Thoughts on the new Afghanistan policy?

[MannyIsGod]

?

[admiralsnackbar]

Argued with my girlfriend about this tonight. She thinks it's brilliant as a military strategy (we create a situation wherein we can leave after credibly trying to make a functional state there). I say it's horseshit.

At least you can build Burger Kings in Iraq (not to mention stage wars against Iran). Afghanistan, on the other hand, is an impossible war. What a waste of good Americans.

[TDMVPDPOY]

imo afghanistan shouldve been finished off first b4 setting foot on iraq and its neighbors up north.....just wrong strategy planning imo...

wats the point of rebuilding afghanistan when they have nothing besides poppy crops...whats the incentive?

[Wild Cobra]

I'm out of the loop. Haven't listened to any news for a couple days now. Did that chickenshit Obama make a decision yet?

[boutons_deux]

I want all Americans out of both countries immediately, but if Magic Negro really does get combat troops out in 2011, I think that's probably the best outcome possible of two inherited piles of Repug shit.

[Winehole23]

I'm out of the loop. Haven't listened to any news for a couple days now. Did that chickenshit Obama make a decision yet?30,000 troops within six months, starting around Christmas.

[Wild Cobra]

30,000 troops within six months, starting around Christmas.
I hope it's enough.

The question "should we be there" isn't relevant any more. Now that we are there, we need to win.

[Winehole23]

Argued with my girlfriend about this tonight. She thinks it's brilliant as a military strategy (we create a situation wherein we can leave after credibly trying to make a functional state there). I say it's horseshit.Ditto. The sell is very similar to the Iraq surge, except that Obama refuses to give any benchmarks for winning. There's no timetable, just a vague intention to complete our goals within three years, and then to hand off security to our weak, venal and inept Afghan partners.

BTW, is the US out of Iraq yet, or are we just waiting around for civil war to break out again?


At least you can build Burger Kings in Iraq (not to mention stage wars against Iran). Afghanistan, on the other hand, is an impossible war. What a waste of good Americans.I feel much the same. IT'S NOT WINNABLE. There's no tangible benefit for the USA at this point, but also no tangible off ramp. Obama seems to have pledged us to the Bush policy of endless war he promised to end.

Yet again, the motif is continuity rather than change.

[whottt]

:lol

[whottt]

(not to mention stage wars against Iran).

You can do that from Afghanistan too. You can sit Pakistan's ass from Afghanistan, kinda like you can sit on Saudi Arabia from Iraq as well.

Damn it's like you guys have never looked at a map or something...and think our government tells us everything.




I gotta admit your girlffiend calling it brilliant is probably even funnier than it sounds...assuming she is an Obama supporter.

[whottt]

So should I start a thread for you guys to apologize for the past well, 4 years minimum...seeing as how even your guy isn't going to cut and run?


Anyway, I think it's pretty stupid to announce when he's going to be leaving...that is blatantly stupid unless of course, you aren't actually planning on leaving, in that case it makes sense and just buys time. Stalls if you will.


I'm glad Obama has reconsidered some of his positions on this, but I don't think additional troops on the ground is really going to change much.


Afghanisgtan is winnable but not in the conventional sense...in geographical boundary terms it's not winnable, and there's not really anything additional troops are going to accomplish with the problem areas. The best thing we can do to Afghanistan is start turning salvagable parts of it into a non-shithole.


The real problem with this country is that there are literally only a handful of people that can remember when it wasn't a total shithole. War does nothing to do them anymore because it's really all they know. It's going to take the opposite of war to have an impact there now.

Like I said...set up a base to provide shelter and education for the women and children.

They will go there, and once the guys realize they aren't getting laid anymore(not even from the young slave boys), they'll start to get it.

[symple19]

this 18 month timeline he gave is, IMO, not firm in the least bit. He prefaced it referencing "conditions on the ground". An 18 month timeline declaration achieves two things. 1. To make it more palatable to Dems and 2. To light a proverbial fire under Karzai's and NATOs ass.

When you take into account that 6 months of the 18 is going to consist of getting these assets in place, you realize even more how tentative the timeframe is. Whott, I think, is essentially right in saying that it's a stalling tactic. I find it very difficult to believe we would not have heard serious grumblings from top military brass otherwise.

Obama is right to do this. Now it's up to McChrystal to utilize them properly. If they saturate the the population centers in provinces from NE of Kabul extending south (along the Pak border) to Helmand then I think these troops can be successful. Any other NATO assets that Obama referenced vaguely can be used to quell other hotspots, train Afgh security forces, and to assist US troops where need be.

