PDA

View Full Version : Obama's Afghanistan Strategy



Nbadan
06-13-2010, 03:20 PM
Here is a legitimate political issue that the GOP could be attacking Obama on... popular sentiment about staying in Afghanistan for the long war is waning with most American favoring an exit strategy out of that shit-hole....the GOP? despite a few criticisms about 'not sending troops', this isn't a issue that most wing-nuts can call Obama on....and why should they, hasn't Obama policy been geared toward appeasing the resident war mongers anyway?



WASHINGTON - While U.S. officials insist they are making progress in reversing the momentum built up by the Taliban insurgency over the last several years, the latest news from Afghanistan suggests the opposite may be closer to the truth.

Even senior military officials are conceding privately that their much-touted new counterinsurgency strategy of "clear, hold and build" in contested areas of the Pashtun southern and eastern parts of the country are not working out as planned despite the "surge" of some 20,000 additional U.S. troops over the past six months.

Casualties among the nearly 130,000 U.S. and other NATO troops now deployed in Afghanistan are also mounting quickly.

Four U.S. troops were killed Wednesday when Taliban fire brought down their helicopter in the southern province of Helmand, the scene of a major U.S. offensive centered on the strategic farming region of Marja over the past several months.

That brought the death toll of NATO soldiers just this week to 23, including 10 killed in various attacks around the country on Monday, the deadliest day for NATO forces in two years.

(snip)

According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll released Thursday, 53 percent of respondents said the war in Afghanistan, which last month, according to most measures, exceeded the Vietnam conflict as the longest-running war in U.S. history, was "not worth fighting". That was the highest percentage in more than three years.

The same poll found that 39 percent of the public believe that Washington is losing the war, compared to 42 percent who believe it is winning.

While public skepticism about the war appears to be growing, the foreign policy elite, including within the military, also seems increasingly doubtful for a number of reasons.

Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/06/11-3)

Iraq has sucked all the war resources we needed to fight the real war in Afghanistan-Pakistan....recoup, regroup and get ready to go into Afghanistan again in less than a decade.

boutons_deux
06-13-2010, 05:15 PM
Tiny, almost-non-village Marja wasn't a success, and MacChrystal is now delaying going after Kandahar until September at earliest.

The only winners, and they winning 10s of $Bs, are the people who wanted this war, the MIC and neo-c*nts financed by the MIC.

Wild Cobra
06-13-2010, 11:05 PM
People who read Common Dreams have serious mental health issues.

Winehole23
06-14-2010, 12:34 AM
Half the country don't give a fuck anymore.

Winehole23
06-14-2010, 12:35 AM
They all crazy in your mind WC?

Ignignokt
06-14-2010, 02:01 AM
They all crazy in your mind WC?

Do you watch your wife poop from below a glass table just to see here asshole dilate?

Winehole23
06-14-2010, 02:06 AM
^^^ more one-handed futility?

Why?

Winehole23
06-14-2010, 02:07 AM
You don't change much, i'll give you that.

Winehole23
06-14-2010, 02:10 AM
You did at least mention my wife this time.

Instead of slurring my masculinity, gender and sexual orientation as usual, you blithely and luridly connected us both with a certain extreme of fetishistic play.

Winehole23
06-14-2010, 02:15 AM
Your morning cup of coffee, I presume.

Winehole23
06-14-2010, 02:17 AM
Oh, and thanks, btw.

Winehole23
06-14-2010, 02:37 AM
We all really needed that.

Wild Cobra
06-14-2010, 10:08 AM
They all crazy in your mind WC?
Well, if those who believe what is wrote by the various people at Common Dreams, yes. Certainly not all. But to give it merit to quote and link...

Nbadan
06-14-2010, 02:04 PM
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal confronts the specter of a collapse of U.S. political support for the war in Afghanistan in coming months comparable to the one that occurred in the Iraq War in late 2006.

On Thursday, McChrystal's message that his strategy will weaken the Taliban in its heartland took its worst beating thus far, when he admitted that the planned offensive in Kandahar City and surrounding districts is being delayed until September at the earliest, because it does not have the support of the Kandahar population and leadership.

Equally damaging to the credibility of McChrystal's strategy was the Washington Post report published Thursday documenting in depth the failure of February's offensive in Marja.

The basic theme underlined in both stories - that the Afghan population in the Taliban heartland is not cooperating with U.S. and NATO forces - is likely to be repeated over and over again in media coverage in the coming months.

The Kandahar operation, which McChrystal's staff has touted as the pivotal campaign of the war, had previously been announced as beginning in June. But it is now clear that McChrystal has understood for weeks that the most basic premise of the operation turned out to be false.

"When you go to protect people, the people have to want you to protect them," said McChrystal, who was in London for a NATO conference.

He didn't have to spell out the obvious implication: the people of Kandahar don't want the protection of foreign troops.

(...)

Alternet (http://www.alternet.org/story/147190/mcchrystal_faces_massive_failure_in_afghanistan_in _next_few_months)