Two New York Times columnists have offered thoughtful cases against giving Gen. Stanley McChrystal the extra troops he wants in Afghanistan.
Arguing that digging deeper in Afghanistan will weaken the United States, Thomas Friedman wrote: “We simply do not have the Afghan partners, the NATO allies, the domestic support, the financial resources or the national interests to justify an enlarged and prolonged nation-building effort in Afghanistan.”
Suggesting there are better uses for U.S. dollars right now than “inflaming Pashtun nationalism,” Nicholas Kristof doubts more troops will do the trick. He wrote: “We have been fighting in Afghanistan for twice as long as we fought in World War II, with a current price tag estimated to be more than $60 billion a year. Standard counterinsurgency ratios of troops to civilians suggest we would need 650,000 troops (including Afghans) to pacify the country. So will adding 40,000 more to the 68,000 already there make a difference to justify the additional annual cost of $10 billion to $40 billion, especially since they may aggravate the perception of Americans as occupiers?”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- sursum on Open thread 11/24
- george on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/24
- FORD1ST on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- janeeyre on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- sursum on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
108 Comments
Only if Obama and his party have the intestinal fortitude to stay and WIN.
If not, and I suspect not – bring the troops home.
NOW!
Stop killing them while we wait on Obama to finish campaigning for democrats and golfing.
American_Way
Posted September 30, 2009 at 7:09 pm | Permalink
I’m going to type this real slow so a couple of you can keep up.
I am opposed to the War in Afghanistan because the democrats do not have the heart to pursue it to victory. Your party is split with the majority ALREADY against the war. The majority Independents (who are critical in any election) are against it. 2/3 of Democrats and 1/3 of republicans are against it. Americans young people are against it. They will be protesting on campus starting next summer.
Obama, who campaigned on fighting the “just” war in Afghanistan – obviously has cold feet ALREADY. His heart is not in it. He is indecisive. If he was SURE, he would not be taking months to do something about it. And as I’ve been posting for months – meanwhile our troops are dying! There is NO GOAL. No objective.
If Obama has to invent a goal or a mission, he then has to sell it to the large number of Americans – and keep them convinced of the goal for five to ten or so long years to achieve it. Many long years with money that could have gone to lib social causes . Many years of deficit spending which is eventually going to catch up with us (if we aren’t seeing signs already).
Most Americans are not convinced today. Many democrats in congress are against continuing the war. Republicans are going to continue to be stupid and call democrats weak – and democrats are going to continue to be stupid and vote to keep fighting so they don’t look weak. And our troops are pawns once again.
I am against the war because I have been to that Wall in Washington DC on the mall many, many times. With paper and pen (and I don’t even know why I do it every time.) I am against the war because I have served my country for 20+ years in every climate and place. I’ve seen a lot and been afraid, and don’t want to see any of the troops die in vain. I know many who are there now. Both my buddies and children of buddies and neighbors. I know they question their mission now – they walk by poppy fields knowing the poor farmers are slaves on the land – and that the bad guys are going to benefit from the drugs sales. They know the drugs will fund the guys shooting at them. They know some of the farmers are shooting at them! And I see the nightmares of three decades ago all over again.
War is balls to the walls. It is a cliche but it has to be he11. It’s all or nothing. It’s not politicians telling generals where they can bomb, when they can bomb, who they can attack, how to question the prisoners, how to detain them, and how to kill them. The bad guys don’t have these problems. They have sworn to Allah to die killing Americans. They children have the same religion. They have toy Bin Laden dolls and worship him. They will grow up to kill Americans too.
What happened to Obama’s new approach? What happened to his olive branch and trying not to be the bad ugly American? What happened to his getting others to “like” us again?
I do not believe democrats are in it for the long term. I don’t believe AMERICANS have the heart for it long term.
The lesson of Vietnam was NOT the “hippies” being “traitors”. The lesson of Vietnam is America should not commit our troops to combat when the American people are not for it. Because when they do, we have walls.
American_Way,
I’m going to pose the same simple question to you that I posed to JimJohnson in the open thread.
Suppose President Obama starts drawing down troops next Spring and all troops are out one year from now. Now suppose that the Afghanistan reverts back to the place it was pre-9/11 and is used as a place to train terrorists and launch terrorists attacks on Americans and American interests here at home and abroad.
What will you say then?
You think, being as obama has no military experience at all (OK, well, just no experience at all), maybe he should listen to the leaders on the ground?
Arguing that digging deeper in Afghanistan will weaken the United States, Thomas Friedman wrote: “We simply do not have the Afghan partners, the NATO allies, the domestic support, the financial resources or the national interests to justify an enlarged and prolonged nation-building effort in Afghanistan.”
Dam – I agree with Friedman, the world is coming to an end!
Bring the troops home!
Obama’s self appointed General says he needs more troops NOW. Troops are taking fire ducking.
Obama cannot decide to support his own general.
Yes, cut and run.
This guy will NEVER be sure. It’s not in his heart to fight this war. Despite his election talk.
Bring them home.
Obama will go into withdrawal each time the general asks for troops or equipment.
SolDevVB,
General McChrystal is asking for 40,000 more troops, are you down with that?