Hopefully there will be a lot of competent civilian assets ready to flood these areas the military can bring under control. I also hope they've come up with some way to combat the drug problem, which wasn't referenced last night very much at all. And finally, I hope the Paks continue to be active and determined on their side of the border, otherwise they need to give us the green light to go in there and strike right at the heart of the safe havens.

Winehole is right, the continuity between administrations is remarkable.

I support this strategy, and I support Obama & the troops, even though I disagree with almost everything else the pres has done. Go get em guys

[admiralsnackbar]

In your rush to be condescending, you kind of missed the point, Whott.

[ElNono]

At first sight, colossal waste of time, life and money. Unless we have some way to force Pakistan to get serious about cracking down on these guys within their borders (which we don't IMHO) we're not really going anywhere. Of course the 18 month deadline is bull. So is the 2011 Iraqi deadline. There's not even a clearly defined goal where you could say 'we win' (that's obviously by design). Call me a skeptic.

[EmptyMan]

Obama's timeline is as meaningless as the rest of his words.

Middle East Shit Hole. Without an infinite occupation, that region will always revert back to being a shit hole. Give Nukes to cavemen and look what happens :bang

[ElNono]

BTW, I don't want to be overly cynical here, but as I was watching last night part of his speech, one of the first things that crossed my mind was: "Is he doing this to garner national support"? Anybody else thought this might just merely be a political move?

[antimvp]

this war should have been full engaged 8 years ago....he is doing his best to clean up the mess.

[DarrinS]

BTW, I don't want to be overly cynical here, but as I was watching last night part of his speech, one of the first things that crossed my mind was: "Is he doing this to garner national support"? Anybody else thought this might just merely be a political move?


Hard to get broad national support when you have the far left that want immediate withdrawal and you have the other side that wants to give McChrystal exactly what he needs to get the job done. Under the circumstances, I think the strategy is pretty reasonable.

[EmptyMan]

I don't think it is political simply because the outcomes from perceived neglect could be political K.O.s for Obama's career. I guess that makes it political in a sense, but indirectly.

[cherylsteele]

imo afghanistan shouldve been finished off first b4 setting foot on iraq and its neighbors up north.....just wrong strategy planning imo...
This.

I have always felt that Bush (and others) carried out this war on terrorism much like a game of Risk. We have armies, let's attack, no thought of what needs to be done in the aftermath of war.

[Danny.Zhu]

I don't get it why America has not finished the mission in Afghanistan after so many years. A government has been set up by election. Plus enemies don't get much help from outside like North Korea or North Vietnam.

[spursncowboys]

No one has come up with a valid strategy that would have worked better than what we have been doing. If we did nothing in Iraq and focused all of our attention on Afghanistan, what would be different? We are a tiny Army, as far as soldiers on the ground. We don't have the man power to take out every terrorist. There would just be more soldiers to protect poppy fields. The Soviets tried that type of warfare on Afghanistan and lost.

It makes no sense to send a Heavy Mechanized Brigade to Afghanistan. They are useless. That is why Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld changed the army to be more mobile. Creating BCT's and switching some Heavy (tank) brigades to Strykers, which can be used in Iraq, Afghanistan, and others. Right now the only units going to Afghanistan have been light Inf brigades. Our Army, before Rumsfeld, was set up for cold war fighting with a huge amount towards tanks and artillery units.

[Thunder Dan]

it's bullshit. The war is bullshit and Obama doesn't have the balls to just pull out. The pulling out method worked for Vietnam, and the "don't tell your enemy" thing is bullshit because there isn't even a clear enemy! You can't get rid of them all and when you think you are done they will just regroup.

Shit we are going after a guy who denies even having involvement in 9/11, and to this day hasn't been accused of it by the FBI. They took the court of public opinion to start a war with the Taliban which you can't win. You don't stop terrorism by going over there, you stop it with good police work in our own country.


Still no mention of it on his Most Wanted Page
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

[ElNono]

No one has come up with a valid strategy that would have worked better than what we have been doing. If we did nothing in Iraq and focused all of our attention on Afghanistan, what would be different? We are a tiny Army, as far as soldiers on the ground. We don't have the man power to take out every terrorist. There would just be more soldiers to protect poppy fields. The Soviets tried that type of warfare on Afghanistan and lost.

It makes no sense to send a Heavy Mechanized Brigade to Afghanistan. They are useless. That is why Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld changed the army to be more mobile. Creating BCT's and switching some Heavy (tank) brigades to Strykers, which can be used in Iraq, Afghanistan, and others. Right now the only units going to Afghanistan have been light Inf brigades. Our Army, before Rumsfeld, was set up for cold war fighting with a huge amount towards tanks and artillery units.

