Obama makes the Afghan War his Own

[shally]

announced today and reported in the new york times on line www.nytimes.com
President Obama announced he is sending 17,000 more troops into Afghanistan by this summer.

if that doesnt make you a little queasy, i dont know what could.. that country has been a graveyard for invading armies forever.. there is no way to pacify it, and it is horrendously tribal with little central power structure

prayers for the safety of our troops heading into harm's way...

[Biggie]

The problem with Afghanistan is that you can't rule it. The people who live there are going to do what they want and there are too many mountains between Kabul and everywhere else to do anything about it.

[CNYSkinFan]

if you were for the surge in iraq you have to be for this because it is the same strategy. I was not for the war in iraq at all, surge or not. I do believe Afghanistan was the right mmove and now Obama has to pick up the pieces after years of neglect by Bush to spend on the Iraq war. Alot of those troops are coming from upstate NY, and I know a few. I hope they are safe and return home quick. Hopefully this will be a smaller scale surge with more focus on beating back the taliban and restoring order.

[shally]

if you were for the surge in iraq you have to be for this because it is the same strategy. I was not for the war in iraq at all, surge or not. I do believe Afghanistan was the right mmove and now Obama has to pick up the pieces after years of neglect by Bush to spend on the Iraq war. Alot of those troops are coming from upstate NY, and I know a few. I hope they are safe and return home quick. Hopefully this will be a smaller scale surge with more focus on beating back the taliban and restoring order.

to some extent i agree, and to some extent i dont..

the surge worked because we reached a critical mass for suppressing things.
anyone think that 36,000 troops is enough to do the job ?

second afghanistan is a totally different situation. they have a grand tradition of lawlessness and tribalism. they took on the russian army and forced them to leave. unlike iraq which has large flat areas, much of afghanistan is rugged mountains and impossible to get to quickly. they have terrible roads that simply disappear. there are snipers and people with rockets on every ledge or crag.

in iraq, we started out by toppling an unpopular dictator, here we are inserting ourselves in a situation that is completely fluid and has no set alliances. they change weekly depending upon which feudal leader is aligned with which other one.

if we think we are going to nation build in afghanistan, we are in for a rude awakening. basically they want us out of there so they can settle their own scores and grow their own opium poppies

in all likelihood, what we will end up with is a garrison state in kabul, and the rest of the country in perpetual chaos. we can weaken the taliban. they arent particularly popular there.. and we have done it once before. but we cant defeat them, we can only suppress them.. ultimately, we will have to leave them to themselves.

unlike the iraqi's who want a nation (or 3 nations) the afghani's just want all foreigners out of there so they can carry on their tribal alliances. let's face it, a nation that has as it's national game one that involves a form of polo played with a headless goat's body dragged around by horsemen whipping each other
is simply not a place we want to be for long.

the best we can hope for is to hit them hard, suppress the taliban and get out before the remainder of the tribes unite against us. long term order, and a strong central government flies is the face of centuries of history

i dont want any more of our troops sacrificed, and i dont want President Obama brought down by the insescent bad news that is going to come out of there. we cannot afford it as a nation, and he cannot afford to have his efforts distracted from our national problems...

[BurgundyNGold]

announced today and reported in the new york times on line www.nytimes.com
President Obama announced he is sending 17,000 more troops into Afghanistan by this summer.
Good. That's about about 33,000 troops too few and about 12 months behind optimum.

if that doesnt make you a little queasy, i dont know what could.. that country has been a graveyard for invading armies forever.. there is no way to pacify it, and it is horrendously tribal with little central power structure.
Many of the same sentiments were given about Iraq -- myself among them. The key to seeing Afghanistan through to the other side is 1) securing the region for commerce, travel, and 2) cleaning the extremist elements out of the "lawless" tribal regions of Pakistan, where the extremists live and train. The second point is the kicker because Predator drones are only hitting certain areas and can only do so much. Add in the the Pakistani government believes in deal making and placation as its cornerstone policy with the Taliban and others and you're in for the long haul there.

prayers for the safety of our troops heading into harm's way...
Prayers are always a good idea for people in harm's way. Our soldiers certainly deserve them and will always accept them. That said, if you asked them, I'm sure they'd prefer the proper troop levels, equipment, logistical support and political wherewithal to let them finish the job right.

