Inside the Ring: Afghanistan debate

[Zguy28]

Inside the Ring: Afghanistan debate

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/26/inside-the-ring-23718486/

The Obama administration has conducted a vigorous internal debate over its new strategy for Afghanistan, expected to be unveiled by the president in a speech Friday.

According to two U.S. government sources close to the issue, senior policymakers were divided over how comprehensive to make the strategy, involving an initial boost of 17,000 U.S. troops.

On the one side were Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Deputy Secretary of State James B. Steinberg, who argued in closed-door meetings for a minimal strategy of stabilizing Afghanistan that one source described as a "lowest common denominator" approach.

The goal of these advocates was to limit civilian and other nonmilitary efforts in Afghanistan and focus on a main military objective of denying safe haven to the Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists.

The other side of the debate was led by Richard C. Holbrooke, the special envoy for the region, who along with U.S. Central Command leader Gen. David H. Petraeus and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton fought for a major nation-building effort.

The Holbrooke-Petraeus-Clinton faction, according to the sources, prevailed. The result is expected to be a major, long-term military and civilian program to reinvent Afghanistan from one of the most backward, least developed nations to a relatively prosperous democratic state.

See link for full article...

[hokie4redskins]

The Holbrooke-Petraeus-Clinton faction, according to the sources, prevailed. The result is expected to be a major, long-term military and civilian program to reinvent Afghanistan from one of the most backward, least developed nations to a relatively prosperous democratic state.

If Obama accepts this strategy as official US policy, wouldn't that make him a hypocrite? Would his supporters praise him for what they blasted Bush for in Iraq? Or is Obama alienating his base with a long-term military campaign?

Just curious.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

If Obama accepts this strategy as official US policy, wouldn't that make him a lying hypocrite? Would his supporters praise him for what they blasted Bush for in Iraq?

Curious.

Hyperbole aside, I agree with you.

The only difference I see between Iraq and Afghanistan strategies is that apparently Obama thought about one... but he picked the same one? C'mon.

[SkinsHokieFan]

A complete waste of time to try and rebuild Afghanistan, unless we are committed to a 50 year, 300k man occupation

We do that, we'll make progress. 60-70k troops won't have nearly the impact, except providing more targets

[HOF44]

Nation building there would be like herding cats.

[Zguy28]

A complete waste of time to try and rebuild Afghanistan, unless we are committed to a 50 year, 300k man occupation

We do that, we'll make progress. 60-70k troops won't have nearly the impact, except providing more targets

Its too big too, too many mountains. Like you said, 50 years.

[BigMike619]

the USA doesnt turn its back on a country just because it is too big or the terrain too rugged. thats just not in our mental make up. Iwo Jima was hard to take. Normandy was hard to take. But we did it...

[Tulane Skins Fan]

the USA doesnt turn its back on a country just because it is too big or the terrain too rugged. thats just not in our mental make up. Iwo Jima was hard to take. Normandy was hard to take. But we did it...

We're going beyond winning a war though, so it sounds. We're talking about nation building... problem the single biggest flaw in Iraq.

I am not gonna pretend I know about all the different sects, factions, etc., in Afghanistan, but I do know that the place is a disaster. I'm not really into trying to build a nation of people who don't want to be built into one.

[BigMike619]

We're going beyond winning a war though, so it sounds. We're talking about nation building... problem the single biggest flaw in Iraq.

I am not gonna pretend I know about all the different sects, factions, etc., in Afghanistan, but I do know that the place is a disaster. I'm not really into trying to build a nation of people who don't want to be built into one.

I wouldnt want to either but the US WILL in the name of Democracy. we are famous for stepping in if we can get people to agree that is the cause.

[Chump Bailey]

Go with whichever side General Petraeus agrees with.

[Prosperity]

I'm not sure rebuilding is a right word, Afghanistan was never built up in the first place. Either way that is unnecessary, we only need a friendly government while the dirty work in Pakistan is getting finished up.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I wouldnt want to either but the US WILL in the name of Democracy. we are famous for stepping in if we can get people to agree that is the cause.

big if there at the end is all i'm saying.

