GOP Wants More Troops Exposed in Afghanistan?

[Fergasun]

I was listening to my friends in right-wing-talk-radio yesterday. In case anyone isn't really aware of the right-wing/GOP position; essentially anything Obama does is wrong, he's an idiot who has never hired anyone in his life and been nothing more than a community organizer.

The RWTR (which I consider to be a mouthpiece for the GOP) was that taking 30,000 troops out of Afghanistan is a mistake, and we're at risk of losing the Afghanistan war because the Taliban will take over if we leave. Also the timing of troops withdrawals is purely a political move (as if rwtr complaining about the timing being political isn't?). Essentially this rwtr host is saying "in order to crush the Taliban we need these 30,000 troops to go through two more fighting seasons!".

I'm not a democratic media strategist; but I think the counterpoint needs to be made that the GOP would like to keep 30,000 more troops exposed to this war; one that doesn't seem to have much of an end-game, for the fear that the Taliban returning to power is a "loss". Aren't these also the same troops that have already made multiple deployments? Furthermore the United States could simply use a much smaller force-structure and support whoever is fighting against the Taliban to ensure the Taliban never regains power (or alternately we could simply continue to keep toppling the Taliban if they gain power).

In 2001 we had 5,000 troops in Afghanistan; it was 20,000 by 2005 and 2006. Considering the fact that this no more than 20,000 troop level was enough to topple the Taliban; how is that insufficient? There will still be 60,000 troops in Afghanistan.

A number of quotes from Army general were used out of context to claim that "Obama is going against the recommendation of his generals." Well tough nuts to those generals, but the civilians have control over the military; not the other way around. Generals always will want more and there's a reason we have a separation of military powers in our government. (This makes the Petraeus nomination to CIA and the lack of objection from the Senate troubling).

Sorry GOP, you need to go work on your talking points. Bringing troops back from a somewhat pointless war, especially when we have budget issues is a good idea. The fact that 30% of our young men and women in uniform are going to be out of harms way (even if they want to be in harms way) is a great idea.

[Larry]

Sorry. I thought this was another Weiner thread.

[PeterMP]

To me, right now, some in the Republican party are walking a very odd line.

1. We don't support people that pretty much independently rose up against an oppressive regime and are handeling the majority of the fighting.

2. We do want to support a group of people that for the most part submitted to an oppressive regime and despite help removing them can't/won't take on most of the burden of preventing them from coming back.

I'd love to see somebody rationalize those two positions that doesn't include being against what ever Obama is for.

:laugh:

I'm doing this w/ a 2 year old in my lab and she wanted to see what the smiley was.

[Larry]

I'm doing this w/ a 2 year old in my lab and she wanted to see what the smiley was.

Have you explained to her that the smiley has a wet bottom?

[twa]

Peter, you ignore the Northern alliance's role in Afghanistan and the fact we had a very good reason for helping them knock off the Taliban

Should we support insurrection such as Libya?....I'm game,but we are going about it wrong imo.

and if we do support insurrection ya better be prepared for the fallout'

added

fergasum

We are attempting to transform a tribal nation into a centralized govt capable of controlling it.

a much tougher proposition than simply knocking the Taliban out of power

the withdrawal is only 10k,with the 20k others enjoying over a yr more time to bond with the locals

What we do with the forces we have is much more relevant to whether it is the right course.

[Teller]

:laugh:

I'm doing this w/ a 2 year old in my lab and she wanted to see what the smiley was.

In your lab? For her sake, I hope you're not a mad scientist.

[visionary]

In your lab? For her sake, I hope you're not a mad scientist.

The kid's going to end up with bunny ears...real ones.

:pfft:

[Teller]

The kid's going to end up with bunny ears...real ones.

:pfft:

[mistertim]

Wait...didn't pretty much every candidate in the recent GOP primary debate say that we aren't cutting back forces fast enough in Afghanistan? They seemed to support it. What the hell?

[Thiebear]

Reducing the surge by 30% means the GOP wants to kill our sons?

Is that the premise of this topic?

[PeterMP]

Peter, you ignore the Northern alliance's role in Afghanistan and the fact we had a very good reason for helping them knock off the Taliban

Should we support insurrection such as Libya?....I'm game,but we are going about it wrong imo.

and if we do support insurrection ya better be prepared for the fallout'

added

fergasum

We are attempting to transform a tribal nation into a centralized govt capable of controlling it.

a much tougher proposition than simply knocking the Taliban out of power

the withdrawal is only 10k,with the 20k others enjoying over a yr more time to bond with the locals

What we do with the forces we have is much more relevant to whether it is the right course.