I have not studied the models he is using. I have not been in theater. I have not conferred with the battalion, company, platoon nor squad leaders. Without the above information and much much more, if I were pressed to make a timely decision, I would defer to the professionals that have been doing this and training for this for years.
My answer is yes. I would go with what my most skilled advisor advised me to do. In a timely manner.
In a word: Yes.
Dealing with the factions of Afghanistan is just part of the issue. The other is dealing with the Salfi jihadist based Islamism (which is arguably an export from our “allies” Saudi Arabia to Pashtun tribalists) that underlies Al Queda, the Taliban, and other terrorist movements. There is too much argument about Al Queda versus the Taliban, but they are both two branches off the same tree, and the Taliban commanders will tell world that when it comes to the West, “Kafir” world, there is no difference in attitudes between them and Al Queda.
The fact is, most people there would love to have a credible alternative to the Taliban, and anyone who was paying attention to the country BEFORE 9/11 knew just how grim life under the Taliban was (the Soviet puppets were positively enlightened in comparison with them).
But it certainly won’t be easy. It involves stabilizing the country, and also speaking out against the most egregious practices of the Taliban and encouraging others that they can do so as well without certain reprisal. It involves convincing the people there that this occupation is neither an episode of attempted colonialism or a build and run exercise (and right now, from the Afghan population’s viewpoint, the latter appears to be the case).
Bush Lite really scr*wed the pooch on this one, and it is all too possible that Obama will as well (certainly, NATO is not following through). But if we pull out, or just focus on containment of Al Queda like Biden wants to do (which is REALLY not the issue, the Taliban will be more than happy to assist and perform acts of worldwide terrorism with or without Al Queda), then we will ensure continued destablilization of that part of the world.
We have to be determined to win, and we have to convince the Afghan people and the rest of the world of that determination and that they (the Afghans) will have a credible alternative to and protection from a Taliban state as they rebuild. I’m not sure that the US can do this alone, and I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but this is important.
AmWay says: “Only if Obama and his party have the intestinal fortitude to stay and WIN.
“If not, and I suspect not – bring the troops home.”
I hope you are wrong about Obama (and I think you may be, don’t mistake careful consideration or a “D” after one’s name for weakness-and we need a PLAN, and from what I can tell McChrystal has outlined what that plan would need). Certainly, though, some of the loudest voices from the Democratic party are, if not lacking intestinal fortitude, are lacking in vision and understanding, IMVSO.
I don’t think the Afghanis will tolerate us being there the length of time it will take to set up some semblance of a self-sustaing government/infrastructure. There is no “sense of country” , only a ragtag group of tribes ,clans, sects and God knows what else. How can you win in that environment?
As I’ve shared several times –
Afghanistan isn’t about Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is about Pakistan.
BTW, given that list, what has obama done to research the situation? He has been stumping for his party’s candidates and stumping for health care. How much time has he spent with the military? How much time has he spent with McChrystal?
Seems like this isn’t on obama’s priority list. At all.
I have to say, the AmWay of the last few days?
This is the poster that I have been waiting to see.
Nice stuff, even if I don’t agree with it.
We are fighting a two front war. We experienced our deadliest month on one of those fronts. How much time has obama dedicated to the military? How much time has he spent with the men and women leading and fighting in those wars?
How much time has he campaigned about health care, his party’s candidates and complaining about mopping.
What has he done about the two fronts?
Where are obama’s priorities?
as I stated the other day the Conservative position for the most part( there are some honest ones) is to be opposed to whatever Obama decides to do if he pulls out troops they’ll be against it and if he sends more they’ll be against it
I agree with AmWay. The 40,000 extra troops might be enough for defense but not to win. Since Obama can’t make a decision to help our troop protect them selves, he has no intension in winning.
Maybe we should just attack Iran. Then Al Qaeda would be our allies and we could be done with it.
The Taliban are sons of the mujahideen that we empowered and created in the 80’s. It would be funny if it weren’t true.
The history lesson we should have learned from Vietnam is that a war is no longer decided on tonnage of high explosives and number of boots. You have to win the trust of the people before you can win the war. Apparently we haven’t learned that lesson, and we’re repeating it all over again in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
We have quite a history of installing and supporting some of the most corrupt governments around the world. They are simply easier to do business with. Pinoche in Chile, Somoza in Nicaragua, the Generals in El Salvador and Argentina, the Sauds in Arabia, the Battistas in Cuba, Chang Kai-Shek in China and Taiwan, any number of brutal beyond brutal armies and regimes in Africa, all in the name of fighting communism. As a result, we just keep making more and more enemies. “Friends come and go, but enemies accumulate.” And we’ve been accumulating them for some time now.
Sending in more troops to support Karzai & friends, assuming as it appears now that they stole the election, isn’t winning us friends in a war where we really need friends. If Karzai actually steps down after an honest runoff, we might have a chance with the people there. Until then, more troops do us no good at all. Send more body bags with them.
What sickens me even more is how the Mujahideen are viewed as “freedom fighters”. This is utter garbage. They raped and pillaged. They were brutal warlords who ruled with iron fist. America likes these types of oppressive leaders in countries they can take natural resources from.
The Taliban were created to rid Afghanistan of the corruption brought about from the Mujahideen.
