Obama orders 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 3 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 4 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
Order by Time Order by Popularity
131 Comments
Login to comment
0
Sarge
Better late than never, I guess. The liberals must be dismayed.
0
adaydream
It's a pity that eight years later we're finally doing in Afghanistan what we should have done then. We started out with about 35K and then bush pulled out 18K, leaving a balance around 17K. That decision and that decision alone started the total downhill slide of the war in Afghanistan and the farce of thinking that we could convincingly win a war.
Obama is going to finally put the military personal and equipment into Afghanistan that should have been there. And he's giving a directive that this is limited to results and successes. McKrystal ask for 40K troops and he'll get close to that with the caveat to get the job done and then we're getting out.
John McCain is already whining, but we expected that. There are whiners on both sides already. But what do we do? We either just relent that we'll be in Afghanistan forever or we set a basic time line and success expectations.
I'm for this increase in troops only because we have a directive to get out after 3 years, as ground as action permits.
Now President Karzi get your country in gear and get busy recruiting and training more soldiers and police. < :-)
0
GJDailleult
So the "strategy" here is that they are going to do in less than two years what they haven't been able to do in eight, and because a surge worked in Iraq then a surge will work in Afghanistan. I wonder how many top military guys actually believe that. I would guess not many.
0
adaydream
What is your suggestion GJDailleult? Do we just come home? We just don't fund it anymore and bring the troops home. Or Do we just stay the course? We just keep enough troops to make it appear that we're trying to win when all along we're just extending the end of the war to never.
I'd like to hear your suggestion. Anybody's suggestions. < :-)
0
SushiSake3
"Better late than never, I guess. The liberals must be dismayed."
Yes, dismayed that your country is going ever more bankrupt and that individuals like you think that fighting terrorists is actually important.
0
JoeBigs
You are right Sarge, I remember when "Presidente' for Life Obama" invaded Afghanistan way back in his first term, I think it was around Oct 2001.
Now he is on his 3rd term and now after all that time he decides to send in more troops! Why did we vote him in way back in 2001?
He should have sent 30000 troops way back in 2001! But it took him all this time!
What got me even more mad and wondering why we ever made him Presidente' for life, was when he invaded Iraq! I could not believe he would take all our assets away from the real war in Afghanistan and move it to Iraq!
Wow I just wish we would have had that other guy as President back then....Now what was his name? Oh yeah, G.W. Bush.....
I am now certain that if W was President way back in 2001 he would never of attacked Iraq when the real fight was in Afghanistan! Too bad W was not the President! LOL
Love those alternate far right time lines....
Revising history to suit your side is so much fun, isn't Sarge.....LOL
Honestly, if Bush and Cheney would have never moved our assets away from Afghanistan we would never be in this mess.
If they would have taken care of business way back when we would not be in this mess.....
But of course the far right is trying to place blame with President Obama instead of accepting their responsibility for this mess.
0
sfjp330
Apart from the question of strategy, how long can U.S. sustain a deployment of 100,000 troops, the funding, and the public's casualty tolerance If the U.S. presence in Iraq is cut by two-thirds over the next year, the U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan would be about 125,000, more than President Bush deployed. To support that number, a force twice as large would be constantly either preparing to deploy or recovering. Thus, half of US ground forces would be committed to Iraq and Afghanistan for the indefinite future, while Afghanistan emerges as the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid. An effort of this size enjoys domestic support if the public thinks we're going to win and Congress, the White House and the pundits line up behind the policy. These conditions are already fading. The Administration would be wise to consider a glide path to lower casualties and reduced spending over several years.
0
sabiwabi
Oh dear! Why is the US there again. Oh yeah, its to get OBL and his friends, because the Taliban did not want to hand them over without seeing the evidence first.
Obama is just more of the same we got with Bush. He just talks a little better.
0
kwatt
What a good news! I wonder how many more US soldiers are sacrificed there.
0
M51T
Obama has to sell this with a focus on getting Osama Bin Laden. You don't hear his name that often in the news anymore.
The Soviet-Afghanistan and Iraq-Iran conflicts took eight years too, and it seemed they had forgotten what the hell the point was and called it quits.
0
adaydream
Next big topic where it comes to the war. How do we access the new war tax? Somebody's got to pay for it. We've got 8 years of Afghanistan and Iraq Wars on credit card right now.
