM SHANKER
Published: September 20, 2009

WASHINGTON - The top military commander in Afghanistan warns in a confidential assessment of the war there that he needs additional troops within the next year or else the conflict "will likely result in failure."

...


I'm surprised we haven't seen any threads on this yet. If the general is right, we are losing in Afghanistan. However, I can't figure out how more troops are going to do anything more than delay the inevitable. The only reason I can see to keep troops there is helping Pakistan against the Taliban. Otherwise, we could leave and just bomb AQ training camps as needed.

[coyotes_geek]

Obama made it a pretty consistent theme during his campaign that Iraq was taking resources away from Afghanistan. So if Obama was being genuine, then one would think he's pretty much got to grant the request for additional troops.

[boutons_deux]

McChrystal's request is on hold in the WH while WH re-thinks WTF we're doing in there.

The Afghan govt is corrupt, ineffective/invisible outside of Kabul, and now illegitimate after stealing the "election".

There is no Afghan army or police force for NATO to hand over to.

Afghanistan is lost, was always unwinnable.

Just another disaster dickhead/neo-c*nt started and couldn't finish.

Way past time to pull out and let the Taleban, who will always out-wait invaders, have their way.

[LnGrrrR]

Just find Osama, shoot or capture him, then pull out.

[CosmicCowboy]

There is no "winning" in Afghanistan. They have NEVER had an effective central government...They are simply a loose collection of tribes and tribal leaders. The Soviets couldn't "win" in Afghanistan despite being right next door and having a conventional army 10 times the size of ours...we just need to admit there is no good end game there and get the fuck out...

[Winehole23]

Obama made it a pretty consistent theme during his campaign that Iraq was taking resources away from Afghanistan. So if Obama was being genuine, then one would think he's pretty much got to grant the request for additional troops.Unless he agrees with Gates, who believes the war isn't winnable militarily and that a bigger US footprint in Afghanistan is politically counterproductive -- it reinforces the impression that the US is fighting a war of occupation there.

McChrystal's assessment that more troops are urgently needed now to avert mission failure underscores just how close GWB's conduct of the war has brought us to it.

Maybe an Afghan surge can bring the Taliban and the various warlords to the table. Defeating them, training the Afghan army or continuing to prop up Kabul seem not to be long term options. A negotiated carve up of Afghanistan would seem to be among the better outcomes. If we insist on our metrics of victory, we ain't never leaving.

[Bartleby]

John Oliver nails it with this one:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-17-2009/the-unwinnable-war-in-afghanistan

[CosmicCowboy]

Funny.

This is probably the only topic in here where the liberals and conservatives consistently agree with each other.

I suspect Obama is delaying his decision in order to do polling that will confirm the same thing. Expect Obama to follow the polls and start looking for an exit strategy where he can declare "peace with honor" just like Nixon did.

[coyotes_geek]

Anyone think Obama tries to take the compromise route and sends more troops, just not as many as McChrystal is asking for?

[CosmicCowboy]

Anyone think Obama tries to take the compromise route and sends more troops, just not as many as McChrystal is asking for?

That wouldn't surprise me either. No matter what, he doesn't want to look "soft" on terror...oops...I meant "human caused disasters".

[boutons_deux]

The Repugs will trash Magic Negro if he "loses" Afghanistan, but who GAF about the miniscule freakshow called Repugs?


http://www.alternet.org/images/site/logo.gif
New Pew Poll on Afghanistan Shows Dwindling Support for the War

By Byard Duncan, AlterNet
Posted on September 22, 2009, Printed on September 22, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.alternet.org/142806/


The results of a new Pew poll (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1349/support-falls-afghanistan-war-troop-removal) on Afghanistan are both contradictory and befuddling, effectively channeling two principal characteristics of a war that will likely become the United States’ most snarled foreign policy conundrum of 2010.

The poll shows that even though 76 percent of Americans see a Taliban takeover of the country as a major threat to U.S. security, 43 percent favor pulling out all U.S. and NATO troops as soon as possible. The number of those advocating withdrawal has increased five percent in just three months (from 38 percent in June), while the ranks of those set on ‘staying the course’ shrank by seven percent during the same period.

Additionally, while a plurality of Republicans believe that the U.S. is doing a good job lowering the amount of civilian casualties, an increasing amount of Democrats and independents are beginning to believe just the opposite.

These findings, coupled with dwindling support (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27415.html) among once-hawkish Democrats like Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Jim Webb (D-Va.), throw light on an issue that the Obama administration likely would have preferred to postpone until after the health care debate was settled: how long can the U.S. afford to stay in Afghanistan?

The data also raises the question of how public opinion aligns (or doesn’t align) with larger themes of American foreign policy. What does it mean that we seemingly (and simultaneously) support and disapprove of a war whose two central tenets are ‘attacking’ and ‘rebuilding’ -- a seemingly contradictory pairing?

The health care debate’s largest snags are primarily logistical (everyone claims, at least, to agree that all Americans deserve affordable coverage – it’s the means of obtaining it that causes such a brouhaha). But when it comes to Afghanistan, there’s a fundamental rift of opinion. What we’re beginning to see seems like the tipping of a ‘safety at home’/‘safety abroad’ cost/benefit scale.

Unfortunately for the Obama administration, it's tipping quickly.

© 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.alternet.org/142806/

[jack sommerset]

For the next few months lets kill every motherfucker we can, fuck their women hardcore and get them pregnant. Come back in 5-6 years to check out the situation.

[nuclearfm]

For the next few months lets kill every motherfucker we can, fuck their women hardcore and get them pregnant. Come back in 5-6 years to check out the situation.

:jack

[SpurNation]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113052541&ft=1&f=1004http://api.npr.org/transcript?id=113052541


The insurgency in Afghanistan is getting stronger. According to a leaked assessment of the war, Taliban-led insurgents either control or are fighting in a "significant portion of the country." It's hard to understand why because insurgent fighters are vastly outnumbered by U.S., NATO and Afghan security forces, and their technology is inferior.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113066527&ft=1&f=1004


"And the president does have other things on his plate — and, frankly some, like the economy and health care, are comparably important," O'Hanlon says. "But this is a crucial moment for him; he is ultimately responsible."
Then And Now
During his campaign and in the early months of his presidency, Obama repeatedly declared his commitment to the military and civilian mission in Afghanistan that he inherited from the Bush administration. "A war of necessity," is what Obama called it, that would ensure Afghanistan would not come under Taliban control.
"If the Afghan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can," he said in a March speech.
The new president retained the respected Bush-appointed defense secretary, Robert Gates, approved the deployment of 21,000 additional troops and has generally acquiesced to the requests of his military leaders.
But now, with more than 60,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the security situation has only gotten worse. The government of President Hamid Karzai is tainted by allegations of corruption, and last month's presidential election is widely disputed and marred by claims of fraud. Security remains elusive, and well-documented failures in nation building have left the president in a delicate position.
"He has been criticized in the past for using his position on Afghanistan to show he's strong," says Hegseth. "Now his rhetoric is coming to fruition."


