nonniey Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 If this story is accurate and comes about this would confirm the notion that Obama is a weak President. Basically the worst decision he could make - ie not providing the required troops for fear of alienating his base or not pulling the troops out for fear of being castigated for losing in Afghanistan. I hope this is does not end up being his decision. "President Barack Obama is considering sending large numbers of additional U.S. forces to Afghanistan next year but fewer than his war commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, prefers, U.S. officials said. Such a narrowed military mission would escalate American forces to accomplish the commander's broadest goals, protecting Afghan cities and key infrastructure. But the option's scaled-down troop numbers likely would cut back on McChrystal's ambitious objectives, amounting to what one official described as "McChrystal Light." Under the pared-down option, McChrystal would be given fewer forces than the 40,000 additional troops he has asked for atop the current U.S. force of 68,000, officials told The Associated Press...." Click link for article http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iqyaFh_efr-brDq0rMLF1hkop0tgD9BKCEDO3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSUskinfan Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Either go all out, or pull out. That's what she said. :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perky72 Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 1,000,000,000 troops couldn't accomplish anything without a strategy change. The major goal of the war is to ensure Afghanistan isn't a safe-haven for terrorists in the future. This can't be accomplished by propping up an elected ruler and only ensuring his or democracy's continuation through force of arms. The Afghani people have to believe the Taliban is bad, and anti-American terrorism is bad. Any chance of this happening is probably long gone. We've done all we can do with our current strategy, we've shown the Afghani people that if they harbor people who'll attack us, we'll invade and occupy them for ten years. That should be the "win" that we hang our hat on, and we should pull out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toe Jam Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 This is excellent news. Sorry OP. It's time to leave Afghanistan and Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 I approve this choice,but it does look bad to go against your chosen expert's advice. Going light carries it's own risks and opens them up to even more second guessing. TJ we ain't pulling out http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/us/30obama.html?partner=rss&emc=rss President Obama traveled to Dover Air Force Base early Thursday morning to meet with family members and pay his respects as the flag-draped coffins carrying bodies of 18 American troops killed this week in Afghanistan were returned to the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 This is excellent news.Sorry OP. It's time to leave Afghanistan and Iraq. 2 things. most people agree on iraq, a lot of people don't agree w/ u on afghanistan. explain. also, you say it's great news, because you want us out of afghan....did you notice it says nothing about leaving afghanistan, only sending less troops than the military wants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 This is excellent news.Sorry OP. It's time to leave Afghanistan and Iraq. It would be good news if that were the case, but it isnt. We will have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan forever it seems. And you and I will pay for it. The fence sitting president is a wussy boy it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 If this story is accurate and comes about this would confirm the notion that Obama is a weak President. Basically the worst decision he could make - ie not providing the required troops for fear of alienating his base or not pulling the troops out for fear of being castigated for losing in Afghanistan. I hope this is does not end up being his decision."President Barack Obama is considering sending large numbers of additional U.S. forces to Afghanistan next year but fewer than his war commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, prefers, U.S. officials said. Such a narrowed military mission would escalate American forces to accomplish the commander's broadest goals, protecting Afghan cities and key infrastructure. But the option's scaled-down troop numbers likely would cut back on McChrystal's ambitious objectives, amounting to what one official described as "McChrystal Light." Under the pared-down option, McChrystal would be given fewer forces than the 40,000 additional troops he has asked for atop the current U.S. force of 68,000, officials told The Associated Press...." Click link for article http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iqyaFh_efr-brDq0rMLF1hkop0tgD9BKCEDO3 Obama is just repeating the mistake Bush made in Iraq. GIve the General what he needs to execute his strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 This is excellent news.Sorry OP. It's time to leave Afghanistan and Iraq. Read again. This is scary, horrible, news. The troops are not leaving, they are just being reinforced by fewer numbers than the General in charge thinks is necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 I have to agree with the critics. Either pull out as soon as possible, or give the generals what they've asked for to fight the war. What is the point of going halfway? It seems that keeping troops there with no realistic chance of victory is a tragic waste of money and human life. I must say that I am tremendously glad that I am not in the President's shoes. He's flying to Dover AFB to view the bodies of 18 Americans who were recently killed in Afghanistan. Even though I believe the mission in Afghanistan is a vital one, I couldn't stand to know that my decisions led to the deaths of young American men and women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Obviously the economic and fiscal situation in our country is not conducive to making significant investments into Afghanistan. I certainly do not support spending lives and treasure in Afghanistan unless there is a clear, achievable, and a worthwhile goal. Based on what I've read, it seems, you can keep dumping resources into Afghanistan without any meaningful results. Do not forget that our main priorities are Al Qaeda, poppy trade, tribal areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and stability in Pakistan. Stable Afghanistan is a bit further down on the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 