[shally]

Good. That's about about 33,000 troops too few and about 12 months behind optimum.



Prayers are always a good idea for people in harm's way. Our soldiers certainly deserve them and will always accept them. That said, if you asked them, I'm sure they'd prefer the proper troop levels, equipment, logistical support and political wherewithal to let them finish the job right.


that is because it is so seldom that they actually get what the truly need

[RedskinsDave]

I support the troops but not the war.

/sarcasm

[Sweepea436]

I support the troops but not the war.

/sarcasm

:)

[CNYSkinFan]

I support the troops but not the war.

/sarcasm
funny though how so many stalwarts of the Iraq war are no doing just that when it comes to afghanistan.

[shally]

I support the troops but not the war.

/sarcasm

that is what you get when the mission isnt clearly defined and the plan of implementation isnt clearly thought out and carried out..

[dj_stouty]

funny though how so many stalwarts of the Iraq war are no doing just that when it comes to afghanistan.

Funny how the "bring home all the troops NOW" mantra only pertains to the old adminsitration. ;)

I personally think there is some work to be done in Afghanistan; although I hope we have get enough of a presence to get it done.
There are strength in numbers. Half-a$$ing things won't help the situation and will only get a bunch of our soldiers killed.

[CNYSkinFan]

Funny how the "bring home all the troops NOW" mantra only pertains to the old adminsitration. ;)

I personally think there is some work to be done in Afghanistan; although I hope we have get enough of a presence to get it done.
There are strength in numbers. Half-a$$ing things won't help the situation and will only get a bunch of our soldiers killed.
Just remember Obama Never said he was bringing hom troops from Afghanistan. In fact he, and Kerry before him both blamed the iraq qwar was a distraction to the real war on terrror that should be happening in afghanistan.

As a more moderate Democrat (stop laughing Dave) I am finding it funny that some of the more l;iberal in my party are finally paying attention to what Obama SAID during the campaign in stead of what they wanted to hear, espescially on foreign policy. They still would have voted for him because he is still to the left of McCain's dogmatic neo-con philosophy.

Obama is going to suffer the same as Clinton did in his first term when some of the left abandoned him after dont ask dont tell and the failure of national health care. OBama though is better about hiolding on to them so far. We will see.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Just remember Obama Never said he was bringing hom troops from Afghanistan. In fact he, and Kerry before him both blamed the iraq qwar was a distraction to the real war on terrror that should be happening in afghanistan.

As a more moderate Democrat (stop laughing Dave) I am finding it funny that some of the more l;iberal in my party are finally paying attention to what Obama SAID during the campaign in stead of what they wanted to hear, espescially on foreign policy. They still would have voted for him because he is still to the left of McCain's dogmatic neo-con philosophy.


Who are those people? I don't seem to know any of them or even encounter them on the interwebz. All the liberals I know in person or online are perfectly happy for us to focus on the people who actually attacked us on 9/11.

[shally]

funny though how so many stalwarts of the Iraq war are no doing just that when it comes to afghanistan.

do you not give people credit for learning from mistakes ??

[Keino]

Funny how the "bring home all the troops NOW" mantra only pertains to the old adminsitration. ;)

This is not true at all. If you recall (and you can search this forum) nearly everyone supported and still supports our mission in Afghanistan.

[shally]

Funny how the "bring home all the troops NOW" mantra only pertains to the old adminsitration. ;)

I personally think there is some work to be done in Afghanistan; although I hope we have get enough of a presence to get it done.
There are strength in numbers. Half-a$$ing things won't help the situation and will only get a bunch of our soldiers killed.

amen.. amen.. you cant half-a$ this issue..

