Obama weighs request for more U.S. troops in Afghanistan

Thursday 03rd September, 07:15 AM JST

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

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 23 Total Comments Show All

kwatt at 12:49 PM JST - 3rd September

I think that Afghanistan would be another Vietnam. Think how many young American soldiers died for nothing in Vietnam for many years. It does not matter whether Vietnam people like Americans or not today. Think how many US soldiers will be died for nothing in Afghanistan in the future. I just wonder how long and how many there. Your number will be up sooner or later.
30061015 at 03:25 PM JST - 3rd September

could be perceived by Afghan civilians as an occupation army

Could the Taliban be perceived as "an occupation army" since many are not Afghanis? Hmmmm. Either s#%t or get off the pot. Either use overwhelming force or go home. Don't send our boys to cower behind static bunkers as the Taliban rain down fire. Defense never won a war.
Midnightpromise at 03:50 PM JST - 3rd September

Obama himself said that Afghanistan is the "war of neccessity" and 61% of Democrats agree. 74% of all voters agree that more troops are needed. (Rassmusen polls of 18 Aug) But I agree, just like going to see the dentist, "most" Americans are not crazy about it..........but then some things just need to be done eh?
Nessie at 03:57 PM JST - 3rd September

Could the Taliban be perceived as "an occupation army" since many are not Afghanis?

Absolutely. And that's how many Afghans perceived them.
lostrune2 at 05:27 PM JST - 3rd September

But what of Bin Laden? Live and let live?
SuperLib at 07:16 PM JST - 3rd September

They're not talking about the real issue which is body bags. More troops = more targets = more deaths. That's what the US learned from the Russians.

More troops are needed, but my guess is Obama is thinking about the headlines in 2010. Even if he is successful in pushing the Taliban back he knows the headlines will be on increased US casualties. That's going to turn part of the public against him even though it may well be the right strategy overall. That's the future he can't really escape from, and my guess he's trying to plan out a way to handle that future right now.

He knows Europe has the luxury of dumping the problem in our lap. They won't help more because Europeans see no link between Afghanistan and global jihad no matter how many of their trains are blown up. The war was sold to them as Bush's war from the beginning and that's a mindset that's too entrenched to be changed. Canada has contributed more than their fair share and I expect they'll be by our side in the future.

In the end the US needs to create a strong, central government in Afghanistan with well trained forces to fight the Taliban on their own. We also need to form more of a relationship with the people and try to raise living standards and eradicate opium crops by giving farmers an alternative. And US forces will be needed to kill those who have crossed the point of no return into the Taliban mindset. So it will take a mix of Afghan self-determination and soft and hard US power.
timorborder at 09:11 PM JST - 3rd September

More troops does not necessarily mean more body bags. If you read some of McCrystal's ideas, he seems to have a firmer grasp of the tactical realities of the situation than some of his predecessors. Specifically, rather than trying to bring overwhelming force to bear against the enemy (a tactical mistake that General Westmoreland made repeatedly in Vietnam), McCrystal is more in favor of throwing out such interdiction strategies and replacing them with a lower intensity approach. This does not necessarily mean that more allied service people are going to get the chop. What it does mean, however, is that the enemy (the Taliban) are going to get a lot less time to do the runner (the time that has traditionally been required to collect together overwhelming force). Indeed, I don't why some of McCrystal's predecessors did not try such tactics previously. A number seem to have been more concerned with fighting a more conventional enemy.

Moreover, what is so wrong with taking a few hits. Although the next of kin don't like it, one of the occupational hazards of being a soldier is buying the farm. So what, if US soldiers are going to blanch at the risks, they might as well join the Salvation Army. Anyway you cut it, war is about killing and dying. The US public needs to wake up to this fact. They cannot have it both ways. If you are going to "get some" and invade countries like Afghanistan (an action I support by the way), people are going to die because there is only so much indiscriminate bombing can do before you send in the infantry.
Papawhale at 09:35 PM JST - 3rd September

When will Obama learn that that this is a war of attrition and cannot be won?
zurcronium at 11:17 PM JST - 3rd September

Another huge bush mistake, why invade a country when 9-11 was set up from an apartment in Germany. Obama is being sucked into this one since if he pulls out the republicans will savage him as being soft on terrorism. So he is in trap.

This whole effort is a wet dream fantasy that will end up in more deaths for locals and the country hick suckers who are in the volunteer US military. In the end, like Russia and every other invader of Afganistan, the USA will leave and things will be worse for it. The USA is not safer now that it was on 9-10-2001. Most reports say the USA is more at risk today that even then.
seijichuudo9sha at 11:30 PM JST - 3rd September

Zurcronium, a pretty good effort there.But I must respectfully disagree.With Barack Obama in office we are safer.Everybody loves us.His Cairo speech wowed the Muslim world.His Ramadan address to the Muslim world was one for the ages.The other day was the Iftar Ramadan Dinner at the White House,attended by all kinds of important Muslim Americans.You need to broaden your mind,get beyond your parochial American views.
Sarge at 12:21 AM JST - 4th September

"With Barack Obama in office we are safer"

How do you reckon?

"Everybody loves us"

Hee hee!
SuperLib at 04:06 AM JST - 4th September

timorborder: Specifically, rather than trying to bring overwhelming force to bear against the enemy (a tactical mistake that General Westmoreland made repeatedly in Vietnam), McCrystal is more in favor of throwing out such interdiction strategies and replacing them with a lower intensity approach.

It's not that they'll be engaging the enemy more, which they will be, but with things like IED's more troops bring more targets and more headlines of US troop casualties.

Moreover, what is so wrong with taking a few hits.

I'm talking about how Obama will sell it to the public. Even if his plans are successful, every single US death will be on the front page of every newspaper worldwide. Every success he has will be, to some extent, muted by body counts, but it's probably going to take those body counts to get the success. it's a double edged sword, but I think Obama is smart enough to know the right path to take, and if anyone can sell it to the public, it will be him.
SuperLib at 04:08 AM JST - 4th September

zurc: if he pulls out the republicans will savage him

Sure, zurc, because we all know Obama stands no chance against the mighty, mighty Republicans and all their clout these days. That's why he's staying in Afghanistan and increasing the troop numbers. He really wants to pull out, but he's just too afraid of what the Republicans will do to him.

Triple spot bang on, amigo.
lostrune2 at 06:58 PM JST - 4th September

Sarge,

It's not too farfetched, according to ABC News, through friendlier international cooperations:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/abc-news-exclusive-national-security-adviser-says-president-obama-is-having-greater-success-taking-t.html

The former Marine General didn't provide any specific numbers to back up his claim, but he said “there is an increasing trend and I think we seen that in different parts of the world over the last few months for sure.” He added that he was not “making a tally sheet saying we are killing more people, capturing more people than they did -- that is not the issue.”

But the numbers are going up, he said. “The numbers of high value targets that we are successfully reaching out to or identifying through good intelligence” from both the CIA and intelligence agencies from US allies has made the difference, he said. “We have better human intelligence; we know where the terrorists are moving. Because of the dialogue and the tone of the dialogue between us and our friends and allies...the trend line against terrorism is positive, and that’s what we want. If we have a positive trend line we have a safer country.”
seijichuudo9sha at 09:46 PM JST - 4th September

"if he pulls out the republicans will savage him (Obama)."

Man up,zurcronium.Democrats control the House,the Senate,the WH,the SCOTUS, the print media,academia and the 3 major networks.