Political Discussions
Why are we sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan?
Posted by JasonJCampbell • 2/18/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: afghanistan, al qaeda, Barack Obama, depression, recession, troops, war
President Obama approved 17,000 more troops for Afghanistan. I'm no military expert but I can't understand why we need more troops in Afghanistan. Why can't we get special opts in there? Why don't we create a new special opts for Afghanistan? Wouldn't that be a quicker, lighter team than 17,000 troops? It just seems that after we get this stimulus rolling, we're going to be undoing everything fighting another war. Wars are expensive and in a depressed economy shouldn't we strengthen our shores first? Shouldn't we be taking care of domestic issues before we tackle international conflicts? It just doesn't make sense. Granted, 9-11 was horrific, but what's the likelihood that al Qaeda will present a greater threat? If the threat is a dirty bomb, we need counter intelligence, a coalition of informants, surveillance, good intell, what we don't need is another trillion dollar war. You can't fight al Qaeda with size, that's exactly what they want us to do. Am I the only one recognizing this? You have to fight them with intelligence. Size is expensive and our soldiers become targets. You can't kill intell, you can't stop intell. Why are we playing by these antiquated rules? Why are we playing by their rules? It just pisses me off to think we're about to engage in another war against the ghost that is al Qaeda. America is so much smarter than this!
User Comments
-
No, you are not the only one. -
Obama is faced with Hobson's Choice. Send more troops or get out of Afganistan. There is no real alternative.
The problem is that the existing troops are unable to hold ground because of limited numbers. They can defend forward operating positions and conduct limited patrols but that is about it. The Taliban are able to move around freely, set ambushes, IEDs and fire on defensive positions. Most importantly the Taliban are free to intimidate the civilian population.
Without providing security for Afghan civilians the objectives of the coalition cannot hope to be achieved.
With the addition of these new troops coalition forces will number 85,000 with the Afghan Army at about 80,000. These numbers are similar to the troop levels that the USSR had in Afghanistan at their peak. Only time will tell if this particular foreign military and diplomatic enterprise in Afghanistan will be successful.-
You make sense. It's just upsetting to know that we're headed back in the same rut. We just can't afford it, but I guess we can't afford to do nothing about it either. Thanks for the feedback. Peace.
-
-
I have my doubts, but I don't actually rule out that further troops might help. They certainly won't be able to "surge" however. This is not Iraq. A few points:
@ polybore "Most importantly the Taliban are free to intimidate the civilian population" - I am sure you know it is more complex than this. For a start "Taliban" now has many faces. Moderate Taliban are providing humanitarian support in some areas and are winning hearts and minds - and let's not forget they are in talks with the AFghan Government as we speak....watch this space for a re-branding of the bad guys!
I think the clue may be in your reference to the USSR.
I think Jason has presented a number of alternatives.-
"Moderate Taliban are providing humanitarian support in some areas and are winning hearts and minds" wow!! If you have any links on this, do share. Thanks. Peace.
-
I'll look for this but it's first hand rather than links at this stage
-
-
I heard stories that in the north where the Talibs have been driven out society is collapsing, people are turning to alcohol, drink driving and rape is becoming a problem - you see there is nothing to replace them with. This was from a very credible source. Nothing is as simple as it seems. I am no fan of the Taleban - but I am a fan of presenting all sides of the story. A couple of stories from a very cursory check:
www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/PANA-7K8FZ9?OpenDocument&RSS20=18-P
www.thelocal.de/national/20090208-17299.html
www.afmonitor.com/2009/02/08/karzai-invites-moderate-taliban-to-return-home... -
There was a post a while back regarding the flag covered caskets not being allowed to be photographed.
I hope for Obamas sake that he isn't planning on lifting that ban. Iraq will seem like Grenada compared to a full out groundwar in Afghanistan.