At least Obama is funding the war from within the budget, not some special bill each year. < :-)
0
Foxie
Since there are no real war goals, one can neither win or lose but only withdraw or just keep on going forever. Suggestion: make yourself the moral winner and move out more or less in pride. The corrupt Karzei clan, warlords and drug lords of our choice, should be given as many weapons as possible so that they can deal with the Taliban alone and get the issue under control. Leave Afghanistan to Afghans, and finally take care of your own problems - there are quite enough.
0
tkoind2
"The liberals must be dismayed."
Sarge we "liberals" are often pretty well informed people. It is clear that the danger the Taliban pose to stability and peace in the region requires global intervention and help. Afterall the war was started by Bush and we cannot simply walk away without substantial downstream blow back.
If we are stuck there to assure that the spread of the Taliban is curtailed then the president has no other choice but to take strong steps. I think most of us understand this while also understanding that our approach must be focused more on winning over the people through economic opportunity and security as the key to turning the tide. And that Pakistan must be stablized, which is only possible with greater Afghan stability.
So as a liberal, I am hoping to see this happen. But I am equally realistic about the difficulties faced there. I am against war in nearly all cases. But I am equally passionate about doing the right thing. We started this war, we have no choice but to see it through. Hopefully with the wisdom to do things right.
An Afghan I met in Turkey told me "You cannot build another man's house. You can take up your hammer and help him. You can teach him better ways to build. And you can show your friendship and encouragement. But he must build his house on his own to truly appreciate it."
This is very true. We must provide security so that Afghans and NWFP Pakistani's can build their own lives and economic futures. We can teach them, offer friendship and provide tools. But in the end they must do the core work alone. Our goal in Afghanistan must be to provide the security to allow this to begin, the tools and money to make it possible, the teachers to offer advice and then let Afghans build something they can invest their loyalty and devotion to. When this happens, the Taliban will no longer have support and many of their members will defect to start to build their own futures too. This is the only solution to that regions problem.
0
The758
This war sounds like a hot potato that the next few presidents are going to keep chucking around.
0
skipthesong
How do we access the new war tax? " I'd rather pay for that then paying for some stupid fish and then having farmer's water cut off to save it and instead of bailing out companies who should have been allowed to fail.... We've been paying for many stupid organizations like Acorn (who I have donated money in the past to) with credit cards as well... and you are not upset about that. Stop watching Ed on NBC!
0
sfjp330
tkoind2 at 10:07 AM JST - 2nd December Our goal in Afghanistan must be to provide the security to allow this to begin, the tools and money to make it possible, the teachers to offer advice and then let Afghans build something they can invest their loyalty and devotion to. When this happens, the Taliban will no longer have support and many of their members will defect to start to build their own futures too. This is the only solution to that regions problem.
I disagree. This will never happen. Most people agrees that it's crucial for U.S. goals for the Afghan government to function, that's about where ambition stops. Anything better would be nice but not necessary. Afghanistan is 176th out of 180 on corruption perceptions Index.
0
Beelzebub
You left out the part that went, "And then since this is the way things are done in Afghanistan, I and my comrades will demolish it with explosives."
0
Wolfpack
Given the opposition on his Left, President Obama did about as well as he could with his surge decison tonight. Conservatives will overwhelmingly support the surge with just a bit of whinning over Obama's drawdown talk after a few years. However, he did leave his options open by saying the withdrawal will depend upon conditions on the ground (sounds a little like Bush on that point). Although he won't admit it, Obama has learned from Bush's surge in Iraq and he apparently hopes to be able to follow the same path in Afghanistan.
Now that Obama has made this decision, it's time for Americans and hopefully America's closest allies to come together to get the job done. I hope that NATO can come up with at least 10,000 additional troops to support the surge.
0
sailwind
“The way that you win wars is to break the enemy’s will, not to announce dates that you are leaving,” McCain said later.
Pretty much all that needs to be said about this his plan.
0
Beelzebub
As I recall that's exactly what happened to Mr. McCain -- his will was broken through prolonged residence in the Hanoi Hilton. And America's will was likewise broken through the country's realization that Vietnamese would never stop fighting. Compared to 55,000 American combat fatalities, they lost 3 million dead. One historian wrote that transposed against the ratio of Vietnam's population at the time, the 3 million casualties would have been the equivalent of about 26 million dead Americans.
0
tclh
If John McCain is right then things will be relatively calm to weirdly calm for the next 18 months...AQ ,Taliban may just eat, sleep ,gone missing for that period.