You’ll never read about this in a history textbook though. They just hate us for our freedom. It has nothing to do with installing corrupt, oppressive governments and occupying foreign land.
Wake up folks. You are being hoodwinked.
I’m getting really frustrated with the media — all media — displaying such tunnel vision on Afghanistan.
We’re all supposedly “terrified” of the prospect of a Muslim bomb. Sadam’s WMDs, Iran’s fuel refinery (and photo-shopped missiles)… Right?
Guess which Islamic nation already has a nuclear arsenal?
Pakistan, that’s who.
And things are going swimmingly in Pakistan these days, aren’t they?
The majority of the public support waiting until after the runoff before sending more troops. Makes sense. We’ve been treading water over there for 8 yrs. why all of a sudden the rush for judgement?
The majority of the public support waiting
Can you back that up?
It’s a shell game and the US is being played like a tourist in Times Square.
Just saw it on the cable news. Wasn’t watching too closely, it might’ve been the majority of those that support sending more troops.
Adding more bombs makes more sense.
Bi-boy,
Every bomb ends up being a recruiting poster for the Taliban. And you want to drop more? Which side are you on?
Jabber-
Every bomb ends up being a recruiting poster for the Taliban. And you want to drop more? Which side are you on?
———————
Posters aint worth much if there aint no place left to hang ‘em…..
“…Every bomb ends up being a recruiting poster for the Taliban.”
Yes, sooner or later. Sooner, if it explodes when dropped. Later, if it does not explode when dropped and is turned into an IED.
“swimmingly”??? Do you care to translate that?
“donndublin” –
Not that I accept responsibility for giving you a basic 8th Grade education (albeit it seem necessary):
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/swimmingly
It looks like most you are against being there at all. I’ve heard mention of the poppy trade. Could it be that Obama’s Chicago gang backers have an interest on who controls it.
I remember the rumors of the drugs being shipped home in body bags from Veitnam.
“donndublin” shares –
“I remember the rumors of the drugs being shipped home in body bags.”
Facts, on the other hand, you don’t seem to recall.
donndublin,
Main Entry: swim·ming·ly
Pronunciation: \?swi-mi?-l?\
Function: adverb
Date: 1622
: very well : splendidly
Monkeyhock mumbles-
“Facts, on the other hand, you don’t seem to recall.”
Facts, on the otherhand, you are unable comprehend, but eat your foot anyway.
I’ve seen the way monkeys swim and I wouldn’t think “swimmingly”, “smoothly” and “splendidly” were all similar. In Monkeys case, he should have used a different adverb because it seems so ambiguous. It might be because I’ve read too many tech manuals, but I’ve never heard it used.
Yeah, the likelihood of running across the word ’swimmingly’ while reading tech manuals isn’t real high.
That doesn’t mean that it’s a cromulent word though.
Swimmingly was used by Ann Coulter in a sarcastic manner describing the Afghan war. The DU dweebs picked it up and MonkeyHawk took sloppy thirds from them.
That’s all the Etymology you need to know. :D
Jed
Posted October 28, 2009 at 2:45 pm | Permalink
Bi-boy,
Every bomb ends up being a recruiting poster for the Taliban. And you want to drop more? Which side are you on?
————————————————–
Surrender or pacifism?
How’d the latter work over the last 30 years?
Jed
Posted October 28, 2009 at 2:45 pm | Permalink
Bi-boy,
Every bomb ends up being a recruiting poster for the Taliban. And you want to drop more? Which side are you on?
————————————————–
Surrender or pacifism?
How’d the latter work over the last 30 years?
Jed
Posted October 28, 2009 at 2:45 pm | Permalink
Bi-boy,
Every bomb ends up being a recruiting poster for the Taliban. And you want to drop more? Which side are you on?
————————————————–
Surrender or pacifism?
How’d the latter work over the last 30 years?
Right, I’m sure Ann Coulter was the first pundit to use the word ’swimmingly’ in a political context.
And why did you have to bring Coulter into this? With Monkeyhawk and Nathaniel both posting today, this can only end badly.
Daniel
Posted October 28, 2009 at 4:07 pm | Permalink
Right, I’m sure Ann Coulter was the first pundit to use the word ’swimmingly’ in a political context.
—————————————————-
True enough. I’ve never heard the word used in anything other than sarcasm either.
Somebody has three tabs open.
Mr_Kia,
Agreed, whenever I use the word it’s usually in conjunction with a roll of the eyes.
“I hope you are wrong about Obama ”
Agnatha – I don’t want to be wrong about Obama either.
To me, it is very very personal. I get email from Marines in both countries. I cannot reveal much, but I am still very close to those on active duty. I have family and friends in both countries. BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan.
I retired in 1996. The senior enlisted serving today, once were my “privates” and PFC’s.
They have more combat time than I had in twenty years! They have endured family separation I DON’T THINK I EVER COULD!!!
Since 2001.
2001.
Think about just THAT!!!
Deployed for two years, 18 months, 12 months to both countries.
Really it started 2002 and beyond, but they have children born in 2002, who have mom and dads who they have only seen HALF THEIR LIVES!!!
I never endured that.
Civil War?
I don’t think WWII vets endured even that.
Korea?
Vietnam was 12 months “in country” (and some extensions) mandatory.
These young people are hero’s like no others!