More stories here...
http://www.afghanistannews.net/

[Winehole23]

"If the Afghan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can," Obama said in a March speech.The 9/11 terrorists found havens in Hamburg, Germany and in Florida.

What are we doing to make sure Hamburg and Florida do not become *havens*for Al Qaeda again?

[NoOptionB]

GTFO of Afghan.

Skin them alive when you find them in the states. o wait, we don't enforce immigration lmfao.


U.S. will lose another few thousand soldiers only to have the same piece of shit hellhole exactly the same 20 years from now.....50 years from now...200 years from now...

[PEP]

Blah.....shouldnt mess with nation building on this one, not enough troops in country to do that. Just keep on killing as many Taliban/Qaeda's as possible.

I read that McChrystal might even resign if he doesnt feel that he's getting the support out of the White House. McChrystal is a good general and I'd hate to lose him but if he feels that he's not being given the proper resources, I guess he doesnt have much of a choice. I dont think that would be good PR for the White House.

[clambake]

Blah.....shouldnt mess with nation building on this one, not enough troops in country to do that. Just keep on killing as many Taliban/Qaeda's as possible.

I read that McChrystal might even resign if he doesnt feel that he's getting the support out of the White House. McChrystal is a good general and I'd hate to lose him but if he feels that he's not being given the proper resources, I guess he doesnt have much of a choice. I dont think that would be good PR for the White House.

he wants more troops. he's a general. generals that don't want to fight aren't likely to be generals for long.

[TDMVPDPOY]

Just find Osama, shoot or capture him, then pull out.

dont think this is going to stop anything seriously...he will be replace by the next person in charge....

as for afghan, the leader looks like a douche....and the coalition shouldve finished this war long time ago b4 starting iraq and shit....this is just dragging out....

[LnGrrrR]

dont think this is going to stop anything seriously...he will be replace by the next person in charge....

Oh I know. But that cangive us enough cover to convince the general population that we've "won" and therefore we might be able to get out of there in he next decade.

[iggypop123]

honeystly as long as there isnt a draft they can do whatever they want

[symple19]

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/
This guy is doing the best reporting on Afghanistan that can be found(IMO). He's a former Green Beret that has been until recently embedded with the Brits in Helmand. Also some nice photography.

My take is that we need to give McChrystal some more time and implement his proposals.

Other than the inept central government and lack of infrastructure, the biggest problem is the never-ending revenue stream provided by the Opium Poppies. This allows the Taliban to keep their operations going. There's really no way to shut down the Opium business there short of the legalization of heroin/related drugs in Europe and the subsequent drop in price of said drugs. This ain't happening, so the only other possible way is to introduce new crops to farmers, which is ongoing with little success so far, largely because the Taliban control the countryside and thus the Poppy cultivation.

More NATO troops would also help. Even if all they do is train Afghan police/army units that would help. The faster we can get more locals to do the work the better. Obama can hopefully use some of his charm to talk our NATO allies into doing this, or even non-NATO allies. Countries like Japan have been in there for years doing infrastructure work and investing money, things that can be invaluable in an impoverished country such as Afghanistan.

The next thing I think is crucial is working with the Pakistanis. They've been doing better at fighting the Taliban in their own country, largely because the Pak Army was getting embarrassed at every turn. The Taliban at one point were setting up checkpoints and taking villages only about 80-100km outside Islamabad in the Swat valley. If the Paks can get their stuff together, quit worrying about the Indians so much, and learn how to fight a counter-insurgency better, they could do much to staunch the flow of fighters and weaponry into Afghanistan. We also cannot allow the Pak government to become unstable. They do, after all, have Nukes.


I also think Obama should go through with launching operations (other than drones) into Pak if solid intelligence arises of Al-Qaeda/Taliban in the NW Frontier or Tribal areas. Hopefully he can talk the Paks into letting us do this, although that won't be easy.

This is one helluva messy situation. I like most of what Obama has done so far. There's no easy solution, to be sure. I definitely don't wanna be in there for some endless amount of time. The Brits and Russians found out just how hard of a job it can be to operate successfully in one of the most inhospitable places on Earth.

[Nbadan]

We can't just leave Afghanistan because in order to save his oil buddies billions, Cheney built a pipeline through it..

[SpurNation]

U.S. scrambling to come up with new Afghanistan plan?

By Barbara Starr
CNN Pentagon Correspondent

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Obama administration's national security team is working on alternative strategies for the war in Afghanistan that may not require tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops, a senior U.S. official told CNN Wednesday.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/09/23/afghanistan.strategy/art.soldierafghan2.gi.jpg

The Obama administration is looking at whether or not to add more troops in Afghanistan.
The official, who is familiar with the highly confidential discussions, said the national security team hopes to send its proposals to President Obama within three weeks.
The alternatives wouldn't necessarily involve sending the additional troops Gen. Stanley McChrystal is expected to say would be needed to carry out the counterinsurgency strategy the president announced in March.
Several sources told CNN that the assessment McChrystal sent to the administration a few weeks ago, which offered only the single plan for a full counterinsurgency effort, essentially gave the president no option other than to accept or reject it in full.
Officials privately describe the situation as messy, saying it puts the president "in a box."
http://current.com/1fnqu4c

[Nbadan]

The Karzai Govt. is corrupt and Afghanistan is once again a banana republic, but then again we lived with one for 8 years...

[Stringer_Bell]

honeystly as long as there isnt a draft they can do whatever they want

True, the military serves at the request of the government and the government serves the "best interests" of the country. What "victory" (whatever that means) in Afghanistan secures for the people of the US, I don't know. But I feel if the oil tycoons can make a decent chunk of change, maybe it will trickle down to the rest of the economy and help out in the homeland. That's how it's supposed to work, right?

Oh wait, THIS one is the war we're fighting against the terrorists? Blah, my mistake I thought it was the other one. :rolleyes

[jman3000]

We're putting to much emphasis on a powerful centralized government in Kabul.

Gotta go with a federal system with nearly autonomous territories.

I don't see why we don't invest in the pharmaceutical industry in that country. We can buy the poppy from them at above market rates, protect the farmers who grow, and we can try to grow the pain killer / pharmaceutical industry. They're land locked and don't have shit for resources, so that's really the only way we can get them to be prosperous... and with prosperity comes giving the middle finger to the Taliban.

[SpurNation]

We're putting to much emphasis on a powerful centralized government in Kabul.

Gotta go with a federal system with nearly autonomous territories.

I don't see why we don't invest in the pharmaceutical industry in that country. We can buy the poppy from them at above market rates, protect the farmers who grow, and we can try to grow the pain killer / pharmaceutical industry. They're land locked and don't have shit for resources, so that's really the only way we can get them to be prosperous... and with prosperity comes giving the middle finger to the Taliban.