0
bushlover
Glad to see Obama stepping up to the plate and I'd like to thank all that voted for him. Nothing like duping people then towing the line all along. The Prez sure is smart. More than I can say for those who voted for him hoping on flowers to bloom in the hills of Afghanistan and all the troopies to come home accomplishing nothing.
0
Ranger_Miffy
Where is the Obama I elected? I say: troops out and Peace Corps in.
0
medievaltimes
Americans (as a nation) dont have the patience to win the war in Afghan. They cant be bothered. They are too caught up in watching American Idol and worrying about Jon and Kate.
They got their butts kicked in Iraq by a bunch of guys wearing flip flop shoes with IEDs. The bad dudes didnt have airplanes. They didnt have aircraft carriers. They didnt have tanks.
Something is very wrong with the state of the American military.
0
Proffesor
The Art of War
"To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting..."
0
yokomoc
"Where is the Obama I elected? I say: troops out and Peace Corps in."
You mean the Obama you thought you were electing? He was quite clear, as far as I recall, in stating his plans during the campaign to redirecttroops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Maybe the only deception is in your head?
And the Peace Corps? Hippies in a warzone? Are you serious?
0
dano2002
media - america demolished the iraq military in 2 weeks. the problem was and is morons blowing up kids eating ice cream in crowded market places. I would be interested to know how any military could win in this case. there is really no defense against this.
iraq - give up like women. run and hide. take off uniform. build IED bomb. go blow up women and children eating ice cream.
0
WayneRooney10
Mr Obama, looking very BushCheney right about now!
0
OgieDoggie
What happened to all the ANTI WAR demonstrators that were following Bush around for the last two years of his presidency? We haven't seen or heard from them for the past 10 months. One week before Obama was elected he said that the first day in office he would get with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Bring the Troops Home - so what Happened? So moving the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan is his definition of Binging the Troops Home?
Having lived through the Vietnam War I can tell you right now that this is just a repeat with the same results - American troops dying for NOTHING!!!
0
smithinjapan
tkoind2: I love what your Afghan friend said, and it's right on the mark. The goal of the US there is not to build and keep Afghanistan standing, it's to aid them in the building and support them while THEY keep it standing themselves.
Yes, much of what Obama has said here is following along some bush regime lines, but lest we forget it was bush, not Obama, that started this, and Obama, not bush, who must see it through. What's more, the current president has a withdrawal plan, the former just went in with no plan at all.
I want all troops out of there ASAP, and even while I think ultimately the Taliban will bide their time no matter how long the US is in Afghanistan, they will definitely take it back if tomorrow if the US walked out today.
'“The way that you win wars is to break the enemy’s will, not to announce dates that you are leaving,” McCain said later.'
And the old Song-Bird would know, wouldn't he? It's not 'announcing withdrawal dates' that hurts a person's chance of success; it's internal opposition to the withdrawal dates and announcing that the dates themselves will embolden the enemy that actually gives rise to the enemy's conviction. Unity of the matter, even if it's "We will leave in two years after finishing the job" would show the enemy that you are committed to the task -- not bickering and whining like McCain/cheney to show that you cannot agree.
0
numbskull
Man, anyone saying Obama promised an immediate pullout really ought to provide us with a link. The article above refutes that and so does this one: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Democratic-Presidential-Candidate-Barack-Obama-Says-He-Would-Increase-Troop-Numbers-In-Afghanistan/Article/200807315035467?f=rss
Anyone who voted for him for that reason is clearly a fool.
That figure is truly amazing. What it tells me is that America is not doing what it takes to win in Afghan. We are just dropping bombs like its WWII. It won't win a guerilla war. For that and many reasons, I would have supported a guy who promised to get us out of their a.s.a.p. If there was such a man, he was not Barack Obama.
But I do think Obama was the best choice of the two, if we are going to call two a choice!
0
sailwind
Nope......A.Q started this on Sept 11th least you forget.
0
WMD
Why the hell is america in Aghanistan??
0
numbskull
Nope. Huh-uh. The reason we are still in Afghan is because of the Taliban. It was the great idea of the Bush admin to not only smash AQ, but to replace the Taliban which was no dream, but at least keeping Afghan stable. We remain in Afghan mainly for that purpose. Remember, Bush stopped caring about bin.
The Taliban and the country of Afghan were not behind 9-11. The Taliban deserved to be pushed aside so we could get to bin and AQ, but its not like they really knew what AQ was planning and its not like they used Taliban built jets and box cutters to do what they did. So why did not get bin and AQ and just leave? I mean I was never a fan of the Taliban but no other Afghan group is much better and in some ways, worse.
