Obama considering scaled-down Afghan war plan

Friday 30th October, 06:03 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

8 Comments

adaydream at 11:58 AM JST - 30th October

I'm still interested in just how many they intend to send over. Are there plans to try to end our war in Afghanistan or to continue it till it is a totally democratic nation, just like the US?

Do we fight a war to finish or do we continue it forever? < :-)
timorborder at 01:40 PM JST - 30th October

Great politicians playing soldiers. Just what America needs (like a hole in the head).

In this case, I don't like the direction that the President is leaning in. Before aiming at a bargain-basement approach to the war in Afghanistan, Obama should give his field commanders everything that they want. Scrimping on troop deployments is a recipe for disaster. Shinseki knew it before the Iraq invasion, and Colin Powell admitted it afterwards. If Obama is really serious about applying pressure to AQ and the Taliban, I would suggest he gives Stan the Man everything he wants. Of course, if McCrystal then stuffs up and cannot get the job done, then some consideration should be given to other alternatives.
SuperLib at 03:43 PM JST - 30th October

I don't think anyone really has the answer. The more troops you put in the more you can control, but also the more targets you make for roadside bombs and other type of guerrilla warfare. That's the lesson learned from the Russians. In the end it's probably a question of how many troops you're willing to sacrifice vs. how much control you want to have. You want to hit that minimum number required to accomplish your goals without adding on unnecessary casualties.
timorborder at 03:53 PM JST - 30th October

The more troops you put in the more you can control, but also the more targets you make for roadside bombs and other type of guerrilla warfare.

It is one or the other. Either you commit to this war on terrorism or you shelter in your homes not knowing when S will hit the F. Indeed, I would assume that all the boys and girls in uniform signed off on the willingness to perform hazardous duty. As such, being a target goes with the territory. We shoot them and they shoot us. That is how it goes. If you want to pussyfoot around and worry about the number of kids you are putting into body bags, then perhaps the allies have already lost.
skipthesong at 06:02 PM JST - 30th October

I don't like the politics being played here. I still have friends in the Army and much of what they say is either send more or get us out, especially my friends who all in med.

Obama is trying to play in the middle as the elections are close. He doesn't want to break his very left base but he also wants to not piss the right off. If the elections weren't so close, I believe those guys would have been sent already.

aday: Are there plans to try to end our war in Afghanistan or to continue it till it is a totally democratic nation, just like the US?" I would hope they aren't really trying to bring democracy fully to that region. It would take a long time before it works out there.
Blue_Tiger at 08:08 PM JST - 30th October

After receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, this is not unexpected. what else could he have done?
adaydream at 06:13 AM JST - 31st October

Obama is meeting the Joint Chiefs of Staff today. No matter what Obama may want, he has to go through the Joint Chiefs to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan. If he'd jumped and just named an amount based on McChrystal's assessment, there would be no end to the name calling by republicans and assertions that he didn't talk to the nations military leaders before he acted.

Do we even have the troops to send? I mean troops who are fresh and ready. Troops that are properly trained. Troops with the proper equipment. < :-)
rajakumar at 08:04 AM JST - 31st October

Obama ,Yes ,scale it down to minimum.

This is the way to go,for afghanistan,for improvements in long run for afghans.