I am not TRYING to be political. I am TRYING to speak from my heart.
I KNOW and talk to many of these men (army, navy, and mostly Marines).
They want to win! But if winning is NOT the goal, bring them all home – now!
They are not built for “nation building”…
They are built to blow things up, kill people, and win in combat.
Please, screw American_way. I’m an old retired fart. I got MINE.
But please consider the younger generation.
These guys are the biggest hero’s our nation has EVER EVER had.
Please Obama: Don’t do it for politics. Don’t do it so CON’s don’t call you weak. Don’t do it to be politically correct.
Do it to WIN!!!!!!!
Or be honest and I WILL RESPECT YOU!!!
Bring them all home.
And yes: Most shallow narrow minded republicans will condemn you.
WHY DO YOU CARE!!!!?!
#
American_Way
Posted October 28, 2009 at 4:36 pm | Permalink
Bring them all home.
And yes: Most shallow narrow minded republicans will condemn you.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2009/03/open-thread-38-2/#comment-533392
#
American_Way
Posted October 28, 2009 at 4:36 pm | Permalink
Bring them all home.
And yes: Most shallow narrow minded republicans will condemn you.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2009/03/open-thread-38-2/#comment-533394
You have a point there somewhere Daniel?
Obama spent most of the campaign talking TOUGH STUFF on Afghanistan – it’s the war to win.
In March, he adopted the Bush Policy.
He had been in office less than 3 months and I thought we were on a COURSE TO WIN.
Something happened.
And not to me, American_Way….
#
American_Way
Posted March 8, 2009 at 10:23 am | Permalink
Obama is going to “negotiate” surrender terms with terrorists who live by the motto: “The only good woman is a slave woman.” Stoning, beheading, and no education for women in the taliban world. No freedom of speech; no TV, no radio, no music.
Keep those women barefoot and pregnant, says Obama.”
Keep looking at it as Iraq or Afghanistan and all it leads to is more soldiers killed.
The Obama Administration was considering negotiating with what they called “moderate” taliban.
That would have been negotiating with the enemy in order to pull what you guys blame Bush of doing and “declaring a victory”
All Taliban treat women like sheeeat.
Fortunately, the Taliban actually laughed at the Obama administration. They came back with: Death to the American Satan.
This presented a new problem to the peace minded Obama.
Don’t PRETEND to make friends and peace with ANY of them.
Don’t SEEK political cover.
Simply be honest and bring all our troops home.
In the long run, it will be cleaner.
My point is you talk out of both sides of your azz. On the one hand you’re all ‘cut and run! cut and run!” and on the other hand you’re all ‘bring the troops home by Christmas! bring the troops home by Christmas!
I asked both you and JimJohnson a simple question and only JimJohnson has an answer. The situation reverting back to pre-9/11 conditions is one possible scenario, but no the only one. I figure the chances of things reverting back will be directly related to the condition Afghanistan is in when we do leave.
I have no doubt that if President Obama does everything that you want him to do and pulls out all the troops post-haste and the situation in Afghanistan goes completely to s!ht, you’ll be screaming first and loudest about how O’bama abandoned the poor, poor people of Afghanistan (who you’ve never given a s!ht about in the first place) to the evil Taliban and how O’bama has allowed the terrorists reconstitute a base of operations.
Jed
Posted October 28, 2009 at 2:25 pm | Permalink
The history lesson we should have learned from Vietnam is that a war is no longer decided on tonnage of high explosives and number of boots. You have to win the trust of the people before you can win the war.
========================================
Libs are confused. You win wars by killing your enemy until they reach the point of surrender.
You do not win wars by making friends and building trust with those who are shooting you.
You do not win wars by handing out $20 bills to those who turn around and shoot at you later that same day.
Fight like hell or leave the country altogether.
Does that make sense?
“My point is you talk out of both sides of your azz. On the one hand you’re all ‘cut and run! cut and run!” and on the other hand you’re all ‘bring the troops home by Christmas! bring the troops home by Christmas!”
Sounds like the same side of my azz to me.
I fail to see a contradiction there.
Afghanistan is where empires go to die. Thank God.
Daniel
Posted October 28, 2009 at 5:02 pm | Permalink
I figure the chances of things reverting back will be directly related to the condition Afghanistan is in when we do leave.
===========================================
If this is true, and it does not appear that WE can help rebuild Afghanistan into a stable nation in less then 10 years, then what?
Are we there for 10+ years?
We are still in Japan, Germany, Korea, Bosnia, Iraq, and elsewhere.
When does American occupation end?
Before rebuilding can be successful, all Taliban and Al Queda elements must be destroyed or forced to surrender. And Monkey is right, the theater now includes Pakistan, with Iran and Iraq to the West.
Is the US prepared to send 500,000 troops to the region to completely destroy the enemy and allow for rebuilding to occur after that? I don’t think so. If not, we need to get out.
Scheit or get off the pot. Don’t just sit there.
American_Way
Posted October 28, 2009 at 5:09 pm | Permalink
“My point is you talk out of both sides of your azz. On the one hand you’re all ‘cut and run! cut and run!” and on the other hand you’re all ‘bring the troops home by Christmas! bring the troops home by Christmas!”
Sounds like the same side of my azz to me.