But Bush set the course. I understand people supporting Obama keeping it, but I don't agree.
0
ashika1009
Terrorist spiderholes in Afghanistan should be fumigated.
0
KobeKid
Bueller?
0
KobeKid
and also remind everyone of the epic fail that was Bush/Cheney
0
skipthesong
experts alert*** Question, why even announce this? Why tell the world what you are going to do? you are just basically getting the enemy ready to make plans. reminds me when we were building up in SA.. We had the news telling everyone what were going to do!
0
DickMorris
Obama, you try and appease the military by addinbg extra military, but and it`s a big but , you will cut and run after 18 months you cowardly buffoon.
This war may take 50 years as Pres Bush stated, you can`t just say we will start to withdraw after 18 months. Obma is insane and his judgements have no basis with reality.
0
KobeKid
Dick Morris I'm your biggest fan! Stephen Colbert ain't got nothing on you. Keep up the good work. Somewhere, Papa Bear is smiling ;-)
0
USAFdude
numbskull -
And the Taliban were aiding and abetting AQ, so that's where we went. Yep. Uh-huh.
DickMorris -
"Cut and run" is no longer an applicable catchphrase for Republican propaganda. Do try to keep up.
As for President Obama, we in the US military are thankful to have President Obama's excellent leadership; just ask any of us.
0
DickMorris
KObeKid; Glad you appreciate my fair and balanced view. Actually i will be in Kobe on Friday to go to Ikea, my wife loves it.
back on topic, i stand by my views that this is a token gesture by Obama and he wants to quit all military liberations. USAFdude; Sorry buddy , but you are sounding like President Carter, only Republicans show dedicated support to our military.
Afghanistan will be anoth Vietnam, because Obama is too chicken to stay the course. We will be like the Soviets and leave the nation in chaos to breed more evil doers. Obama`s statement is a sad day for America.
0
sundoor
Obama is just a continuation of Bush. Nothing has changed. A velvet glove has been slipped on over the iron fist. See past the left/right paradigm.
0
USAFdude
DickMorris -
ROTFLMAO! Then explain why the vast majority of the US military voted for President Obama.
So then, you DON'T want justice for 9/11, huh? Glad you don't serve.
0
DickMorris
USAFdude; The majority of the military voted McCain and want to stay in Afghanistan until the job is done, FACT!!!!
0
USAFdude
Prove it.
0
DickMorris
USAFdude; Thanks for not even mentioning my name (usual Lib i guess).
Fox News polls have reported that the majority of military folk voted Republican and do not approve of O
0
numbskull
I don't understand where you are going with that. Its totally in agreement with what I said, unless you are suggesting the aider and abetter deserves more attention than the actual criminal?
We went for AQ and especially bin. But without getting bin our president declared he was not worried about him and we focused on building Afghan (I hesitate to say rebuild because you don't really rebuild a pile of crap).
0
USAFdude
Numbskull -
My statement questions your rebuttal of sailwind's statement:
0
USAFdude
DickMorris:
I'd rather get my information first-hand (i.e. speaking with my US military colleagues) than by such a questionable "news" source as Fox. But, to each thine own.
0
Sarge
"a pledge to begin withdrawing American forces within 18 months"
What if the Taliban/terrorists can wait out the American forces for another 18 months ( it's already been 8 years ) and regroup?
"the vast majority of the US military voted for President Obama"
Maybe you and your buds voted for him, but "the vast majority" did not vote for him. At any rate, 6 in 10 servicemembers are uncertain or pessimistic about their CIC. Check it out at militarytimes.
0
shanabelle
18 months!? Yeah right. You'll be lucky if you get out in 18 years. Kicking the hornet's nest of mad extremists once again. The Taliban will play the waiting game, and cannot be weeded out I'm afraid.
0
Sarge
"You'll be lucky if you get out in 18 years."
Not if Obama turns on the charm and gets the Chinese to contribute 30,000 troops.
0
DickMorris
Sarge; Great post buddy. I saw 65% do not trust Obama and his military strategy, yet we have some fans of his stating the opposite!! Beyond belief.
Afghanistan has become another Vietnam due to Obama
s dithering policies and cut and run policies. Many more brave soldiers will die solely due to Obamas policies, darn shame.0
bushlover
The Taliban allowed Bin Laden and his band of merry men to use the country as a base for their terrorist training camps. So They knew full well what they were up to. The Taliban will have to suck it up to have become the newest Khmere Rouge. That's why we are there. Denying a base to these criminals and if the Taliban don't like it well too bad. They by allowing terrorists to train there have already declared war on us, the west. I support staying as long as it takes to keep denying them that base and hope but doubt that some kind of true democracy may take roots at least. I just wish organizations that have mandates to "protect" human rights would step up to the plate to legitimize it to the world that we are 1 for all and all for 1.