Damn good idea. But because it is...probably wouldn't come to fruition.

[Nbadan]

http://www.indenvertimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Stei090923.gif

[SouthernFried]

We're putting to much emphasis on a powerful centralized government in Kabul.

Gotta go with a federal system with nearly autonomous territories.

I don't see why we don't invest in the pharmaceutical industry in that country. We can buy the poppy from them at above market rates, protect the farmers who grow, and we can try to grow the pain killer / pharmaceutical industry. They're land locked and don't have shit for resources, so that's really the only way we can get them to be prosperous... and with prosperity comes giving the middle finger to the Taliban.

Wow!

An original thought? Here?

:toast

[Viva Las Espuelas]

this report was submitted .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .......................august 30, 2009


http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Assessment_Redacted_092109.pdf?hpid=topnews

[boutons_deux]

Frank Rich has good article referring to a book "Lessons in Disaster” by Gordon M. Goldstein:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/opinion/27rich.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

No matter what Magic Negro decides, the hate media will try to crucify him, since they only care about MN failing, not about the USA or US military.

Dangerous times for Magic Negro and for USA. Like VN and Iraq, Afghanistan simply isn't winnable, wasn't / isn't tamable by invaders. Like Afganistan, there's no country there beyond geo-political lines on the map. No government, no institutions, no popular support, no military/police, nothing.

Like Iraq, Aghanistan is a disaster started by dickhead/neo-c*nts/Repugs who couldn't finish the job. dickhead and dubya escaped to wealthy retirement, stone-throwing, blame-shifting.

[PEP]

Frank Rich has good article referring to a book "Lessons in Disaster” by Gordon M. Goldstein:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/opinion/27rich.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

No matter what Magic Negro decides, the hate media will try to crucify him, since they only care about MN failing, not about the USA or US military.

Dangerous times for Magic Negro and for USA. Like VN and Iraq, Afghanistan simply isn't winnable, wasn't / isn't tamable by invaders. Like Afganistan, there's no country there beyond geo-political lines on the map. No government, no institutions, no popular support, no military/police, nothing.

Like Iraq, Aghanistan is a disaster started by dickhead/neo-c*nts/Repugs who couldn't finish the job. dickhead and dubya escaped to wealthy retirement, stone-throwing, blame-shifting.
This my friends is what happens when you stop taking your meds. He is so obsessed with Bush and Cheney I bet he has a little shrine in his closet. :worthy:

[spurster]

We're putting to much emphasis on a powerful centralized government in Kabul.

Gotta go with a federal system with nearly autonomous territories.


That's really the situation now in Afghanistan. I don't think the "powerful centralized government" has much power outside Kabul. The problem is that many of the "autonomous territories" are controlled by the Taliban.

[spursncowboys]

That's really the situation now in Afghanistan. I don't think the "powerful centralized government" has much power outside Kabul. The problem is that many of the "autonomous territories" are controlled by the Taliban. Agree and it's more about tribes than land. I wonder why no one has brought up the Biden Plan for Iraq for Afghanistan? We can break it up into centuries old tribal lands and work with their elected officials. I hope there is a plan to succeed. Not like the Democrats where they want it to be on the NYT to sell papers but as long as they have some kind of strategy. If more troops get us victory in Afghanistan the quickest, then let's do it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Agree and it's more about tribes than land. I wonder why no one has brought up the Biden Plan for Iraq for Afghanistan? We can break it up into centuries old tribal lands and work with their elected officials. I hope there is a plan to succeed. Not like the Democrats where they want it to be on the NYT to sell papers but as long as they have some kind of strategy. If more troops get us victory in Afghanistan the quickest, then let's do it.

Dems want it to be on NY Times? I see you are making things up AGAIN..:rolleyes

[spursncowboys]

Dems want it to be on NY Times? I see you are making things up AGAIN..:rolleyes Yeah right, because Democrats are innocent little do gooders right? They wouldn't use a leaked Top Secret memo to the NYT as a political tool to attack Bush, the wars, and Generals in the war. Yeah silly me, just making things up AGAIN. What was I thinking.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yeah right, because Democrats are innocent little do gooders right? They wouldn't use a leaked Top Secret memo to the NYT as a political tool to attack Bush, the wars, and Generals in the war. Yeah silly me, just making things up AGAIN. What was I thinking.

Now your using Bush to defend yourself? I thought you didn't want people to blame bush?.

[boutons_deux]

"If more troops get us victory in Afghanistan"

define victory. Like in Iraq, there is no victory. Those countries can only exist with a Saddam or other dictatorship. Democracy is one US export that turns to junk food, like all the other junk food America exports.

Any apparent "victory" will be temporary, overturned by the indigents when the US leaves, since they are in their country and can wait it out, while the US blows through 100s of wasted $Bs and lives.

[mogrovejo]

Unless he agrees with Gates, who believes the war isn't winnable militarily and that a bigger US footprint in Afghanistan is politically counterproductive -- it reinforces the impression that the US is fighting a war of occupation there.

McChrystal's assessment that more troops are urgently needed now to avert mission failure underscores just how close GWB's conduct of the war has brought us to it.

Maybe an Afghan surge can bring the Taliban and the various warlords to the table. Defeating them, training the Afghan army or continuing to prop up Kabul seem not to be long term options. A negotiated carve up of Afghanistan would seem to be among the better outcomes. If we insist on our metrics of victory, we ain't never leaving.

Why do you say that? I remember quite well what Obama has said about the war in Afghanistan. He even said that he had a strategy that he'd immediately impose. He approved a huge troops increase and he nominated McChrystal. HE talked about disrupt, dismantle and defeat, a stronger effort and that he would not only run with the Taliban out of the country but prevent their comeback in the future.

What's that "strategy" after all? We still don't know? Obama still doesn't know? He said those things just a few months ago.

[Wild Cobra]

What's that "strategy" after all? We still don't know? Obama still doesn't know? He said those things just a few months ago.
Like all liberal asswipes in politics, he's just talking out his ass.

[mogrovejo]

Like all liberal asswipes in politics, he's just talking out his ass.

Are you talking about Winehole or Obama? If it's Winehole, I'd rather read his reasoning. If it's Obama, I sincerely refuse to believe in that, it'd be too bad to be true. He didn't only talk (and in this kind of issues, that's serious enough), he acted.

[Wild Cobra]

Are you talking about Winehole or Obama? If it's Winehole, I'd rather read his reasoning. If it's Obama, I sincerely refuse to believe in that, it'd be too bad to be true. He didn't only talk (and in this kind of issues, that's serious enough), he acted.
I was referring to our President, who cannot speak coherently unless it's some socialistic topic, when the teleprompter dies.