I didn't ignore the northern alliance. I was thinking of them specifically when I wrote for the most part.

But let's be realistic. At the time of 9/11, they were in control of a small part of Afghanistan, were generally considered to be losing the fight, and then on 9/11 had their leader killed.

If people were talking about only supporting those areas of Afghanistan where we were getting very significant contributions for the local populace, the story would be different. But that isn't the case.

[twa]

The opposition had large population if not land mass

http://images.nationmaster.com/images/motw/middle_east_and_asia/afghanistan_pop_1982.jpg

not even the Taliban controlled large areas

[PeterMP]

The opposition had large population if not land mass

http://images.nationmaster.com/images/motw/middle_east_and_asia/afghanistan_pop_1982.jpg

not even the Taliban controlled large areas

Is there any reason to believe that the population in Afghanistan has the same distribution as 1960?

[Fergasun]

Reducing the surge by 30% means the GOP wants to kill our sons?

Is that the premise of this topic?

No. My premise is based on the fact that right-wing-talk-radio is a proxy for the GOP.

r-w-t-r host is opposed to bringing back 30k (out of 90k) troops in Afghanistan.

[Thiebear]

No. My premise is based on the fact that right-wing-talk-radio is a proxy for the GOP.

r-w-t-r host is opposed to bringing back 30k (out of 90k) troops in Afghanistan.

I apologize, i'm not grasping this:

So your saying Talk Radio wants the troops exposed in Afghanistan so they can be killed?

That Rush, Hannity, Beck, Savage want our boys to die?

Or are you saying that Talk Radio is saying the Dems are exposing the troops by taking 10k out?

Thats the one i think, a political punch to the face for taking 30% of the surge out...

And if Talk radio and GOP leadership say THAT i would want them censured.

If they are saying removing the 10k is bad because the Generals say we need those troops, theres not alot to say about that.. its true.

[Fergasun]

I apologize, i'm not grasping this:

So your saying Talk Radio wants the troops exposed in Afghanistan so they can be killed?

That Rush, Hannity, Beck, Savage want our boys to die?

That's what I'm saying. They want these 30k troops to spend another year in Afghanistan. Furthermore they said "we'll lose if these 30k troops are withdrawn within a year".

It's preposterous.

We took control of the country while maintaining a force structure of less than 30k.

Obama surged 40k in what, 2009?

We're unsurging 30k of those by 2012.

Of course the military is going to say its risky... but let's think logically here.

Did they say anything about "Bush isn't fighting the war with the right force structure?" Clearly they should've said that until 2009 because we didn't have this force structure until Obama surged them in.

[elkabong82]

They didn't want more troops when Obama sent them in, now they want more troops because Obama is bringing some back. The right are flip-floppers just for the sake of opposing everything Obama does. And many of their supporters follow this, despite the contradiction.

[twa]

Is there any reason to believe that the population in Afghanistan has the same distribution as 1960?

nice catch , but yes geography and culture determine it there to a large degree

add fergasum , you do know how far away Sept 2012 is?

30K ain't coming home this yr,it is 10k

[Riggo-toni]

The GOP's reflexive repudiation of anything Obama says or does has surpassed the Dem's same idiotic strategy against Reagan in the 80s.

After allowing the budget to balloon from $1.75Trillion to 3.5 under W, as well as the budget going from surplus to a $1.4T deficit, the GOP couldn't beat up the Dems on big gov't or bad economic policies, so Cheney tried fearmongering - insisting that failure to waterboard was going to lead to more 9/11s.

Obama's domestic policies mostly stink (though I'd say the GOP's over the last decade don't fare much better), but his handling of foreign policy, and specifically the war on terror has been nothing short of remarkable. He does not suffer from the pathological idealism of Carter, nor the spineless pandering of Clinton where policy merely followed the cameras. Obama has effectively used hindsight to avoid the mistakes of the Bush regime while mimicking the successful tactics. His approach has been thoroughly pragmatic and ultimately quite successful...something which must be such a shameful embarassment to the GOP faithful that they are suddenly recasting themselves as isolationists.

[Teller]

So it's republicans that hate our troops now? Got it!