I fail to see a contradiction there.
=========================================
Your 1:07 post is clear, and correct in my opinion.
Criticizing Obama for sending more troops then wanting to bail-out right away is consistent with what you stated at 1:07.
Obama doesn’t have the stomach for war. He’s struggling with trying to be politically correct, when he needs to have the balls to do the right thing – either commit to the war 100% or get the heck out.
Either way JimJohnson Obama’s delay will and already is being portrayed in the media and by libs as prudent.
Very smart politics. He probably has known what he wants to do for months (most of us do in our heart of hearts).
But now, either way, win or loose, people will say – “Well Obama thought long and hard on it.”
win-win
JimJohnson,
I’m really not a proponent of staying in Afghanistan long-term. If I were CIC, I’d wait until the new government is seated, wait through the winter when the level of violence is sure to drop, declare the peaceful transition of power a victory in the Spring and start a withdrawal at that point.
I’m basically an non-interventionist. I think that our use of military power around the world causes far more problems for us than it solves. As far as I’m concerned, troops should have been withdrawn from Afghanistan in 2002 when it was obvious that President Bush had no interest in doing anything there. We’ve basically been treading water in Afghanistan, from a policy and troop level perspective, for over 7 years now.
The thing I don’t understand about you and American_Way is this…where was this since of urgency while President Bush dithered in Afghanistan and troops were in harms way? I’ve looked back through the archives and I’ve seen American_Way make a few comments here and there that indicate he was against continuing our presence there but never multiple posts on the subject on a daily basis in bold font trumpeting the latest loss of troops or the latest car bombing by either American_Way or you. Why is that?
A cynic might conclude that you’re far more interested in hammering President Obama than anything else and doubt the sincerity of your concern for the troops.
Daniel, the American deaths in Afghanistan have increased to record levels in 2009, in case you haven’t noticed.
THAT is the reason for the urgency in Afghanistan. The status quo is no longer acceptable, in my opinion.
————————————————
Gotta bail and watch my daughter in marching band!
“I’ve looked back through the archives and I’ve seen American_Way make a few comments here and there that indicate he was against continuing our presence there but never multiple posts on the subject on a daily basis in bold font trumpeting the latest loss of troops or the latest car bombing by either American_Way or you. Why is that?”
Because Bush was a lame duck. Change was coming. What was the point? The republican “hawks” don’t want to hear it. And for YEARS I’ve advocating bring ALL our troops home from Europe (Germany big time), the Clinton Balkans, Japan, Okinawa, and South Korea as well as Afghan and Iraq. I’ve posted for years about stop trying to be the world cops or policemen of the world.
It is not new.
What IS new is the possiblilty – possibility for genuine “change” in this regards.
That said – at least under Bush – he BELIEVED in the cause. Republicans BELIEVE in strong defense and winning. They don’t have a problem conmmitting troops and winning. Not saying democrats historically didn’t either. But not in my life time. Honestly, democrats have the reputation as not being strong on defense (which is a con claim game), but strong on social at home programs.
And I seriously do NOT believe today’s democrats or this president WANT to fight a decade long deadly and costly war. Most polls support me in that belief. 2/3’s of libs, 2/3’s of independents and even 1/3 of republicans are AGAINST the war.
And the support rarely goes up. It usually goes down.
That is why I speak now. Because there is a CHANCE for reason and change. Instead of business as usual.
Plus I fear another Vietnam, where politicans get involved in the technical details of running a war.
It’s happening already (see open post just now). I fear democrats will continue the war BECUASE IT IS THERE. Because they cannot back down. Because they are afraid to upset the conservative war drumming apple cart.
If I do NOT speak up now, if democrats do NOT speak up now – we may be stuck with a bad decision. If everyone gives OBama their honest opinion NOW, maybe he will listen and bring the troops home.
“The brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai has been on the CIA’s payroll for much of the past 8 years, a time during which he’s boosted his personal power in a large area of southern Afghanistan—and been linked to the drug trade.”
This is what Americans are fighting and dying to protect? The heroin business?
Jimbo,
” You win wars by killing your enemy until they reach the point of surrender.”
Seems their tolerance for death is highr than ours. As a religious fanatic yourself, you ought to know that they won’t- can’t- surrender. Martyrdom is preferable. Do you really expect our soldiers to martyr themselves for you? Besides, the terrain favors defenders over attackers by a substantial margin. How do you think they held out for ten years against everything the Soviets could throw at them? Our only hope there is to convince the moderate majority to close ranks against them, and we won’t do that by defending Karzai & Co. Opium Supply Wholesale Outlets Inc. Given our history of making promises there that we never intended to keep in exchange for their sons and daughters, our chances of convincing them of much of anything are pretty slim. And if they choose the Taliban over us, we’ll have no choices but to pack up and go or commit national suicide.
“And if they choose the Taliban over us, we’ll have no choices but to pack up and go or commit national suicide.”
Too late they already have. The people of Afghanistan in the countryside in interviews have stated they KNOW Americans will leave. They KNOW they have to go back to the taliban and the warlords. They do not risk their children, wives, and families anymore than they have to.
They know who comes in at night.
It is senseless to hope to change all their religious and back country traditions.
Unless, you are into nation building.