[Winehole23]

Why do you say that? I remember quite well what Obama has said about the war in Afghanistan. He even said that he had a strategy that he'd immediately impose. He approved a huge troops increase and he nominated McChrystal. HE talked about disrupt, dismantle and defeat, a stronger effort and that he would not only run with the Taliban out of the country but prevent their comeback in the future.

What's that "strategy" after all? We still don't know? Obama still doesn't know? He said those things just a few months ago.Maybe Obama was fooled by his own campaign rhetoric. Bush's conduct of the war was deceptively easy to criticize.

I still don't think there's a strategy for Afghanistan. Just a bunch of empty platitudes about denying Al Qaeda a foothold in Afghanistan and emboldening terrorists.

We've got our dicks caught in a crack; there's no painless way out.

[Wild Cobra]

We've got our dicks caught in a crack; there's no painless way out.
A radical idea, but what if we made craters out of poppy fields?

Would farmers think twice about their crops is they have to re-level their fields and have no crop?

[Winehole23]

There's also no way resources adequate to fulfilling the mission (be it either nation building or counterinsurgency) will be committed. For counterinsurgency ops, that's about 500,000 troops; for nation building, a greatly beefed up civilian effort, plus counterinsurgency, for decades if not generations. I doubt domestic support will bear up under such efforts, particularly since the strategy has yet to be satisfactorily laid out.

It's very hard to see the US interest in Afghanistan unless you link it to the rest of Central Asia.

How is winning defined and what do we get if we win? The geopolitical gloss on US strategy has barely been broached: even with Obama, it's a never ending parade of the same tired war on terra bromides.

[Winehole23]

A radical idea, but what if we made craters out of poppy fields?

Would farmers think twice about their crops is they have to re-level their fields and have no crop?How'd that work for us in Laos and Vietnam?

[Wild Cobra]

How'd that work for us in Laos and Vietnam?
We'll never know. Congress defunded that war before we could win.

[Winehole23]

We'll never know. Congress defunded that war before we could win.:lol

[nkdlunch]

Just find Osama, shoot or capture him, then pull out.

actually this would be the only option for USA. they should intensify this, if they get this accomplished at least it won't be an "official defeat". problem is, Osama is probably not in afghanistan anymore.

USA is fucked anyway. what will bringing more troops do? they gonna have to stay there for good to keep some kind of calm. Who wants to commit this?

[nkdlunch]

We'll never know. Congress defunded that war before we could win.

please get serious

[ElNono]

USA is fucked anyway. what will bringing more troops do? they gonna have to stay there for good to keep some kind of calm. Who wants to commit this?

1) Take over the opium production...
2) Profit!!!!!!

[Wild Cobra]

We'll never know. Congress defunded that war before we could win.please get serious
Wow...

I see you are lacking in your Viet Nam history.

Congress made it impossible for us to win, so we pulled out.

[nkdlunch]

Wow...

I see you are lacking in your Viet Nam history.

Congress made it impossible for us to win, so we pulled out.

Congress pulled out because of the large # of US casualties and the american public opposition. Neither of those 2 factors were going to go away, actually they were increasing.

Eventhen, what guarantee do you have USA would have won? NONE. talking out of your ass once again.

[Wild Cobra]

Congress pulled out because of the large # of US casualties and the american public opposition. Neither of those 2 factors were going to go away, actually they were increasing.

Eventhen, what guarantee do you have USA would have won? NONE. talking out of your ass once again.
We were winning. Like it or not, the democrat controlled congress pulled the plug. I think they were afraid Nixon would get credit for winning a war.

[nkdlunch]

keep telling yourself that. :rolleyes

thankfully the world has historians that employ historical data to tell us what really happened.

[Wild Cobra]

keep telling yourself that. :rolleyes

thankfully the world has historians that employ historical data to tell us what really happened.

Yep, I agree.

[mogrovejo]

Maybe Obama was fooled by his own campaign rhetoric. Bush's conduct of the war was deceptively easy to criticize.

I still don't think there's a strategy for Afghanistan. Just a bunch of empty platitudes about denying Al Qaeda a foothold in Afghanistan and emboldening terrorists.

We've got our dicks caught in a crack; there's no painless way out.

What does "fooled by campaign rethoric" mean? That he was lying when he said he had a strategy? He said all those things before and after getting elected, he was the one deciding the troops increase. This isn't a proper way of handling these issues. There are more countries with troops in Afghanistan. Some send more troops just a couple of months ago after Obama toured Europe asking for more help in Afghanistan. Now you're saying those were just empty platitudes? I can't believe it. If so, the guy is either completely irresponsible, a dangerous liar or both.

[Winehole23]

What does "fooled by campaign rethoric" mean? That he was lying when he said he had a strategy? Not quite. I just meant that Bush was easy to criticize for taking his eye off Afghanistan and OBL. And that it's one thing to say more resources will be committed when your SECDEF and commanders say two different things about the proper size of the US footprint.

It's fair to point out that Obama seemed to be more focused on things tactical than strategic during the campaign. Remember the tussle in the Presidential debate over drone strikes in Pakistan?

To be fair, the Afghanistan war has been strategically rudderless more or less since 2003: so the formulation of strategy at this point is, more or less, de novo.


He said all those things before and after getting elected, he was the one deciding the troops increase. As far as I know, he still is.


This isn't a proper way of handling these issues. There are more countries with troops in Afghanistan. Some send more troops just a couple of months ago after Obama toured Europe asking for more help in Afghanistan. Now you're saying those were just empty platitudes? The whole war is based on empty platitudes and has been for some time. Our strategy is vaporware. You hadn't noticed this?


I can't believe it. If so, the guy is either completely irresponsible, a dangerous liar or both.Obama's an optimistic guy. He probably thought Afghanistan was winnable.

I think he may be starting to realize he might be mistaken about that.

[SpurNation]

The greatest military in the world isn't going to change the idealism of an entire nation or people.

We can not, or never have been able to, change the views of a people if they are not accepting of our own.

It's what's happened in every war we've been in other than WWI, WWII and the Korean conflict when the majority of the people of the nation we were not popular to the idea of us being on their soil.

We did what we intended in defeating the Taliban at first. However...We did not chop the head of the snake in OBL and nor has he consented defeat.

Now with tensions running high in Iran...how do we fund (if it comes to that) a war against Iran and expect to pull our own nation out of economic despair?

War is ugly...it kills and mames many innocent people...but I would pull out of Afghanistan...rebuild our military for defensive purposes...let that part of the world dictate themselves into internal strife and pestulence...but let them know (whoever takes control) that if you attack us or our allies again there will be no mercy...no holding back...no prisoners...total annihilation. It's the only thing it seems that the people of that region of the world seem to understand. They don't value democracy, government, or hold regard for anything other than their religious beliefs and 1,000's of years of tribal conflict. We can't change that nor has any other country or dictator been able to in the past.

