Obama sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan

[llad12]

Obama sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Are you for it?

Are you against it?

If you are for it, then spell out the reasons.

Afghanistan isn't called "the graveyard of empires" for nothing.

 

[Bladewind]

Re: Obama sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Fighting 1 war beats fighting 2 ! Besides 90 thousand are coming back from Iraq.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Obama sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan

I hope nobody pretends to be surprised by this as he said he was going to do just that even before he won the election.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Obama sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan

I'm generally okay with sending more troops to Afghanistan, as I believe that war had much more justification than Iraq.

I'm open to differing views on the matter, of course. :crazyeyes:

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Obama sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan

I'm mainly "for" it because the NATO troops have failed so miserably. And while I support THE ONE's decision, I think it will be fruitless while Pakistan continues to negotiate directly with the Talibs and certain members cut side deals. I was pretty pissed off at Sen. Feinstein for making it even harder for the Pakistanis.

If it weren't for Pakistan's lackadaisical attitude regarding Islamists, this would have been over by now, instead of the Taliban being able to rest & refit, and repeatedly bloody the nose of the Pakistanis in the process. Why, one might even get the impression that Pakistan is only our ally because they were able to extract large amounts of cash from us in the process! Shock! Horror!

 

[vdzele]

Re: Obama sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Oil fields in Iraq are secured by a puppet government and permanent bases; poppy fields in Afghanistan are threatened by forces who don’t want to play by the rules. In these crises every real money is needed to keep the pyramid collapsing with control.

 

[Glurin]

Re: Obama sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Just one question. Are we in it to win or is it just going to be more political maneuvering, because that is exactly what got us in trouble in Iraq (as well as several other places in recent history).

 

[llad12]

Re: Obama sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Just one question. Are we in it to win or is it just going to be more political maneuvering, because that is exactly what got us in trouble in Iraq (as well as several other places in recent history).

Define winning ...

 

[Dondrei]

Re: Obama sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan

There is no "in it to win it", you don't win wars with pep rallies. Either victory is realistic or it isn't.

Seems a little too late for Afghanistan, we really screwed it up by cutting and running into Iraq. At least Afghanistan actually had something to do with terrorism I guess.

Personally I'd just pull out of the entire Middle East and let it all collapse, it's none of our business so why spend all that money and waste all those soldier's lives trying to make it something it isn't? It's always been a ****hole and always will be.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Obama sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Even more interesting stuff, from the magazine of the neo-con hatemonger who Ill blames the Iraq war upon. That would be William Kristol, for those of you who didn't know or care.

Survey: Many Pakistanis Support Predator Strikes

We're constantly told that the U.S. Predator attacks against the Taliban and al Qaeda are turning the vast majority of the Pakistani people against America. A while back I noted that not all Pakistani want to see the strikes end. A survey that was taken in Pakistan's Pashtun tribal belt backs this up.

Between November 2008 and January 2009, the Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy conducted surveys in the regions the U.S. strikes have focused on: North and South Waziristan and the Kurram tribal agency. Here are some of the results:

Do you see drone attacks bringing about fear and terror in the common people?
Yes 45%, No 55%

Do you think the drones are accurate in their strikes?
Yes 52%, No 48%

Do you think anti-American feelings in the area increased due to drone attacks recently?
Yes 42%, No 58%

Should Pakistan military carry out targeted strikes at the militant organisations?
Yes 70%, No 30%

Do the militant organisations get damaged due to drone attacks?
Yes 60%, No 40%

The author of the article includes some interesting observations of his interactions with more than 2,000 Pakistanis living in the tribal agencies, such as this:

I asked almost all those people if they see the US drone attacks on FATA as violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. More than two-third said they did not. Pakistan’s sovereignty, they argued, was insulted and annihilated by Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, whose territory FATA is after Pakistan lost it to them. The US is violating the sovereignty of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, not of Pakistan. Almost half the people said that the US drones attacking Islamabad or Lahore will be [in] violation of the sovereignty of Pakistan, because these areas are not taken over by the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Many people laughed when I mentioned the word sovereignty with respect to Pakistan.

Over two-thirds of the people viewed Al-Qaeda and the Taliban as enemy number one, and wanted the Pakistani army to clear the area of the militants. A little under two-thirds want the Americans to continue the drone attack because the Pakistani army is unable or unwilling to retake the territory from the Taliban.

Perhaps a ray of hope in an otherwise bleak situation.

 

[Sergeant]

Re: Obama sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Are you for it?

Are you against it?

If you are for it, then spell out the reasons.

Afghanistan isn't called "the graveyard of empires" for nothing.

I'm ok with it since there is a defined withdrawal plan for Iraq and that most, if not all, US troops will be out by 2010.

Afghanistan is where the most trouble is. The area of Pakistan that borders with Afghanistan is where Osama hides. That is where we need to focus our attention for now.

I'm of the opinion that we need to get the Iraqi government and military/police to a point where we can take off the training wheels and let them run their own country, as it should be. I think terrorism against the US or US interests might even settle down once we get out of Iraq. No matter how noble our goals and purposes for being there, we're seen as an occupying force for those who oppose us, and that only makes them fight harder.

Once we've reached a point of progress in Afghanistan where Al Queda can't operate effectively and their leadership is broken, then I say we stabilize Afghanistan and gradually withdraw. Then we let that country manage its own affairs. The battle against terrorism will be a never ending one, but I think it can become more of a group effort with other nations doing their part and everyone helping each other in not giving terrorist organizations a safe place to live, train or recruit.

