Reply With Quote
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.
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.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/wo.../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."
...
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.
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 head/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.
Just find Osama, shoot or capture him, then pull out.
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 out...
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.
John Oliver nails it with this one:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...in-afghanistan
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.
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".
The Repugs will trash Magic Negro if he "loses" Afghanistan, but who GAF about the miniscule freakshow called Repugs?
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...et.org/142806/
The results of a new Pew poll 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 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 Ins ute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www...et.org/142806/
For the next few months lets kill every mother er we can, their women hardcore and get them pregnant. Come back in 5-6 years to check out the situation.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...t?id=113052541
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...27&ft=1&f=1004The 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.
More stories here..."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-do ented 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."
http://www.afghanistannews.net/
The 9/11 terrorists found havens in Hamburg, Germany and in Florida."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.
What are we doing to make sure Hamburg and Florida do not become *havens*for Al Qaeda again?
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 hole exactly the same 20 years from now.....50 years from now...200 years from now...
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.
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 ....and the coalition shouldve finished this war long time ago b4 starting iraq and ....this is just dragging out....
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.
honeystly as long as there isnt a draft they can do whatever they want
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 uva 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.
We can't just leave Afghanistan because in order to save his oil buddies billions, Cheney built a pipeline through it..
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.
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
The Karzai Govt. is corrupt and Afghanistan is once again a banana republic, but then again we lived with one for 8 years...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