Financially...take care of our own. Stop throwing billions in aide and warfare to a region that will never believe in our philosophies. And as stated before...if any new government or dictator resides in power of that area...make it clear that we will not hesitate to annihilate that area if ever attacked.

Standing back and looking at what has been happening it almost seems that the radical dictators and religious leaders of that area are purposely wanting us to be militarily involved in that region. Maybe their secret goal is to financially bring us down through military conflict. It worked against the USSR.

[spursncowboys]

How'd that work for us in Laos and Vietnam?
Nixon was recorded saying he avoided as much as possible civilian areas. He targeted military routes and groups. I think WC meant the fields. Our technology on weapons has improved since that time.
Also I wonder if just getting out of nation-building but having troops there for quick response would do. I think the liberals would go against it because of the "indecency" of not helping the civilians of our enemies.

[spursncowboys]

Look at the date.






The Declining Terrorist Threat

Published: Tuesday, July 10, 2001
WASHINGTON -- Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.
None of these beliefs are based in fact. While many crimes are committed against Americans abroad (as at home), politically inspired terrorism, as opposed to more ordinary criminality motivated by simple greed, is not as common as most people may think.
At first glance, things do seem to be getting worse. International terrorist incidents, as reported by the State Department, increased to 423 in 2000 from 392 in 1999. Recently, Americans were shaken by Filipino rebels' kidnapping of Americans and the possible beheading of one hostage. But the overall terrorist trend is down. According to the Central Intelligence Agency, deaths from international terrorism fell to 2,527 in the decade of the 1990's, from 4,833 in the 80's.
Nor are the United States and its policies the primary target. Terrorist activity in 2000 was heavily concentrated in just two countries ? Colombia, which had 186 incidents, and India, with 63. The cause was these countries' own political conflicts.
While 82 percent of the attacks in Colombia were on oil pipelines managed by American and British companies, these attacks were less about terrorism than about guerrillas' goal of disrupting oil production to undermine the Colombian economy. Generally, the guerrillas shy away from causing casualties in these attacks. No American oil workers in Colombia were killed or injured last year.
Other terrorism against American interests is rare. There were three attacks on American diplomatic buildings in 2000, compared with 42 in 1988. No Americans were killed in these incidents, nor have there been any deaths in this sort of attack this year.
Of the 423 international terrorist incidents documented in the State Department's report "Patterns of Global Terrorism 2000," released in April, only 153 were judged by the department and the C.I.A. to be "significant." And only 17 of these involved American citizens or businesses.
Eleven incidents involved kidnappings of one or more American citizens, all of whom were eventually released. Seven of those kidnapped worked for American companies in the energy business or providing services to it ? Halliburton, Shell, Chevron , Mobil, Noble Drilling and Erickson Air-Crane.
Five bombings were on the list. The best known killed 17 American sailors on the destroyer Cole, as it was anchored in a Yemeni port, and wounded 39. A bomb at a McDonald's in France killed a local citizen there. The other explosions ? outside the United States embassy in the Philippines, at a Citibank office in Greece, and in the offices of Newmont Mining in Indonesia ? caused mostly property damage and no loss of life. In the 17th incident, vandals trashed a McDonald's in South Africa.
The greatest risk is clear: if you are drilling for oil in Colombia ? or in nations like Ecuador, Nigeria or Indonesia ? you should take appropriate precautions; otherwise Americans have little to fear.
Although high-profile incidents have fostered the perception that terrorism is becoming more lethal, the numbers say otherwise, and early signs suggest that the decade beginning in 2000 will continue the downward trend. A major reason for the decline is the current reluctance of countries like Iraq, Syria and Libya, which once eagerly backed terrorist groups, to provide safe havens, funding and training.
The most violent and least reported source of international terrorism is the undeclared war between Islamists and Hindus over the disputed Kashmir region of India, bordering Pakistan. Although India came in second in terms of the number of terrorist incidents in 2000, with 63, it accounted for almost 50 percent of all resulting deaths, with 187 killed, and injuries, with 337 hurt. Most of the blame lies with radical groups trained in Afghanistan and operating from Pakistan.
I am not soft on terrorism; I believe strongly in remaining prepared to confront it. However, when the threat of terrorism is used to justify everything from building a missile defense to violating constitutional rights (as in the case of some Arab-Americans imprisoned without charge), it is time to take a deep breath and reflect on why we are so fearful.
Part of the blame can be assigned to 24-hour broadcast news operations too eager to find a dramatic story line in the events of the day and to pundits who repeat myths while ignoring clear empirical data. Politicians of both parties are also guilty. They warn constituents of dire threats and then appropriate money for redundant military installations and new government investigators and agents.
Finally, there are bureaucracies in the military and in intelligence agencies that are desperate to find an enemy to justify budget growth. In the 1980's, when international terrorism was at its zenith, NATO and the United States European Command pooh-poohed the notion of preparing to fight terrorists. They were too busy preparing to fight the Soviets. With the evil empire gone, they "discovered" terrorism as an important priority.
I hope for a world where facts, not fiction, determine our policy. While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.
Larry C. Johnson is a former State Department counterterrorism specialist.

[LnGrrrR]

So you're saying a terrorist attack justifies spending lots of money on missile defense and violating Constitutional rights? :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm about as conservative as they come and I'm not even gonna try justifying Vietnam. Afghanistan is gonna be Obamas Vietnam only worse. LBJ and Nixon didn't have the internet and cable TV to deal with.

[boutons_deux]

Magik Negroid is being extorted by his careerist generals and their fellow-travellers the neo-c*nts and MIC corporate hit men.

If MN makes the right decision, they will rain so much shit on him, but "real Americans" will be happy to be out of there, which would easily benefit all Americans, and not just military + MIC

[Wild Cobra]

I'm about as conservative as they come and I'm not even gonna try justifying Vietnam. Afghanistan is gonna be Obamas Vietnam only worse. LBJ and Nixon didn't have the internet and cable TV to deal with.
Oh I won't justify a cause for going to Viet-Nam either, but congress didn't allow us to finish a conflict of the military's terms, and look what happened. I wonder if congress would have insisted on continued funding if Humpry won rather than Nixon.

I truly believe they didn't want a Republic to win at a war they started.

[LnGrrrR]

Oh I won't justify Viet-Nam either, but congress didn't allow us to finish a conflict of the military's terms, and look what happened.

How long do you think the military should be allowed to fight a war?

How long do you think the military should be allowed to fight a war without public approval?

[Wild Cobra]

How long do you think the military should be allowed to fight a war?
I have no time-frame. The is why we pulled out. Especially after making significant advances. We were winning and congress pulled the plug.

How long do you think the military should be allowed to fight a war without public approval?
War by polling?

Wow...

A good leader can honestly tell the people why we should continue. The military should be able to give the president sound projections. Once we engage in war, we fight to win. We fight unless the military says they cannot win. Not because of some cute activist like GI Jane.

