More Troops into Afghanistan?

[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/doc...hite_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_...-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 horse 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 bull 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 horse 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 ins utions, 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-elected

Protracted 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 forces

Very 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?