More Troops into Afghanistan?

[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.

[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 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 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]

[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 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?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

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


http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...f?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/op...gewanted=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 ins utions, no popular support, no military/police, nothing.

Like Iraq, Aghanistan is a disaster started by head/neo-c*nts/Repugs who couldn't finish the job. head 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/op...gewanted=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 ins utions, no popular support, no military/police, nothing.

Like Iraq, Aghanistan is a disaster started by head/neo-c*nts/Repugs who couldn't finish the job. head 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.

[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..

[spursncowboys]

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

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 pla udes about denying Al Qaeda a foothold in Afghanistan and emboldening terrorists.

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

[Wild Cobra]

We've got our s 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.

[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 ed 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?