I have to agree with the critics. Either pull out as soon as possible, or give the generals what they've asked for to fight the war. What is the point of going halfway? It seems that keeping troops there with no realistic chance of victory is a tragic waste of money and human life. What is "victory"? What are our objectives? Are we trying to turn Afghanistan into a flowering garden of peace and prosperity? There are several important objectives that are directly related to our national security. The point of going halfway is to focus on those high-priority objectives. (at this point, for example, what happens in Pakistan and Waziristan probably has more bearing on our national security than Afghanistan) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 I like how the Republicans in this thread think it takes some sort of courage to send others into battle. And they advocate making such decisions without having all the facts first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 The Afghan War is turning into a bigger black hole then Iraq ever was. Time to pull out the troops, and swarm and win with our brains--by utilizing intel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 The Afghan War is turning into a bigger black hole then Iraq ever was. ..except in terms of dollars, and American deaths, and the fact that we are killing the people who actually attacked us. But other than that, you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 ..except in terms of dollars, and American deaths, and the fact that we are killing the people who actually attacked us. But other than that, you're right. The dollars and death will easily surpass Iraq unfortunately. The people that attacked us are long gone from the area. We are just fighting a bunch of pahtans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 What is "victory"? What are our objectives? Are we trying to turn Afghanistan into a flowering garden of peace and prosperity?There are several important objectives that are directly related to our national security. The point of going halfway is to focus on those high-priority objectives. The objective is to deny Al Qaeda a safe haven in Afghanistan. We've pretty much accomplished that objective, as almost all Al Qaeda fighters fled for Pakistan a few years ago. The problem is that once we leave, Al Qaeda will likely move right back into Afghanistan unless we create a semi-functioning government and army. I think we have a long way to go before we create a semi-functioning government and army, which is to say it will take years for us to accomplish our objective. However, adding more troops to help clear and hold areas and train Afghan forces will likely expedite that process. I don't know what the point of reducing our troop presence would be. It seems like we'd essentially be giving up on the war without having the cajones to admit that's what were doing and risking troops lives unnecessarily in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 The objective is to deny Al Qaeda a safe haven in Afghanistan. We've pretty much accomplished that objective, as almost all Al Qaeda fighters fled for Pakistan a few years ago.The problem is that once we leave, Al Qaeda will likely move right back into Afghanistan unless we create a semi-functioning government and army. I think we have a long way to go before we create a semi-functioning government and army, which is to say it will take years for us to accomplish our objective. However, adding more troops to help clear and hold areas and train Afghan forces will likely expedite that process. I don't know what the point of reducing our troop presence would be. It seems like we'd essentially be giving up on the war without having the cajones to admit that's what were doing and risking troops lives unnecessarily in the process. Per WIKI Iraq's total area is 169,234 square miles, while Afghanistan is 251,772 square miles. On top of that I understand that Afghanistan has a much more challenging terrain, much worse roads, and a history of a weak central government (warlords vs central dictatorship). I agree that our main priorities should be preventing Al Qaeda from returning and extremism from taking hold. However, when figuring out how to achieve those objectives I think we have to keep in mind the situation we are dealing with, the reality of what is possible, and costs associated with different ways of moving forward. Obviously the military wants to win the conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 The dollars and death will easily surpass Iraq unfortunately. That is highly unlikely. We've spent $223 billion in Afghanistan in 8 years and $684 billion on Iraq in 6.5 years. 4,326 American troops have lost their lives in Iraq. 804 in Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted October 29, 2009 Author Share Posted October 29, 2009 This is excellent news.Sorry OP. It's time to leave Afghanistan and Iraq. I guess you didn't read what I posted or the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 This is what i don't really understand. Either put overwhelming forces and get the job done or start the pullout of Afghanistan and draw down DO EITHER of those two to the best of your given ability. Don't do either half assed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted October 29, 2009 Author Share Posted October 29, 2009 The dollars and death will easily surpass Iraq unfortunately.The people that attacked us are long gone from the area. We are just fighting a bunch of pahtans That isn't correct though. The Taliban have fully bought in to Al Qaeda's goals (ie they now have the same goals) Which means the Taliban is now a franchise of Al Qaeda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 This is what i don't really understand.Either put overwhelming forces and get the job done or start the pullout of Afghanistan and draw down DO EITHER of those two to the best of your given ability. Don't do either half assed. I thought this means they are going with the latter option... Narrowing down objectives, etc. What don't you understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 That isn't correct though. The Taliban have fully bought in to Al Qaeda's goals (ie they now have the same goals) Which means the Taliban is now a franchise of Al Qaeda. This is not the case based on what I've read. Where did you get this impression? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted October 29, 2009 Author Share Posted October 29, 2009 I like how the Republicans in this thread think it takes some sort of courage to send others into battle. And they advocate making such decisions without having all the facts first. Come again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.