[CNYSkinFan]

do you not give people credit for learning from mistakes ??
its funny it took you 8 years and only after a new president you are NOW learning from mistakes lol

[shally]

This is not true at all. If you recall (and you can search this forum) nearly everyone supported and still supports our mission in Afghanistan.

not all.. count me as one who supported our mission in iraq, but think that afghanistan is not winnable from the get go.. i have GRAVE reservations that we can accomplish nothing but getting soldiers killed here

if the russians, who have no qualms about brutality, and who didint have to deal with a free press couldnt pacify this area, how to we even think we have a chance of doing it ?

i think we should support those tribes who will work against the taliban and provide them with materials. but i think sending troops in wont work in the short or long term

[shally]

its funny it took you 8 years and only after a new president you are NOW learning from mistakes lol

see my post to Keino.. i think that iraq WAS and IS still winnable..I dont think afghanistan is winnable.. it has nothing to do with who is president.

it is a different war. and even "winning" in afghanistan offers little long term benefit. they will still be lawless, tribal and committed to growing opium.. not at all like iraq

and i havent been a memeber of hR for 8 years, how do you even know what i was thinking 8 years ago ?

[CNYSkinFan]

Who are those people? I don't seem to know any of them or even encounter them on the interwebz. All the liberals I know in person or online are perfectly happy for us to focus on the people who actually attacked us on 9/11.
oh they are out there, believe me. They are the borderline green Nader voters in 2000 and 2004 that switched to Obama. I am not saying there are alot of them, but they are there. The people on the right like to characterize the Dems as peace flag waving sissy boys... it isn't true of course. But the problem is those people exist and so we get painted with the broad brush. Just like all homo-sexuals wicshing to marry are compared to the S&M division of the gay pride parade in commercial after commercial.

[CNYSkinFan]

see my post to Keino.. i think that iraq WAS and IS still winnable..I dont think afghanistan is winnable.. it has nothing to do with who is president.

it is a different war. and even "winning" in afghanistan offers little long term benefit. they will still be lawless, tribal and committed to growing opium.. not at all like iraq

and i havent been a memeber of hR for 8 years, how do you even know what i was thinking 8 years ago ?
Our justifications for both Iraw and Afghanistan were the same, just i n the case of aghanistan it happened to be true. And Afghanistan was going very well until we decided to pull out troops and focus on iraq.

My reasoning for not being in Iraq had nothign to do with mmilitary might and everything to do with us being wrong and doing more harm then good. We stilla re in my opinion. In Afghanistan we have the will of the entire world behind us.

Afghanistan may not be "winnable" but at least we are going adfter the people who actually committed terrorist acts against us, bnot creating more enemies.

[CNYSkinFan]

not all.. count me as one who supported our mission in iraq, but think that afghanistan is not winnable from the get go.. i have GRAVE reservations that we can accomplish nothing but getting soldiers killed here

if the russians, who have no qualms about brutality, and who didint have to deal with a free press couldnt pacify this area, how to we even think we have a chance of doing it ?

i think we should support those tribes who will work against the taliban and provide them with materials. but i think sending troops in wont work in the short or long term
the difference between Russia in afghanistan and us is that there is no US to send modern weaponry and arms in unlimited amounts to the taliban. I guess Iran could send some weapons they get from Russia, but not in the numbers that we did in afghanistan in the 80's.

it's not an apples to apples comparison

[shally]

Our justifications for both Iraw and Afghanistan were the same, just i n the case of aghanistan it happened to be true. And Afghanistan was going very well until we decided to pull out troops and focus on iraq.

My reasoning for not being in Iraq had nothign to do with mmilitary might and everything to do with us being wrong and doing more harm then good. We stilla re in my opinion. In Afghanistan we have the will of the entire world behind us.