Maybe he should pick up a history book, or just ask the Russians about that..-
No, it should be up to the families whether or not the casket should be photographed. Bush dehumanized the soldiers by suppressing information and not allowing photos. There'd be a lot more interest in the wars if people had more information and not told to go out and spend, spend, spend as if there was nothing going on out of the ordinary. It's become the business of war. Never has there been so much war profiteering as with the Iraq war. -
Well that wasn't really the point.
And you know as well as I do that it is up to the families to let press attend funerals for instance. Wether we let them onto military installations is up to the government.
Still, Obama is about to get his own personal Vietnam. -
You know I agree with this. We don't have ourselves set up to address this right and I think we are in for a long ride that we may possibly not win. We should have dealt with this in this manner anyway. Still this war has been a nightmare of stupid foreign policy. I think its absolutely stupid to fund who you are attacking no matter what. Stop paying warlords, stop buying oil and make ourselves independent (in a slow transition - not a sudden change). Saudi Arabia is responsible for so many of our problems here and yet we keep paying them for supplying us with so much of our countries oil. Yes lets fund the weapons killing our soldiers. Fight hard not smart! This is absolutely stupid. Stupid stupid stupid. Oh did I mention stupid? Because funding the engine of our own conflict is STUPID. -
It's nothing like Vietnam. The problem with Vietnam was, we were afraid Russia and China would get involved if we advanced too far into N. Vietnam, so there was no winning. There was also a well defined enemy.
We need to do three things in Afghanistan. Clear, hold, and build. That was actually Condoleza Rice's strategy for winning in Iraq during the first few years after our invasion but Rumsfeld won out. After Rumsfeld left, the clear, hold, and build strategy was implemented and eventually, along with other factors, gave Iraq relative stability.
In Afghanistan, we need to provide security first by clearing out al-qaeda and maintaining that security. After that, who the hell knows. It's just a sh*t-hole with a bunch of primitive tribes. Al-qaeda provides some means of employment for these people, even if it does involve the production of heroin. Probably the easiest thing for us to do is go in there and pay the people to dig holes and fill them back in again. At least our military personal wouldn't be endangered. -
Lol @ clear hold and build..
Try that in a terrorists backyard whydontcha.
Clear ok... Hold, not so easy..
Build... get blown up... Build.. get blown up.. build..
You know, the problem is that the terrorists blend into the general population there pretty well.. Unless you are talking about genocide when you say clear. You'll never be able to keep them out of what you've built.
Don't worry. Obama is about to figure it out. Hell, only took the Russians the better part of a decade. -
The thing to do, as we should have done with Iraq, is win the hearts and mind of the Afghan people, which means creating jobs. After they have a vibrant economy, they will want to defend their way of life and will fight al-Qaeda. Or we can just pull out and deal with al-Qaeda with intelligence, which could have prevented 9/11 in the first place. Winning in Afghanistan only means they'll do their terrorist activities out of Pakistan or France or somewhere else.
It's time to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and worry about our own country for a while. Bush had his fun and his buddies proffited handsomely. Now that we have a more rational government, it's time for a little isolationism and maybe even some protectionism. -
How are you going to create a job when everyone entering that business is a probable terrorist?
You can't build an economy when you face suicide bombers capable of hiding in the general population. -
If you can provide a means of earning a living, people will turn against the terrorists. That's what's meant by winning the hearts and minds. But first you have to provide security.
-
Lol, I've bookmarked this thread. I look forward to returning to it in a year or so and see what you have to say.
-
BTW...there are many stories of Iraqis hearts and minds being won over by Americans. However, many Americans just chose to hate Bush, call the Iraq war an "occupation," and not see the many Iraqis that are thrilled to live in a Saddam-free country.
Sure, there are Iraqis that don't see it that way. But I guess if they view brutal dictatorships as beneficial, then so be it. Unfortunately, the killing of innocents are also part of their view.