[BigMike619]

big if there at the end is all i'm saying.

oh yeah. you and i wont disagree there. but unfortunately they can always twist and turn it to make it fit.

WMD

democracy

humanitarian cause

war on terror/drugs

thats what Im wondering though; what are we going to do with all of the heroin that comes out of there? thats going to be a HUGE war in itself.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I'm not sure rebuilding is a right word, Afghanistan was never built up in the first place. Either way that is unnecessary, we only need a friendly government while the dirty work in Pakistan is getting finished up.

Bingo. It is a HUGE difference from Iraq

There is nothing in Afghanistan. Dirt roads, goats, and poppy seeds.

[Mad Mike]

I seem to remember a whole lot of people telling me we could not win in Iraq either. Where are they now?

Iraq and Afghanistan are not the same but they are both winnable. Easy? No. But nothing worth while ever is.

And SHF. Yours isn't a foreign policy. Its complete capitulation. You've given up.:doh:

[Gibbsisgod2006]

We're going beyond winning a war though, so it sounds. We're talking about nation building... problem the single biggest flaw in Iraq.

I am not gonna pretend I know about all the different sects, factions, etc., in Afghanistan, but I do know that the place is a disaster. I'm not really into trying to build a nation of people who don't want to be built into one.

Nation building wasn't the biggest flaw it was the post invasion strategy that was implemented by Rumsfeld. We would have been ok if we would have listened to then Gen. Shinseki Secretary of the Army back in 2003. He proposed to send more 3 times the amount of soldiers in his post invasion plan then Rumsfeld plan. Gen Shinseki knew what was ahead and Rumsfeld didn’t approve it. Gen Shenseki was vocal about the Rumsfeld plan not going to work and evetually Gen Shenseki would retire.

[GibbsFactor]

That's how we fix this mess we call today on Earth! Nation building!

[SkinsHokieFan]

I seem to remember a whole lot of people telling me we could not win in Iraq either. Where are they now?

Iraq and Afghanistan are not the same but they are both winnable. Easy? No. But nothing worth while ever is.

And SHF. Yours isn't a foreign policy. Its complete capitulation. You've given up.:doh:

Iraq and Afghanistan are completely different situations, with exception to the fact that there are Muslims in both nations

Really Mike, I cannot emphasize how much I want these guys dead. I have actually encountered them in person

The point is, the way to beat these guys is to get rid of the fuel that burns their fire. Outsmart them. Do it ninja

Or if we want to go with using force, use such overwhleming force, they can't breathe. Right now we are simply half assing it

[GibbsFactor]

I seem to remember a whole lot of people telling me we could not win in Iraq either. Where are they now?

Iraq and Afghanistan are not the same but they are both winnable. Easy? No. But nothing worth while ever is.

And SHF. Yours isn't a foreign policy. Its complete capitulation. You've given up.:doh:

I agree, the way to win in Afghanistan is to stay there for three generations, giving each generation more and more hope and seeing that America is actually trying to help.

We left them after the USSR war and that did us in. The resented us for just leaving without taking advantage of our political clout we had. It was a mistake that we are paying for now.

Since we are in this nation building business, regardless if its a donkey or GOPer running the show, we might as well do it right.

The problem, of course, is that we don't have the human or financial resources to pull it off.

So what's more important? Securing Afghanistan over the next 60 years, or pulling back to get our house in order?

The risk of doing this is overextending our already over extended resources, which is exactly how titans fall.

[twa]

Either way that is unnecessary, we only need a friendly government while the dirty work in Pakistan is getting finished up.

And how is that dirty work gonna be accomplished?...missile strikes ain't gonna do it.

It's gonna be a delicate balancing act,and I hope ya'll are ready for the body counts to rise

A good read on the area\

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903u/saving-afghanistan