Afghanistan may not be "winnable" but at least we are going adfter the people who actually committed terrorist acts against us, bnot creating more enemies.


you sure of that ? i dont think the people in afghanistan are easily identifiable.. i think it is going to get a lot of american boys killed to no end.

it is a wild and lawless region. there are no major urban centers except for kabul and it is mountainous with poor roads.

it is tribal. as soon as one groups ascends, the others unite against it. there are no long term alliances, except to individual tribes

[shally]

the difference between Russia in afghanistan and us is that there is no US to send modern weaponry and arms in unlimited amounts to the taliban. I guess Iran could send some weapons they get from Russia, but not in the numbers that we did in afghanistan in the 80's.

it's not an apples to apples comparison

no nation has ever been able to conquer afghanistan for any length of time in their entire history.. it is the ultimate quagmire. it is arrogance to think we can..

[CNYSkinFan]

Shally I just did a search of all your posts, out of 38k posts the word afghanistan only appears 20 times, most of which when you quoting the post of another person. Never before have you even come close to saying we should pull out of afghanistan even when others were blatently saying we should pull out of Iraq and focus on afghanistan.

Sorry Shally, somehow I think that if President Bush was making this move you would not be so opposed. I find it funny you wait until Obama makes moves in Afghanistan and start a thread about it when you have barely mentioned it in your time on the board. This seems to be the double standard you claim that the left have with Bush.

[shally]

Shally I just did a search of all your posts, out of 38k posts the word afghanistan only appears 20 times, most of which when you quoting the post of another person. Never before have you even come close to saying we should pull out of afghanistan even when others were blatently saying we should pull out of Iraq and focus on afghanistan.

Sorry Shally, somehow I think that if President Bush was making this move you would not be so opposed. I find it funny you wait until Obama makes moves in Afghanistan and start a thread about it when you have barely mentioned it in your time on the board. This seems to be the double standard you claim that the left have with Bush.

i cannot believe you would waste your time doing a word search on my posts ??? you obviously have way too much time on your hands...lol

i think that afgahnistan is unwinnable. now.. i dont think we have the will, or the treasure to carry it out. it has nothing to do with Obama.. for the love of God, i voted for him !!!! you dont think i want him to succeed ?
i think he is going to get sidetracked and distracted by the war.

one other thing, we werent in the kind of economic hole then as we are now (credit W for that as well).. we cannot afford to pour money into afghanistan.

and i didnt say anything until Obama made the call.. i feel i have a right to speak out against something i see as a mistake now..we cant win there, we are just going to experience more sadness and tragedy without accomplishing anything.. especially at the level of trooops we are sending in..

[CNYSkinFan]

i cannot believe you would waste your time doing a word search on my posts ??? you obviously have way too much time on your hands...lol

i think that afgahnistan is unwinnable. now.. i dont think we have the will, or the treasure to carry it out. it has nothing to do with Obama.. for the love of God, i voted for him !!!! you dont think i want him to succeed ?
i think he is going to get sidetracked and distracted by the war.

one other thing, we werent in the kind of economic hole then as we are now (credit W for that as well).. we cannot afford to pour money into afghanistan.

and i didnt say anything until Obama made the call.. i feel i have a right to speak out against something i see as a mistake now..we cant win there, we are just going to experience more sadness and tragedy without accomplishing anything.. especially at the level of trooops we are sending in..
well word searches take a second thanks to the hand hr advanced search button, it's not like i waent and looked up a book.

I was hoping for some clue to your thinking by doing the search. I still don't understand why someone would for the war in Iraq, which has had/has just as many pitfalls as Afghanistan when it was terrorists based in afghanistan that attacked us. When the weight of world opinion was for afghanistan but against Iraq.

I doubt Obama will get sidetracked by the war, but the rearming and build up of Al Queda in afghanistan is a clear and present danger, and if ignored we truly will be hit again. Afghanistan is the true threat, I am not saying we occupy it for 20 years, but I do say we go in and kill as many terrorists as possible, period. That is what we should have been diong for years.

[shally]

well word searches take a second thanks to the hand hr advanced search button, it's not like i waent and looked up a book.