-
-
I have no idea if he should or should not, but I am rather surprised that those who were so up and arms about Obama being soft on terror and not caring about the fact that there were those out there who want to kill us are now complaining that he is trying to finish what we began but never got to finish in the place we really need to have more stability.-
Finish it great. But doing it the wrong way is going to accomplish the wrong thing. I sadly believe that the death toll is going to be enormous for the American soldiers set to do something like "clear and hold" this terrain.
No one has managed to do it in this terrain in the past. And many have tried. It is not suitable for that kind of warfare at all.
It can be done, by all means, but i don't think that the american people are willing to pay the price to accomplish it. -
And it's not OBL's terrain. So, I don't get it. Unlike Saddam, who was the leader of a country. What "infrastructure" would you need to take down to get to OBL?
-
-
History has proven that holding Afganistan never works well.-
History never proves anything about the future. It just shows what went wrong in the past. Too many variables change over time for history to be all-knowing. If you were to say, on the other hand, that "history suggests . . .", I might be with you. For me, though, the real parallel is Johnson, who watched his domestic political ambitions get hemmed in by Vietnam. I do believe, however, that Obama has the kind of temperament that would let him cut his losses.
Of course, this isn't just about Afghanistan. Pakistan, the Taliban, and nukes anybody? That's one reason why Holbrooke has such a large portfolio.
Edited to add: Anyone surprised needn't be. During the campaign Obama said he would be doing this. The only thing new is that he is going about it more slowly and deliberately than his campaign rhetoric might have led us to expect. -
Slow and steady is not how you win a war on foreign soil. Attrition doesn't favor the invader.
-
You said it mark. I'm not going to guess one way or the other but I hate it when people say history proves...history doesn't prove anything and it is also up for interpretation. History teaches us lessons but it does not mean anything other than that. History is too often used as an excuse. I think it goes without saying that this is about the border - Pakistan, Iran, Terror, and nukes Mark.
If only they give us access to those security briefings, then we'd probably be able to give a more solid opinion. -
@CSI: Who said "slow and steady" was his strategy to resolve the whole war? He just hasn't resorted to knee-jerk reactions as soon as he entered office by dumping troops into the country willy-nilly. Reading his actions as a policy of attrition is premature.
@Cooper: I'm with you on reluctance to express a firm opinion on what the right course of action here is. -
Restated: history teaches that invading Afganistan has never worked well for the invader. Any one arrogant enough to assume we will be the ones to have learned how to invade Afganistan?
-
"Invade" is a pretty loose term that implies this is an either/or proposition. The equation "invade or don't invade = success or failure" simplifies things past the point of usefulness. At issue is the question of concrete goals and what military, political, and economic means Obama plans to use to meet them.
-
-
Interesting piece in the Guardian a few days ago:
"Nato is deeper in its Afghan mire than Russia ever was"
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/14/nato-afghanistan -
What if it turns out the WMD, Mr. OBL, isn't there? Where's the intelligence? Where's the Colin Powell? Where's Congress?
Is OBL killing thousands with chemical weapons? Is OBL funding suicide bombers on missions to Israel? Did OBL mastermind 9/11? I mean that is I guess what is assumed...but where's the reporting on that?-
What if DDI was right and we should beware of the MIC. GWB used the MIC with poor ROI, but hopefully BHO will snuff out OBL.
-
Sati's been watching too much HBO, and probably smoking too much POT too.
-
I worked for the MIC for a while and there was a TLA or FLA for everything.
-
You mean this isn't just part of your usual BS?
-
Is that anything like a TPS report?