0
bushlover
Therefore I support Obama's surge and hope that it has some difference in this fight. But we cannot predict the future so it'll just have to be written day by day.
0
USAFdude
Sarge, Give me a source for your claim that isn't almost a full year old. You know I'm too sharp not to catch something like this. Sheesh, keep up!
DickMorris, Sorry you have so little faith in those of us who protect your freedoms, but we won't let you demoralize us. Just sit back at watch us emerge victorious under President Obama's excellent leadership. You're welcome.
0
Sarge
Dude, give me a source for your claim.
0
USAFdude
Sure I can. Just come to Ramstein and I'll show you firsthand. Any takers?
0
USAFdude
Sorry to have backed you into another corner, Sarge. xD
0
DickMorris
USAFdude; You are the one in the corner. Patriots vote Republican.
Obama is a poisoned talice who will make Afghan istan another Vietnam with his cut and run policies.
This war will take decades not 18 months, anyone who believes otherwise is living in a fantasy land.
0
KobeKid
USAFdude,
DM is in full Stephen Colbert mode, just let him go.
skipthesong,
I am by no means an expert, but here's some interesting comments on other sites about the presidents speech.
I think his message was very clear - to the military. They wanted more - they got it - faster than they asked for. He has now placed the full burden of victory or defeat at the hands of McChrystal and Petraeus, for he has set a timeline within his term of deciding their fates regarding success or failure - something that is rarely done in presidential politics. Bravo!
as far as the Taliban are concerned,
I love the time line that Obama has proposed for withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan. Crafty. The neocons (McCain for one) are already saying that it gives comfort to the enemy, that they will just wait until we leave and then attack again. And the reason this is bad is what?
I think the hope of the White House is that the Taliban will lay low. If the Taliban want to wait until we leave, perhaps there is time for the Afghans to train and begin to defend themselves. If the Taliban attacks, there are enough troops to counter their attacks and weaken them by attrition. A win/win for us.
0
nandakandamanda
They are easier to identify and hit when they are in power, blowing up World Heritage sites, barbarically cleansing ethnic minorities, shutting down girls' schools etc., etc.
Last time they were attacked, they picked up and ran faster than you could say "Boo".
Now they come in from the countryside, hit and run, changing guise into 'innocent civilians' whenever the going gets tough.
Maybe it's time to let them come back into power and identify themselves again. Come on, Talibs! You really want political power? Come and get it!
0
bushlover
Ohhhhh.... Nandakandamanda, you're starting to turn me on. Stop all that conservative neocon talk.
0
SuperLib
I think it would be great for the Taliban to lay low until US troops leave. Then we can have the well trained Afghan forces take over so they can kill each other and leave us out of it.
He's already stated that he knows his claim is wrong. The key to his position is that he doesn't care that he's wrong. You're not debating with data, you're debating against an illogical mind.
0
adaydream
Obama didn't have too many options pertaining to Afghanistan. He could either stay the course and do nothing except replace and rotate, the same thing bush did. Or he could find some way to put this war to an end.
One reason Barack Obama was elected was that he said he'd find an end of the Afghanistan War. John McCain only talked about continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Barack Obama talked about getting out honorably.
These wars have to end. We don't have the money to pay what we've spent already. Where is the money coming from to continue fighting another 10 years. Setting a time frame with objectives and expectations to end this war in about 2 years will cost us so much less.
This is the kind of decision that I elected Barack Obama for. I elected his to end this war and change the way we're doing business. < :-)
0
nandakandamanda
Obama pulling out of Afghanistan is like pulling out of a relationship without hurting the other person. You know it's right to pull out, the quicker the better, but in order not to hurt the other person and not get killed in the process, you need to spend quality time giving lots of support and love first in order to float your boat.
0
yabits
When you are fighting an enemy for whom death is a road to better things, their will is nearly impossible to break. That's why Afghanistan has been the graveyard of empires.
0
USAFdude
Sorry adaydream - I meant to say that I agree 100% with your statement. Extremely well put.
0
nandakandamanda
yabits, the same could be said of the Romans fighting the Celts/Druids.