I was hoping for some clue to your thinking by doing the search. I still don't understand why someone would for the war in Iraq, which has had/has just as many pitfalls as Afghanistan when it was terrorists based in afghanistan that attacked us. When the weight of world opinion was for afghanistan but against Iraq.

I doubt Obama will get sidetracked by the war, but the rearming and build up of Al Queda in afghanistan is a clear and present danger, and if ignored we truly will be hit again. Afghanistan is the true threat, I am not saying we occupy it for 20 years, but I do say we go in and kill as many terrorists as possible, period. That is what we should have been diong for years.


from a practical standpoint, i dont believe we can simply go in and kill a bunch of terrorists and leave.. that is naive, and not reflective of the situation there.. it is tribal.. it is shifting.. and it is not winnable in any sense of the word..and certainly not with 36,000 troops

[dj_stouty]

This is not true at all. If you recall (and you can search this forum) nearly everyone supported and still supports our mission in Afghanistan.

I know. I was being snarky; hence the winking smiley.

If we get another 9/11 on our hands thanks to some of the residents of Afghanistan, I think its time we bring out the heavy stuff and keep our foot soldiers out of harms way for a while.

[shally]

I know. I was being snarky; hence the winking smiley.

If we get another 9/11 on our hands thanks to some of the residents of Afghanistan, I think its time we bring out the heavy stuff and keep our foot soldiers out of harms way for a while.

i dont think that is effective either.. the russians tried scortched earth.. it didnt work.. too many caves and hiding places- even with sophisticated weaponry

eventually their body count became untenable

[akhhorus]

i dont think that is effective either.. the russians tried scortched earth.. it didnt work.. too many caves and hiding places- even with sophisticated weaponry

eventually their body count became untenable

Yeah, the solution is to split the Pashtuns from the rest of afghanistan. The Pakistanis consider the Pashtun part of Afghanistan as part of them anyways(which is why they interfere so much), they can have it officially. The rest of the tribes can(and probably will) live together, and we'll hunt AQ with drones.

[Ibleedburgundy]

The key difference between the USA in Afghanistan and the Russian invasion is that we have support from a sizable portion of the people. I would imagine Russia was fighting damn near everyone.

58% say the Taliban is the biggest threat to Afghanistan vs. 8% who say it's the USA.

While our support there has been waning since the initial invasion, the high popularity in the beginning at least shows these people are open minded to us helping them.

Most people cited security as their main concern. Polls among Afghans show a perption of a reduced coalition presence. If the surge helps that, then good.

The poll, conducted by the Afghan Center for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research in Kabul for ABC News, the BBC and ARD German television, found that 47 percent hold a favorable view of the United States, down from 83 percent in 2005, with the steepest drop occurring in the past year.


http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1083a1Afghanistan2009.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/09/AR2009020901368.html

[shally]

The key difference between the USA in Afghanistan and the Russian invasion is that we have support from a sizable portion of the people. I would imagine Russia was fighting damn near everyone.

58% say the Taliban is the biggest threat to Afghanistan vs. 8% who say it's the USA.

While our support there has been waning since the initial invasion, the high popularity in the beginning at least shows these people are open minded to us helping them.

Most people cited security as their main concern. Polls among Afghans show a perption of a reduced coalition presence. If the surge helps that, then good.



http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1083a1Afghanistan2009.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/09/AR2009020901368.html


i dont think we actually do.. we have committed some gaffs like killing innocent people who were mistaken for terrorists

in the end, they dont want us there anymore than they want the russians or anyone else. they want to be free to conduct their opium trade and to settle things among themselves..

they dont like the taliban but they will use them to get at us.. and vice versa..

it is a very bad place for us to be

[Ibleedburgundy]

i dont think we actually do.. we have committed some gaffs like killing innocent people who were mistaken for terrorists



Well I can't make you believe the poll, I can only post it. It is an interesting read though.

in the end, they dont want us there anymore than they want the russians or anyone else.