[Winehole23]

How long do you think the military should be allowed to fight a war without public approval?The military shouldn't be allowed to fight wars without Congressional approval at all.

[Winehole23]

Should Congress decide to withhold funds necessary to the conduct of a war, legally speaking that would be 100% proper, wouldn't it, WC?

[nuclearfm]

I have no time-frame. The is why we pulled out. Especially after making significant advances. We were winning and congress pulled the plug.

War by polling?

Wow...

A good leader can honestly tell the people why we should continue. The military should be able to give the president sound projections. Once we engage in war, we fight to win. We fight unless the military says they cannot win. Not because of some cute activist like GI Jane.

I don't think he meant "polling" This is a democracy, in case you forgot.

[LnGrrrR]

War by polling?

Considering that it is technically Congress's job to declare war, then we can deduce that war can only be waged with the consent of the people. Agreed?


If so, then without the consent of the people, war CAN NOT be waged.
A good leader can honestly tell the people why we should continue. The military should be able to give the president sound projections. Once we engage in war, we fight to win. We fight unless the military says they cannot win. Not because of some cute activist like GI Jane.

That's not how it works though. Maybe if wars could be started by the President, this might apply. But wars are started through Congress for a reason. America can only fight with the consent of its people.

Tell me, what 'victory conditions' would signify a win in this 'war on terror'?

[LnGrrrR]

The military shouldn't be allowed to fight wars without Congressional approval at all.

I agree. Heck, given the makeup of Congress nowadays, I don't think we should even be allowed to fight WITH Congressional approval sometimes. :lol

[mogrovejo]

Not quite. I just meant that Bush was easy to criticize for taking his eye off Afghanistan and OBL. And that it's one thing to say more resources will be committed when your SECDEF and commanders say two different things about the proper size of the US footprint.

It's fair to point out that Obama seemed to be more focused on things tactical than strategic during the campaign. Remember the tussle in the Presidential debate over drone strikes in Pakistan?

To be fair, the Afghanistan war has been strategically rudderless more or less since 2003: so the formulation of strategy at this point is, more or less, de novo.

As far as I know, he still is.

The whole war is based on empty platitudes and has been for some time. Our strategy is vaporware. You hadn't noticed this?

Obama's an optimistic guy. He probably thought Afghanistan was winnable.

I think he may be starting to realize he might be mistaken about that.

So, he either was speaking the truth when he said he had a strategy but that strategy isn't working and he's back-pedalling now - meaning his first big strategic decision in one of the most important issues was an absolute disaster or he really didn't have a strategy, all the rhetoric about having one was just political propaganda and the decision to make the troop deployment was more dictated by the polls than any consistent plan.

I don't know which is worse. In any case, it's a tremendous failure for this administration - except if they keep on pursuing the strategy of total defeat of the Taliban.

[clambake]

just now being classified as a failure lol

[ChumpDumper]

So, he either was speaking the truth when he said he had a strategy but that strategy isn't working and he's back-pedalling now - meaning his first big strategic decision in one of the most important issues was an absolute disaster or he really didn't have a strategy, all the rhetoric about having one was just political propaganda and the decision to make the troop deployment was more dictated by the polls than any consistent plan.

I don't know which is worse. In any case, it's a tremendous failure for this administration - except if they keep on pursuing the strategy of total defeat of the Taliban.Is John McCain keeping still keeping his secret plan to get bin Laden to himself?

[clambake]

"goddamnit, that was a secret"

[mogrovejo]

Is John McCain keeping still keeping his secret plan to get bin Laden to himself?

I beg your pardon? Was that in reference to my post?

[ChumpDumper]

I beg your pardon? Was that in reference to my post?He said he had a plan too. I'm just wondering if he ever said what it was -- you know, because he loves America and stuff and wouldn't just say something like that to get elected.

[clambake]

He said he had a plan too. I'm just wondering if he ever said what it was -- you know, because he loves America and stuff.

:lmao

[mogrovejo]

He said he had a plan too. I'm just wondering if he ever said what it was -- you know, because he loves America and stuff and wouldn't just say something like that to get elected.

I have no idea if he had a plan or not or if he ever said what it was. I don't see how is that related to this Administration decisions. If you want to address the point of Obama's strategy to Afghanistan, feel free to.

[ChumpDumper]

I have no idea if he had a plan or not or if he ever said what it was. I don't see how is that related to this Administration decisions. If you want to address the point of Obama's strategy to Afghanistan, feel free to.You can't understand that politicians say they have plans when they may or may not have plans, or that those plans may change once they take office?

OK.

[ChumpDumper]

So, he either was speaking the truth when he said he had a strategy but that strategy isn't working and he's back-pedalling now - meaning his first big strategic decision in one of the most important issues was an absolute disaster or he really didn't have a strategy, all the rhetoric about having one was just political propaganda and the decision to make the troop deployment was more dictated by the polls than any consistent plan.

I don't know which is worse. In any case, it's a tremendous failure for this administration - except if they keep on pursuing the strategy of total defeat of the Taliban.Bush said the Taliban no longer existed.

Was he lying?

[mogrovejo]

Bush said the Taliban no longer existed.

Was he lying?

If he said that, he was either lying or completely misinformed. I think that's obvious.


You can't understand that politicians say they have plans when they may or may not have plans, or that those plans may change once they take office?

Tone down the aggressive mood, please.

So which was case with Obama? He lied when he said he had a plan? He changed his plan once he took office and has a new one? He still doesn't have a plan? He send thousands of soldiers and nominated a new general as part of a plan or not?

[ChumpDumper]

If he said that, he was either lying or completely misinformed. I think that's obvious.He said it.


Tone down the aggressive mood, please.No.


So which was case with Obama? He lied when he said he had a plan? He changed his plan once he took office and has a new one? He still doesn't have a plan? He send thousands of soldiers and nominated a new general as part of a plan or not?Eh, Bush was allowed to change strategies several times, and he should have changed his initial strategy in Iraq much earlier than he did. Furthermore, I see the surge at the beginning of the Obama administration as an extension of the policy Bush decided to adopt late in his term. Now the report of a general that has been on the job since June is being reviewed -- which doesn't seem terribly unreasonable at this time.

[mogrovejo]

Furthermore, I see the surge at the beginning of the Obama administration as an extension of the policy Bush decided to adopt late in his term. Now the report of a general that has been on the job since June is being reviewed -- which doesn't seem terribly unreasonable at this time.

So, if his early strategy was to follow the former Administration policy he lied when he repeatedly said he had a new strategy, correct?

[ChumpDumper]

So, if his early strategy was to follow the former Administration policy he lied when he repeatedly said he had a new strategy, correct?Not necessarily -- but then again, it really doesn't matter as it is his prerogative to change strategy, just as it was for Bush.

[mogrovejo]

Not necessarily -- but then again, it really doesn't matter as it is his prerogative to change strategy, just as it was for Bush.