Afghanistan has been the graveyard of Empires, yes, but the Taliban are a southern ethnic Pashtun grouping that have no real legitimacy to rule the whole country except the doubtful legitimacy of the sword of terror. The supporting nations there are not trying to rule Afghanistan, but to get it to stand on its own two feet. A moderate, human, Islamic nation, welcomed by the world, as opposed to a fanatical, extreme, violent Islamic cult enclave, fomenting rebellion in the region.
To illustrate what you are saying however, did you ever see that movie about the Russian tank fighting the Mujaheddin, called "The Beast", 1988?
0
DickMorris
USAFdude; Making provacatibe points from mom
s basement is hardly an endorsement for Obamas cut and run policies.The war in Afghanistan is estimated to last up ton fifty years by Republican experts not i repeat, NOT 18 months. This is not a video game, it is reality. this is a long term mission to destroy the evil doers, stop heroin production and secure the needed pipeline through Afghanistan.
Obama is blinkered and naive. We must destroy the bad guys, and stay as long as it taks to secure peace and a civil society in Afghanistan.
0
kendoka5
the only way to "end" the current conflict is to destroy the taliban safe haven in waziristan (northwest pakistan). since this area is "off limits" to us, the enemy will continue to launch hit and run attacks. this is similar to how the north vietnamese used cambodia and laos as staging grounds for attacks into south vietnam. fighting a limited war will leave you with limited results. until we have boots on the ground in waziristan (not just special forces or predator drones),we'll continue to have this discussion.
0
RomeoRamenII
Let's see: 30,000 troops over a six months period beginning in January 2010. And best of all let the Taliban (or, Tally-bon as Obama calls them) know we are withdrawing in 2011.
Brilliant! always good to let the enemy know your intentions and movement plans. Imagine if FDR gave a Fireside Chat in early 1944 and said we're going to land the Big Red One at Normandy in June and they'll go home in 45.
Time to bring our guys and gals home before this administration kills them all. Obama did as all politicians do; he straddled the fence. Tried to provide the minimum coverage to the field commanders and also give his left-wing backers/financers something to hang on to. It wouldn't surprise me to see McChrystal and Petraeous decide it's time to retire before all they worked for is destroyed by this crowd.
0
KobeKid
General Petraeus responds, I agree with General McChrystal that the situation in Afghanistan is "serious," but the mission is "doable." Needless to say, the tasks there are and will remain exceedingly challenging, complex, frustrating, and downright difficult. But we need to do all that we can to ensure that Afghanistan does not once again become a safe haven for Al Qaeda as it was before 9/11. The President's policy establishes a clear mission (on which Secretary Gates will elaborate in his testimony) and provides the resources to accomplish it. We need to get the extra US and NATO/non-NATO coalition forces to Afghanistan as quickly as we can -- and that's what we'll endeavor to do.
0
RomeoRamenII
Gen. McChrystal will get half the 60,000 to 80,000 troops he originally requested. Why listen to a 4-star general whose boots are actually on the ground when we've got a community organizer with zero military experience telling us how to successfully fight a war?
0
Madverts
"Why listen to a 4-star general whose boots are actually on the ground when we've got a community organizer with zero military experience telling us how to successfully fight a war?"
Gee ramen, it certainly didn't other you when Bush Co were replacing generals that wouldn't say what they wanted them too.....!
0
adaydream
RomeoRamenII
And who started this war? Who left Afghanistan with a fraction of the original troops to start a war in Iraq? Who allowed, by their decisions, Ossma bin Laden get away? Who refused to send troops to Afghanistan and Iraq for years when the generals on the ground begged for them and his response was to "Stay the course?"
Obama has taken the reins of two wars that were poorly planned and run by inept leaders and is running them with advise from knowledgeable and experienced military leaders, not those looking for profits from the war.
I guess we'll see as the troops start leaving Iraq if his plans are right. And in 2011 we'll see how the generals in Afghanistan, on the ground, execute the plans and directives given to them. < :-)
0
Good_Jorb
Work welled when Bush announced there would be a surge in Iraq before there was a surge.
Their work destroyed? Afghanistan has been a failure almost since the beginning of the war because they has never been the adquate troop levels to get the job done. So why would McChrystal and Petraeous leave when nothing has really changed, that would be very unusual.
0
LIBERTAS
Obama orders 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, many of whom will die for a lie.
0
ashika1009
http://www.spiegel.de/international/ On the German take on Obama`s Afghan policy.
0
ashika1009
What`s the lie, Libertas? Please explain your pithy line in more detail.