This is like saying they have no logic over there. They can certainly tell the difference between a group who saved them from the Taliban and a group that savaged them. The Soviets killed over 1 million people, wounded 3 million, and another 5 million fled the country. No wonder they couldn't sustain the support of the people.

While the comparison is a good one on your part, I think the incredibly huge difference in tactics used could be a difference maker.

they want to be free to conduct their opium trade and to settle things among themselves..


From everything I've read, the opium trade is doing quite fine despite our presence.

they dont like the taliban but they will use them to get at us.. and vice versa..


This may be true in some cases. Polls indicate most would rather side with us.

it is a very bad place for us to be

What is the alternative?

[Keino]

i dont think we actually do.. we have committed some gaffs like killing innocent people who were mistaken for terrorists

in the end, they dont want us there anymore than they want the russians or anyone else. they want to be free to conduct their opium trade and to settle things among themselves..

they dont like the taliban but they will use them to get at us.. and vice versa..

it is a very bad place for us to be

So what should we do Shally? Not go there? If G Dub never takes his eyes off the ball, then maybe we are talking about how great it was that he eradicated Al Q.

[shally]

So what should we do Shally? Not go there? If G Dub never takes his eyes off the ball, then maybe we are talking about how great it was that he eradicated Al Q.

honestly, i think we should support the elected government with resources and advisors. we should do everything we can do to make our presence a positive factor including helping them build schools, medical clinics, roads. but i dont think we should be their security apparatus, and it should NOT be upon us to eradicate Afghani's who oppose their government. that is how we got in trouble with the Shah in Iran..

we should encourage them to avoid the opium trade, but the reality is that it would be equivalent to asking Africans to avoid the blood diamond trade.. it is hugely profitable for them. you cant make money selling soybeans or wheat, the way you can selling heroin.. it will always be there

as Akh has suggested, i think we meed to make the pakistani's see it is in their interest to maintain control over their own territorial integrity. but if they cant control it, how are we to do so ?

what will we accomplish by putting combat troops on the ground there ? if i thought it would lessen the chance of an attack on US installations abroad, or
an attack on our homeland, i would be 100% for it.. i just think that the same arguments can be used for avoiding Afghanistan that were used against our involvement in Iraq.. are we helping things or hurting things ? are we REALLY getting after the people who planned and executed 9/11, or are we just going after some bad characters who are making a lot of noise but arent any threat beyond the local area ? i dont have the answers, but i kind of think we are chasing ghosts here

i dont think that Dub could have eradicated AlQ any more than BO will be able to.. it is a loosely held together group of lots of crazies.. maybe taking out Osama helps, but at this point i think they are more than just one man.

i just worry that the cost of blood and treasure is far beyond what we are willing to spend.. and that it is endless. there will always be crazies. there will always be territory that cannot be conquered or suppressed for long. i just feel that this is going to end badly for a lot of people

[shally]

Well I can't make you believe the poll, I can only post it. It is an interesting read though.



This is like saying they have no logic over there. They can certainly tell the difference between a group who saved them from the Taliban and a group that savaged them. The Soviets killed over 1 million people, wounded 3 million, and another 5 million fled the country. No wonder they couldn't sustain the support of the people.

While the comparison is a good one on your part, I think the incredibly huge difference in tactics used could be a difference maker.



From everything I've read, the opium trade is doing quite fine despite our presence.



This may be true in some cases. Polls indicate most would rather side with us.



What is the alternative?

heck, you cant trust polls in ohio, and youre telling me you can trust polls in afghanistan ? please, that is pure propaganda from someone's mill..

[Ibleedburgundy]

heck, you cant trust polls in ohio, and youre telling me you can trust polls in afghanistan ? please, that is pure propaganda from someone's mill..

If you read the poll, it was a pretty good effort on their part considering the dangers involved. And while I would not take their data as absolute fact down to the percentage, I don't think we have anything better to go by at this point.