Wrong thread:
WASHINGTON — President Obama’s advisers are focusing on a strategy for Afghanistan aimed at protecting about 10 top population centers, administration officials said Tuesday, describing an approach that would stop short of an all-out assault on the Taliban while still seeking to nurture long-term stability.
(giving up on the countryside)
#
JimJohnson
Posted October 28, 2009 at 6:00 pm | Permalink
Daniel, the American deaths in Afghanistan have increased to record levels in 2009, in case you haven’t noticed.
THAT is the reason for the urgency in Afghanistan. The status quo is no longer acceptable, in my opinion.
————————————————
Gotta bail and watch my daughter in marching band!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
2009 looks like the continuation of a trend.
http://icasualties.org/oef/ByYear.aspx
And do you really expect me to believe that you didn’t notice the 630 American troops that were lost prior to 2009?
He’s going to get creamed in the Election but if the anti war cons are serious they could throw vote his way http://www.schollenberger2010.com/drupal/content/schollenberger-calls-phased-us-withdrawal-afghanistan After I don’t see either Tiahrt or Moran ever voting to bring troops home
American_Way
Posted October 28, 2009 at 6:15 pm | Permalink
Because Bush was a lame duck. Change was coming. What was the point?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Wouldn’t the fact that President Bush was a lame duck have made it easier for him politically to ‘do the right thing’ and bring the troops home before his term of office ended? Wouldn’t you putting pressure on President Bush then as you are now on President Obama *big-azzed-eye roll* been more effective on him since President Bush didn’t have any re-election concerns?
I gotta say, I think you dropped the ball on this one, American_Way!
————————-
That said – at least under Bush – he BELIEVED in the cause. Republicans BELIEVE in strong defense and winning.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Well, if President Bush BELIEVED in the cause as you say he did, why the he11 didn’t he and the Republican controlled Congress put the resources and troops into winning in Afghanistan and why weren’t you pitching a fit everyday that they didn’t?
Anyway, I’m out for the evening. Have a good one.
Daniel,
Bush obviously knew the war was lost from the outset. He didn’t want his resume to read that he’d lost a war, so he postponed the withdrawal until it was somebody else’s problem.
There are lots of arguments for staying, for increasing the troop levels, and for getting the hell out. The President has much more information than I do. In this case, I believe we should leave. However, I will defer to his decision. I just want him to make one other than maintaining the status quo. Get in, or get out.
lj,
Getting in or getting out most likely depends on the results and honesty of the Nov. runoff. We really don’t need any more mistakes like Bush’s.
Jed-
Like I said, I am willing to support his decision on this one way or another. I just want him to make one, and then proceed fully to accomplish it. It may be that he is waiting for the elections….I don;t know. I do know I am unwilling to accept another Viet Nam.
Then
Bush Lied Americans Die
Now
While Obama tries to decide Americans Die
President Obama is now the decider. He needs to.
lj,
You want him to just guess? We already had that administration!
lj,
PS. We already have another Vietnam, and have had since it started. If you’ll remember, it took a long time to extract ourselves from that one too.
Jed-
No, I do not want him to guess. I have already stated my position. I will support him in his…when he makes one. The status quo is not acceptable. He stated all during his campaign he had a better answer. He stated in March he had COMPLETED a thorough review of the situation in Afganstistan. I want him to schitt or get off the pot. And while it may be the Bush hosed stuff tremendously, President Obama wanted the job, campaigned on him having a better answer and got the job. It’s up to him now. Bush can;t help him except in the rhetoric and constant campaigning the President seems to be attached to. If he doesn;t know what to do, then he should listen to the forces on the ground, which have indicated that they need 40,000 more troops. Just do it. Diddledawddling while he tests the wind of the Democratic party is wasting time, and lives.
Sorry Jed-
I was, from the beginning, against the invasion of Iraq. And I was quite vocal about it. Preemptive invasions were, and are, not a good idea.
Mh,
For once I agree with you. Pakhistan is the key,that is the enemies safe have,much like Laos and Cambodia were in Viet Nam. If we want to win this war first Obama HAS to listen to his military experts,give them what they need to get the job done AND make sure bordering coutnries are not a safe zone for the Taliban.
In addition to the increasing death rate in Afghanistan, another sense of urgency is the 2-month old pending request from Gen McChrystal for 40,000 more troops.
Can you imagine what the troops think, waking up every morning wondering when or if additional support will arrive?
The troops know that request has been hanging out there. The troops know that Obama is making comments not of confidence, but of uncertainty.
They gotta wonder if Obama is pulling the plug, and they are fighting there daily for nothing, or if more help is on the way and they are going to press on for victory.
What the he11 are they dying for over there if Obama is going to withdraw everyone? And if Obama is going to withdraw the troops, what the he11 is he waiting for? How many more troops have to die while Obama decides?
If obama continues dawdling on what he is going to do I see a time coming when the troops in the field will refuse to fight because why should they fight and die when ther CINC cant make up his mind what he is going to do.
“it took a long time to extract ourselves from that one too.”
And that really is my point/problem. LBJ was defeated in Vietnam. He was not willing to win. He saw the mood of the country. He didn’t run for reelection.
Militarily, we won the Tet Offensive. Politically, North Vietnam had a stroke of genius and gambled it all. They were close to defeat.