I'm not questioning his prerogative to change strategy. But if that happened, what was exactly his original strategy? Did he have a new one, different from the former administration one, as he claimed often, or not? This is a simple yes or not question.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not questioning his prerogative to change strategy. But if that happened, what was exactly his original strategy? Did he have a new one, different from the former administration one, as he claimed often, or not? This is a simple yes or not question.

He most likely had a strategy, but changed it once he got into office and was able to get specifics.

More likely, his STRATEGY probably remains the same. His tactics are what will change.

[spursncowboys]

Bush said the Taliban no longer existed.

Was he lying?:rolleyes link please.

[mogrovejo]

He most likely had a strategy, but changed it once he got into office and was able to get specifics.

When was that shift announced? Was the deployment of more troops part of that strategy? In what was that strategy different from the former Administration one?


More likely, his STRATEGY probably remains the same. His tactics are what will change.

Remains the same means achieving total military defeat of the taliban?

[Winehole23]

So, he either was speaking the truth when he said he had a strategy but that strategy isn't working and he's back-pedalling now - meaning his first big strategic decision in one of the most important issues was an absolute disaster or he really didn't have a strategy, all the rhetoric about having one was just political propaganda and the decision to make the troop deployment was more dictated by the polls than any consistent plan. I'll buy that. It took his predecessor over three years to change his own disastrous war strategy, so Obama at least isn't guilty of mulish devotion to his own mistakes, though copping to them does make him appear a bit foolish.

War is fluid and dynamic. It's a pity our leaders sometimes aren't.


I don't know which is worse. In any case, it's a tremendous failure for this administration - except if they keep on pursuing the strategy of total defeat of the Taliban.It's not possible to kill them all, and eventually, if we wish to exit with honor, we'll have to make a deal with them, as Sen. Frist so precociously suggested in 2006. I see this conclusion as a probable political end of the current surge.

The number of troops necessary to do what you're talking about weren't committed to begin with and will never be. There's just not the political will for it here in the USA. We don't care about Afghanistan that much, and in my mind rightly. What's the compelling national interest there?

What does the USA get from these wars that's worth the blood and treasure? I just don't see it.

[Winehole23]

So, if his early strategy was to follow the former Administration policy he lied when he repeatedly said he had a new strategy, correct?He had new tactics that he took for a new strategy. This is another area in which he resembles GWB. The strategy is opaque and is still mired in meaningless platitudes about eliminating havens for terrorists and democratizing Afghanistan.

[ChumpDumper]

:rolleyes link please.In a different kind of war, we had to recognize that we're not facing a nation; we're facing a group of people who have adopted an ideology of hatred and love to find places where they can hide. They're like parasites. They kind of leech on to a host and hope the host weakens over time so they can eventually become the host. That's why I said to the Taliban in Afghanistan: Get rid of al Qaeda; see, you're harboring al Qaeda. Remember this is a place where they trained -- al Qaeda trained thousands of people in Afghanistan. And the Taliban, I guess, just didn't believe me. And as a result of the United States military, Taliban no longer is in existence. And the people of Afghanistan are now free. In other words when you say something as President you better make it clear so everybody understands what you're saying, and you better mean what you say. And I meant what I said.

-- George W, Bush, September 27, 2004

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040927-4.html

So do you think he meant what he said when he claimed the Taliban is no longer in existence?

[LnGrrrR]

When was that shift announced? Was the deployment of more troops part of that strategy? In what was that strategy different from the former Administration one?

Do you think the President is going to share EVERY strategy publicly? Do you feel he has to? Or can he just share a general strategy?


Remains the same means achieving total military defeat of the taliban?

Did Obama say his overall strategy is the total military defeat of the Taliban? I'd have to see that quote somewhere. If he did, it's certainly stupid of him to say and was said in means of garnering votes.

[Winehole23]

Obama may only pretend to go full bore against the Taliban, so as to prolong the conflict and hand it off to his eventual successor, and thus avoid being the man who *lost* the war.

If that is his strategy, strategic wishy-washiness serves as a temporizing move. After some deliberation, a new course will be taken.




It will look a lot like the old course, I'm afraid.

[Nbadan]

Afghanistan is a hell hole....but Dubya/Cheney let it get that way by neglecting the Taliban/Wahabist in the tribal regions of Pakistan...You know, the guys who really did 9/11....The Bush Administration payed everyone off to not fight each other...now those same tribes are turning back to the Taliban so they won't get dead...and the GOP is blaming Obama for the money-death-pit they created...

[Winehole23]

The number of troops necessary to do what you're talking about weren't committed to begin with and will never be. There's just not the political will for it here in the USA. We don't care about Afghanistan that much, and in my mind rightly. What's the compelling national interest there?

What does the USA get from these wars that's worth the blood and treasure? I just don't see it.Nobody ever responded to this. It's an important question. Is it too much to ask just what we're fighting for?

WTF do we get?

Besides another failing, corrupt client-state and an open-ended state of war. Can somebody please tell me?

[Nbadan]

There's a pipe-line going through Afghanistan...and the U.S. needs a foothold to fight the Pakistanis..can't let them come close to Pakistan's 300 or so (est.) nuclear weapons

[Winehole23]

For oil.

Of course.

And to fight the Pakistanis.


I thought they were our allies, Dan.

[Winehole23]

If we disturb Pakistan's sovereignty to some very great degree, or partner with their armed forces to kill some people there, how might that foreseeably affect Indo-Pakistani relations?

US relations with Pakistan?

Would there be military repercussions in Afghanistan, if we attacked Pakistan?

The Taliban before us and behind us.

Good God.

Please no more war in Pakistan, except for the occasional US drone attacks. Let em clean up their own mess.




Amen.

[Nbadan]

For oil.

Of course.

And to fight the Pakistanis.


I thought they were our allies, Dan.

Who do you think is financing the Taliban? ...they are getting their money and ammo from somewhere...it's not just magically happening...

[Winehole23]

I hear they get some of our supplies, too.

[mogrovejo]

Do you think the President is going to share EVERY strategy publicly? Do you feel he has to? Or can he just share a general strategy?

I'm just mentioning general strategies. But he shared more than that.
You can read the White Paper of the Interagency Policy Group's Report on U.S. Policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan for example:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Afghanistan-Pakistan_White_Paper.pdf




Did Obama say his overall strategy is the total military defeat of the Taliban? I'd have to see that quote somewhere. If he did, it's certainly stupid of him to say and was said in means of garnering votes.

Garnering votes? Here's a speech of him after being elected:



For the Afghan people, a return to Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy, and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people -- especially women and girls. The return in force of al Qaeda terrorists who would accompany the core Taliban leadership would cast Afghanistan under the shadow of perpetual violence(...)

So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: We will defeat you.

To achieve our goals, we need a stronger, smarter and comprehensive strategy. To focus on the greatest threat to our people, America must no longer deny resources to Afghanistan(...)