0
ashika1009
The article starts this way:
Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught. By Gabor Steingart more...
0
ashika1009
Now what do do? Dilemma? This article is by a "real" journalist from a famous publication and has no praise for Obama. What to do? What to do? Oh the humanity!
0
jamydodge
You have to living under a rock or short of a few brain cells if you don't see that this is all based around oil, money and maintaining cough stability in Middle East i.e. keeping Israel on top of things. Don't get me wrong I do indeed believe the Taliban are good for nothing clowns and need a boot up the ass. But to believe that and maintaining world peace against the evil all destructive terrorists. Is well just sad and ridiculous.
0
numbskull
My rebuttal was sound enough. We have been fighting AQ since the original WTC bombing in 93. 2001 triggered full scale retatliation. But full scale retaliation and the continued occupation of Afghan are two totally different things. One I supported, the other I did not. Long term occupation of Afghanistan was never necessary. Bush started that.
0
Sarge
"What's the lie, Libertas? Please explain your pithy line in more detail."
He/she can't.
0
Sarge
"It seemed like a campaign speech"
Obama's still campaigning.
0
sabiwabi
Oh dear! The US invaded Afghanistan to get OBL and his friends, because the Taliban did not want to hand them over without seeing the evidence first. The thing is, there is NO evidence OBL is behind 9/11.
Obama is just more of the same we got with Bush. He just talks a little better.
0
bushlover
Obama's just trying to show up GW Bush. So far so good. And he's a gooder speaker...
0
yasukuni
Well done Obama.
0
yokohamarider
This clown of a "president" is so in over his head all, he can do is have people write his speeches and then read them from his tele-prompter in his typical "I am greater than thou" condescending tone. Notice how the cadets at West Point have no passion for this guy - they know when someone has their interests at heart and it surely isn't the man-child Obama. Americans who voted this jerk into office must be kicking themselves now. The presidency has descended to an all-time low.
0
yasukuni
Obama is no clown. There are no easy answers to the problems facing the US and the rest of the world.
0
WilliB
He sends in more troops and at the same time already announces the departure in summer 2011.
This is a totally ridiculous attempt to satisfy both sides -- a purely polical compromise which is doomed from the start.
What a sad situation for the poor military guys who are sent in to get shot at, knowing alredy it is a failed mission.
0
lostrune2
Doesn't seem to be a hard deadline, but we'll see.
The Taliban could wait it out, but that could work on the US's favor. While the Taliban waits it out, the US can get a quieter period to afford diverting more resources into training the Afghan military and police, improving the Afghan infrastructure and economy, and even stabilizing Afghan politics and government. So while the Taliban waits, the Afghan forces become stronger and stronger. So time could work on the US's side.
Nevertheless, the majority of American people are now against the war in Afghanistan. No future US president, including Obama, will be voted in based on extending the Afghan war much further, much less decades.
0
WilliB
lostrune:
Yeah, right. What was impossible in the last 8 years, will now be mysteriously be possible in 18 months... while the end of the effort is already been announced.
The level of gullability required to swallow this talking point beggars belief.
0
KobeKid
Defense Secretary Robert Gates answers WilliB
On the Hill today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates made clear that for his part, he accepted the choice to name July 2011, however tentatively, because a date is necessary as leverage on the Afghan government, to force more active participation by Kabul in the buildup of Afghan security forces.
0
KobeKid
the previous administration never committed the necessary troops or resources required to finish the job, this other place called Iraq and the pursuit of non-existent WMD's sucked all the air out of Afghanistan.
The President is giving Gen. McChrystal and Gen. Petraeus what they said they need to get the job done.
0
WilliB
Kobekid:
And how do you define "finishing the job"? I bet you can´t answer that as little as Obama.
Fact is, by giving a deadline, he has now made any more effort in this already failed adventure even more absurd.
All the Taliban commders need to do now is to remind the villagers that the Americans will be gone in 18 months, while the Taliban is still there.. and watching and remembering.
Who would you side with?
0
Sarge
"The President is giving Gen. McChrystal and Gen. Petraeus what they said they need to get the job done."
McChrystal said he needs an additional 40,000 troops.
0
DickMorris
Great post Sarge. Obama does not have a clue about anything. He is destroying our healthcare and our liberations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Taliban will return in 18 months, mark my word,and their tyranny will come back to haunt us. Be afraid free world, be very afraid!
0
SuperLib
The US can't order Europe to send more troops, lad.