-
-
I think that until we wake up and realize that we cannot just go into foreign countries and try to imppose our ideals and thoughts on them, we will continue to be stuck in these kinds of situations where we cannot move forward, nor can we go back without loosing face. I often wonder what the leaders think when Vietnam was such a huge lesson, or should have been. And yes, we need to see that the Russians lost their war in Afghanistan. Havent we asked ourselves why? Are we there only to repeat history instead of learning from it? Our foreign policies, in my opinion, are breeding more possibility of terrorists, not reducing it. Until we learn to respect other countries and keep our fingers our of pots we dont need to stir, we will continue to keep our neck on the chopping block. -
A few significant empires that fell or greatly declined shortly after a costly invasion of Afghanistan:
Greek Empire (Alexander the Great)
Sassanid Empire
Russian Empire
British Empire
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Is there perhaps a lesson to be learned?-
Fight in Afghanistan = bad
Enemy fight in Afghanistan = good
Maybe we can get Iran to attack Afghanistan????
-
-
For God and the Empire!
When first under fire an' you're wishful to duck,
Don't look nor take 'eed at the man that is struck,
Be thankful you're livin', and trust to your luck
And march to your front like a soldier.
Front, front, front like a soldier . . .
When 'arf of your bullets fly wide in the ditch,
Don't call your Martini a cross-eyed old bitch;
She's human as you are -- you treat her as sich,
An' she'll fight for the young British soldier.
Fight, fight, fight for the soldier . . .
When shakin' their bustles like ladies so fine,
The guns o' the enemy wheel into line,
Shoot low at the limbers an' don't mind the shine,
For noise never startles the soldier.
Start-, start-, startles the soldier . . .
If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it's ruin to run from a fight:
So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
And wait for supports like a soldier.
Wait, wait, wait like a soldier . . .
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier ~of~ the Queen!
"The collapse of the Roman Republic, offers a perfect case study of how imperialism and militarism can undermine even the best defenses of democracy, while enthusiasts for the American empire systemically prettify the history of the British Empire in order to make it an acceptable model for the United States today." Chalmers Johnson
The # one issue is our selfishness- our sense of 'superiority' and lack of GENUINE self-less compassion for not only the rest of the world, but for our own neighbors, and our own family-
"We have become a nation of spoiled, impulsive, bratty "Ugly Americans"- who want what we want when we want it, believe the world is our 'footstool' and 'doormat'- and that somehow we are 'above' scrutiny or the need to play by the rules.
i'm speaking in very large 'generalities' here- but that is what i believe is the 'root' problem in everything we say and do- it's become 'all about us'- and 'maintaining our way of living'- maybe, just maybe, we've grown a little to big for our britches? forgotten how to share, and use words instead of weapons, to let the other person have thier turn-
We've lost the ability to TRULY understand what 'need' and 'suffering' means to so much of the REST of this world- and we're in for a 'reconing'-"
Bluerthanblue:
Alas, we now seem to have no choice but to fight till the last man is standing. -
I find already a mistake in your question "wars are expensive and in a depressed economy shouldn't we strengthen our shores first?"... The first question should be like this : "are making war and killing people acceptable for us ?" Then we can ask : "are making war and killing people acceptable for us abroad too ? Isn't it dangerous to play the world wide police, juging others' cultures and developments, bringing the liberty with crime... ? Did not we have a mistake when we became killers on the name of saving ?
Well, your financial question of approaching to the subject of Afganistan is just a secondary question in my opinion because humans are much important than money EVEN if they are are not our race, not our blood, they do not belong to our culture and they live far... -
"Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."--Thomas Jefferson
-
But making war has always been our way of stimulating the economy!
www.hawaii.edu/powerkills//SOD.CHAP13.HTM-
Just like French, English, Dutch, Spanish, Portugal or Belgic colonialisation... and that is true, even after the colonialisation period, they are still rich. When other countries are poorer, it is not the fact of less work but missing colonies from before...
In the meantime, if you choose the way to be rich by robbing others, your richess is rotten and get some other problems later on (immigration, hate and bombs, etc).
-
-
17,000 troops is insufficient. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is a legitimate war for a legitimate reason: to stop aggression and brutality.
greytheory.blogspot.com/2009/03/against-war-in-afghanistan-are-you-high.htm... -
Insufficient, yes they will need at least another full combat division. A corps would be better.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