There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban. They must be met with force, and they must be defeated.(...)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-a-New-Strategy-for-Afghanistan-and-Pakistan/

[mogrovejo]

Nobody ever responded to this. It's an important question. Is it too much to ask just what we're fighting for?

WTF do we get?

Besides another failing, corrupt client-state and an open-ended state of war. Can somebody please tell me?

It's funny that a few months after Obama made a speech explicitly to address those questions nobody seems to have a clue about the answers.


Many people in the United States -- and many in partner countries that have sacrificed so much -- have a simple question: What is our purpose in Afghanistan? After so many years, they ask, why do our men and women still fight and die there? And they deserve a straightforward answer.

Funny, but not surprising. I thing this Administration may seriously overestimate the power of words.

That's why I emphasize so much how assertiveness, consistency and coherency are so important in this kind of issues.

[LnGrrrR]

Garnering votes? Here's a speech of him after being elected:

See, there's a difference between "defeating the Taliban" and "total military defeat" of the Taliban.

If you destroy the legitimacy of the Taliban, get the Afghani people to rise up against them, then you defeat them, without totally defeating them militarily.

[clambake]

Funny, but not surprising. I thing this Administration may seriously overestimate the power of words.

That's why I emphasize so much how assertiveness, consistency and coherency are so important in this kind of issues.

oh, i get it! a growl and some pounding on the table equals victory.

[Winehole23]

It's funny that a few months after Obama made a speech explicitly to address those questions nobody seems to have a clue about the answers.I heard him the first time. I thought it was horseshit then: it exaggerates the potency of Al Qaeda and the uniformity of "the Taliban"; it also presumes the wisdom of liberalizing another Islamized society and leaves the war open-ended.

Havens for terrorists can be eliminated one by one. The terrorist will just go somewhere else.

For example, assuming arguendo (per Nbadan, above) that we successfully drive the "Taliban" we do not kill out of Afganistan and into Pakistan, should we find the Pakistani army too diffident to cut down the Taliban as they seek refuge from us in the FATA, we might feel it needful to finish them off ourselves, within the technical borders of our ally, Pakistan.

Does anyone have a problem with this?



Is our strategy seriously just to kill as many "Taliban" as possible?



How long does that take, please?

Will it oblige us soon to invade our ally, Pakistan?



Funny, but not surprising. I thing this Administration may seriously overestimate the power of words.Of its own? Certainly.


That's why I emphasize so much how assertiveness, consistency and coherency are so important in this kind of issues.Obama doesn't get very high marks from me on this.

Very clunky so far. Same old bullshit as his predecessor.

[Nbadan]

Eh....Dubya would have sent half the troops needed....at least Obama is weighing the cost/benefits of sending in more troops versus more clandestine efforts..

[mogrovejo]

See, there's a difference between "defeating the Taliban" and "total military defeat" of the Taliban.

If you destroy the legitimacy of the Taliban, get the Afghani people to rise up against them, then you defeat them, without totally defeating them militarily.

Considering the context where the word was used, I believe that the only difference is purely semantics. In any case, we can agree that between pursuing a strategy of counter-insurgency - necessarily costly in terms of resources and time - and one of a negotiated peace or prolonged truces, Obama was very clearly indicating his preference for the first one.


oh, i get it! a growl and some pounding on the table equals victory.

I have to disagree. I don't believe that good old-fashioned machismo is a good form of conducting this kind of political affairs.


I heard him the first time. I thought it was horseshit then: it exaggerates the potency of Al Qaeda and the uniformity of "the Taliban"; it also presumes the wisdom of liberalizing another Islamized society and leaves the war open-ended.

Havens for terrorists can be eliminated one by one. The terrorist will just go somewhere else.

For example, assuming arguendo (per Nbadan, above) that we successfully drive the "Taliban" we do not kill out of Afganistan and into Pakistan, should we find the Pakistani army too diffident to cut down the Taliban as they seek refuge from us in the FATA, we might feel it needful to finish them off ourselves, within the technical borders of our ally, Pakistan.

Does anyone have a problem with this?

Is our strategy seriously just to kill as many "Taliban" as possible?

How long does that take, please?

Will it oblige us soon to invade our ally, Pakistan?

I believe the McChrystal strategy isn't exactly to go after the Taliban havens but to build Taliban-free havens.

The Pakistani issue is huge IMO and I'm yet to find a convincing answer on how is it possible to minimize it.

I think that continuing the effort of a counter-insurgency war in Afghanistan will take a very long time.

[Winehole23]

@dan:

The so-called Biden plan.

[Winehole23]

I think that continuing the effort of a counter-insurgency war in Afghanistan will take a very long time.I agree completely, but regard this prospect with dread.


A very long time.


This should be our first priority? Really, mogro? A generational war of counterinsurgency?

In Afghanistan.

[LnGrrrR]

Considering the context where the word was used, I believe that the only difference is purely semantics. In any case, we can agree that between pursuing a strategy of counter-insurgency - necessarily costly in terms of resources and time - and one of a negotiated peace or prolonged truces, Obama was very clearly indicating his preference for the first one.

True. I'm partially of the opinion that's because most of America is too stupid to realize that negotiation can be as effective as dropping bombs. Back room politics and government support don't sound nearly as good as "Kill them turban heads!"



I think that continuing the effort of a counter-insurgency war in Afghanistan will take a very long time.

Do you think the gains we will make will be worth the time, blood, money and effort spent?

[mogrovejo]

I agree completely, but regard this prospect with dread.


A very long time.


This should be our first priority? Really, mogro? A generational war of counterinsurgency?

In Afghanistan.


Do you think the gains we will make will be worth the time, blood, money and effort spent?

I honestly don't know, I'm not as sceptical as you are - or I'm more sceptical about the alternatives (especially a anti-terror strategy like Biden allegedly defends).

I'm reticent on seeing NATO withdraw in the current position of weakness. Perceptions are important and I believe such a decision could have some serious unintended consequences - including in the psique of the American Military. I don't think it's important to kill the last taliban or to build rock-solid political institutions, but I'd rather see the momentum shifting and have a government with enough legitimacy and strenght to contain a total seizure of power by radical forces for a good bunch of time before considering leaving Afghanistan.

Anyway, I think it's important to keep in mind that Obama will subordinate his decision mostly to a factor I'm not weighting: his chances of being re-elected.

[Winehole23]

Anyway, I think it's important to keep in mind that Obama will subordinate his decision mostly to a factor I'm not weighting: his chances of being re-electedProtracted counterinsurgency facilitates a successful handoff to the eventual loser. Sure.


have a government with enough legitimacy and strength to contain a total seizure of power by radical forcesVery ambitious. How long will that take? One decade? Two or three?

Do I smell nation building?

[mogrovejo]

Very ambitious. How long will that take? One decade? Two or three?

Do I smell nation building?

How long did it take in Iraq?