This is basic stuff we're talking here... What's the goal? How do we know we won and it's time to come back home?

I'll tell you a valid strategy that would work better than what we've been doing: GTFO...

[panic giraffe]

I don't get it why America has not finished the mission in Afghanistan after so many years. A government has been set up by election. Plus enemies don't get much help from outside like North Korea or North Vietnam.


because it was put on the backburner to earn cheney's former employer some more money.

now we have a dude in office who is making it a focus.

[MannyIsGod]

I think its an unwinnable situation. I think the government is far too corrupt and thats why we can't win. These guys don't have a national identity (even Iraq has a far larget national identity than what we're looking at here and we've all seen how weak that is) so I'm not sure how on earth you're ever going to forge a nation without a government people can respect and have faith in.

You can try to provide more security for isolated areas but that simply isn't going to last once we're done barring some amazing advancements. I think Obama has given the generals what they want but not the time they want BUT he has given them the time in which they said this war would be won. McCristol said 18 months would determine the outcome of this war and that is what he's gotten. What it seems like to me is a reevaluation at 18 months where we stay or withdraw at a slow pace if things are going well. Otherwise, I do think we get the fuck out at that point. The big problem here is there are no concrete ways to say if things are on the right track. The whole concept of "winning" is so nebulous.

I like the deadline and I feel its necessary if you're going to stay but that doesn't mean I like staying at all. The problem isn't in Afghanistan any longer, its in Pakistan and we're virtually powerless to do anything about it.

[spursncowboys]

This is basic stuff we're talking here... What's the goal? How do we know we won and it's time to come back home?

I'll tell you a valid strategy that would work better than what we've been doing: GTFO...

I agree. We need a goal. Not for the public toknow but military. Then we need to focus on winning (fulfilling that goal). We have lowered our mark but seem to keep the same goal (they stand up and we leave) but now have a timeline. If we complete the goals or not, at the end of the timeline we are leaving. So either way more military will die. If we aren't there to win we need to gtfo.
Afghanistan is a very strategic location and we should try and maintain allies with them. It would benefit our military and their population.
MIG: Great point about the national identity. I wonder why no one talks about Biden's plan for Iraq-divided into different states. One basic thing the Iraq surge did was started from the middle of Baghdad and move outwards. We can do that withh the tribal leaders outside the providence in kabul and work outwards. Finding which are unwilling to bend social norms. Petraius was on Morning Joe this morning and had some good answers for the poppy seed farmers.

[Wild Cobra]

I always did like that song:

8kB7OR161-U

But I thing today woosie liberals are too far gone to fight is called upon.

[iggypop123]

i dont understand dont you leave once you win? its the same shit. i guess im confused as to the anger.

[Yonivore]

:lmao Is Obama going to do anything he said he was going to do, and over which he relentlessly bashed his predecessor?

Seems to me he's pretty much continuing the policies of the Bush Administration; albeit, with the disadvantages and problems caused by his dithering and attempting to make the decision to continue palatable to his base...which, it seems, isn't going over well.

[jack sommerset]

Honestly, I don't get Obama. The lies are in your face everyday. Atleast the Obama dems could justify his bullshit because they like free shit,fucking over rich people,taxing the hell out of people, talking smack about whitey, causes that help the scam in global warming, bashing Bush, calling people racist,etc..... Now he went against them!

They made excuses for him. Now they can't. Now the war freaks are going to go after him just like Bush. I loved that Moore wrote that letter and went on Larry King and called Obama out. Obama should have sent more troops before that 60 minute piece came out.Gave the lefties alot of time to think and the repugs amo for not making a decision faster.

And when the dumbass does finally decides, he says he will do everything to win this thing but we will be out by July 2011. The guy is not smart. The guy is a fucking DUMBASS!

[Winehole23]

I hope Obama was serious in repudiating nation-building in Afghanistan. If he is, that's a significant shift.

[ChumpDumper]

One basic thing the Iraq surge did was started from the middle of Baghdad and move outwards. We can do that withh the tribal leaders outside the providence in kabul and work outwards.Kabul is not the critical center that Baghdad is.

[InRareForm]

http://www.rethinkafghanistan.com

[rjv]

remember what happened when the soviets kept sending in more and more troops ?

[InRareForm]

afghan is not a military problem. won't be solved by sending in more troops.

[coyotes_geek]

remember what happened when the soviets kept sending in more and more troops ?

Evidently we don't. The recent movie starring Tom Hanks notwithstanding.