 

[Glurin]

Re: Obama sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan

There is no "in it to win it", you don't win wars with pep rallies. Either victory is realistic or it isn't.

Ever heard the phrase "win the battle, lose the war"?

Define winning ...

Basically are we going to have a clear and achievable goal and work to accomplish it? Or are we going to make a half assed attempt at it and change our goal every five minutes until its something so vague that its impossible to achieve?

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Obama sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Ever heard the phrase "win the battle, lose the war"?

Well, Bush "won" the the Iraq occupation as well as the initial war, but that doesn't mean it can't still be "lost" by THE ONE tucking tail (which to various pinkos' chagrin, he seems unlikely to do for the moment).

The U.S. won in Vietnam before it lost. The South was a somewhat stable nation, but the U.S. yanked support out from underneath it at the very time that China and the USSR were ramping up support for the North. I think it all matters whether you're considering strategic or tactical aims, and the time period you're considering. Tactically, "winning" means forcing your will upon the enemy, while strategically there's a question of how long he keeps doing what you want.

 

[llad12]

Re: Obama sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan

I'm ok with it since there is a defined withdrawal plan for Iraq and that most, if not all, US troops will be out by 2010.

Not quite ...

Obama to extend Iraq withdrawal timetable; 50,000 troops to stay

WASHINGTON — Amid complaints from has own party that he's moving too slowly to end the war in Iraq, President Barack Obama will announce Friday that U.S. combat troops will be withdrawn by Aug. 31, 2010, but that as many as 50,000 Marines and soldiers would remain until the end of 2011 ...

Under Obama's plan, a force of between 35,000 and 50,000 U.S. troops would remain in Iraq after Aug. 31, 2010, to train, equip and advise Iraqi forces, help protect withdrawing forces and work on counterterrorism. They'd remain until Dec. 31, 2011, the date on which the Bush administration agreed to withdraw all troops under a pact with Iraq.

McClatchy

The "pact", of course, is the SOFA agreement that was signed late last year by and between the US and Iraq.

Speaking of the SOFA agreement, No sooner had Obama's announcement been made than NBC's Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski reported:

Secretary Gates, as early as 18 months to 2 years ago, was saying "look, everyone understands that we're going to have to start withdrawing from Iraq." But at the same time, Gates adds this caveat that he believes significant numbers of troops will remain in Iraq for years to come.

And in fact military commanders, despite this Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government that all US forces would be out by the end of 2011, are already making plans for a significant number of American troops to remain in Iraq beyond that 2011 deadline, assuming that Status of Forces Agreement agreement would be renegotiated.

And one senior military commander told us that he expects large numbers of American troops to be in Iraq for the next 15 to 20 years

C&L

 

[llad12]

Re: Obama sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Basically are we going to have a clear and achievable goal and work to accomplish it? Or are we going to make a half assed attempt at it and change our goal every five minutes until its something so vague that its impossible to achieve?

That's a good question.

This Op-ed excerpt from Bob Herbert of the NY Times asks much the same:

Wars, Endless Wars

The singer Edwin Starr, who died in 2003, had a big hit in 1970 called “War†in which he asked again and again: “War, what is it good for?â€

The U.S. economy is in free fall, the banking system is in a state of complete collapse and Americans all across the country are downsizing their standards of living. The nation as we’ve known it is fading before our very eyes, but we’re still pouring billions of dollars into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with missions we are still unable to define.

Even as the U.S. begins plans to reduce troop commitments in Iraq, it is sending thousands of additional troops into Afghanistan. The strategic purpose of this escalation, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged, is not at all clear.

In response to a question on NBC’s “Meet the Press†on Sunday, Mr. Gates said:

“We’re talking to the Europeans, to our allies; we’re bringing in an awful lot of people to get different points of view as we go through this review of what our strategy ought to be. And I often get asked, ‘Well, how long will those 17,000 [additional troops] be there? Will more go in?’ All that depends on the outcome of this strategy review that I hope will be done in a few weeks.â€

We invaded Afghanistan more than seven years ago. We have not broken the back of Al Qaeda or the Taliban. We have not captured or killed Osama bin Laden. We don’t even have an escalation strategy, much less an exit strategy. An honest assessment of the situation, taking into account the woefully corrupt and ineffective Afghan government led by the hapless Hamid Karzai, would lead inexorably to such terms as fiasco and quagmire.

Instead of cutting our losses, we appear to be doubling down.

 

[llad12]

Re: Obama sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan

I'm generally okay with sending more troops to Afghanistan, as I believe that war had much more justification than Iraq.

I'm open to differing views on the matter, of course. :crazyeyes:

Perhaps you should listen to Ron Paul:

 

[Dondrei]

Re: Obama sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan

I'd be a lot less worried about an escalating war in Afghanistan really. At least there it looks like there's the vague possibility of some kind of improvement. And they're wimps.

 

[llad12]

Re: Obama sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan

I'd be a lot less worried about an escalating war in Afghanistan really. At least there it looks like there's the vague possibility of some kind of improvement. And they're wimps.

Go jump in a billabong ... 500,000 Soviet troops failed to subdue that country.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: Obama sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan

maybe they were going about it the wrong way...

maybe one 25th of that amount in US marines will do better because of technology and logistics (yeah right)

 

[Dondrei]

Re: Obama sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Go jump in a billabong ... 500,000 Soviet troops failed to subdue that country.

Just remembered why I usually ignore your posts.