It was how America felt after that. For whatever reason we tired of Vietnam. Too much corruption seen in politics and the war. Maybe too many young people who saw themselves as perfect and naive to the idea of war being truly ugly.
Whatever – we just sort of keep getting troops killed in Vietnam, going through the motions.
Please, don’t do that again.
If Obama says stay: Decide to win! Give military full support, trust their judgement, accept the ugly, and get it done. Balls to the walls.
If Obama says leave: Bring them home.
There really is no in between. You want to nation build? Make a democracy? You want to mold a politic in our own image (as if it’s the right one)?
Stay and train their armed forces to protect themselves? Who is that? The warlords wearing suits? The drug lords? The totally corrupt government, police, and leadership?
Stay and groom “the good” people to lead? Heck, we cannot do that in our own country!!!
Sorry guys, I can’t see a mission.
Pakistan is just an excuse. It’s FINDING a reason. A reason that wasn’t there. The GI’s who died last year, we can say they died defending Pakistan?
Wake up folks: The Pakistan people hate us! By a wide majority.
They are NOT our war. They can have their own civil war.
Nukes? So what? Many countries have them. If/when the Taliban takes over, we go in specifically for the nukes and surgically remove them (this has probably been planned for as a contengency already).
But really – there is no MISSION in Afghanistan to “change” Pakistan. Can’t you see that?
What the he11 you going to tell the privates to do?
“Hey Private!” “Your orders are to WISH the Pakistan people to like us.” “You are to wish the Taliban to be defeated within Pakistan.”
Pakistan cannot even openly acknowledge we are there.
And in 2001, we should have invaded Pakistan for supporting and grooming the Al Queda and Taliban. We didn’t because of the nukes. Instead, we sent billions in bribery money. Yes bribery money.
To say we need to stay and fight and die in Afghanistan to somehow dream or wish an unknown mission in Pakistan is frankly NUTS!
Why not do what the Whiner-In-Chief told the Arab world and muslim world from Eygpt: We are going to STOP INTERFERING IN THEIR AFFAIRS!!! THE BIG UGLY AMERICAN IS GOING TO LEAVE THEM ALONE.
Instead, Obama is more of the same. If you read middle east papers, that’s what they are saying.
Obama
Dawdler
In
Chief
You do not win wars by handing out $20 bills to those who turn around and shoot at you later that same day.
Worked to some degree with the “Sons of Iraq”.
Obama’s supposed to be the Ditherer, bush was the Dawdler, or is it Doodler?
Vietnamese, unlike Al-Queda, did not attack the U.S., and for that matter Vietnam did not provide sanctuary to some organization like Al-Quida, that did.
Can you imagine what the troops think, waking up every morning wondering when or if additional support will arrive?
I’d say after 8 yrs. of waiting, they’re pretty used to it.
If the Afghanies aren’t going to accept Karzi as their legitimate pres., it would be folly to prematurely send over more troops to back him.
“American_Way” gives us –
“Nukes? So what?”
Chalk that up as just another reason why President Obama is a better Commander in Chief than “American_Way” would be.
“Vietnamese, unlike Al-Queda, did not attack the U.S.,”
That’s your excuse? So what’s your mission? Kill them all? Let Gawd sort them out?
Bush offered the Afghanistan government at that time the oppportunity to hand over Al-Queda.
Why? Because Bin Laden and crew planned and attacked us.
That’s a crime right? Isn’t that what you libs want to pursue. A criminal case?
The country of Afghanistan and their people did NOT attack us. No uniform forces. The Taliban, as we probably would – objected to OUR AUTHORITY violating THEIR OWN authority to rule their own country. Their belief system is different from our own. They were not giving up the real bad guys.
So what’s the mission Phantom? Kill them all.
The Taliban includes women and children. The kids grow up with Osama dolls. Osama is a hero. They all want to grow up and kill Americans.
Should we kill every man, woman, and child? ANd pregnant women too?
You can’t give them a trial in a court of law.
So you kill them? For how long?
“Chalk that up as just another reason why President Obama is a better Commander in Chief than “American_Way” would be.”
Yeah sure. WMD will work for OBama.
Besides, Obama hasn’t mentioned staying for Pakistan – nor a mission in Pakistan from Afghanistan.
Only bloggers that I’m aware of.
It makes a nice “cover” story or “excuse” or “reason”.
But it’s a sham.
Pakistan has nukes? So what are YOU going to do about it with the army and Marines on the ground in Afghanistan?
Now, having a little background in the military I think you need a few more troops than 44,000 more to attack Pakistan – or wage a war. You are going to need many, many more. Think sandbox I… Iraq/kuwait…
Now, you ready to do that? And what is your reasoning and logic?
“HEY PAKISTAN, WE ARE GOING TO BUILD UP AFGHANISTAN AND MAKE THEM LOVE US, SO WHEN THEY ARE STABLE OUR LOVE WILL EXTEND TO YOUR FINE COUNTRY”
Waste of human life – for nothing.
“nukes!” “nukes!” So fuqing what?
It’s another Obama emergency cry.
And the sheep can’t even reason through it. No thought process.
“nukes!”
Whatcha gonna do? About them nukes?