[lefty]

http://opioids.com/afghanistan/afghan-opium.jpg

[mogrovejo]

As I've always said, this is the worst decision he could have made. History will prove it.

[lefty]

As I've always said, this is the worst decision he could have made. History will prove it.
Don't worry, I'm sure they've stolen enough opium

It was their goal, right?

[Nbadan]

I think its an unwinnable situation. I think the government is far too corrupt and thats why we can't win. These guys don't have a national identity (even Iraq has a far larget national identity than what we're looking at here and we've all seen how weak that is) so I'm not sure how on earth you're ever going to forge a nation without a government people can respect and have faith in.

You can try to provide more security for isolated areas but that simply isn't going to last once we're done barring some amazing advancements. I think Obama has given the generals what they want but not the time they want BUT he has given them the time in which they said this war would be won. McCristol said 18 months would determine the outcome of this war and that is what he's gotten. What it seems like to me is a reevaluation at 18 months where we stay or withdraw at a slow pace if things are going well. Otherwise, I do think we get the fuck out at that point. The big problem here is there are no concrete ways to say if things are on the right track. The whole concept of "winning" is so nebulous.

I like the deadline and I feel its necessary if you're going to stay but that doesn't mean I like staying at all. The problem isn't in Afghanistan any longer, its in Pakistan and we're virtually powerless to do anything about it.

The problem has always been in Pakistan....but the Taliban were murderous bastards....this is about telling the Karzai govt. that they better get their shit together soon than anything else...

[Nbadan]

As I've always said, this is the worst decision he could have made. History will prove it.

Even if it created a real Democracy in the M.E., the GOP would still argue that it was a waste...

History will prove that!

[mogrovejo]

Even if it created a real Democracy in the M.E., the GOP would still argue that it was a waste...

History will prove that!

Huh? What? Do you mind to clarify your post?

[Nbadan]

Huh? What? Do you mind to clarify your post?

No matter what the outcome is in 18 months in Afghanistan the GOP won't be happy...also, as much as I would like to believe that this is about the Afghan people, I know it's about the control of oil/natural gas....

[mogrovejo]

No matter what the outcome is in 18 months in Afghanistan the GOP won't be happy...also, as much as I would like to believe that this is about the Afghan people, I know it's about the control of oil/natural gas....

I'm not the GOP, I don't care about the GOP and you can research my posts from some months ago and you'll see I was already saying this would be the worst possible option.

You have to understand that in a forum like this you'll find people who aren't hardcore partisans and fanatics like yourself.

[Nbadan]

I'm not the GOP, I don't care about the GOP and you can research my posts from some months ago and you'll see I was already saying this would be the worst possible option.

You have to understand that in a forum like this you'll find people who aren't hardcore partisans and fanatics like yourself.

Every post I've seen from you cements the popular belief of how much of a partisan you really are...I guess life is about perception...

[Nbadan]

Everyone who has read my posts knows that I am not a fan of war....especially the Afghanistan war...I think it was successful at first, but then we got into nation building...the U.S.'s forte has never been nation building...we suck...it was a miserable policy in South and Central America and it's proving to be a bad policy in Afghanistan and in Iraq...that said, I'm not for the just shuck and run policies like more hard-core liberals...yes, the war sucks and I want us out ASAP, but if we leave Afghanistan as it is now history will prove that we will suffer a fate much worse than 9/11...

[AFBlue]

I'm trying to figure out how one of the three pillars of this new plan (increased civilian involvement in areas such as agricultural development) is NOT geared toward nation-building. Yes, Obama gave a timetable for troop withdrawal, but what of the "increased civilian involvement"...does that have a timetable as well?

The other part, troop surge, I agree with because if we're going to continue fighting the war, we may as well make the troop levels sufficient to go on the offensive and severly cripple the Taliban insurgency. The only issue there is that when the Taliban flee to Pakistan, they can't have the pressure let off. Either we need to chase into Pakistan or their government needs to commit to a coordinated two-front offensive. Without their involvement either way, this is probably not a "winnable" scenario.

In general, I have to say that I'm pleased with the deliberation prior to making a decision and am willing to give the President some good faith that he and his team of military/defense experts are making a smart, calculated decision. I guess we'll see if he makes a sucker out of me...but I hope not.

[ElNono]

Even if it created a real Democracy in the M.E., the GOP would still argue that it was a waste...

History will prove that!

But there's no Oil there!