0
KobeKid
how about capturing or killing Bin Laden for starters, and then having a trained and equipped Afghan army to defend themselves. Did you even watch the speech? The president is giving Gen McChrystal what he asked for to implement a successful COIN strategy. The odds are long that this will work in my opinion, but looking at the bag of garbage the president was handed when he took office, this is the best option.
0
WilliB
The German "Spiegel", which is generally leaning towards the "liberal" side in US politics, put it spot on:
One didn't have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama's speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.
0
WayneRooney10
Mr Obama is going the Bush route!
0
WilliB
WayneRooney:
Bush, for all his faults, was not stupid enough to actually announce a timetable for withdrawal, so no.
0
KobeKid
it's just one soldiers opinion but it is from someone on the ground and actually in the game, here is an e mail sent to a prominent political blogger,
"Anyway, I'm now in Kandahar, working for Stan. That Stan.
I was anti-Iraq. Beginning to now, in the US and in Anbar with a gun in my hand. I was anti-Afghanistan ... the Bush/Rummy version, after about week six. So ... here's my tip:
We're going to win this one. We have a plan. I call it C2. COIN and cordwood. We're trying to learn counter insurgency, while at the same time, we're stacking insurgent (the only accepted term at the moment) bodies like cordwood. They've gotten a little bit afraid, and are growing more so every day. The relatively fast 30k is going to relatively quickly change the picture, in noticeable way, in Helmand and Kandahar. We're booting the Canadians out of command of Kandahar City. Omar's town. We're putting a bright, smart, tough, funny Brit 2 star in charge of RC South, where the battle really matters.
Obama has taken some huge brave risks; but they're smart risks, and we're going to prove him right."
0
seijichuudo9sha
Kobe kid, that was an absolutely great email. I found the same one at Andrew Sullivan's site. Just cos he is gay and british and was never in miltary uniform doesnt mean Andy doesnt understand warfare.
0
KobeKid
Seiji,
I don't know how well Sullivan understands warfare, but this soldiers e mail gives me some hope and I put a lot more stock in it than Der Spiegel.
0
Blue_Tiger
And this from a man who STILL won't admit the same kind of strategy worked in Iraq when insituted by his predecessor....
0
KobeKid
so tell me Blue Tiger have the Iraqis reached a political settlement yet? Security has improved but that was only to buy time for the Iraqis to work out their differences and have an election under the new constitution. Whether the surge worked or not will can only be judged after US forces leave Iraq.
0
amerijap
To some extent, yes. It just doesn't sound right to me, as far as the issue is concerned. The last thing people see is to make Afghanistan another "Iraq" or even worse, Second Vietnam. We're so sick and tired of media's melodrama and the public outcry over the Iraq War.
0
WilliB
Kobekid:
Lol! Der Spiegel has a hell of a lot more credibility and track record for intelligent reporting than your favourite blogger. Ridiculous.
Fact is, the Spiegel was spot on here: this was the the least truthfull address that Hussein Barak has given yet, and that is saying something.
Declaring a troop increase and withdrawal timetable at the same time... mind-boggling.
0
KobeKid
ahhhhh WilliB I said I put more stock in the what the soldier has to say than Der Spiegel.
why don't you write to Bob Gates and tell him. I'm sure he's be amused.
0
KobeKid
one more time for you Willi,
here's an email from a soldier in Afghanistan,
"Anyway, I'm now in Kandahar, working for Stan. That Stan. I was anti-Iraq. Beginning to now, in the US and in Anbar with a gun in my hand. I was anti-Afghanistan ... the Bush/Rummy version, after about week six. So ... here's my tip:
We're going to win this one. We have a plan. I call it C2. COIN and cordwood. We're trying to learn counter insurgency, while at the same time, we're stacking insurgent (the only accepted term at the moment) bodies like cordwood. They've gotten a little bit afraid, and are growing more so every day. The relatively fast 30k is going to relatively quickly change the picture, in noticeable way, in Helmand and Kandahar. We're booting the Canadians out of command of Kandahar City. Omar's town. We're putting a bright, smart, tough, funny Brit 2 star in charge of RC South, where the battle really matters. Obama has taken some huge brave risks; but they're smart risks, and we're going to prove him right."
0
WilliB
Kobekid:
Isnt that the same quote from your liberal British blog that you posted before? Somebody might tell Andrew Sullivan and his (real or fictional) "soldier in Afghanistan" that the US is itching to get out of there, while the Taliban stays on.
On who would you bet as a local villager?
Take a moment off from reading your talking points and think about it.
Back to top