[PeterMP]

nice catch , but yes geography and culture determine it there to a large degree

That's odd. I was pretty sure that I heard that there was an invasion from a country north of Afghanistan and that many people fled this invading force and not just to areas away from the north, but even into other countries. In addition, I thought I heard that most of the mililtary aid for resisting this invasion came through a single country (Pakistan).

It seems to me those things could alter the distribution of a population.

[Thiebear]

I believe the Generals.

[THEREALTOR1]

I was listening to my friends in right-wing-talk-radio yesterday. In case anyone isn't really aware of the right-wing/GOP position; essentially anything Obama does is wrong, he's an idiot who has never hired anyone in his life and been nothing more than a community organizer.

The RWTR (which I consider to be a mouthpiece for the GOP) was that taking 30,000 troops out of Afghanistan is a mistake, and we're at risk of losing the Afghanistan war because the Taliban will take over if we leave. Also the timing of troops withdrawals is purely a political move (as if rwtr complaining about the timing being political isn't?). Essentially this rwtr host is saying "in order to crush the Taliban we need these 30,000 troops to go through two more fighting seasons!". I'm not a democratic media strategist; but I think the counterpoint needs to be made that the GOP would like to keep 30,000 more troops exposed to this war; one that doesn't seem to have much of an end-game, for the fear that the Taliban returning to power is a "loss". Aren't these also the same troops that have already made multiple deployments? Furthermore the United States could simply use a much smaller force-structure and support whoever is fighting against the Taliban to ensure the Taliban never regains power (or alternately we could simply continue to keep toppling the Taliban if they gain power).

In 2001 we had 5,000 troops in Afghanistan; it was 20,000 by 2005 and 2006. Considering the fact that this no more than 20,000 troop level was enough to topple the Taliban; how is that insufficient? There will still be 60,000 troops in Afghanistan.

A number of quotes from Army general were used out of context to claim that "Obama is going against the recommendation of his generals." Well tough nuts to those generals, but the civilians have control over the military; not the other way around. Generals always will want more and there's a reason we have a separation of military powers in our government. (This makes the Petraeus nomination to CIA and the lack of objection from the Senate troubling).

Sorry GOP, you need to go work on your talking points. Bringing troops back from a somewhat pointless war, especially when we have budget issues is a good idea. The fact that 30% of our young men and women in uniform are going to be out of harms way (even if they want to be in harms way) is a great idea.

From 2009...

http://www.infowars.com/obama-calls-bush-on-troop-withdrawal-plan/

President Barack Obama officially announced his plan to withdraw troops from Iraq during a speech to military troops and officers at Camp LeJeune in North Carolina Friday afternoon.

While he has apparently garnered wide Republican support for the plan, not all Democrats appear to be on board.

"Officials said the plan has the support of all of Mr. Obama’s national security team, including Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, both holdovers from the Bush administration," Peter Baker reports for The New York Times. "Gen. David H. Petraeus, the Middle East commander, and Gen. Ray Odierno, the Iraq commander, who were the main architects of Mr. Bush’s ‘surge’ strategy credited with turning Iraq around, are also comfortable with the plan, officials said."

The paper adds, "But leading Democrats are not. Even before the briefing at the White House on Thursday evening, Democrats criticized the size of the residual force, even though Mr. Obama said consistently during last year’s campaign that he would leave troops behind for limited missions."

“I’m happy to listen to the secretary of defense and the president, but when they talk about 50,000, that’s a little higher number than I anticipated,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters earlier today.

The Times notes, "After the meeting, his spokesman said Mr. Reid still held those concerns."

"Another person briefed on the closed-door session said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House speaker, was particularly upset about the residual force," Baker continues. "She kicked off the public criticism on Wednesday by saying she did not understand ‘the justification’ for 50,000 troops."

[twa]

That's odd. I was pretty sure that I heard that there was an invasion from a country north of Afghanistan and that many people fled this invading force and not just to areas away from the north, but even into other countries. In addition, I thought I heard that most of the mililtary aid for resisting this invasion came through a single country (Pakistan).

It seems to me those things could alter the distribution of a population.

Yes many fled to both Iran and Pakistan ,but most returned after the withdrawal.....do you really question the simple matter of major population areas being close to the same?

it ain't the 70's and tribal influences still reign

[Prosperity]

So it's republicans that hate our troops now? Got it!

no I think they just don't give a **** about them