[ElNono]

I'm trying to figure out how one of the three pillars of this new plan (increased civilian involvement in areas such as agricultural development) is NOT geared toward nation-building. Yes, Obama gave a timetable for troop withdrawal, but what of the "increased civilian involvement"...does that have a timetable as well?

The other part, troop surge, I agree with because if we're going to continue fighting the war, we may as well make the troop levels sufficient to go on the offensive and severly cripple the Taliban insurgency. The only issue there is that when the Taliban flee to Pakistan, they can't have the pressure let off. Either we need to chase into Pakistan or their government needs to commit to a coordinated two-front offensive. Without their involvement either way, this is probably not a "winnable" scenario.

In general, I have to say that I'm pleased with the deliberation prior to making a decision and am willing to give the President some good faith that he and his team of military/defense experts are making a smart, calculated decision. I guess we'll see if he makes a sucker out of me...but I hope not.

That bolded part there, is the biggie. I just don't think that Pakistan can be coerced to help us. We've funneled a ton of money to them for a long time now, and they keep half-assing it. If the US would actually be allowed to act inside Pakistan, then I would be a little more optimistic about this thing.

[Purple & Gold]

I think this is the right move and as many of the repubs here have said that it really doesn't matter why we went to war anymore we are there now and cannot just leave. As for this whole win thing that is ridiculous there is no such thing as winning when you are fighting a belief and not a country. The thing closest to winning would be to show the rest of the world how important this is (UN) and that it is a global concern and not an American one. I think Bush's worst mistake was to trivialize the UN and act like if they were unimportant. If he had a better backing from the UN in the beginning it would have made his moves much more credible and well received. Knowing how much he would need the backing of them in the future has always puzzled me as to why he chose to basically go around them.

[Nbadan]

I'm trying to figure out how one of the three pillars of this new plan (increased civilian involvement in areas such as agricultural development) is NOT geared toward nation-building. Yes, Obama gave a timetable for troop withdrawal, but what of the "increased civilian involvement"...does that have a timetable as well?

I think your reading too much into the planned combat troop withdrawal....there may indeed be a major draw-down, but I don't see us completely out of Afghanistan for decades...

[Nbadan]

Did Obama lie?


v7-zvo-O3Qo

[whottt]

Everyone who has read my posts knows that I am not a fan of war....especially the Afghanistan war...I think it was successful at first, but then we got into nation building...the U.S.'s forte has never been nation building...we suck...it was a miserable policy in South and Central America and it's proving to be a bad policy in Afghanistan and in Iraq...that said, I'm not for the just shuck and run policies like more hard-core liberals...yes, the war sucks and I want us out ASAP, but if we leave Afghanistan as it is now history will prove that we will suffer a fate much worse than 9/11...

Holy shit. I agree 100% with what you said. Well except for the part that we suck at nation building. Our success at doing it is pretty much linked to what we had to start with. I think we generally have a track record of improving conditions although that doesn't equal success.

As for what you said earlier about this ultimately being about oil and gas, well there's no doubt Afghanistan lying right between China and the mid-east could be a huge factor in oil trade...that is something that can be turned into an economic positive for Afghanistan. They have jack shit to build an economy with there in terms of natural resource, but they key role they could play in oil trade being smack dab in the middle between countries with vast oil and gas reserves and those with the vast demand can certainly be turned into an economic resource on some level. It's something...


Besides Dan...we can hold our government accountable, you guys did a great job of holding Bush accountable in Iraq(actually you went overboard) so why stop doing it now?

That was always my problem with you guys position on Iraq...don't trust Bush to do what he said he was going to do? Then put up a candidate that will do what Bush said he was going to do, that was the best option after we went in and blew the shit out of the country. Instead you guys offered only compound stupidity to Bush, which is why you lost in 2004. You don't undo a hit and run by throwing the car in reverse and driving off.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Meh. Nothing too surprising here. Just a natural evolution of events.

Only thing that sounds auspicious is the 18 month timeline.

[Nbadan]

That was always my problem with you guys position on Iraq...don't trust Bush to do what he said he was going to do? Then put up a candidate that will do what Bush said he was going to do, that was the best option after we went in and blew the shit out of the country. Instead you guys offered only compound stupidity to Bush, which is why you lost in 2004. You don't undo a hit and run by throwing the car in reverse and driving off.

Bush lost any legitimacy and all credibility when they failed to find viable WMDs in Iraq...he had already ignored countless instances of intelligence both foreign and domestic that Saddam had destroyed his WMDs after the Iraq/Iran war...

...I'm for getting all our troops out of Afghanistan, but I do not want to see the Taliban back in control in Afghanistan...

[Nbadan]

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/12/07/tomo/story.jpg