American_Way
Posted October 28, 2009 at 9:49 pm | Permalink
Should we kill every man, woman, and child? ANd pregnant women too?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Kill everyone except the pregnant ones. It’s morally wrong to kill a fetus. Hold the pregnant women until they deliver. THEN kill mother and baby.
BTW, let me know when we are planning to invade Iran to stop those muslims from getting nukes. The country where the leader has sworn to destroy another country.
Afterall, they might get nukes too.
Or perhaps North Korea.
Instead, you use Pakistan as an excuse to wage SOME KIND of politically controlled combat in Afghanistan.
But if we are going to kill in AFghanistan over NUKES, surely Obama should be invading these others.
And I’m beginning to think I voted for the wrong democrat. I should have voted for Hillary.
She would have answered the phone at 2 in the morning.
Obama’s left the damn phone ringing for ten months!
AmWay.
Your 107pm post is by far the best post I’ve seen on this war. I too have been to that Wall and also to Arlington,friends I went through boot camp with have their names there and rest in Arlington. I have been to a funeral of a young man killed over there and the anguish I saw on the faces of his parents was heartbreaking especially since my own son came home safely just 2 weeks before.I want nothing more than that the parents of those still serving over there experience the joy and relief I felt when my son came home.
So I guess what I’m saying is bring our troops home ASAP because this country is tired of flag draped coffins.
#
American_Way
Posted October 28, 2009 at 10:00 pm | Permalink
Obama’s left the damn phone ringing for ten months!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
You’d better recheck you math or donndublin is going to accuse of being a filthy liberal arts degree holding LIB.
O.K., I think I’ll tell you guys how I really feel……
but I’m ranting already and a blog hog.
Gnite.
Please at least consider telling your leadership to bring the boys home.
So I guess what I’m saying is bring our troops home ASAP because this country is tired of flag draped coffins.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==
Freebird1971,
I ask this question in the gentlest way possible because the last thing I want to do is show any disrespect towards you or your son.
Was this country tired of flag draped coffins 12 months ago? 24 months ago? 36 months ago?
630 U.S. service members lost their lives in Afghanistan prior to 2009. Were the faces of the their loved one’s any less anguished than the faces of those who lost loved one’s this year? What about the faces of those who lost loved ones the year before or the year before that?
President Obama is condemned for ‘dithering’ since last March while President Bush received no condemnation from those who now condemn the president while he ‘dithered’ for over 7 years.
I just don’t understand it.
Sorry one other follow-up. WSClark once asked me what crop they should grow to replace the drug money farmers get now.
The truth is the farmers get very little money from the production of poppy. They live like slaves on the large property owners (drug lords) land.
My plan discussed the other day would distribute the land to the farmers. Even the price of a bushel of corn or wheat would be MORE than they get from growing poppy and producing the raw Opium.
So to answer Clark: Whatever crop grows in their region as a cash crop.
Daniel (sigh) you live in the past…
You know,people can change their minds. I have tried to provide you with my rationale. My attempt to demonstrate reasonings and sincerity because there is no guarantee for the truth on these blogs. Only peoples personal beliefs.
Why keep questioning ANYone who disagrees with the war?
It is only an attempt to belittle and make them out to be frauds or fakes. There can be no other rational reason for asking over and over again.
State your OWN beliefs and reasons.
If you dare.
And thanks Free. Thanks for your sons service. I’m proud of him and you to learn of it!
#
American_Way
Posted October 28, 2009 at 10:20 pm | Permalink
Why keep questioning ANYone who disagrees with the war?
It is only an attempt to belittle and make them out to be frauds or fakes. There can be no other rational reason for asking over and over again.
State your OWN beliefs and reasons.
If you dare.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I already posted my plan upthread.
I am honestly perplexed by the lack of criticism that President Bush received compared to the amount of criticism that President Obama receives given the amount of time that both men have had to work on a solution to the problem.
Is that so hard to understand?
The only two posters whose motives I question are you and JimJohnson. You have both been very vocal in your criticism of President Obama but quiet as a mouse when the ball was in President Bush’s court.
I just find it odd. That’s why I ask.
Daniel
Tough sheat. You don’t understand.
That surely can’t be a first for you.
American_Way
Posted October 28, 2009 at 10:09 pm | Permalink
O.K., I think I’ll tell you guys how I really feel……
but I’m ranting already and a blog hog.
Gnite.
———————
American_Way
Posted October 28, 2009 at 10:15 pm | Permalink
——————–
American_Way
Posted October 28, 2009 at 10:20 pm | Permalink
——————–
American_Way
Posted October 28, 2009 at 10:21 pm | Permalink
——————–
American_Way
Posted October 28, 2009 at 10:28 pm | Permalink
———————-
American_Way
Posted October 28, 2009 at 10:34 pm | Permalink
———————-
American_Way
Posted October 28, 2009 at 10:38 pm | Permalink
———————-
American_Way
Posted October 28, 2009 at 10:41 pm | Permalink
———————–
American_Way
Posted October 28, 2009 at 10:43 pm | Permalink
———————–
American_Way
Posted October 28, 2009 at 10:44 pm | Permalink
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==
Oh look!
American_Way is pulling a Chas…
Go have another drink, drunky.
??? ??????.